Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Resisting Direct Combat Spells
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Maximum
My group has been debating how direct combat spells are handled, and I wanted to see what you guys think.

Okay, its clear that direct combat spells are cast as an opposed test of Magic + Spellcasting versus Body or Willpower, plus counterspelling if available. And the net sucesses raise the damage value of the spell. What happens next is what we are debating.

Once you know how much damage the spell is gonna do, do you get to roll your body to lower the damage? Or does the spell just nail you?
Kyoto Kid
...unfortunately after the initial Body/Willpower Resistance roll (aided by Counterspelling if available), whatever damage is left goes directly to the character's stun/physical track. There is no other resistance test. Yep, getting hit with a combat spell is a bitch as the spell's force is added to the net successes.

...so always, always make sure to have a mage on the team with counterspelling.
Maximum
Thanks for clearing it up for me, Kyoto
Kyoto Kid
...there are a couple other "defences" a character can take. The most obvious is the Magic Resistance quality however that also kicks in against "friendly" spells (such as healing) as well. An Adept can get Spell Resistance (which adds dice x the rating against all spells) and Iron will (gives her extra dice against any spell and some critter powers that target Willpower). I also believe that the two adept powers do stack.
Glyph
Remember, though, that the spell's successes - and that's total successes, not net successes - are capped by the Force of the spell (unless the spellcaster is using Edge). So, for example, if a mage casts a Force: 5 manabolt, his successes are capped at 5.

It's actually better for mundanes in some ways. Direct combat spells are not insta-kill any more unless you get really lucky, use Edge, or overcast them, while mundanes have the option of using their own Edge to help them resist a spell. In SR3, you had bigger dice pools (yes, even though SR4 went to skill + Attribute from just skill, SR3 mages could empty out their Spell Pool, and had access to Force: 6 foci), plus casting a spell at Deadly meant you could kill with only one net success. The only advantage mundanes had in SR3 was that a Willpower of 6 really meant something, as a TN of 6 could stop a lot of magical attacks cold.
BFaolan
Do you have a page number on that success limit Glyph?

I don't recall seing that rule before.
djinni
QUOTE (BFaolan @ Feb 18 2008, 06:58 PM) *
Do you have a page number on that success limit Glyph?

I don't recall seing that rule before.

off the top of my head pg 174, four lines under the object resistance table.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (BFaolan @ Feb 18 2008, 06:58 PM) *
Do you have a page number on that success limit Glyph?

I don't recall seing that rule before.


Pg 174

QUOTE
The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed
the spell’s Force (see Force, p. 171).


Note, they don't say The net hits, they say The hits.
Fortune
Also keep in mind that when resisting Direct Combat spells, you only need to match the spellcaster's 'hits' in order to fully shrug off the spell. Unlike Indirect Combat spells, where you need to totally stage down the damage.
djinni
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 18 2008, 07:32 PM) *
Also keep in mind that when resisting Direct Combat spells, you only need to match the spellcaster's 'hits' in order to fully shrug off the spell. Unlike Indirect Combat spells, where you need to totally stage down the damage.

indirect spells are the same if they beat the hits you don't hit them
Fortune
QUOTE (djinni @ Feb 19 2008, 10:39 AM) *
indirect spells are the same if they beat the hits you don't hit them

While this is true of the initial Reaction test to avoid the spell itself (which is the test you don't get with Direct Combat spells), I was referring to the actual Resistance test itself. smile.gif
Method
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 18 2008, 03:32 PM) *
Also keep in mind that when resisting Direct Combat spells, you only need to match the spellcaster's 'hits' in order to fully shrug off the spell. Unlike Indirect Combat spells, where you need to totally stage down the damage.

I think this is why even a few extra Edge or Counterspelling dice really make all the difference.
Kyoto Kid
...unless the mage rolls really poorly (or glitches), a mundane with no counterspelling assistance is still going to get whacked pretty seriously, especially by mana spells like Manabolt and Stunball as most characters usually have only a 3 WP (which equates to one hit on average). A mage with a 5 MA, 5 dice in spellcasting and a force 2 power focus (not inconceivable at charagen) has 12 dice to throw which yields an average of 4 hits. So, just using the averages means the target still eats 8 (spell force + net hits) boxes of damage.

Furthermore, based on average hits, the mundane with a three WP will never be able to match the Spellcaster's hits (unless she throws edge into the roll).

BTW I also thought it was Net Hits that were limited by Spell force.
DTFarstar
I don't think I have ever built a mundane character that has had less than 6 or so, if not more, dice to resist spells. Just like I have never had someone with less than that to dodge bullets. Just good business.

Chris
Kyoto Kid
...be interesting to see how without sacrificing BPs that would go to other attributes/skills.
Lord Ben
QUOTE (DTFarstar @ Feb 18 2008, 10:28 PM) *
I don't think I have ever built a mundane character that has had less than 6 or so, if not more, dice to resist spells. Just like I have never had someone with less than that to dodge bullets. Just good business.


Sure, but even if you have 6 dice a mage is probably going to have 10 dice. So he'll always be at the advantage. And that's spending a good amount of your XP on an edge that also has a downside. Which I find annoying.

Like any other spells you should also be able to absorb the damage or get armor with bacterial sacs that give it's rating in dice to resist direct spells similiar to the various other armor protections.
Whipstitch
5 Will and some Daredrenaline's enough to do it. It's not really -that- difficult to afford. But regardless, yes, mages are on top of the magical arms race. Not sure what exactly it is people expect to do about it.
Daier Mune
i was trying to figure this out with my co-GM (our group's unnofficial magic expert):

you have two spells, Flamethrower and Powerbolt.

