I'm not entirely convinced of it's quality as a metaphor. Especially for indirect combat spells.

The part i don't like is how it is easy to come away with the tuning to the auras impression that bustedkarma did. Which isn't really in there. Metaphors are about making it easier to correctly understand what is going on, and that is where i think it somewhat fails. If they addressed it more clearly, putting in effectively what you just said, that would likely help a lot.

I guess that would make the problem more with the execution of explaining the metaphor rather than the basis of the metaphor. *shrug*

True.

No, that part is in the rules somewhere i think. I just tossed that quote up because i assume mfb hadn't seen it, and bustedkarma was slightly misrepresenting it.

The part about seeing your aura and targeting it is kind of suspect, but if I just go off the old heirarchy model of touch is as good as LOS and can substitute for LOS in a spell. Not sure that is even any SR3 book, it might just be one of those nearly universal house rules or a holdover from previous SR editions.

In any event page 173 does say that ALL valid targets in the AoE are affected, and even specifies the caster among those that can be a valid target of an AoE. It doesn't say anything about being able to purposely exclude an otherwise valid target, and that quote does say talk about it being intuitive which sometimes has the conataiton of being somewhat outside the direct concious control.

So yes, the caster would be cooking thierself with the Stunball. The part about the sammie standing behind, and especially the part about peripheral vision? Best to handle that by pointing out that such things cut both ways, particularly with protecting via Counterspelling, but also just general Perception checks too. So pick a consistant thing and go with that.

My personal recommendation? Worrying about what the mage is looking at gets into facing rules, a place of great despair. Screw the facing rules.

There was a long painful discussion on another thread where we tried to resolve whether astral perception was 360 degrees or just a cone of perception roughly equating to physical sight, and whether it should eminate from the face/eyes or from center of mass, or from any part of the body. I don't think we ever succeeded in getting people to agree.

In my view, astral perception works like sight on the astral plane: eminates from face, blindfolds block it (no 'but my aura extends past my body, so I can see around the blindfold' stuff), only works along a roughly 200 degree arc.

Using this philosophy, if you can't see a target, then you don't hit him, even if he's standing right behind you. For that matter, you don't see him even if he's standing behind you and touching you. You also wouldn't see the target if another body is in the way and prevents you from seeing him (i.e. the dwarf riding inside the troll's backpack).

I think that cannon implies that you don't have to see the entire target to cast, but I've also ruled that only seeing part of the target gives you a threshold modifier (hard to synch up auras if you can't see the whole aura). I'm pretty sure that's a house rule though (not canon).

Then what do you do for Counterspelling? Ignore it again?

Turn away from the Path of Facing Despair, young man, and embrace the all-seeing mystical third eye that allows you to see all that you could see. Such is the way of playing a game that does not degrade to sketching 3D diagrams to determine if a particular odd natural cave entrance allows the mage to zap a kobold further back in the cave with magic missle without allowing them to shoot the mage with a bow.

Yes i've seen that, and yes i left the game at the end of that session never to return again until someone else started GMing. It wasn't the only example of such goofiness, but it was one of the most startling and ones....before i left. The small "two or three session" adventure of going to a cave and wacking some kobolds eventually took 6 months of realtime to finish.

Nope, you let it work as written, protecting thsoe the caster designates.

Alternatively, when placing your minis on the mat, you face them in the direction they're facing. If someone is in front fo the caster they're shielded. If behind, they're not.

Alternatively, whenever an enemy spell is cast you ask the party mage(s) which way they're looking.

I'm not saying that facing is mandatory, or even useful to everyone. It isn't a pit of despair though, at least not when handled with some restraint.

I wouldn't even let a longshot roll pull it off unless there was a massive size differential between the grapplers and the mage spent his movement for the turn circling the fight looking for his chance to cast. Some things just aren't possible, with or without luck.

Designates AND stays within LOS! (bottom right of page 175)

A bit strong on the language, but i think we can still chalk that up as three for three. I think it might be time to atone for my sins lest i be Left Behind.

But where are they looking at that exact moment? And what are you suggesting? That the mage checks his wristwatch (please ignore the SR4 anacronism) or even just blinks and he has to redeclare because he momentarily wasn't looking at his teammates?

Down the path of [adhoc] Facing rules you go. Now start spinning that into 3D, because the world is an awkward place with all its catwalks, trenches, mezzanines, and such.

Methinks you are quite mistaken. There are the skills Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen (though having two different sets of skills handling it makes it awkward at times, i'm not sure if there is anything better in the splatbooks or in the 3.5 books for handling that consistantly).

EDIT: My PC actually used his Spot skill in his last combat. Damn teleporting Bone Deamon tried to hijack our moored boat but my rogue made his Spot check and laid low that little demonic pirate wannabe. Got SA damage too because i'd gone into Hiding before we brought down the Wall of Ice the Bone Deamon had put up and had spent the entire battle up until then watching for a good bow shot opportunity.

I've found it much better to 'keep it simple and abstract, fight the "realism" reflex, and punt at the first strong whiff of facing rules'.

EDIT: But then i'm not a BattleTech player. *shrug*

LOL! See, facing has it's place, and a usable ruleset for them is possible.

That's an interesting interpretation.

You can't go into a Hide while under observation UNLESS you create a distraction with a Bluff. But after you are in the Hide you are good to go. Certainly in combat is no different than out of combat, other than you are somewhat more certain there are enemies around, there is the noise of battle interfering with your hearing, and time becomes much more critcial so you might risk faster movement rates.

A sledge hammer is a very useful and usable tool as well. Just not for painting easter eggs.

So you have to get someone's attention, distract them, then sneak past?

You can't get into hide just by having someone looking away from you if you ignore facing altogether.

