this came up in a game over the weekend.

For the AoE spell Manaball, and other AoE mana type spells, do you have to target a "being"? or can you cast the Manaball in the space between a group of "beings" to hit all of them with the AoE effect?

I guess a simpler way to ask the question is do AoE spells with the Mana Type have to have a "being" as it center?

I know of now rule forcing you to center the area spell on a being. Valid targets however are only beings seen by the caster within the area around the central point.

Forced targets I only know from the stupid grenade rules.

Ahh.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

I think you can't target "empty space" with Direct Combat spells (manaball). There has to be some recipient of the "channeling mana directly into a target". I would think any inanimate object the caster can see would be ok, as long as you beat the object resistance.

You definitely can't target empty space with Indirect Combat spells.

I shoot magic missile at... the darkness!

Great way to piss off certain types of spirits...

SR4a, p183: "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; area spells can affect more than one target at a time." So no, you don't have to target a being, you can target a "point in space," provided you can "see the center of the area affected." And then everyone inside the area is affected, but only if you can see them: targets you cannot see, even if they're in the area of effect, will not be affected by the spell. In the case of Direct Combat Spells, armor won't help them, because you're targeting their aura directly.

The exception to this is Indirect Combat Spells: they cannot target a point in space, but "require a physically solid target or astrally active target to hit." Because you actually hurl a chunk of burning whatever at something [or whatever the spell you're casting might be], this also is an exception to area effect spells not affecting targets you can't see: Indirect Combat Spells work like grenades, and affect people inside the area of effect, irrespective of their visibility. Everyone gets the benefit of armor and barriers, though, because you're not directly targeting their auras, but rather indirectly targeting them by filling their house with fire [or whatever; don't judge me!].

dang, good catch 3278 - totally clear now. Although your preoccupation with fire is a little worrisome...

Does that mean that if there's a dude with Invisibility in the AoE, and you're not bothering to see through it, that he won't be blasted?

Follow-up: can you voluntarily fail to resist the Invisibility spell you cast on your teammate?

That's a good example of a spell which specifically specifies it targets creatures.

Which is where the Negator program from Unwired p108 comes in handy. It can be set to occlude LoS to friends in mêlée, especially if you feed it from your tacnet. Now you can AoE into a grapple with impunity.

You don't see the target, you do not affect the target.

So if the caster cannot resist the invisibility spell, no targeting what it covers (mundane stealth will serve the same purpose btw)

AFAIK you do not *have* to make a resistance roll for a spell (but it is often in your best interests to do so) and as a result there is no need to make a resistance roll for beneficial spells (I can just see a mage having to resist their own buffing spells.... )

A quick look through the spellcasting section did not show anything solid, so I could be wrong

Exception: Indirect combat spells. Fireballs hurt everything inside F meters, cover excepted, regardless of visibility.

I remember reading a developer comment thread, waaaay back, about targeting spells. It was about the question what happens if you look through your slightly-separated fingers so you can see your enemies, but not your friends, in combat, and then cast say Manaball.

The answer was brilliant: magic works (partially) because of belief, and if you're trying to fool yourself this way, your spell fails, but you still get Drain.

Interesting, but contradicting RAW. If you can't see a target you can't affect it. whether that is due to cover near the target (hiding behind a wall) or near the caster (hand in front of the eyes). As stated before the negator program can be used for that.

This was RAW in previous editions, at GM's discretion.

Looking at the description of the Negator, it digitally removes images; the incompatibility of digital tech and magic is well established in SR, so I do not think it would work as you suggest.

As for trying to cut teammates out of an AoE spell with hands in front of the eyes, I like the developers answer but would run it more simply myself - I would rule it would take one complex action per target to remove them from LOS prior to casting the spell, and even then would only allow this if both caster and target were completely static. Hence a mage trying to exclude allies from an AoE spell would have to use up a hell of a lot of complex actions prior to spell casting to achieve this, with both mage and ally effectively being sitting targets for the duration.

