 A couple miscellaneous questions, Dealing with Medusas |
  |
 Jun 27 2005, 01:38 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734  |
Before anyone asked, yes I've done a search...but if I've missed something because my search-fu is weak, point me at 'em.
A couple questions got raised in the group regarding drones. A) The Medusa has mixed armor (4 points normal, 4 points ablative). How is this resolved in melee and ranged combat? The ablative rules are a little confusing...and which armor would be resolved first? The ablative (which isn't hardened, but is on the outside) or the normal (which is hardened and on the inside)? I found the previous thread where this was brought up, but it was never really answered. B) It says in Brainscan that all physical spells except elemental manipulations have a target number of OR+Body (in the case of Medusas, it's 10+3=13). The group did NOT like the fact that you had to roll 13+ to levitate a Medusa - is this the proper ruling? It's according to the book, I think...but the rules are wierd. The relevant quote in BBB is under Vehicles and Spells, where it says the same. The argument against is the magic fingers, where in the spell description it says it's ideal for bomb disposal...but how "ideal" is that if your target number is 8-10? The argument for is that they already don't get a magic resistance...so 1 success and you have a Medusa play toy (which is exactly what happened in my campaign...3 medusas levitated, one used as a pinata by called shots to bypass armor) I have no problem with a Medusa play toy, as long as it's difficult to do it. :) [BTW, if anyone is curious to read the run posts for my group, it's here at Ghosts of Dallas] |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 03:05 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
The way I would like to rule spell target numbers against objects is like this.
Combat spells have target numbers as listed in the book. (very hard to cast but I killed a lot of medusa with power balls when I was in there) Telekinetic manipulation spells use the spells normal base target number, remember levitate has increased target number if the target is heavy and a medusa is very heavy. Most other spells use the spells target number. OR+bod simply replaces target stat when a spell would otherwise be going against a stat. Of cause this is not necessarily canon. You can debate long and hard wether you can lift a radio with a levitate spell and what the TN to do so is. .the fling spell (telekinetic manipulation) at least dose not aprer to consider the OR of the object thrown and defiantly not the target you intend to harm. Of cause the chances of harming a medusa with this spell is slim to none. Also the way physical illusions are listed in the books with fixed casting target numbers would sujest that there affecting cameras without considering there OR. Edward |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 04:20 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 24-September 04 Member No.: 6,701 |
Full disclosure; I'm one of the players in Doc's game.
Our gripe with the "OR+Body" on "all physical spells" (in this case, Telekinetic Manipulations) as opposed to the Base (4) + Weight (+1/100kg) was that, taken to its extreme, means it's easier to levitate a 500kg troll than a 1 gram microchip. Also, if the tgt is "OR+Body", does that mean weight does not affect Levitate with regard to Drones and equipment (other than Body)? The bigger issue is, do Telekinetic Manipulations fall under the same targetting rules as Elemental Manipulations? Or do they fall under Combat Spells? The rules don't explicitly say any rules on TK Manips; they do say how Combat and Elementals work. But our party felt that TK Manips should have been ruled closer to Elemental Manips than Combat Spells. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 04:37 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
Where things get really confusing is when you cast magic fingers getting no roll better than a 6, you use the spell to pick up a baseball bat (wooden) and it works, then you try to pick up a micro chip (OR 8) what happens to the spell.
Edward |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 04:44 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Well, according to the SR3 book I'm reading, the TN for Levitate, for example, is just 4+floor((mass in kg)/100), but the target may resist with the better of Strength or Willpower (see sr3.197) -- ie, you roll (Sorcery+Spell Pool)(4) v. (Strength||Willpower)(Force), need one net success to levitate.
