Has there been an 'official' full example of a direct combat spell being cast and the final result on a target?

I know that the common perception is direct combat spells are an oppose test:

Socery+Magic versus Body/willpoer + Counterspelling.

DV = Force + net hits.


Now the problem is most seem to think force+net hits are applied to the condition track.

Page 123 Under DAMAGE: Damage resitance tests

Ok first, your miss reading some stuff.

The opposed test is to resist damage. The go-ganger rolling his body is to resist the damage.

Dispite the line about armor, (which is a lie in most cases) you usually get half impact armor.

As written syntaxically

You

1: Chose a spell
2: Chose a force
3 Chose targets
4: Make spellcasting test
5: Determine effect (this is where the opposed roll comes in)
6: Resist Drain
7: Ongoing effects.


Now taken logicaly:

As written the Step 5 is done for ANY spell cast (well unless the target doesnt (or cant) rest).

Now this check is made if you cast a powerbolt, a orgasm, or a detox (if the character wanted to stay drunk).


This step is to see if the spell can effect the person aura AT ALL. IF target wins, then there is NO effect... It 'missed'

If the spellcaster 'wins' the spelldose take effect and is combat spells under damage say:

The base damage value of each spell is equal to its force ... Any net hits on the spellcasting test increase the DV by 1 per hit. Each spell description notes whether it is physical or stun damage.


Now here the are very clear at calling it damage Value not damage. Page 153: under damage is very clear that the damage VALUE is modified by a damage resitance to determine how much damage is recorded onto the condition monitor.


Rest assured I am not 'mis-reading stuff'. Grammatically the above is well within as written. It might not be the 'intent' but as written in the enligh language with no errata, You would get a damage resitance test.

Step 5: is NOT called a damage resitance check, it is 'Determine effect' and an opposed test. Nothing under spellcasting, or 'combat spells' says you do NOT get a a damage resitance test. The rules for 'damage' clearly state unless otherwise noted you DO get a damage resitance test.

Now this VERY easily could be a mistake lke the overcasting to be able to heal the damage done by your spell. The rules are to mean that drain can NOT be healed. ALthough 'as written' they do not actually say OVERCASTED physical drain can not be healed.

The rule are very open to mininterpertation, but as written they above is how the are written barring a missed rule I have over looked.

NOW like I stated the 'intent' very likely is otherwise (though personly I do find it a little hard to belive the intent is for direct combat spells to either have NO effect or to KILL, no middle ground), as written the rules are actually explicitly make it so you DO get a damage resitance test.

Which is why I was asking.

Is there a direct rule I missed That directly overides the 'unless otherwise noted' under damage. Is there a direct example of a spell being cast (and noted how many 'damage boxes' are filled in on a living entity getting hit by a direct combat spell in full details.

Or has a developer specifically stated any of the above.

Opions are not what I was really looking for as with the whole game people are free to house rule which ever way they want. The catch is as written you DO get a damage resitance test, which does not appear to be what most think the intent is.. the question is is their 'fact' that supports this as opposed to opion.



So can anyone point out:

1) A post from a developer stating the above is not the intent.

2) An offical publication (book, erratta, even FAQ), that states:
a) Direct combat spells are not eligable for the damage resitance test.
b) gives an full example of a direct combat spell being cast to include noting how many boxes of damage are filled in.



Now I am willing to accept the general concent is the above is wrong, even if it is as written, but am looking for hard information as to why it is wrong.

As far as a Damage Resistance test ...

There are examples of Indirect Spells being cast in the book, which specifically describe the extra resistance test involved in that process. As it stands, there is no extra Damage Resistance test for Direct Damage Spells over and above the initial Willpower (or Body) + Counterspelling Resistance test.

Read the example on page 196. It shows that the resistance test is rolled as the only damage resistance test. There is no second roll.

And damage value = damage

In the case of direct damage spells step five is damage resistance.
Page 174
"A go-ganger is about to ride Raze down on
his motorbike, so Raze casts a Powerbolt at her. He
chooses Force 5 and rolls his Magic 5 + Spellcasting
4 (9 dice), and gets 4 hits. The ganger rolls her Body
3 to resist, and gets only 1. The base damage of the
Powerbolt is 5, increased by the net hits to 8—ouch!
The Drain Code for the Powerbolt is (F ÷ 2) + 1,
so Raze must resist 3 DV, rolling his Willpower +
Logic (he’s a mage)"

If you look at the example the ganger rolling her body is a damage resistance test kinda.
It was a force five + 4 hits, one of the hits was negated by the go-ganger's body.
Reducing the damage from 9 to 8.

It might be easier to say with a direct combat spell you dodge with your body instead of your reaction.

