Indirect spells have higher drain but I don't understand why. Seems they're less power by my understanding (I figure my understanding is wrong.)
There's an example of an indirect combat spell being used so I figure I got that part right. Basically they get to roll reaction to avoid then body + 1/2 impact armor to resist damage plus whatever resistance you have to the particular type of damage (like fire resistance against fireball.)
Direct combat spells seem straightforward. No chance to avoid, basically a straight resistance test with only Body. Damage is generic physical damage.
So what am I missing about direct combat spells?
Full Version: New to Game: Direct vs. Indirect combat spells?
with direct combat spell,s they can also be outright resisted.
Caster rolls, defender rolls.
If caster doesn't get one net success, spell is outright resisted.
With counter spelling and also shielding, its not very difficult.
Caster rolls, defender rolls.
If caster doesn't get one net success, spell is outright resisted.
With counter spelling and also shielding, its not very difficult.
First, the resistance test for a direct combat spell is willpower for a mana spell and body for a physical spell. This test is more of a dodge test because the target's successes are subtracted from the caster's net hits. It there are not net hits then the spell fizzles without causing damage.
In many situations, direct spells are best. However, indirect spells have advantages of their own.
Most obviously, indirect spells can be cast against characters that are not in the magician's line-of-sight. A single-target spell indirect spell can be cast with a blindfire penality while an area indirect spell will hit anything in the area of the spell regardless.
It is almost impossible to cast direct combat spells against vehicles and drones due to high thresholds. Likewise, any object with high object resistance is difficult to cast against because of thresholds. Indirect combat spells do not have to overcome these thresholds.
Most indirect combat spells are elemental in nature and have secondary elemental effects that are actually more useful that the spell itself. Lightening spells can disable drones and electronics. Fire spells can make flamable stuff (including gunpowder) burn.
In many situations, direct spells are best. However, indirect spells have advantages of their own.
Most obviously, indirect spells can be cast against characters that are not in the magician's line-of-sight. A single-target spell indirect spell can be cast with a blindfire penality while an area indirect spell will hit anything in the area of the spell regardless.
It is almost impossible to cast direct combat spells against vehicles and drones due to high thresholds. Likewise, any object with high object resistance is difficult to cast against because of thresholds. Indirect combat spells do not have to overcome these thresholds.
Most indirect combat spells are elemental in nature and have secondary elemental effects that are actually more useful that the spell itself. Lightening spells can disable drones and electronics. Fire spells can make flamable stuff (including gunpowder) burn.
indirect combat spells are severley underpowered
indirect area spells do not even hit targets out of sight
use indirect combat spells only if you need the elemental effect (or use my houserules, SHP in my signature)
indirect area spells do not even hit targets out of sight
use indirect combat spells only if you need the elemental effect (or use my houserules, SHP in my signature)
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Most obviously, indirect spells can be cast against characters that are not in the magician's line-of-sight. A single-target spell indirect spell can be cast with a blindfire penality while an area indirect spell will hit anything in the area of the spell regardless. |
I know it could be a logical way for spell to work - but it is wrong :
| QUOTE (BBB p167) |
| Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding with the targets within the area of effect. If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected, because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive. |
| QUOTE |
| indirect area spells do not even hit targets out of sight |
something i hope is the single biggest typo i the whole of SR4.
if not, they have just removed the reason for indirect combat spells to exist...
the thing with indirect area combat spells is, what you think is the way they work.
if the do work similar to grenades (my point of view) they SHOULD affect targets, that have no LOS to the caster, but have no cover concerning the center of the spells area. you create an actual elemental "explosive-ball" and throw it (magically). when it "detonates", it fills the area with that aggressive elemental effect. that's how i imagine it to work ...
but i know, according to RAW they don't work that way (even if the fluff-text seems like that). maybe some errata is needed ...
if the do work similar to grenades (my point of view) they SHOULD affect targets, that have no LOS to the caster, but have no cover concerning the center of the spells area. you create an actual elemental "explosive-ball" and throw it (magically). when it "detonates", it fills the area with that aggressive elemental effect. that's how i imagine it to work ...
but i know, according to RAW they don't work that way (even if the fluff-text seems like that). maybe some errata is needed ...
thing is, pre-SR4 versions of indirect combat spells worked just like grenades. as in, you could lob one past a door and hit anyone hiding to either side. so either its one big typo, or someone found them indirect spells to strong (how that can be i dont know).
