Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Indirect vs direct combat spells
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Jack Kain
One major complaint with magic is how easily a mage with manaball or manabolt can crush a huge group of enemies. Now rather then debate all that lets compare direct combat spells to indirect.

Indirect combat spells are elemental in nature.
They are resisted first with reaction, should the mage manage to score even one hit they are then resisted by body+half impact and any armor modifications vs that element.
Counter spelling is of course available if its at hand.
And if your still in a tight spot Edge.
Vehicles resist with there armorx2

The elemental spells only real advantage is a secondary effect.


A Direct combat spell is resisted solely by body or will power + counter spelling if available. And in most cases Edge as your dice pool is already pathetic.

The only weakness if a direct combat spell needs to have a high enough force to overcome a nonliving things objects resistance.
However if the mage can’t score 4 hits on force 4 powerbolt.
I doubt he’d have been able to do much better with an elemental spell. Plus once you overcome the object resistance the object doesn’t get to resist the damage at all.


To sum up the resist for direct combat spells
At maximum you have body or willpower+counterspelling+edge
3 sources of defense.
Now if you get enough hits you negate the attack completely but then again if you get enough hits on your dodging you can negate the indirect spell to.
Now lets look at indirect
Reaction,+Counter spelling,+body,+half-impact,+armor modification,+edge.
Up to six sources for your defenses.

Now indirect has a HIGHER drain then direct combat spells.
Despite the fact that in 9 out of 10 situations, A direct combat spell is the better choice.


So my idea to level things out a bit is.
Take the drain on all DIRECT combat spells and increase it by 2.
Then take the drain on all INDIRECT combat spells in decrease it by 2.

This pretty much switches there drain values and might actually make a magician choose a indirect combat spell instead of a direct combat spell.
Eryk the Red
I MIGHT be up for increasing the drain on direct spells, but I wouldn't reduce it on indirect. They seem weak, but the secondary elemental effects are too good for me to want to reduce the drain on them.

My actual game experiences haven't shown any undue power for direct spells, or magic in general. The risks of high powered magic have balanced things out for the times when magic was especially effective.
Butterblume
QUOTE (Jack Kain)
The elemental spells only real advantage is a secondary effect.

You might have overlooked that it's once more RAW that indirect spells can hit targets you can't see:
QUOTE (errata v1.5)
“Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are caught within the spell’s area of effect.”


So, there are two real advantages.
Charon
I ruled for my part that a mage could cast an indirect spell while using thermo or lowlight goggles (as opposed to cyber) to help him aim.

After all, he's not casting at the aura and can cast indirect spells at something he doesn't even see. So if he could cast it with his eye closed, he can logically cast it assisted with thermo vision to help him aim, for example.

Quite useful if the opposition use smoke to hinder the mage.

As soon as that errata went out the mage of my campaign got himself an indrect attack spell.

Frankly, I don't consider the secondary effect worth the extra drain so you should almost always want to use direct combat spell if you can see the target unassisted (unless target is specially vulnerable to the elemental energy secondary damage).

But for all those situations when target can't be seen unassisted, indirect attacks rocks because the difference in a combat between a round where the mage can attack and a round where he can't can be huge.

Another example is if you are using mage goggle to slip a fiberoptic cable under the door an see inside a room. If the room if full, it's unlikley you can see everyone at the same time with a fiberoptic cable. But a power area indirect spell will fry catch everyone.
knasser
If you raise the drain on direct combat spells, then you weaken mages. Lowering the drain on indirect spells by two wont compensate for this.