"The base damage is 5 increased to 8 by net hits -- ouch!"


No place does it say the ganger TAKES 8 damage and fills in 8 boxes. The example is incomplete.

Now if we take the one from 196 that garrowlf references which is a INDIRECT combat..

Sari .... get 3 hits, the drone gets 0 hits.... so net hits increase the base damage from 5 to 8 from net hits.

The drone has a body of 3 and armor 2 so it rolls 4 dice (body +half armor) to resist spell damage. The drone rolls poorly and gets 1 hit. it takes 7 boxes of damage."


The quote from page 174 never says 'the ganger takes 8 damage'. It DOES say the base damage is staged up from 5 to 8 from net hits.

The quote from page 196 gives a complete example (of a different type of spell) and states the base damage is up from 5 to 8 do to net hits on the step 5 'determining effect' of the spellcasting process. HOWEVER it goes on to explain how much damage the drone take, which is 7 after it makes it damage resitance test.

Page 174 never shows the 'damage' taken. It does state what the base damage of the attack is. 'Sorcery' or Combat spells never state damage resitance is not applicable, they DO state that as they are internal ARMOR is ignored (which is part of the damage resitance test NOT a 'determine effect' test of the the spellcasting process.

As written (even if not intended): Direct Combat spells get a opposed test to 'cancel' the spell and keep it from working, they would then get a damage resitance test (though all armor is ignored) to resist the actual damage.

"If you look at the example the ganger rolling her body is a damage resistance test kinda."

Nope it aint a damage resistance test, it is an opposed test to see if the spell took effect. Same as doding a 'bullet' from a gun.

The example does not tell us how much DAMAGE the go-ganger took.

To use a popular form on these boards

"A go-ganger is about to ride Raze down on his motorbike, so Raze shots a predator and rolls his Agility 5 + Pistols 4 (9 dice) and gets 4 hits. The ganger rolls her reaction 3 to resist and gets only 1. The base damage of a predator is 5, increased by the net hits to 8 -- ouch! Raze must record the loss of one bullet from his ammo count"

In the example we never state how much damage the ganger records. We do state what the damage value of the attack is, but we do not go into determining how much damage the go-ganger actually takes.

The intent may be to take 8, as written in under the Magic and the Combat sections however, it is not.


So can anyone point out:

1) A post from a developer stating the above is not the intent.

2) An offical publication (book, erratta, even FAQ), that states:
a) Direct combat spells are not eligable for the damage resitance test.
b) gives an full example of a direct combat spell being cast to include noting how many boxes of damage are filled in.

Pure sophistry, Loughingowl. All other such examples are complete. To suggest that this one would be left incomplete is just silly.

I'm of the opinion that you don't get a separate damage resistance test after the initial spell resistance roll. This is based partly on this being the most reasonable interpretation of the rules and partly on it so clearly needing clarification if it weren't the case that I the absence of such clarification as supporting evidence. But as you want RAW back-up rather than opinion, I'll take a crack at it.

Argument for this:
1. Non-living targets are specifically stated as being allowed a damage resistance test (Body + Armour) against indirect combat spells. (SR4, pg. 174)
2. By clear implication in the wording of the above in the BBB, non-living targets don't get a damage resistance test against direct combat spells. Instead, they get a threshold.
3. Assuming that non-living and living targets are damaged in the same way by [all] combat spells, then, we can infer from (2.) that living targets don't get an additional damage resistance roll, either.

Corroborating Evidence:

What Garrowwolf was pointing out on that page was this here below, He was not refering to the indirect combat spell example.

"Direct Combat Spells: Handle these as an Opposed
Test. The caster’s Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target’s
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). The caster needs at least one net
hit for the spell to take effect. Direct Combat spells affect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance."

OK NOW READ INDIRECT

"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. If the
spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor
(+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the
Damage Value. If the modified spell DV does not exceed the
modified Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun"

Notice how under indirect they mention a DV resistence test but they don't under direct? If that doesn't convince you

If you look back under firearms you see damage resistence test in the steps. Go to explosives you see it there too. Its listed under melee combat too. The damage resistecne test is left out of direct combat spells because there is nothing beyond that opposed check.




Laughingowl, if you STILL don't see it. Email fanpro because you don't believe the book or any of us.

Toss my name in the ballot box for another vote that owl might be laughing, but he's still incorrect.

I think laughingowl has a point. For the sake of spell balance, I hope he is correct. None of my PCs will touch indirect combat spells, because they realize they're casting a spell which is resisted twice by the target and has much higher drain.

Honestly, can any of you naysayers explain the logic behind the (apparent) decision to make direct combat spells so strong and indirect combat spells so weak?

