SR5 spell mechanics Options

[Skynet]

Most of the magic-use in SR5 seems to be straight forward, with slight alterations to the way SR4 handled it. But after rereading the magic-chapter in the SR5-pdf I spotted a few things where the rulings don't seem to be 100% precise.

1.) Spells targeted at an opponent usually result in an opposed test. What happens on a tie though? Does the spell miss (like in SR4) or do we get a hit with zero net hits ("grazing hit" from the combat chapter)? When i first read through it, my SR4-knowledge automatically filled the blanks, but from the perspective of a new player it's not so clearly cut out.

2.) Counterspelling: The counterspelling-dice are added to the "defense-test". When there is only one test the result is pretty clear. But what about indirect combat-spells: Are the counterspelling-dice added to the initial dodge-test or to the resistance-test? And if it is the former: How are area-effect indirect combat spells (i.e. no dodge-test) handled?

3.) Area-effect indirect combat spells: P. 281 mentions that targets which are not visible to the cast can't be affected by area-effect spells. Is this really true for a spell which invokes a physical effect to achieve its results and where (according to p. 283) "The test is like that for grenades"?

4.) Casting multiple spells: (Note: I'm not referring to reckless spellcasting here.) When casting multiple sustained spells in a single complex action, do some of the tests gain the modifier for sustaining a spell? (For example casting 2 Physical Barrier spells: Does the second spellcasting-test receive a -2 penalty?)

5.) Active detection-spells: Active detection-spell-resistance can be boosted with counterspelling-dice, even if the target is not aware of the spell. Does the source of the counterspelling (e.g. the mage) get automatic knowledge that an active detection spell is in the vicinity? (Players should probably pre-declare how many counterspelling dice they want to be used for defeating active detection-spells (so the GM can make secret rolls).)

That's it for now (though I'm sure more will come up). Feel free to add to the list.

This post has been edited by Skynet: Jul 21 2013, 10:50 AM

[DoomFrog]

1). It results in a grazing hit, but grazing hits don't do any damage so nothing happens.

2). Counterspelling for indirect spells is added to Reaction + Intuition. Page 173 says that Reaction + Intuition is the defense test.

3). I am also unsure on this one because on Page 283 it says the magician doesn't need to see the target for an indirect combat spell.

4). I would guess you don't take the modifiers for sustaining the spells since that doesn't happen till step 7. I assume the balancing is that you have to split your dice between each spell. So it isn't like you can cast Force 6 Armor on everyone in your group all at once, or you could but you would be rolling 3 dice for each person.

[Shemhazai]

It would be really weird if the GM needs to notify the magician every time a spell is cast on something she's protecting with counterspelling in order to know how many dice she wants to allocate. That would make her a spell detector.

[Sendaz]

It would be really weird if the GM needs to notify the magician every time a spell is cast on something she's protecting with counterspelling in order to know how many dice she wants to allocate. That would make her a spell detector.

That is a good point especially as now they have to assign the dice. Sounds like someone was thinking old style counterspelling (which could just be left up) when they wrote this.

Or maybe you just declare you are leaving x dice up and let it refresh as same but that seems a bit off as you can't declare against what yet.

[phlapjack77]

It would be really weird if the GM needs to notify the magician every time a spell is cast on something she's protecting with counterspelling in order to know how many dice she wants to allocate. That would make her a spell detector.

I don't have a problem with this - to me, it still makes sense. The mage is exerting an "anti-magic" effect, and can feel when something pushes against that effect.

[Epicedion]

I don't have a problem with this - to me, it still makes sense. The mage is exerting an "anti-magic" effect, and can feel when something pushes against that effect.

Indeed. At its most egregious it would be a free "Perceive Magic" for the defending magician, which magicians tend to rock at anyway.

[Sendaz]

I don't have a problem with this - to me, it still makes sense. The mage is exerting an "anti-magic" effect, and can feel when something pushes against that effect.

I don't think I would call it anti magic so much as magic sensitive, feeling the swell of mana just before it hits and reacting to it...

But I guess it is just down to how you perceive it since in the end the result is pretty much the same. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[phlapjack77]

I don't think I would call it anti magic so much as magic sensitive, feeling the swell of mana just before it hits and reacting to it...

But I guess it is just down to how you perceive it since in the end the result is pretty much the same. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Yes, I can see how calling something magic sensitive would mean it would function as a spell detector (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ruffio]

3.) Area-effect indirect combat spells: P. 281 mentions that targets which are not visible to the cast can't be affected by area-effect spells. Is this really true for a spell which invokes a physical effect to achieve its results and where (according to p. 283) "The test is like that for grenades"?