Men just learn to read. The text is pretty clear :
1 it specify : area spell = multiple target (NOT detonation)
2 it specify "If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected"
3 a explanation is given : "because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive."
There CAN'T be typo.
May be that's strange but it's RAW
1 it specify : area spell = multiple target (NOT detonation)
2 it specify "If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected"
3 a explanation is given : "because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive."
There CAN'T be typo.
May be that's strange but it's RAW
That text says nothing about indirect combat spells. It is about area spells in general.
This is overridden by the specific text about indirect combat spells on page 196
This is overridden by the specific text about indirect combat spells on page 196
| QUOTE |
| Indirect combat spells are treated like ranged attacks. |
Ranged attacks do not require Line of Sight.
| QUOTE |
| There CAN'T be typo. |
maybe not, but then its the strangest bit of rules "change" in the whole of SR4...
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
This is overridden by the specific text about indirect combat spells on page 196
Ranged attacks do not require Line of Sight. |
Non sense.
Ranged attack can be either Ranged attack on a target "LOS", or on an area "LOS (A)".
Magical ranged attack always need LOS. If you are not sure for area spells, see their definition : range p194
| QUOTE |
| Other spells affect all valid targets within an area, defined as a circle with a radius equal to the spell’s force in meters (see Area Spell, p. 173). |
And area spell p173
| QUOTE |
| Area Spells: Some spells target areas or points in space; in this case the caster must be able to see the center of the area affected. All visible targets within the area are affected; |
Or read the explanation of magic laws earlier in the thread.
| QUOTE |
| Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding with the targets within the area of effect. If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected, because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive. |
All this is clear, and concordant.
IT IS SURELY NOT TYPO.
But it is maybe strange, and do not correspond to earlier version of the magical way.
Well personally I'd have to ask, what is the 'target' of a Fireball? The guy you're trying to fry or the point at which your Magic is focused to create that huge flaming ball of death?
Personally given the nature of Indirect spells, (Armor working, ect...) I think that the latter is the only option that makes sense...
Personally given the nature of Indirect spells, (Armor working, ect...) I think that the latter is the only option that makes sense...
| QUOTE (Taki) | ||||
Non sense. Ranged attack can be either Ranged attack on a target "LOS", or on an area "LOS (A)". Magical ranged attack always need LOS. If you are not sure for area spells, see their definition : range p194 |
No. A Shooting someone with a gun is a ranged attack. Shooting someone with a grenade launcher is a ranged attack. Casting a manabolt at someone is not a ranged attack. Casting Manaball at an area is not a ranged attack.
In SR4 and in previous editions, a ranged attack is a specific type of attack.
| QUOTE (SR4 page 140) |
| All ranged combat in Shadowrun, wether it involves firearms, projectile weapons, or thrown weapons is resolved in the same manner. |
On the ranged attack modifier table there is an entry that says
| QUOTE |
| Target hidden (blind fire) -6 |
thus, since blind fire is a ranged attack modifier and indirect combat spells are ranged attacks you can use indirect spells when blind to your target.
what you don't get is that you don't aim a "point" but an area ... Read again its all written.
I can't say I like it, but its official and logical.
I agree there should be spell that works as you say.
I can't say I like it, but its official and logical.
I agree there should be spell that works as you say.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| A Shooting someone with a gun is a ranged attack. Shooting someone with a grenade launcher is a ranged attack. (...) In SR4 and in previous editions, a ranged attack is a specific type of attack. |
Very funny how you show that range attack could describe different type of attack and says right ofter it is a specific one
For the rest everything is correct except the end, when you say you can use LOS spell on someone you don't see even if rules state "NO!" just because a general ranged attack modifier exist for blind fire.