As for casting invisibility on teammates, should be valid, although I would rule the mage would subconsciously resist the spell if he/she were then casting an AoE spell on enemies.

Any combat mage worth their salt should have an selection of AoE and single target spells which they can mix and match depending on where their allies are vis a vis the bad guys. Also note that a mage can reduce the radius of AoE spells by reducing their DP by 1 per metre, and this should help a mage aviod friendly fire problems in most cases.

If we are going by GM's discretion, then it would be RAW even in this edition.

IIRC, I remembered that it wasn't the explicit RAW and the writer who posted made it clear that it wasn't.

Midas, there's nothing in the rules about digital (which is actually optical) *blocking* not working. It's the same as looking through a window with electrically-controlled blinds; they're digitally-controlled, but your LOS is for-real blocked. The only rule about tech and magic is that you can't *gain* LOS through a non-analog system (which usually just means 'cameras'). In this case, you'd wear normal (glasses, contacts, or goggles), or even trodes, and the software would obscure your view… but your LOS would still be all natural.

Just to be clear, a fireball can't target a point in space (=mid-air), but you can totally target a point on the wall or ground. (Obviously, fireball is Indirect; I'm not contradicting anything above.)

Once again, Cybereyes are proven to be a wonderful piece of equipment for any magician.

The problem is in the definition of the LOS.
You can be blind and a good spellcaster. The question isn't only do you SEE the target, it is also you perceive the target? or, can you exactly tell me were is the target?

* If i know that there is one of my friend in the area using an Invisibility spell (or ruthenium), but i don't really know were he is, i can't hurt him whit the manaball.
* If i know exactly were he is, because of the Tacnet whe share (or anything else giving me is location) and, if there is no cover between us, the manaball will affect him, having my fingers on my eyes, Negator program or whatever wouldn't change this.

So if you don't want to hit your friends, learn to cast at the good target, with the good area effect. And remember you always can use your succes to reduce the area.

A blind caster can only cast touch spells unless he is astrally perceiving. The book is clear on that.

True
Nope. You are trying to digitally get LOS. That does not work. Period. No matter how detrimental acquiring LOS through such means would be. It is the same thing as trying to cast a spell at for example the computer screen right in front of you with closed eyes. although you know exactly where it is, you still do not have LOS, which you need for any spell.

You remove dice from your pool not hits from the result.

Astral perception works, and what about a blind caster granted with a sonar sense? If it can perceive you, it can cast on you, that's what i tried to say.


Bad exemple i agree. so let's change it :
* If i know exactly were he is, because i see is ruthenium form (or anything else giving me is location) and, if there is no cover between us, the manaball will affect him, having my fingers on my eyes, Negator program or whatever wouldn't change this.
What i want to say, is that if i jnow exactly were you are, i can't fool my mind with a finger or a RA program to not targeting you.



i agree that to.

Spell targeting is visual or touch only. SR4 doesn't make a specific ruling as to why, but in previous editions it's all about making a connection from caster target to aura: touch is direct enough to link your auras, as is sight, but other senses don't qualify for a targeting lock. Sight works [again, previous edition explanation] because you use a form of limited astral perception when you spellcast. There's no provision for astral perception of the same kind through sound, for example: the caster's aura has to touch or see the target's aura [or location, in the case of Indirect spells].

Do you have some example of blind spellcasters without astral perception, targeting spells other-than-visually?


No, the caster has to be able to see the target: if he knows the target is there but cannot see him, he cannot cast anything other than Indirect spells at the target.

Despite the FAQ's weird stuff the contrary, 'knowing where they are' doesn't matter at all. Sight, or touch.

I am A.F.B. now but this post suggests SM says AR objects block LoS for mages. If that's the case, it would work as I suggest.

Great, thanks. So your Tacnet tracks hostiles and friendlies and updates your Negator with the locations (of friendlies) that need blocking out. Your contact lenses / goggles / cybereyes are clear in some parts allowing you to clearly see, target and affect enemies with your area spell and they are opaque in other parts which prevents you seeing your allies and prevents them being targeted or affected.