I can't help feeling that if the drains had been the other way around in RAW, people would now be arguing that direct spells were too weak and needed to be strengthened. One of them has to be better. Otherwise there's no point in having more than one type. You should consider the power level of your game, too. SR4 is different to SR3- and the average mage now has a magic of 3, spell casting of 3, etc.. For such a character indirect spells offer a means of damaging drones, etc, that would otherwise be very difficult with only direct spells. At lower forces, the advantage of direct spells is less clear cut. Also, Charon makes a very good point about indirect attacks. This lets a mage overcome one of the fundamental weaknesses of spell casting.
Adarael
This is the breakdown I've always had for the four basic 'wreck you' spells:

Direct, Single Target Combat Spells: These are the rifles of the combat spell world. They are, to draw a correlary to firearms, your pistol or long-range rifle. They are best used when you absolutely and positively have to put a target down post-haste. As such, you want as much 'out of combat now' for drain as you can get. Stunbolt and Manabolt are your best bets. It's a rare mage, in my experience, who goes for something else.
Use: the standard take-down spell in most combats.

Direct, AOE Spells: These are the SMGs and Assault Rifles of the magical world. When some guys are close to each other, this is the best bang-for-buck spell type. Best used on small knots of people as they move from cover to cover or otherwise try to change position. If you're slamming groups, chances are that you don't need bang for buck so much as just plain bang. Manaball is my preferred favorite, although Powerball does have the advantage of (quite often) wrecking cover. Stunball is good too, although generally I avoid it. The rationale being that subtlety has gone out the window in lieu of straight killin' fools.
(I should note that my runners tend only to kill when other options have been exhausted. Wasting groups generally indicates other options have long gone the way of the dodo.)
Use: target-of-opportunity shots on groups or knots of enemies.

Indirect, Single-Target Spells: I tend to regard these spells as 'utility' spells rather than 'combat' spells. These are what I use to take down objects, drones, or otherwise non-organic things that need to go. I'll generally have between one and three spells of this type on any given character, with the order of commonality going Lighting Bolt, Smoke Stream, and Acid Stream. These would be analagous to unusual firearms with limited usefulness in regular combat, but when you need 'em, you can't do without 'em. You wouldn't use a flamethrower or an Ares Redline in EVERY situation, but when you need a flamethrower or a laser, nothing else will do. Laser and acid stream are great for opening objects, lightning bolt is the bees knees for drones, and smoke stream has the advantage of giving you cover after you've smacked some stuff with it. Tailor your single-target indirects to what you feel is most useful for your team. Ask yourself how your spell will round out your combat potential for the team: what will the spell do that others cannot?
Use: unusual single-target takedown, environment utility, and precision oddity.

Indirect, AOE Spells: These define 'unsubtle'. They are the grenades, the rockets, and the land mines of spells. These are best used when the enemy is fortified, grouped, and otherwise is inacessable to other spells. Or, alternately, when you're out to cause as much chaos and mayhem as possible - which, if you want to destroy evidence, freak the enemy out, or otherwise mess up the area you're in is great. Hellblast and Ball Lightning are perrenial favorites, although Sandstorm is also fairly popular. For area destruction, Acid Wave is pretty sweet too.
Use: "Messin' everything ups."

In summation: spells, like mundane weapons, should be tailored to your situation. Yes, direct combat spells are the most useful in a regular fight... but varying your spell arsenal will keep your enemies on their toes, especially if you can trick them into thinking you can only respond in one way - or if their training is so tight that you can predict where they'll be and what they'll do. Elemental effects are not the 'only advantage' that indirect spells have... but they are a very major one.
Jaid
if a target's resistance is stronger than your spellcasting dice *and* their dodging dice are weaker than your spellcasting dice, indirect is better, since counterspelling acts like armor instead of acting like reaction (that is, you add the counterspelling dice to the damage resist of indirect spells, and there is no resistance test; there is, of course, a dodge test).

so, if someone's willpower + counterspelling is greater than your magic + spellcasting, but they have lower reaction (+ dodge, if applicaple) than your magic + spellcasting, it is often better to go indirect and at least deal some damage (unless they have a really crazy damage resist pool) rather than going direct and most likely having no effect.

of course, the main problem is... how do you tell when someone has a really high spell resistance pool, but a low dodge pool and low enough damage resist to not soak your attack to 0?

however, if you do know for sure that this is the case (for example, many default drones dodge with 3 dice, but require 4 net hits on a spellcasting test for direct spells...)

so, against the right target, indirect spells are more consistent, but less likely to instantly blow stuff up.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Charon)
I ruled for my part that a mage could cast an indirect spell while using thermo or lowlight goggles (as opposed to cyber) to help him aim.

