Full Version: New to Game: Direct vs. Indirect combat spells?
heh, somhow this reminds me of the AR vs VR discussion. only that this time round im on the other side, or so it seems...
| QUOTE ("Acid Stream & Toxic Wave) |
| These spells create a powerful corrosive that sprays the target, causing terrible burns and eating away organic and metallic material—treat it as Acid damage (p. 154), with appropriate effects on the affected area and any objects therein. The acid quickly evaporates in the turn following the spell’s casting, but the damage done remains. Acid Stream is a single-target spell, while Toxic Wave is an area spell. |
A more direct example since it is actually an indierct area spell. The acid streams give a bit more explaination. "[W]ith appropriate effects on the affected area and any objects therein."
well, with the word "affected" in qour quote, i don't think we're getting anywhere new. (and i hate it!).
because Taki can surely claim, that the affected area is only that area, which has an LOS to the caster.
@Taki: if the indirect illusion spells are targeted at a special place, why can someone not throw a fireball at a place? both spells (the illusion as well as the fireball) would have to be resisted by targets.
in case of the illusion by everone lokking at the illusion. and in case of the fireball by everyone, who's inside the "explosion"-range. IMHO
because Taki can surely claim, that the affected area is only that area, which has an LOS to the caster.
@Taki: if the indirect illusion spells are targeted at a special place, why can someone not throw a fireball at a place? both spells (the illusion as well as the fireball) would have to be resisted by targets.
in case of the illusion by everone lokking at the illusion. and in case of the fireball by everyone, who's inside the "explosion"-range. IMHO
It is useless to use logic within the SR magic system. Especially with physical Illusion spells. Life would be much easier if physical illusion spells were manipulation spells or illusions had an "area of effect" where the illusion can be seen aka "the spell is effecting only the targets in the area" and people out of the are are not effected by the illusion.
At the moment illusion spells are mental/physical manipulations with infinite range.
At the moment illusion spells are mental/physical manipulations with infinite range.
only that they cant affect gravity or any other physical force, only your perception of said forces in action 
| QUOTE (SCARed) |
| well, with the word "affected" in qour quote, i don't think we're getting anywhere new. (and i hate it!). because Taki can surely claim, that the affected area is only that area, which has an LOS to the caster. @Taki: if the indirect illusion spells are targeted at a special place, why can someone not throw a fireball at a place? both spells (the illusion as well as the fireball) would have to be resisted by targets. in case of the illusion by everone lokking at the illusion. and in case of the fireball by everyone, who's inside the "explosion"-range. IMHO |
... Yes the exemple is quite compatible with what I wrote :
"spray the target (...) causing terrible burns (...) with appropriete effects on the affected area"
The affected area is not the area of the spell I guess, because we are not speeking of the range, which is LOS (A), but of the area of the effects :
if you cast a acid spell LOS (A) on a bird (because you don't like them), I interpret some acid will fall, causing secondary dommage of what is under. This is my guess of course.
The same for a fireball LOS (area or not) : the fire can make a whole bulding burn, it's not the area of the range, but effects of the spell.
Illusion are more tricky, I don't understand how you could have the same spell being either for one and only one person (thus this spell is directly affecting the mind) and the same with an area, which even works with inanimate being, which means you create an illusion who affect the mind.
I must admit I think those modus operandi seems incompatible to me, or the spell are quite different.
Thor is chanting in the sky of Paris, screaming with joy !
It's been said before: ignore RL logic when looking at magic, especially illusions. To do otherwise is to invite major headaches, week long debates about which house rule doesn't suck, and other horrible happenings.
Heya,
So does Street Magic have any better answers for us? Re-worded targeting rules, ranges, etc. List of examples maybe?
Hopeful...
Chris
So does Street Magic have any better answers for us? Re-worded targeting rules, ranges, etc. List of examples maybe?
Hopeful...
Chris
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. It clearly states that indirect combat spells are treated as ranged attacks. Which means that...well, they're treated as ranged attacks, not magical attacks. So a fireball would hurt people you can't see, if they are in range.
Now what I would like to know is that, since it hasn't been clearly stated where an indirect combat spell comes into existence, what if a mage was in a basement room, and used a mage vision device to spy through a vent at people in another room? If he tried to cast a fireball at them, would he just barbecue himself? Or would the spell originate from where his field of vision begins, inside of the room he's looking into?
Now what I would like to know is that, since it hasn't been clearly stated where an indirect combat spell comes into existence, what if a mage was in a basement room, and used a mage vision device to spy through a vent at people in another room? If he tried to cast a fireball at them, would he just barbecue himself? Or would the spell originate from where his field of vision begins, inside of the room he's looking into?
Your fiberoptics would buldge comically as the fireball passed through. Keep that in mind.
Unless I'm misremembering, there is nothing to indicate that a fireball acts like D&D with a small bead moving from the caster to the centerpoint.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.