Indirect area spells target an area in the same sense that a grenade targets an area.
| QUOTE (SR4 page 196) |
| Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. If the spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor (+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the Damage Value. |
Emphasis mine.
Indirect spells can be dodged. They are not magical energies that pop up out of nowhere. They are physical creations that are hurled at the target. This only applies to indirect spells.
| QUOTE |
| Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding with the targets within the area of effect. If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected, because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive. |
If a sheet of armored glass stands betweeen the magician and the target security guards and he throws a fireball at them unaware that a sheet of armored glass stands between him and them.
A) The fireball hits the glass and fizzles out.
B) The fireball hits the glass and explodes but cannot harm the glass as the magician couldn't see it.
C) The fireball hits the glass, explodes, and damages the glass.
D) The fireball passes right through the glass not damaging it in the slightest and hits the security guards on the other side.
If "C" then fireball behaves like a normal ranged attack then it hits the glass and detonates, damaging the glass even though the magician can't see the glass. In this case the rule "Indirect combat spells are treated like ranged attacks." is completely true and the normal targeting rules do not apply to indirect elemental spells.
If "D" then fireball goes right through the glass and hits the guards inside then the fireball traveling from the magician to the guards is a completely illusion. The fireball really just spontaneously appeared on the other side of the armored glass. In this case the rule "Indirect combat spells are treated like ranged attacks." is false.
I've got to go with "C". If it can be dodged then there is acutally something physical travelling from the caster to the target. ( which is how a non-magic ranged attack works )
In short they could have made this clearer.
What if the fireball doesn't travel between the caster and the center of the explosion, but actually starts manifesting the physical elemental effects at the center of the area of affect?
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| thing is, pre-SR4 versions of indirect combat spells worked just like grenades |
I'll stick to the old way for the time being. Besides secondary elemental damage it's the only thing to make indirect spells usefull, considering the high drain value.
I'll have to think about about Blast, though.
| QUOTE (DireRadiant) |
| What if the fireball doesn't travel between the caster and the center of the explosion, but actually starts manifesting the physical elemental effects at the center of the area of affect? |
Then you have chosen option "D". The fireball is transmitted instantly to the area of effect. But this beggars the question.... How are you even remotely dodging something that spontaneously appears out of nowhere?
Well, indirect combat spells are still handled as Ranged Combat by the RAW.
hyzmarca : I give up.
DireRadiant: the spell description aren't very clear but I think you are right (despite the all the picture and our imagination where lighting bolt and fireball are thrown by the mage.
Booklord : For me it is clearly E: the spell is cast on the area, the glass doesn't change anything. For the same reason a mage can cast a spell through optical vision but not through electronic ones
As I said I don't like it very much, but those appear to be the rules.
DireRadiant: the spell description aren't very clear but I think you are right (despite the all the picture and our imagination where lighting bolt and fireball are thrown by the mage.
Booklord : For me it is clearly E: the spell is cast on the area, the glass doesn't change anything. For the same reason a mage can cast a spell through optical vision but not through electronic ones
As I said I don't like it very much, but those appear to be the rules.
Heh,
The longer I read these boards the funnier it gets when people defer to the RAW as the ultimate authority. Hasn't it sunk in yet that the RAW are critically flawed and that the intent is clearly more important?
If it makes you happy to follow the RAW despite logic, common sense and the like, knock yourself out.
Chris
The longer I read these boards the funnier it gets when people defer to the RAW as the ultimate authority. Hasn't it sunk in yet that the RAW are critically flawed and that the intent is clearly more important?
If it makes you happy to follow the RAW despite logic, common sense and the like, knock yourself out.
Chris
I don't get you. RAW is RAW, but nobody on that thread said that RAW -HAD- to be followed.
When I don't like RAW I just use house rules.
I don't like the logic of how the magic can reach targets, as I said. As a GM I don't follow that logic but another one (in which magicien rope goggle stuff do not work).