Negator might not make the battlefield look particularly pretty from your field of view, but it looks like it would get the job done.

I think the GM should make a decision whether he considers that cheesery. I think I would, I don't like clever AR shenanigans as a way to cast AoE spells that don't do collateral damage. I like the idea that it's about intent; if you manipulate your perceptions with the intent to "reduce" the spell, then the spell fails because you don't believe in it sufficiently. However, if spam clutters things up, that's different, as long as it's not really "collaborating" with you to limit your spells to enemies.

...or some of the people involved turn into a jelly pudding. Magic doesn't think it's funny when you fuck with it. Magic's sense of humor is really messed up.

Actually Magic in SR is pretty predictable and dependable. More importantly Magic is not intelligent. So it cannot deduce whether you intentionally block LOS to some valid targets or whether your Los is simply blocked.

Another point is that Great Form Spirits are explicitly allowed to intentionally exclude valid targets. Why should Magic behave differently there?

Magic in Magicrun is unfair and overpowered, and with minor cheesing the system gets more so, film at 11.

However, the mage is intelligent, and has a subconscious and all. And it all needs to really believe in the magic, which gets harder if you're trying to fool yourself that way.

He is not fooling himself, he simply does not have LOS to some of the targets. If you close your eyes, do you fool yourself into believing the world does no longer exist? I think not.

I acquiring LOS through tools also taboo according to you? A mirror is a powerful tool for the mage. I see no reason why LOS to more targets should be allowed and LOS to less targets shouldn't be.

You are I are running very different types of game, then, which is fine. In mine, magic is kept a more mysterious, less scientific pursuit, whose order is made all the more chilling by the occasional moment of disorder. It's only been around for a few decades, and its taps have just barely been opened [50 years down, 2450 more until the peak!], so sometimes it does things no one expects, even those who were around last time we had it.

I almost always play hermetics, and my personal outlook about the universe is highly ordered, so I definitely have my sympathies toward your mechanistic view of magic in Shadowrun, and I don't think there's anything wrong with playing that way. But I've spent the last decade playing versions of Shadowrun which often make it highly clear that magic is not predictable and dependable, and that your job as a GM, if the players begin to think it is, is to shake them up a little.


And it didn't think that joke was funny. See how well your counterspelling dice work next time you need them.

Shake them up yes, but not by breaking the rules.

Intention is irrelevant in that case.
Moreover there is no entity watching that magic is performed "correctly" and punishing those who transgress.

There's been a thread on this. Sonar Sense does not create LOS as it would allow the caster to cast through walls. The discussion was on a giant, magically active, bat.

It was decided that if a GM decided, it would be a great NPC foe, but that no, rules wise it doesn't actually work.

And thus you geek the mage first.

Right, I think I may have pointed out that the version of the game I'm inspired by has different rules.* It's totally cool that you you're using the SR4 rules as written, but as I said, "I've spent the last decade playing versions of Shadowrun which often make it highly clear that magic is not predictable and dependable," versions of Shadowrun in which it's explicitly written into the rules that fucking with magic tends to get you burned, in which it's explicitly written into the rules that fucking with magic in this specific way will get your burned.

We break the rules, yes. We break SR4 rules by injecting some SR1-3 meta-content about how magic ultimately works. It's shitty of us, I know, to break the rules like this, but we're really shitty people. The game police keep showing up at our place and being all like, "Hey, you're allowed to shake players up, but you can't break the rules!" They arrest us, but we just keep making bail, getting fucked up, and playing the game however we want. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not playing Shadowrun the way you like.


I'm using anthropomorphism, in case that wasn't clear.

*Grimoire, p110: "Spellcasting is a matter of intention and mental control. For example, brash young sorcerers often attempt to aim an area-effect spell through a pinhole to limit the effect to a single target, and then they wonder why the spell misfires under such circumstances. Might as well ask a painter wearing tinted lenses why the color values in a painting are false. How can a magician capture the universe-embracing exaltation of spirit that is the key to magic when he is playing such mind games with himself?" And that's all fluff, baby: not a single rule to back it up. GM's call all the way. We ought to be shot, using stuff like that in our game. Who the hell do we think we are?

