Hello,

Have just picked up SR4 and have a few stupid questions about magic, specifically combat spells.

Assuming the initial damage value of all combat spells is their Force (I'm not wrong already am I?)...

Indirect Combat Spells

As I understand it, these are essentially the caster's Spellcasting + Magic vs. the target's Reaction to hit. The damage is then staged up by 1 for every net hit the caster managed and the target attempts to resist the damage with Body + 1/2 Impact Armour + Counterspelling, similar to what they'd do against bullets etc.

If I'm right with all that, does the target have a chance of only taking Stun Damage, as they do against bullets etc., if their armour exceeds the modified Damage Value? If so, do you use full Impact Armour or 1/2 Impact Armour for this comparison?

Direct Combat Spells

This is where I get confused. As I understand it from the rule book, the caster rolls Spellcasting + Magic vs. the target's Willpower/Body + Counterspelling to hit. If the caster manages at least one hit, the spell does Force damage, but as far as I can work out this is not staged up by net hits and is not resisted by the target at all. Is that really right? It seems a bit harsh on the target if so.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, particularly if written in complete idiot-proof English.

Thanks.

Your questions are good ones. Do not fear the flame

Indirect Combat Spell
You got that one right. And yes, the target would take Stun Damage, if the DV of the Spell is lesser than half his Impact Armor. Thats some weak spell we are talking here about.

Direct Combat Spell
Since the spellcasting roll is already resisted with Body/Willpower, there is no second roll with the same attribute to resist a second time. Net hits increase damage as usual.

You two are faster -and probably younger- than me guys! Good answers.

And yep, direct combat spells are pretty harsh on the target; that 's the idea of combat spells actually.

Cheers,

Max

P.S. In my games I have houseruled direct combat spells drain so they are similar in drain as indirect ones; Rationale: they have their own advantages.
It's a little hard on magicians, though

Thanks for the clear up everyone, it all makes a bit more sense now. Just one more question though. Cain, you said:

This is why indirect spells are sometimes a good choice for those with crappy spellcasting pools but decent drain resistance, such as some flavors of cybered mages and mystic adepts.

Yes, Indirect Combat spells can miss, but Conterspelling doesn't add in to the initial dodge roll. This means that against enemies who are wicked fast or have lots of armor, Indirect Spells are pretty sad. But against enemies who have good Counterspelling, Indirect Combat spells are the only ones which work.

-Frank

If it makes you feel better, one of my first characters was able to cut a tank in half with a set of spurs, due to a slight misunderstanding with the rules.

That's just funny. I originally had the words, 'if it hits' at the end of the sentence, but edited them out because I figured people would bitch about it.

A big final thanks for all the helpful answers, you've all been great.

Yes, we are

so a force 3 manabolt will always inflict either 0, 4, 5, or 6 boxes of damage? it's strange that the one net success needed to hit is also used to increase damage so that a force 3 manabolt can't do 3 damage. is that right?

also, for some reason i thought that net successes could optionally be used to help resist drain rather than increase damage. but i don't see that rule now. old rules? street magic rules?

Something else to keep in mind about Indirect Combat Spells vs Direct Combat Spells, it isn't really much of a stretch to say that the Called Shot Rules works with a Flamedart, plus the ability to roast someone that you can't actually see is really nice as well.

To make indirect area spells a little more worth it- and less irritating conceptually to me-, in my game I work them similar to the way I work grenades. Success test to hit the area aimed at with a scatter chart- hits not needed to reduce scatter add directly to damage, should the blast fall on top of anyone then everyone in the AoE has to roll reaction to dodge. Hits on reaction stage the damage down directly as they present less surface area to the blast or whatever reason they hurt less. Then they resist what hits them with Body+1/2 impact+counterspelling. So, reaction test lowers the DV and makes it more likely to come off as stun amd then they soak. So you are generally guaranteed a point or three of damage, but it is less likely to annihilate, but it works really well against people behind large amounts of cover, people with high counterspelling pools and things along those lines. Makes it more likely to be worth the drain. This was the way I originally interpreted what the book says and we tried the conventionally accepted way and found we liked the lethality this offered better. I got tired of the Phys-Ad that was reliably dodging ALL the shrapnel or explosion from grenades and spells that went off literally in his square.

Chris