My interpretation is that telekenetic manipulations aren't "physical" in the sense that they directly affect the object. They are physical in the sense that they physically generate a force which is then applied to the object. As such, the object resists the force, not the spell. For example, powerbolt uses mana to manifest a change _directly_ in the targetted medium. The same goes for ignite, petrify, etc. Elemental and telekenetic manipulations create energy (or matter) which is then applied to the target. It is the created energy that the target resists, NOT the spell. Keep in mind that the way you're interpreting it right now would require the armor and physical barrier spells to overcome the object resistace of a bullet to take effect. It makes no sense. In short, any spell that directly effects change within a medium must overcome object resistance; any spell that creates energy or matter which is subsequently applied to an object does not. That is the way I handle it. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 05:58 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734 |
Unfortunately that does not apply to vehicles, as they do not resist spells. Read vehicles and magic, pg. 150, SR3. Basically if the magician casts the spell successfully, there is no spell resistance test or damage resistance test. (*blinks* Yikes, been doing THAT wrong, combat spells suddenly become a lot more effective if you can hit what you're aiming at) This is one time where I really wish they hadn't of left such a gaping hole in the rules. I calculated the weight of the medusa - it's 300 kg. So if you use standard levitation rules it is TN 7 base, before any modifiers. So it's not a walk in a park...but it's MUCH easier than TN 13 base. After all, it can't resist, so if you catch it, it's phenomenally easy to deal with it. Also, frankly to me telekinetic IS physical because it is manipulating things in the physical plane. Not to mention the whole canon thing... :) Edit: also the bullet example is flawed - you're not casting an offensive spell to affect the bullet, you're creating something that the bullet is subsequently trying to punch through. Besides, Barriers and spell barriers have specific rules which apply, and bullets do not follow vehicle rules...by any stretch of the imagination. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2005, 06:59 AM
Post
#7
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
shrug, well, obviously if a vehicle doesn't have strength or willpower or body with which to resist...
I never said it wasn't physical. I just made the distinction between a spell that manifests a physical effect by modifying the target and a spell that manifests a physical effect through an intermediary by creating a force or mass. Spells that modify the target have to overcome object resistance; targets that manifest an intermediary force or mass do not. Fireball (elemental manipulation) creates explosive fire, which then burns the targets; target number 4. Levitate creates a force, then uses that to lift the target; target number 4+kg/100. Physical Barrier creates a force field, which then blocks the passage of physical objects; target number 6. See the pattern? Heck, if you read the category descriptions in sr3, it says it right there. Powerbolt has to overcome object resistance; "All combat spells work by damaging the target directly." sr3.191. Canon or not, if you read the descriptions, you will find that this is the common behavior; generally, spells that have to overcome object resistance directly modify the target, and spells that don't manifest a force or mass FIRST and then use that force to modify the target.
Duh. That's why I said it makes no sense. But based on the interpretation presented by the thread author, the bullet example is the logical conclusion. The armor, barrier and telekenetic spells ALL create a force, and then use that force to modify the behavior of the object. It says so in their descriptions -- armor and barrier directly in the spell text, and telekenetic in the category text. If one of them has to overcome object resistance, they ALL should; armor and barrier don't -- neither should telekenetic spells have to. And in fact, if you read carefully, they don't. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 27 2005, 07:30 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
What about the good old phiz barrier in front of a vehicle trick, that clearly dose obey vehicle rules. Another example is this. Consider a medusa and a pile of scrap mettle that used to be a medusa, assume also for a moment that the medusa is not fighting you (we did manage to reprogram several in our last excursion) I want to levitate each of these of the ground and on to a flat bed truck, what target number is there for each of them and if they are different why. Edward |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2005, 09:15 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27-June 05 Member No.: 7,467 |
I too am in Doc's campaign, so take this for what it's worth. However, I have GMed Shadowrun as well, so I always try to make rules clarifications with that in mind as well, not just what benefits my character.
Elemental, Telekinitic and Transformation Manipulation spells pretty much all follow the same targeting rules: You roll versus a *set* target number (usually 4 or 6) to determine the successes. Then anything that resists does so independently. This lends credence to the theory that they all work in a similar fashion (creating a force that is then resisted seperately as opposed to trying to affect the target directly). Combat spells, however, are immediately resisted by the target - successes are based upon the target's attribute (Willpower or Body, depending on the spell). Here is how I view Levitate to work. You create a force that you use to lift an object. This force does not even attempt to enter or penetrate the target in any way. It simply surrounds it and applies its force to lift it. That's it. The complexity of the target is irrelevant, because it's not trying to analyze or penetrate the object. The force is limited in power, however, so weight is a factor. I see Magic Fingers and Fling (all TK manips, actually) as working the same way. Levitate, as per the spell description is not resisted by anything other than living beings. If I try to levitate a brick, toaster, microchip, remote control, etc. my TN is 4. There is no resistance test. The only factor is weight, which adds to the base