Even if the RAW here IS logic, and the intent is coherent with it.
When I don't like RAW I just use house rules.
I don't like the logic of how the magic can reach targets, as I said. As a GM I don't follow that logic but another one (in which magicien rope goggle stuff do not work).
Even if the RAW here IS logic, and the intent is coherent with it.
| QUOTE |
| As I said I don't like it very much, but those appear to be the rules. |
Its enough of a grey area that it could be interpreted either way
A normal ranged attack travels from point A (shooter) to point B(target) and will have to smash through any physical barriers it encounters along the way. It can be dodged using reaction. It can then be resisted by body and armor.
A direct power attack spell is transmitted directly to the target as long as the caster can see them. It can't be dodged period. It can only be resisted only by body and armor has no effect.
An elemental attack spell does..... Well, there's the rub. We have two conflicting rules in SR4.
Personally I've got to go with the normal ranged attack. Dodging an indirect elemental spell that spontaneously appears out of nowhere makes no sense to me at all.
| QUOTE |
| For the same reason a mage can cast a spell through optical vision but not through electronic ones |
is that still around in SR4? i have seen that the fluff for vision magnification, but they are not seperated in any way in the equipment list like it was in older editions...
hobgobelin : it seems so
| QUOTE (bbbp324) |
| Optical Devices These optical aids have many uses, one of which is enabling a magician to obtain optical (non-electronic) line of sight for spellcasting from cover. Spellcasting targeted through optics this way suffers a –3 dice pool modifier. Endoscope: This is a 1-meter fiberoptic cable, of which the first 20 centimeters are made up of myomeric rope (p. 329) and an optical lens on each side. Allows the user to look around corners, through door slits, or into narrow spaces. Mage Sight Goggles: These heavy goggles are connected to a myomeric rope (p. 329) wrapped around a fiberoptic cable that ends in an optical lens. The rope is available in lengths of 10, 20, or 30 meters. Periscope: An L-shaped tube with two mirrors, the periscope allows the user to look (or shoot) around corners. |
Booklord : (emphasis mine)
| QUOTE |
| Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. |
and
| QUOTE (BBB) |
| Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding with the targets within the area of effect. |
Thus even for area indirect spell you roll the reaction for all the targets.
| QUOTE |
| Thus even for area indirect spell you roll the reaction for all the targets. |
You roll reaction to lessen the damage of grenades as well. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Actually I thought the grey area was about how to practically deal with the rules ...
But apparently I didn't get what is the grey area you speak about.
You speak about conflicting rules but which ones ???
But apparently I didn't get what is the grey area you speak about.
You speak about conflicting rules but which ones ???
Yea, I don't see the problem with discussing RAW. People refer to RAW not because you must play by RAW but because its the common reference. People don't think, analyze, or interpret the same way, some RAW that some gaming groups might find hopelessly illogical and contrary to intent, other groups find makes total sense. That's why house rules vary so greatly.
I find the big confusion comes when people would talk about house rules like they're the "real rules" when clearly not everyone uses the same exact house rules.
Anyways, RAW does seem pretty clear. The gray area might be considered fluff for how to interpret the illogical rules, but from pg. 173 the subsection on Area seplls in "Step 3: Chose your Target(s)" that's how all area spells behave.
I don't really see this as a big issue. Any target you can't see probably gets barrier effects on top of the indirect fire penalty. I suppose its small benefit for area spells with the caveat that the chances of counterspelling are increased.
I find the big confusion comes when people would talk about house rules like they're the "real rules" when clearly not everyone uses the same exact house rules.
Anyways, RAW does seem pretty clear. The gray area might be considered fluff for how to interpret the illogical rules, but from pg. 173 the subsection on Area seplls in "Step 3: Chose your Target(s)" that's how all area spells behave.
I don't really see this as a big issue. Any target you can't see probably gets barrier effects on top of the indirect fire penalty. I suppose its small benefit for area spells with the caveat that the chances of counterspelling are increased.
