Shadowrun 4: Magic Options

[warrior_allanon]

[NightRain]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

In fact, you are both right, and the rules are wrong:

[Shadow_Prophet]

[Azralon]

Sure, and if your targets aren't alive, then you need to be throwing Indirect Combat spells. This hasn't changed from SR3.

Electricity remains king as far as I can tell. It's considered Stun damage (and yet doesn't have cheaper drain) and metallic armor doesn't protect against it at all. Also, when you hit someone with an electrical Indirect Combat spell, they have to make a Body + Willpower test and get 3 successes or immediately drop prone and be incapacitated (unable to take any actions). They're down for a number of Combat Turns equal to (2 + net hits scored on the attack test). Even if they succeed, they have a -2 penalty for that time period. Electronic devices have to make the same test, using Body + Armor (for drones & vehicles) or Body x 2 (for everything else) or be shut down for Combat Turns, just like a person.

Acid spells make smoke, imposing some visibility modifiers. Whee. :| If the acid damage comes from a non-spell source, then it turns into a "damage over time" thing as the acid eats into stuff. That doesn't apply to spells, though.

Cold spells have no immediately obvious game effects. They can freeze liquids and make solids brittle, but there are no explicit rules for any of that. Double whee. :| :|

Fire damage continually applies the initial damage over and over again until it's put out. Now, that sounds massively damaging until it mentions that the GM arbitrarily decides if the subsequent Damage Values increase or decrease. So you could drop your 13 DV fireball onto a car and the GM could say that the next turn the fire went completely out, or just as easily decide that the car explodes and the flaming shrapnel blankets the area for another 20DV per turn.

They really should have put in concrete rules for that.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Ranged Combat is an Opposed test, as the target does not set a Threshold, but generates Hits against you - if Inderect Combat Spells would be a Success Test, then the Reaction of the Target would be the Threshold... but that's not 'like ranged combat'.

[Shadow_Prophet]

[Shinobi Killfist]

[Azralon]

I prefer Stun spells myself, and not just because of the significantly cheaper Drain. The Stun damage track is shorter than the Physical, and there are three races that have bonuses to Body while only one has a bonus to Willpower (which is equal to their bonus in Body anyway, so that's a wash).

Sure, stimpatches can quickly undo the Stun I've just done, but then I've also cost an enemy an Initiative Pass while they were medicating themselves. That's one less chance for them to shoot at me.

Taking enemy gear is a great way to supplement the financial value of a run. Gear is usually more functional when it's not charred to a crisp, and usually easier to fence when there isn't blood all over it.

Also, if you're caught, the charges for making people sleepy aren't as bad as for melting their brains. Then there's the whole datagathering aspect of taking prisoners or Mind Probing incapacitated foes. Or you can just apply inexpensive, non-Draining bullets to the foreheads of unconscious enemies. :)

.... But y'all already know all that.

[Azralon]

Now that I've been plenty preachy, my turn to ask a question:

Since Indirect Combat Spells are considered Ranged Attacks, does that mean I can call shots with them? That is, can I sacrifice up to 4 dice on my attack roll and add a flat +4 DV onto the spell by shooting someone in the face with lightning?

I'd imagine this wouldn't be possible with AoEs.

[Shadow_Prophet]

powerball, manaball, stunball, are all better for your style and for what you yourself want to do. Though they are not always better. All spells have their advantages and disadvantages.

As for calling shots with spells? I'd say no but thats me...

[Azralon]

To clarify: I'm asking about called shots with Indirect Combat Spells only, since they're just ranged attacks. You're making real-world fire shoot from your hands, and directing it at your target rather than just synching a spell's energy with a target's aura and letting it ground out (as in the case of Direct Combat Spells, which bypass armor). I agree that DC Spells can't call shots, since you're blasting their whole aura.

If it's possible to call shots with IC Spells, then that's a significant saving grace.

[Clyde]

I'd say that you could. It says treat the thing as a ranged attack, and you can call shots with ranged attacks. Definite bonus to indirect spells there.

As for whether to choose a straight combat spell or the fireball, one thing to consider is the psychological effect. Most people fear being burned. Fire and acid would have that effect in a way that a straight stunball cannot. If facing a large number of less trained opponents a psychological edge helps a lot.

[Eagle]

I've got a slight problem with the object resistance table
I would have thought that a computer was a piece of electronic equipment. With the amount of processing power in everyday items it's pretty difficult to separate the two.

Now if meant electrical equipment ie gross items without any processing power such as an electric motor, voltage transformer, old style washing machine (no chips, only mechanical clicks) then I could understand it.

[Azralon]

My initial guess would be that computers nowadays contain more fiberoptics than electronics, but that still doesn't feel intellectually comfortable to me.

[Dogsoup]

Since IC spells counts as ranged attacks, could you "take aim" prior to such a spell?

Oh, and IC spells used against barriers: Is it Barrier Armor Rating alone or BARx2? Page 157 and 196 seem to contradict each other.

[Azralon]

[Eyeless Blond]

[Dogsoup]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Take Aim itself is pretty limited in use, too.

[Space Ghost]

Actually, it does state that you can only "Take Aim" with a readied ranged weapon. That doesn't settle the argument, since many will claim that a spell is the most "ready" weapon anyone can have, except maybe a cybergun.

My vote goes for no, though. i take "ranged weapon" to mean something that comes off of one of the ranged weapon charts in the street gear section.

[Fortune]

I vote 'no' as well. I feel that there is no real way to improve the aim of the spell without other magical means.

[NightRain]

[Fortune]

Now that I would agree with! :)

[Eyeless Blond]

That would be neat, to have a metamagic that lets you throw more dice into spellcasting by doing something extra. Y'know, to center yourself so you cast better? Hmm, let's call it... Goodercasting! :P

In all seriousness, if you don't allow Take Aim to be used with spells, then there's no way to use optical vision magnification to zoom in on your targets. Of course, as in SR3 there are no rules for spell ranges, are there?--so the point is sadly moot.