TN. There is still no resistance test. The only time my target can resist is if a) it's alive or b) it's physically held by something that's alive. Thus, per the spell description, there is no resistance test for the Medusas, a car, or any other non-living object. The confusion comes when you read the rulels in Brainscan (which I don't have a copy of to dissect). Since most all Manipulation spells work the same way unless directly affecting a living target (mental manips come into play here), it would seem more in the spirit of the rules to treat TK Manips the same as Elemental Manips when casting on a drone or vehicle. Getting away from the cannon rules for a second, it just makes sense that if you're trying to lift an object (be it with magic or with physical strength) that the weight of the object is what matters, not its complexity. It makes no sense at all to have a microchip be harder to lift than a fallen log or a slab of concrete. When clarifying rules as a GM, my reasoning is always to look at the game rules first, and then use common sense to fill in any holes (sometimes overriding rules if need be). I'm a big fan of consistency. If most spells of a given category (Manipulation in this case) work the same way, then they all should unless the spell description makes an exception for them. Unclear statements from another sourcebook wouldn't be enough to sway me. Also, as it was pointed out earlier, Manipulation spells in general do not use complexity to determine their effectiveness. You can also cast the Physical version of Invisibility and affect cameras regardless of their complexity. The TN of the spell is fixed. I don't see Levitate being any different. Also, when Magic Fingers says it's "very handy" for disarming bombs, I really don't see how that would be an accurate statement if you used complexity to set the TN. Yes, the Brainscan rules state that Elemental Manips follow their normal rules and use a set TN instead of complexity when affecting drones. I don't think that's an exception being made. Rather, just a reiteration of how they work and not to get carried away with using the complexity on spells you shouldn't. I see TK Manips as being far more similar to other types of Manipulation spells than they are Combat spells or anything else that would use complexity to determine the TN. As far as Abalative armor is concerned, I'd be inclined to say the non-ablative armor rating is the portiont hat reduces the power of incoming attacks. But abalative armor would be applied first (and will degrade). But I'm not as schooled in this part of the rules, so I'll stop there and defer to others who are more knowledgeable. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 09:50 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Not trying to approve or disapprove of anyone's logic so far.
If we try to make a distinction between telekinetic manipulations (which you refer to a creating a force that may effect the object) and combat spells(which effect the object directly), and we say that because of that distinction telekinetic manips should just roll against base TN 4, not against OR+Bod+.5Armor (or whatever), then by the same reasoning, shouldn't it just roll against the base TN 4 vs a living target too? Because the spell just creates the force...which is what effects the target? Just asking for consistency. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 10:12 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27-June 05 Member No.: 7,467 |
That's where the distinction between living and non-living targets come into play. The spell gives a living being a chance to influence how easy it is to move them without their consent. Note that it's not nearly as much of a chance as actually getting a resistance test, which Combat spells would.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 10:13 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Well, if you look at the TNs for the individual spells, almost all of the elemental, telekenetic and transformation manipulation spells do have a set (unresisted, really) TN to resist. All elementals are straight 4, most of the telekenetics have a set TN with modifications for the amount of force necessary to bring about the change (ie, levitate requires more force to move heavier objects), and with a few exceptions, so do transformation manipulations (the obvious exceptions being ignite which has static TN of four, but has a threshold requirement, and petrify which is resisted because it directly affects the target). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 27 2005, 10:14 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
It does roll against a base TN of 4 for living targets. Check the chart in the back of MitS, quick easy list of what TN you have for a spell.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2005, 10:15 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 24-September 04 Member No.: 6,701 |
The fixed tgt# method does use a base TN 4 vs living targets; the only caveat to that is weight (which makes complete sense). Complexity isn't (and shouldn't) be an issue here. EDIT: E-gads... too slow... What it comes down to it is, do TK Manips fall under the broad category of Combat spells or Elemental Manips? If you read SR3's Grimoire, you'll note a long and extensive writeup when they are introducing Elemental Manis (and other broad categories like Combat Spells and the others), but only a sentence or 2 cursory intro to the TK Manips and Transform Manips. To me at least, that suggests that these all should fall under the broad category of Manipulation. Also consider: If you take this to the logical extreme and insist that the other (non-Elemental) Manips must use Combat OR rules instead of Elem Manip rules, then what you're saying is that Drones (and cars, and other hi-tech items) can pass through Physical Barrier (a Transform Manip) unless the caster manages to hit TN 13 (or whatever) instead of just having to hit TN 6. Is that really what the spirit of the rules was supposed to mean? My opinion is that the spirit of the rules intended to mean that Physical Manipulations as a whole use their fixed tgt #s (unless explicitly stated otherwise) and Combats were meant to use OR+Body. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 05:37 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,088 Joined: 8-October 04 From: Dallas, TX Member No.: 6,734 |
Any book-ninjas want to comment? I already know my player's arguments and I'm curious what others do.