Taki's book references make his/her position pretty strong, I'd have to say thats how they meant the spells to work. I don't think my group has ever played them that way, but if we play again in the future it'll have to be discussed and possibly house ruled.
However, for the examples of casting through the glass, it could also be that the caster's fireball is reduced in DV like ranged attacks are when they are shot through barriers.
However, for the examples of casting through the glass, it could also be that the caster's fireball is reduced in DV like ranged attacks are when they are shot through barriers.
Looking it over more closely, I think I figured things out. The more types of targets and more chances of doing at least some damage, the higher the drain.
Manabolt seems to be the best and most efficient spell. It has the lowest drain outside touch spells, most shadowrunners have alot of body anyways, and that's in addition to Dwarves, Orks and Trolls.
Manabolt seems to be the best and most efficient spell. It has the lowest drain outside touch spells, most shadowrunners have alot of body anyways, and that's in addition to Dwarves, Orks and Trolls.
| QUOTE (Lagomorph) |
| Taki's book references make his/her position pretty strong, |
I came to the same conclusion some time ago, meaning how area spells work in the RAW. No rocket science here, Taki quoted the corresponding lines.
| QUOTE |
| I'd have to say thats how they meant the spells to work. |
Here you lost me. It is written that the spells work this way, not that they meant it this way. Example: recoil compensation, the RAW contradicts the way it should work, as explained by Rob Boyle.
| QUOTE |
| However, for the examples of casting through the glass, it could also be that the caster's fireball is reduced in DV like ranged attacks are when they are shot through barriers. |
I am not that firm in magic, but I am pretty sure physical barriers like glass can't hinder a fireball, so one must conclude the spell either manifestates at the the target, or travels the distance on the astral.
| QUOTE (Lagomorph) |
| Taki's book references make his/her position pretty strong, I'd have to say thats how they meant the spells to work. |
Heya,
I completey disagree. I would say from everything in old SR editions, fiction, etc. that indirect spells are supposed to affect targets you can't see, but the rules were written poorly. To me that is the most likely scenario. This is why falling back to RAW is flawed as an argument to me. In most games it works fine, but there are so many open ended questions (look at the number of raging forum questions that no one can definitively answer) that the book is obviously in need of an editing sweep.
I think the RAW without common sense to mitigate it is just ripe for starting arguments.
To me many of the "RAW-law" answers I see thrown around here are completely counter-intuitive, and therefore wrong. For example:
1. Fireballs obviously hit targets out of LOS. I can see their general rule working for all non-indirect combat spells, but to imagine that fire suddenly stops burning things because you can't see them is far too great a leap of faith to presume the RAW isn't in need of a FAQ.
2. AR initiative is not intended to be faster than VR. Period. But the RAW would seem to make it so. I have to say that if this is a case where the RAW is correct I would be shocked.
3. How does cyberwear armor work? Layered? Cummulative? The world may never know...
Yadda yadda yadda. It's a good game, and the overall book is well done, but I am far from confident in just accepting the written word as law when there is any logical reason to question it.
YMMV.
Chris
But the RAW specifically says that the Indirect spell is treated like a ranged attack. There is no ambiguity there. Unless your bullets magically bypass glass barriers and stop if you can't see the target then there is no reason why the fireball spell should.
Another use for indirect spells is to lessen the impact of counterspelling. If counterspelling + (stat) exceeds successes on a direct combat spell then the spell fails. If counterspelling + (stat) + 2armor/2 exceeds net successes on an indirect combat spell then the spell still causes damage but that damage is reduced.
Against charater with 15 counterspelling dice the latter may be preferable to the former.
Another use for indirect spells is to lessen the impact of counterspelling. If counterspelling + (stat) exceeds successes on a direct combat spell then the spell fails. If counterspelling + (stat) + 2armor/2 exceeds net successes on an indirect combat spell then the spell still causes damage but that damage is reduced.