The way I will rule it in my group, p. 281 describes the general rules for area-effect spells, so these are valid unless otherwise noted.
In this context, the only instance where the rules differ from the general rules on p. 281, is on p. 283 for the Indirect combat spells. So these are handled like described, whereas other area-effect spells like direct combat spells, mass manipulations or mass illusions are handled like described on p. 281.

[Skynet]

So another thing that looks weird:

5) If an indirect combat-spell with range touch is cast, it calls for an unarmed attack test. Does the target still get REA + INT to dodge the spell after contact has been established? Sounds counterintuitive, but if the second defense-test is skipped, it would make those spells really powerfull (as the damage would then be MAG + Spellcasting hits instead of net hits).

[Mäx]

So another thing that looks weird:

5) If an indirect combat-spell with range touch is cast, it calls for an unarmed attack test. Does the target still get REA + INT to dodge the spell after contact has been established? Sounds counterintuitive, but if the second defense-test is skipped, it would make those spells really powerfull (as the damage would then be MAG + Spellcasting hits instead of net hits).

Also add in the fact that there's no reason to cast them at force lower then 8(making base damage 8P and AP -8 ) and their pretty bad-ass option for a mage that can consistently manage that touch attack.

Or make for some damm nasty magic bullets as contact trigger preparations (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[Shemhazai]

Add to that the damage from the unarmed attack itself? I punch you in the face hard and cast punch at the same time. And since I hit you in the face, and your face isn't wearing armor, you get none of that. And I'm a mystic adept with killing hands. Oh yeah, and lots of dice, let me tell you...

[Mäx]

Add to that the damage from the unarmed attack itself?

Generally Touch spells are cast using a Touch only attack that gives you +2 dice and makes you win on a tie.

Oh and yeah target getting a second defence test does kinda sound weird and something that shouldn't happen, maybe use the hits from the first test to oppose the casting too?

[Shemhazai]

Generally Touch spells are cast using a Touch only attack that gives you +2 dice and makes you win on a tie.

Oh and yeah target getting a second defence test does kinda sound weird and something that shouldn't happen, maybe use the hits from the first test to oppose the casting too?

I know that the touch only attack is sufficient. That makes the odds of hitting better. But what if you're good enough to hit with all of your strength? Is that allowed? And can it stack with adept powers?

[Mäx]

Most likely not allowed, kinda goes against the "only one attack action per turn" meta rule.
But really its all up to each invidual GM, as the book has no rules about it, really it just tells you to sheck "Accuracy page 168" witch has pretty much nothing to do with it.

[Jaid]

punching someone with a spell would still only be one attack *action* anyways.

[Shemhazai]

Most likely not allowed, kinda goes against the "only one attack action per turn" meta rule.

So far it looks like that rule applies to combat skills. I haven't seen it applied to combat spells yet.

[Sendaz]

So far it looks like that rule applies to combat skills. I haven't seen it applied to combat spells yet.

True, nothing official on it as yet , though Bull has said for Missions he will be doing it as one spell attack action allowed per IP. So even if you reckless cast, you can only use one 'attack' type magic with the other being anything that does not directly affect the target. Which is still kinda vague though he did invoke the 'Don't be a cheesemonkey' clause. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think each GM will test it out both ways and decide for themselves how they want to apply it.

As for myself, I will probably default to the Missions version for now.

[Mäx]

So far it looks like that rule applies to combat skills. I haven't seen it applied to combat spells yet.

It applies to all simple actions.

[Shemhazai]

It applies to all simple actions.

I think it's attack actions.

[Mäx]

I think it's attack actions.

Quadruple facepalm...
2 simple actions per pass, only one of them can be attack action(anykind of attack what so ever)

[RHat]

I think it's attack actions.

Which are defined as?

[Shemhazai]

I don't make the rules. It should be in the book. I haven't seen any examples that relate to magic yet.

[Mäx]

I don't make the rules. It should be in the book. I haven't seen any examples that relate to magic yet.

So a general rule on all simple action doesn't cover spellcasting unless there's a specifig example that show this?

[RHat]

Can you provide a rules reason why attacking with a spell wouldn't be an attack action? I would agree that the guideline should be in the book, if for nothing else than to ease the headaches of GMs with munchkiny/rules lawyering players, but that doesn't relate to the point really.