Jesus H. on a bike, you're very sensitive about 'breaking the rules'. Yes, you're clearly using a different system for your table; as long as everyone knows that, no problem. I don't think Dakka Dakka was out of line to point out that's not the default.

No, but I enjoy a good laugh when I get a chance.


I don't think it was out of line, definitely not. But I do think the idea that breaking the rules is somehow bad or important is worth waxing satirical about, particularly when it's been made clear that we're talking about playing outside the explicit SR4 rules. Once someone's made that context clear, objecting to breaking the rules smacks of being dismissive of anyone who doesn't play the game exactly the way you would. That's not worth being sensitive about, but it's totally worth having a laugh at the expense of.

I thought it was a bit over the top. I've never known Dakka Dakka to be dismissive, nor to not let people play how they want. I guess I missed the part saying we were already outside of the base rules. The phrasing that 'the magic itself punishes trickery' also threw me, so maybe your anthropomorphizing wasn't as clear as you thought.

You were quicker than me Yerameyahu but I feel the same way. I missed the part were you, 3278, went outside normal rules territory and only described what you do at your table. This probably is a lot of fun for your gaming group, but it makes a very difficult base for a discussion. So especially in forums I like to stay as close to RAW as possible just to not start needless ranting when two or more parties are simply assuming different initial conditions.
Additionally answering a question with a particular set of personal houserules rarely helps the one who asked the question or many other readers. So sticking to the RAW mostly benefits the discussion. If the subject of the discussion is houserules, I usually play devil's advocate to see if a particular houserule offers more benefits than drawbacks, since I have played in groups with very large collection of alternate rules, which rarely are less confusing or weird than the published ones.

And yet, Mechanically... Magic is very ordered and Predictable.

Well, it was in this post you replied to, but don't sweat it: I'm not pissed, I'm joking around. I think it's funny that anyone would care that we're "breaking the rules" when we run magic the way it's been run for three versions before this, or that it'd matter that we were breaking the rules when it's clear that's what we're doing. If I stepped over a line and joked too hard, I apologize, but I thought it was pretty silly, so I made fun of it.


No, it doesn't. As long as people clearly use phrases like, "In my game," it doesn't have to be difficult at all. In a conceptual discussion, when rules are being set aside for a moment and philosophy is being discussed, it's pretty simple to talk about "my outlook" and "the way we do things," so that we as players and GMs can share our different ideas. If all we can talk about is the explicit rules in the book, then there's not going to be a lot to talk about: they're already written down.

If you're having a problem figuring out whether or not someone's talking about the way things are run at their table, and you don't see key phrases like, "at our table," and, "the way I do things," there's also obviously the option of asking them. I can't guarantee results for other people, but I can promise that if you ask, I'll clarify my intentions.


Shadowrun's always been funny about stuff like that. I think, in its early days, it relied very heavily on GM fiat, even moreso than a lot of other games at the time. Some of it's lazy mismatch between fluff and rules, or bad editing, but sometimes the explicit rule is, "There's no explicit rule," like in the case of casting through a pinhole to restrict line-of-sight. Most of the time these rules are in the magic section - along with paragraphs like, "Magic just does weird shit sometimes; people should still be not-quite-sure of it." - but they appear elsewhere, too. How many GMs made Sandler TMPs fail without a Rule of One fumble? But I trust my GM more than most people do, too.

Maybe in the early days, but Shadowrun magic has become more stable and reliable through the Years (editions). Which makes sense. They have had 50 years to study it.

No worries, though. I see where you are coming from.

That and developer turnover. A lot of the ideas from the early days haven't come through the years intact, as well they shouldn't: if things didn't change, there'd be no point to new editions! But we keep a lot of the conceptual baggage from the early days, draped in a sauce of SR4.