Against charater with 15 counterspelling dice the latter may be preferable to the former.
indirect spells are treated in the context of damage resistance like ranged attack (reaction, armour, body etc.) , thats it
| QUOTE (Jagdcarcajou) |
| 1. Fireballs obviously hit targets out of LOS. I can see their general rule working for all non-indirect combat spells, but to imagine that fire suddenly stops burning things because you can't see them is far too great a leap of faith to presume the RAW isn't in need of a FAQ. |
It's not a case of whether the fire stops burning, it's a case of whether it exists at all.
If you side with the crowd that says you require LOS for indirect spells you're saying that fire is only created in the areas you can see. If you side with the crowd that says indirect spells don't need LOS you're saying that the fire is created at some point and bursts outwards from there like a grenade blast.
if this is a planed change, its very incidious.
the change of magic in SR3 vs SR2 was very clear, as is the matrix change between SR3 and SR4. but this, this is basicly one word, in one place...
the change of magic in SR3 vs SR2 was very clear, as is the matrix change between SR3 and SR4. but this, this is basicly one word, in one place...
I dont think this is intentional . . .
| QUOTE (Jagdcarcajou) | ||
Heya, I completey disagree. I would say from everything in old SR editions, fiction, etc. that indirect spells are supposed to affect targets you can't see, but the rules were written poorly. To me that is the most likely scenario. |
my emphasis added to quote.
I don't like what they wrote either, but yes, you're right, in all the old versions, it did work differently. Unfortunately, we're not playing the old versions anymore though my GM threatens to occasionally. I think in all of my groups games, we've used them the old way.
That being said, I think the book makes a pretty clear statement on how it wants them to be done. Taki pulled 3 references out that specifically say how area spells work. There are edge cases like throwing a fireball through a closed window which are not covered, but in a standard case, the rules are clear on what they would like to have happen.
I also disagree with direct spells getting no damage resistance roll, but they're also reasonably clear about that also.
| QUOTE |
1. Fireballs obviously hit targets out of LOS. I can see their general rule working for all non-indirect combat spells, but to imagine that fire suddenly stops burning things because you can't see them is far too great a leap of faith to presume the RAW isn't in need of a FAQ. 2. AR initiative is not intended to be faster than VR. Period. But the RAW would seem to make it so. I have to say that if this is a case where the RAW is correct I would be shocked. 3. How does cyberwear armor work? Layered? Cummulative? The world may never know... |
1: I think it's dumb, but spelled out in rules, and contradicted by fluff, common sense and other games like DnD where they function the same way that we'd expect them to here.
2: I think AR IP > VR IP is dumb, but spelled out in rules, and contradicted in fluff.
3: I wish I knew what the hell to make of the rules here, I think if I did I'd be several steps closer to enlightenment, or FTL travel or something.
So, yes, in all your cases, the RAW is dumb. And a lot of people play by RAW because it allows a measure of fairness by using the rules of a 3rd party and not house rules. In my own games, this'd all be house ruled to various degrees, with the possible exception of point 2, because I don't think it makes a flip of difference either way. If some one wants to waste their ess to get 4 IP in AR, then let them.
Taki's referances to areea spells say nothing about indirect spells.
If they specifically said that indirect spells work like that then they would be valid referances. Since the Indirect spell entry specifically says that they work like ranged combat (as opposed to working like spells) they are not.
If they specifically said that indirect spells work like that then they would be valid referances. Since the Indirect spell entry specifically says that they work like ranged combat (as opposed to working like spells) they are not.
It would be nice to have them specifically mentioned there under area spells.
It doesn't seem to me that both entries have to be mutually exclusive. And what does "like ranged combat" mean anyway? You don't use a throwing skill or fire arm skill, you never miss. It's not even clear that you can or can't dodge a grenade, where indirect spells have this listed out specifically.
My guess on interpretation (and probably my house rule), would be that you must have LOS to the point of explosion, the explosion then needs LOS to the target to affect them. I think that technically satisfies all rules by RAW, and gets the effect that people desire.