I'm not talking about moving silently, I'm talking about hiding. You can move silently anywhere and anywhen, but it's not very useful on its own without something to keep them from seeing you.

You cannot walk up behind someone on a battle grid in combat just by virtue of them being compeltely distracted by the massive battle going on before them, unless you use some sort of facing (even if that's just the GM saying that he's not looking at you). Sure, you can make a skill check for a bluff, but there are countless situations where you should be able to sneak up on someone without having to take an action to distract him first.

True, but not very useful to the topic.

Um, you create the distraction somewhere you AREN'T. So no YOU don't get their attention, something else of your choice gets their attention. But if you are Hidden already no need to do that. Just sneak on by....assuming the guy rolls crap.

What is this "looking away" you speak of, and why does it have the stench of facing rules about it? Yes, if you don't worry about facing rules you don't need facing rules. If you worry about facing rules you need facing rules. That certainly doesn't seem to me to be a very startling revelation.

If he doesn't know you are there and doesn't notice you come up? Boom, you got him and can pantz him or whatever. It is like a Surprise in the middle of combat, which can happen. Your misunderstanding seems to stem from the misconcepton that there is something different about combat versus outside combat where someone in combat gets to make all their Spot/Listen rolls automatically.

P&P RPG <-----> Miniature Game.

Similar but different. If you want to turn your RPG into a miniatures combat games, hey good on you and break out the facing rules, the tape measure, field of view arc template, and what have you! But miniatures combat games do tend to concentrate on minutiae of the battle and in P&P that result is often seen as "bogging", just as painting with a sledgehammer is often seen as "smashing" (the comedian Gallagher aside). So it would seem quite relavent to the topic.

But exactly how did this get sidetracked to D20 again? Oh ya, you worried about facing rules in D&D so you added facing rules.


EDIT:

...and next thing you know you're doing geotrig trying to figure how many 1/10's of a m from the catwalk the elf can be and still have the dwarf (who is in just off to the elf's left, leaning over to draw his combat knife from his leg sheath) and the Troll (overhead on the catwalk to the right) in LOS at the same time.

At first blush that seems like a pretty good idea to me.

So no more Power Ball. Just a Power Bolt with a drain of F/2 +1 and extra box of drain per extra target. Not even bother with "all must be within X meters of each other" crap. If you see 'em you can zap 'em. It does save the mage learning that extra Spell, and it does make the drain a box lower for only 2 targets. But if you want to cut a 5 mook swath you'll want to save those foci dice for the Drain test because it is going to hurt.

Which still leaves you the problem of not being able to sneak up on someone without somehow interacting witht heir environment first, because you have to do something to get taht bluff check.

So people in your games have eyes all the way around their heads? Interesting idea, but I wouldn't use it. Of course, I already said that what works for you is fine for you.

Let me lay out a scenario.

The party is in a fight with a monster in the middle of a large field. Because this monster is much more powerful than them, all of their attention is focused on fighting it. Despite that, you cannot stroll up casually behind them and say hello, because even while being intent on one thing they are still completely aware of their environment.

A step further: someone gets hit with Hold Person. Do they still get to see anything and everything around them despite being unable to move their eyes?

I'm not saying ignoring facing is a bad thing. I even said it works within D&D because that's what the system was based around. It's what my group does when we play d20. All I'm saying is that ignoring facing has it's own problems. You have apparently handwaved those problems away by giving everyone eyes all over their head. I'm glad that works for you.

Ah, perhaps a less vague analogy would have helped it squeeze past my thick skull.

Nope, because we don't measure distances in tenths of meters. but even if we did there's be no need for something that close. The battlemat is an abstraction. Move the mini somewhere that looks feasible, say that's what's happening, and then move on with the turn.

And please leave your homosexual tendencies at the door. You;re not my type when I'm looking for a good wacking.

And then contemplate the damage a single terrorist suicide bomber mage could do from atop a tall building on a clear day. EEK!

Most (all?) of the indirect AOE spells are elemental in nature, and so would have environmental side effects that a power ball wouldn't. For some that would be enough reason.

It certainly isn't only you that is confused. This is one of those debates that, from it's home in a dank sub-basement mechincal room, has long powered the posting aparatus of DSF.

This certainly is one area that i really wish SR4 would have cleaned up better. They did cut a lot of deadweight out, but i think they came short in taking it apart enough to put it back together in an easy to grok and implement form. Hobgoblin's suggestion is a great example of opportunity lost.

That sounds like a good idea. Give it a try. Be careful trying it in my game though, because it wouldn't give you a free pass...

I wouldn't let it block yourself from LOS, but that's just my personal opinion on the LOS-to-self rules, and an entirely different debate altogether.

I've never had a THAC0 debate. How did those go?

note: please don't answer, this is just a flippant remark about threads side tracking to D&D.

In my games people have heads that are connected to the rest of their body with a flexible material called "flesh" and a string of hard objects called vertabrae which are loosely fashioned to each other in a manner that allows them some range of pivoting. The flesh has this motor capability that allows it to control the yawn, pitch, and roll to the head. Then their eyes also have some motor control that allows them a measure of up and down and side to side control movement. All this allows the characters to see anywhere around themselves in a more or less full sphere, and in a surprisingly short period of time.

This is abstracted to just a full sphere. Why? To avoid trying to track where everyone is looking at each moment in time, and because a combat phase represents an actual length of time. Oh, and also because there is already enough shit going on in the combat mechanics without stacking another festering wad of detrital hubris on top of the pile.

You numbnuts. <---- This one is going out to all my fans, but especially for you Azralon.

You certainly seem to have problems actually understanding the D&D rules to begin with, and a lot of other things like what exactly constitutes a "free pass". So please excuse my enormous doubt about the quality of your judgement.