And I'd still like to find out what others do re: ablative/vehicle armor mixes... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2005, 10:23 AM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
According to R3, they have an armor rating of 12 and need an attack with a power level of 36 to hurt the ablative armor. Sounds like it is better than hardened armor in that regaed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 10:38 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27-June 05 Member No.: 7,467 |
That's just.....insane.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2005, 10:41 AM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 27-June 05 Member No.: 7,467 |
I don't know where you're getting this. In the spell description for Levitate, you do not have a fixed TN vs. living targets. Your TN is their Strength or Willpower, whichever is greater. You still only need 1 success and they do not get a resistance test. But you are correct that complexity is never an issue for the spell, according to it's description. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 11:30 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
This just illustrates that attempts to rationalize how spells do what they do invariably runs into problems because the book just isn't consistent. If I understood your previous rationalization, telekinetic manipulations were different than combat spells because combat spells interact directly with the target, and tk manips only effect the target indirectly (i.e. by creating an independent force that pushes on the target. But if the living target of the levitate spell gets to resist the spell, then to me that argues against the theory that the spell doesn't interact directly with the target. Canon states that the TNs of spells vs drones/cars/etc are effected by the OR of the target. For barriers, you could argue that an object running into the barrier after it was cast isn't the target of the spell, but it's harder to argue that the object being lifted isn't the target of the levitate spell... There's nothing in canon that specifies that the OR shouldn't be used for tk spells, so I'd assume that the canon ruling would be that it is used (even if I don't believe that makes a lot of sense). In my game, I would house rule that the both the complexity and the animate/inanimate nature of the target shouldn't matter, and that the caster would just roll against a based TN, adjusted by weight. (Yes, gnomes get screwed over this way...the world is cruel to short people.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 02:32 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 292 Joined: 24-September 04 Member No.: 6,701 |
Umm...no. Levitating a living being uses a TN#4, adjusted by weight. Their Str or Will have no bearing on your TN. But when they want to resist, they get to use their Str or Will (whichever's higher) to try and break free of your Levitate. Also, the number of successes certainly matters; it determines how fast the target moves. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 28 2005, 02:45 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I can understand using a strength test to try to break free of the levitate, under the assumption that maybe the victim tries to grab something nearby to hold himself down while you're trying to lift him (although that'd be situation dependant - wouldn't work if there was nothing to grab onto, and resister might need to make a quickness test just to latch onto something before he floated out of reach.) but why do you think the book allows you to break a levitate spell with your force of will (even though you couldn't use will to resist it in the first place)? I know it's in the book that way, but I'm looking for a rationale that makes sense to me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 03:21 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
It's to give albino gnome deckers a way to avoid being tossed to the stratosphere. If the strength test were only when there is something nearby to grab, then you would have the start to some logical reasoning for the resistance rolls. Since it has no such condition on when you can use your strength to resist a levitation, the resistance tests are just to limit the spell so that it is not able to destroy any opponent with one casting success.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 28 2005, 03:41 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
With the (IMO very *very* stupid) exception of Detection spells, which are always resisted except for Combat Sense, even though most have a static target number and even when the spell is simply enhancing an existing sense like Nightvision. How stupid is it to have a spell that grants you low-light vision be resistable by the people you look at? Just thought I'd muddy the waters a bit more. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 08:09 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
I'm assuming ablative armor works as per Rigger 3 pg 131. 0. It can't have 4 levels of Ablative armor, it's only allowed to go up to 3. 1. Ablative armor is non-hardened. The reason they say this is in case you mount only ablative armor and nothing else on a vehicle. 2. The wording is that it INCREASES the Armor rating. To me, this means if there is already armor there it improves the original Armor rating. 2.5. This comes to one of my Rigger 3 pet peeves: There is NO WAY to tell if something has concealed or unconcealed armor just from looking at the statblock. WE HATES THE RIGGER 3, WE HATES IT. 3. Then the ablative armor gets confusing. First, it increases armor by up to the Ablative Armor Rating*2, EXCEPT the maximum it can increase is by the vehicle's Body. 4. Armor rating of the Medusa: 4+8 or body, whichever is lower. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 28 2005, 08:16 PM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
buy the same token dose it make sense that you need a more powerful spell (force) and it is harder to cast (TN) to destroy a delecet optical chip than a large lump of wood, This is inarguably the case if your trying to destroy it with a combat spell.
what about a magic fingers spell, it can levitate several objects in turn. are those objects the target of the magic fingers spell, dose the spell suddenly fail if you only rolled 6s and try to pick up a computer chip. It just gets to waky. Edward |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 04:27 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.