It doesn't seem to me that both entries have to be mutually exclusive. And what does "like ranged combat" mean anyway? You don't use a throwing skill or fire arm skill, you never miss. It's not even clear that you can or can't dodge a grenade, where indirect spells have this listed out specifically.
My guess on interpretation (and probably my house rule), would be that you must have LOS to the point of explosion, the explosion then needs LOS to the target to affect them. I think that technically satisfies all rules by RAW, and gets the effect that people desire.
Just try to get the global idea first, and there is only one explanation in the book :
| QUOTE (BBB) |
| Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding with the targets within the area of effect. |
The rules about which targets are affected or not are quite logical when you begin by that basis.
hyzmarca : you have got a complicated thinking, there is no reference to indirect/direct spell because those area rule are the bases, they simply apply to all Area Spell (the simplest reading is often the good one, you know ...)
Saying it is treated as range attack does give you the clue on how to rule it, just follow the sequence given in the Range Attack Chapter, use applicable modifier and so on ...
Just remember each person in the area is a Target (=you don't target the area !!!), and you shouldn't be able to mess it.
Lagomorph : read again.
| QUOTE (BBB) |
| Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. |
By the way in SR3 area work as in SR4 considering direct spell, but differ concerning elemental manipulation.
I think some people should manage to make the difference between what are the RAW and what they play and found good as a rule and law of magic -
AND Yes I do prefer how elemental manipulation spells worked in SR3, that is a area propagating from one point.
I do prefer as well the images and the gesture of throwing fireball on the opponents too (which is another point).
| QUOTE (Taki) | ||
Just try to get the global idea first, and there is only one explanation in the book :
The rules about which targets are affected or not are quite logical when you begin by that basis. |
Actually, there is more than one explination in the book.
Take, for example, Hush and Silence.
| QUOTE |
| these spells create an area that damps sound. Sonic attacks into or out of the field, as well as critter powers using sonic medium are reduced by 1 per hit on the Spellcasting Test. Anyone attempting to hear sound from within or across the silenced area must successfully resist the spell. |
These illusion spells are cast on an area. It doesn't matter if the magician can see anyone in that area and individuals outside the area are affected by the spell if they wish to hear a sound that was uttered in the area.
The same is true for Enterainment, Phantasm, Mask, Invisibility, and other indirect illusion spells. Indirect Illusions, including indriect area illusions, are specificly cast at a subject the magician has LOS to and target anyone looking at that subject regardless of the magician's LOS.
Light creates a mobile point of light within the caster's LOS. This point illuminates everything that would be illuminated by a similar non-magical light without regard to the caster's LOS.
Poltergeist is an area spell that lifts random objects and hurls them around. Anyone in that area takes stun damage even in the caster can't see the individual.
Shadow creates a globe of darkness within the caster's LOS. After this globe is established the caster is just as blind as everyone else but the darkness still affects everyone in the globe.
Detection spells are cast on a subject and affect all valid targets within range of the subject no matter where the magician is.
The rule cited is a general rule but it is certain not a global rule.
Ummm, just a question :
If Indirect Combat Spells spawn at the point they are targeted at and effect only LOS targets, then why do they use a different set of rules ? If this interpretation was correct, all targets would simply resist the magic normally for physical spells, wouldn't they ?
So we can assume Indirect Combat Spells do STILL (as described in MitS) come into existence at the caster's location and travel towards their target.
That at least solves the barrier problem : if the spell hits a barrier, it either penetrates it or explodes on the barriers surface.
That still leaves the explosion itself ... and both schools of thought (sadly) make sense. Either the explosion affects everything in its radius like a grenade (oldschool) or the blast fizzles as soon as it leaves the caster's LOS (new(b)school 
).
My own view : that would be the most interesting blast I'd ever heard of
And it would not fit with anything ever written for SR.
AND it would not make sense to call something working like that INDIRECT Combat Spell - it would only be an Area Spell with Elemental Effects.
But in either case, the rules are .............. lacking.