After all, he's not casting at the aura and can cast indirect spells at something he doesn't even see. So if he could cast it with his eye closed, he can logically cast it assisted with thermo vision to help him aim, for example.

Quite useful if the opposition use smoke to hinder the mage.

I agree with Charon. Were we to debate it, I would argue that Charon's ruling is the official one.
You don't need to see to hit with indirect spells, and that alone is HUGE.
Butterblume
I believe the mage still has to see 'epicenter' of his area of effect spell.
Moon-Hawk
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm stealing from SR3, but the way they used to work is the spell originated at the caster (i.e. touch range) and sped off to their location, arrived, and detonated.
In SR3 glass blocked those spells. (or got blasted apart by them) So I think the magician only needs touch range to himself to originate the spell, and intend a distance and direction.
Maybe I'm borrowing too heavily on SR3, though.
lorechaser
QUOTE (knasser @ Dec 26 2006, 04:28 PM)
One of them has to be better. Otherwise there's no point in having more than one type.

I agree with most of Knasser and the rest, except for that line.

Neither should be straight up better. Each should be better in their own roles.

I think perhaps people are underestimating the value of the secondary effects, too. Sand is really nice. Blast is pretty painful. Electricity in a room full of electronics? Ow!

Even Light can be useful - you get a flash-bang along with your spell....

For pure straight up killin' a foo', you want to cast a single target direct spell. Hence, "direct."

But you do, as Adarael so elegantly pointed out, need some other options to be truly useful.

Most mages are like the Adept with 24 dice in pistols, but 0 in all other firearms - most of the time, you're just fine shooting someone really really well with a pistol. But for those times when you can't, you need some other options.

All that being said, I don't think you'd see a real issue dropping the drain on indirects by 1 across the board.

A few more points from the FAQ:

"Is it possible to use the called shot rule (p. 149, SR4) with Indirect Combat spells?

Yes, as long as the GM allows it. "

Which is a semi-copout answer (it's always okay if the GM allows it), but suggests that's not a wild idea.

And

"When casting an Indirect Combat spell, do you need to see the target? Or can you cast at a target completely behind cover since they use ranged combat rules?

You do need the see the primary target of the spell. However, as noted in the errata, Indirect Combat spells will affect other targets that are unseen by the caster as long as they are caught within the spell's area of effect.

Note that the same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed."

So you have to see something, but it doesn't have to be the folks.
Eryk the Red
I think their response on the called shots for indirect spells question wasn't necessarily to cop out, or to infer that there should be extra discretion because it's a spell. I think it was just meant to reinforce the existing rule that all called shots need to be GM approved. (So that you don't call a shot that doesn't make any sense just to get bonus damage.)
knasser
QUOTE (lorechaser)
QUOTE (knasser @ Dec 26 2006, 04:28 PM)
One of them has to be better. Otherwise there's no point in having more than one type.

I agree with most of Knasser and the rest, except for that line.
the folks.


That's a fair point. I put it badly. Some spells should be better in their given role. I guess where I was coming from was in the original post that wanted to increase drain on direct spells and decrease it on indirect. The intent seemed to be to make them "balanced" with each other. This is a pet peeve of mine that comes up in various different forms. That bioware should be balanced with cyberware, that mages should be balanced with samurai, and more on that theme. The point is that different elements are different and that sometimes some are better than others. SR4 has a nice Rock, Paper, Scissors element to it which I like. As the choice of whether or not to use indirect spells is entirely up to the player and any mage can use them, then they're by nature balanced. It's a player choice that isn't forced on them, just like a character could specialise in pistols rather than assault rifles if they chose.
lorechaser
Exactly what I wanted to say too.