It sure ain't elemental effects, since there's not much use to acid that only burns for the round in which it is cast.

I spit on tradition! Burn the houses!

Yeah, Indirect Combat Spells aren't even *considered* here, because, well, compared to Manabolt ... well, you can't compare 'em.

Fireblast = "Ow, hey, quiddit!"
Manabolt = "FRAK I'm dead!"

Sure would have been nice to just make them take the ususal 'Attack Roll' like everything else (Magic + Sorcery, defended by Reaction), then damage resistance by raw Body or Willpower sans armor.

THEN, things get more balanced.

Manabolt ignores armor, Firebolt uses half Impact armor, so does a hair less, but has cool elemental effects. Both can be dodged, giving non-magicals a chance to, you know, leap away from the attack.

Way less confusing and everything keeps the same style of resolution.

...

I think I have my second house rule. (Teh first being "Enhanced Articulation is Availability 20.")

As has been said, the reasoning behind the 'additional' resistance test in the case of Indirect Spells could be explained in that their damage has to be 'staged' all the way down to nothing for the Spell to be ineffective. If a caster gets even 1 net success on his Force 4 Flamethrower Spell after his target's Reaction test, then 5 successes would be needed on a Body + half Armor test to completely shrug off the Spell.

Whereas with Direct Combat Spells the damage does not have to be staged below the 'base'. A Force 4 Manabolt cast with 3 successes needs only 3 successes on a Willpower/Body (+ Couterspelling) test to be completely resisted.

Much less twinkage than you thought ... or in SR3.

Here's what came of it when I posted about this:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=11927

Let's compare Lightning Bolt to Mana Bolt for a second:

For three extra points of drain, you get the ability to target non-living things (generally worth 1 point of drain - see power bolt) and the elemental electricity effect (easily worth 2 points of drain - have you read it?).

The other change is that the target gets a reaction roll to avoid the spell, but they have to completely resist the effect of the spell to take nothing. Giving the way electrical damage works, this is a *really good deal*.

The big difference comes when dealing with magical defenses: Counterspelling is added to the damage resistance roll, rather than the reaction roll, for indirect spells. Magical defenses help reduce the damage, but are less likely to help you resist completely.

First:

As I mentioned several time.

I understand the consensus is: no secondary damage resitance roll

Right now I am honestly undecided if it is a problem. SO far in my games it isnt, but then the ones I play with have learned abusing the system isnt a good idea and play for the role-playing aspect not the roll-playing aspect.

If it becomes a problem, I will change it (most likely to give a secondary resist). I am totally comfortable with making house rules.

My point is has this every been raised and 'offical' answered.

Going through the books after the 'Great Dragon vs. Noob Mage' thread I will say Combat spell in general seem a little hinky in the new system.

The whole concept, of combat spells, seem to go against how every other spell work.

For all non-combat spells force normally CAPS the sucess rather then count as sucesses.

For combat, force actually makes the spell 'stronger'


Levitate- 100 with one net sucess can lift 200kg
Levitate-2 with 1 net sucess can lift 200kg

Heal-200 with 1 net sucess heals 1 box
Heall 1 with 1 net sucess heals 1 box

Why does
Manabolt-100 with one net sucess do 101 boxes of damage
Manabolt-1 with one net sucess do 2 boxes of damage.

So, in other words, you intend to pretty much totally gimp Direct Combat Spells.

Direct Combat Spells work differently from other spell types... so? That's the canon RAW. House rule it as you will, but know that the net effect is that you are gimping Direct Combat Spells vis a vis other combat options.

knasser:

Well, if it is an editing mistake, the same mistake has been made in pretty much every edition to date. Direct Combat Spells have always worked the manner they are stated to work in SR4 in relation to (what ar now called) Indirect Combat Spells.

This is because the Direct Combat Spells are supposedly manipulating pure mana to affect the target, so the target does not get to Dodge (which is a Reaction test).

Indirect Combat Spells, on the other hand, create an actual element to cause damage to the target. Because this element is actually physical, the target does get to Dodge in this case (the Reaction test).

Now we are up to the same place, where a Resistance test is made. Willpower or Body are used alone in the case of Direct Combat Spells, as we are still basically dealing with pure mana and Armor would not help. It does help when resisting the purely physical effects of Indirect Combat Spells though, at least partially, as it is halved (like with all similar effects like grenades and such) before being added to the Body test.

There really is no extra resistance test involved. The only difference is that the purely physical nature of Indirect Combat Spells allow the target a chance to dodge the effects, even if only partially, while there is no real way to physically dodge the purely mana-related Direct Combat Spells.

Lightning Bolt
...Type: P . Range: LOS . Damage: P . Duration...

Yeah, he's right. The spell actually says physical damage.