Oh, btw, shouldn't there be a difference in resolving Ball, Wave and Jet type spells ? ... ooops, a second question
'Guess all those loopy rules are simply meant as an incentive for us to buy Magic 4 .........
hyzmarca : good argument, but still arguable - if one would take the same approach to these spells ... well, they'd be useless, but still both schools would still make sense.
Though that probably nerfes Magic to a nice degree : no more invisible mages sneaking by - only those guys you see would not see you ...
Or would the new school of thought perhaps agree that magic is no longer limited by LOS once the spell takes effect ? No, that would mean ICSs would REALLY affect things out of LOS.
If Indirect Combat Spells spawn at the point they are targeted at and effect only LOS targets, then why do they use a different set of rules ? If this interpretation was correct, all targets would simply resist the magic normally for physical spells, wouldn't they ?
So we can assume Indirect Combat Spells do STILL (as described in MitS) come into existence at the caster's location and travel towards their target.
That at least solves the barrier problem : if the spell hits a barrier, it either penetrates it or explodes on the barriers surface.
That still leaves the explosion itself ... and both schools of thought (sadly) make sense. Either the explosion affects everything in its radius like a grenade (oldschool
) or the blast fizzles as soon as it leaves the caster's LOS (new(b)school ).My own view : that would be the most interesting blast I'd ever heard of
And it would not fit with anything ever written for SR.
AND it would not make sense to call something working like that INDIRECT Combat Spell - it would only be an Area Spell with Elemental Effects.
But in either case, the rules are .............. lacking.
Oh, btw, shouldn't there be a difference in resolving Ball, Wave and Jet type spells ? ... ooops, a second question
'Guess all those loopy rules are simply meant as an incentive for us to buy Magic 4 .........
hyzmarca : good argument, but still arguable - if one would take the same approach to these spells ... well, they'd be useless, but still both schools would still make sense.
Though that probably nerfes Magic to a nice degree : no more invisible mages sneaking by - only those guys you see would not see you ...
Or would the new school of thought perhaps agree that magic is no longer limited by LOS once the spell takes effect ? No, that would mean ICSs would REALLY affect things out of LOS.
Or would the new school of thought perhaps agree that magic is no longer limited by LOS once the spell takes effect ?
It doesn't already? You mean to sustain you have to have LOS? That can't be right.
It doesn't already? You mean to sustain you have to have LOS? That can't be right.
| QUOTE (Phobos @ Jul 24 2006, 08:31 PM) |
| Or would the new school of thought perhaps agree that magic is no longer limited by LOS once the spell takes effect ? No, that would mean ICSs would REALLY affect things out of LOS. |
You haven't read carefully what I say to be the basis ...
It is clearly said : you synchronize with target to cast the spell. Once the spell is cast (directly on the target(s). Nothing and nobody said you still need to see the effects of the spell for them to go on.
This explained too the examples given by hyzmara :
Illusion spell :
You create in illusion, you don't put a spell on anybody ... you put a spell on a place !
So if you don't mess with casting the spell on its target(s), and the effect of the spell you may find all your examples compatible with the global rules.
The detection spells do not affect a target (and they are not described to have a range "area").
An illusion is a creation - the victims of them are not really target.
The light spell is kind of clumsy (it shouldn't be area anyway ...)
Each time you cast a spell on a group of person you can watch for the description of the range : area. It is as global and simple as that.
EDIT for clarity (and spell check !)
Mechanically it boils down to what happens to the target that is in the area of a an Indirect Area of Effect spell with Elemental effects, but is not in the LOS. Do they get hit at all? Do they get hit but with bonuses as would be applied to any range attack? Do they only suffer from elemental effects?
If a "Fireball" is set off at the corner, what happens to the target around corner that is in the area of effect, but isn't seen by the caster?
If a "Fireball" is set off at the corner, what happens to the target around corner that is in the area of effect, but isn't seen by the caster?
| QUOTE (Samaels Ghost) |
| It doesn't already? You mean to sustain you have to have LOS? That can't be right. |
You do not need LOS to sustain a spell.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.