Okay, I agree with all of what you said. wink.gif Carry on!
hobgoblin
hmm, i wonder if it would be to far out there to allow blind fire attacks with indirect spells. that would include being able to shoot through a wall or similar.

nothing like being being hit with a blast of fire through a wall and looking back at the attackers because its a big hole there now smokin.gif
ElFenrir
QUOTE
This is the breakdown I've always had for the four basic 'wreck you' spells:

Direct, Single Target Combat Spells: These are the rifles of the combat spell world. They are, to draw a correlary to firearms, your pistol or long-range rifle. They are best used when you absolutely and positively have to put a target down post-haste. As such, you want as much 'out of combat now' for drain as you can get. Stunbolt and Manabolt are your best bets. It's a rare mage, in my experience, who goes for something else.
Use: the standard take-down spell in most combats.

Direct, AOE Spells: These are the SMGs and Assault Rifles of the magical world. When some guys are close to each other, this is the best bang-for-buck spell type. Best used on small knots of people as they move from cover to cover or otherwise try to change position. If you're slamming groups, chances are that you don't need bang for buck so much as just plain bang. Manaball is my preferred favorite, although Powerball does have the advantage of (quite often) wrecking cover. Stunball is good too, although generally I avoid it. The rationale being that subtlety has gone out the window in lieu of straight killin' fools.
(I should note that my runners tend only to kill when other options have been exhausted. Wasting groups generally indicates other options have long gone the way of the dodo.)
Use: target-of-opportunity shots on groups or knots of enemies.

Indirect, Single-Target Spells: I tend to regard these spells as 'utility' spells rather than 'combat' spells. These are what I use to take down objects, drones, or otherwise non-organic things that need to go. I'll generally have between one and three spells of this type on any given character, with the order of commonality going Lighting Bolt, Smoke Stream, and Acid Stream. These would be analagous to unusual firearms with limited usefulness in regular combat, but when you need 'em, you can't do without 'em. You wouldn't use a flamethrower or an Ares Redline in EVERY situation, but when you need a flamethrower or a laser, nothing else will do. Laser and acid stream are great for opening objects, lightning bolt is the bees knees for drones, and smoke stream has the advantage of giving you cover after you've smacked some stuff with it. Tailor your single-target indirects to what you feel is most useful for your team. Ask yourself how your spell will round out your combat potential for the team: what will the spell do that others cannot?
Use: unusual single-target takedown, environment utility, and precision oddity.

Indirect, AOE Spells: These define 'unsubtle'. They are the grenades, the rockets, and the land mines of spells. These are best used when the enemy is fortified, grouped, and otherwise is inacessable to other spells. Or, alternately, when you're out to cause as much chaos and mayhem as possible - which, if you want to destroy evidence, freak the enemy out, or otherwise mess up the area you're in is great. Hellblast and Ball Lightning are perrenial favorites, although Sandstorm is also fairly popular. For area destruction, Acid Wave is pretty sweet too.
Use: "Messin' everything ups."


This is a great breakdown. I think any good combat mage would have an array like this, like a good weapons specialist would have a wide array of weaponry at his disposal.

QUOTE
hmm, i wonder if it would be to far out there to allow blind fire attacks with indirect spells. that would include being able to shoot through a wall or similar.

nothing like being being hit with a blast of fire through a wall and looking back at the attackers because its a big hole there now


If the wall is wooden, and fire is shot at it at a high Force, i see that wall having serious problems.

So variety is nice. While a high powered rifle(Manabolt) is excellent vs. one target, a large group of target wearing metal armor standing in water is just asking nicely to have a Ball Lightning spell cast at them. grinbig.gif
Butterblume
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
I'm not so sure about that.  Maybe I'm stealing from SR3, but the way they used to work is the spell originated at the caster (i.e. touch range) and sped off to their location, arrived, and detonated.
In SR3 glass blocked those spells.  (or got blasted apart by them)  So I think the magician only needs touch range to himself to originate the spell, and intend a distance and direction.
Maybe I'm borrowing too heavily on SR3, though.

I never liked it that way. To much like a D&D fireball twirl.gif.

Unless someone convinces me that elemental area spells still work this way (maybe by providing a page reference wink.gif), I like to think it's better know.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012