Flamethrower, as an indirect spell, is subject to a reaction test by the defender, and then a soak (1/2 impact + body) test by the defender.

Powerbolt, as a direct spell, is only a single opposed test, with no opportunity for the defender to reduce damage, but the attacker can still stage up damage.

Flamethower, as an elemental spell, is subject to (F/2)+3 drain. Powerbolt is only (F/2)+1.

so you have two spells, doing essentialy the same thing (physcial damage), one of which requires a higher drain and has less of a chance to do damage, the other more drain efficient and a significantly higher chance of hitting the target.

now normally i wouldn't have a problem with this, except for the fact that BOTH spells do the SAME ammount of damage, and cost the SAME ammount of karma to learn.

so...why would you bother with elemental spells?
Lord Ben
QUOTE (Daier Mune @ Feb 19 2008, 01:50 AM) *
so...why would you bother with elemental spells?


To affect things like doors, etc. Also fire has a chance to start people on fire which could do more damage to be fair. But yeah, your points are very good ones.
toturi
QUOTE (Daier Mune @ Feb 19 2008, 01:50 PM) *
i was trying to figure this out with my co-GM (our group's unnofficial magic expert):
now normally i wouldn't have a problem with this, except for the fact that BOTH spells do the SAME ammount of damage, and cost the SAME ammount of karma to learn.

so...why would you bother with elemental spells?

Both spells do the same type of damage, not the same amount of damage, elemental spells also come with their own elemental effects.
Daier Mune
QUOTE (Lord Ben @ Feb 19 2008, 01:57 AM) *
To affect things like doors, etc. Also fire has a chance to start people on fire which could do more damage to be fair. But yeah, your points are very good ones.


i thought Powerbolt could effect inanimate objects?

QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 19 2008, 01:58 AM) *
Both spells do the same type of damage, not the same amount of damage, elemental spells also come with their own elemental effects.


don't both spells do Force as thier damage value? (which i guess i had made the assumption that the two spells i was using in my example were cast at the same force, but didn't state)

and yeah, i realize that elemental spells have secondary effects, but honestly? unleashing tidal waves of acid, megawats of energy, and gouts of flame? that's just as likely to be a liablity as helpful.
arathian
My group has house-ruled that characters get to resist the damage from direct combat spells with Body.

The result has been that if you want to one-shot someone you need to overcast, which seems fine to me.

This brings direct combat spells more in line with shooting (opposed test followed by damage resistance test if needed) with taking drain being balanced by bypassing armor.

The only popular indirect combat spell in my group is lightning bolt, since it has a useful elemental effect.
toturi
QUOTE (Daier Mune @ Feb 19 2008, 02:04 PM) *
don't both spells do Force as thier damage value? (which i guess i had made the assumption that the two spells i was using in my example were cast at the same force, but didn't state)

and yeah, i realize that elemental spells have secondary effects, but honestly? unleashing tidal waves of acid, megawats of energy, and gouts of flame? that's just as likely to be a liablity as helpful.

You must realise that Powerbolt, like all Direct Combat spells, is all(or more) or nothing. Also area effect elemental spells can affect targets not within LOS. Remember the OR of the more complex technological objects are 4+. You'd need 12+ dice so that you can beat the OR. OR 4+ stuff such as drone which the sec drone rigger might be sending against you.
Daier Mune
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 19 2008, 02:22 AM) *
You must realise that Powerbolt, like all Direct Combat spells, is all(or more) or nothing. Also area effect elemental spells can affect targets not within LOS. Remember the OR of the more complex technological objects are 4+. You'd need 12+ dice so that you can beat the OR. OR 4+ stuff such as drone which the sec drone rigger might be sending against you.


*shrug* i guess i'll have to see it more in practice to form a better opinion. the mages in our group haven't brought out direct combat spells that much. on paper, though, it seems like direct spells are so much better than indirect elemental spells.
Glyph
When you are facing heavy counterspelling, indirect spells are better. Against direct spells, counterspelling adds directly to the target's Body or Willpower test, and can completely negate the spell by getting its net successes down. Against indirect spells, counterspelling adds to the damage resistance test after the spell has hit, meaning that the target has to soak the damage all the way down to nothing.

Example:

Mage casts Force: 5 manabolt with 4 successes. Target gets 2 successes, and counterspelling gets 2 successes. Sorry, no damage.

Same mage casts Force: 5 lightning bolt with 4 successes. Target gets 3 successes (Reaction tends to be higher than Willpower, at least for sammies). Now the target has to use 1/2 impact armor plus Body to soak damage of 6 (5 + 1 net success). The same counterspelling with the same 2 successes knocks it down to 4 damage, but the target will need 4 more successes on that 1/2 impact armor plus Body roll in order to soak it completely. Plus, the target must resist the elemental effects - Body + Willpower +1/2 impact armor (3) or be incapacitated, and suffer a -2 penalty from disorientation even if successful.

So direct combat spells are more generally useful, but indirect combat spells can be useful in certain situations.
Ravor
Plus the way I read the section on indirect spells I see no reason why you can't use the called shot rules with them. cyber.gif
Cain
It's worth repeating that AOE elemental spells work like grenades. You don't have to be able to see them to affect them, and you can fire around corners. That alone makes them very worthwhile.
john_doe
Don't mean to necro this thread here. I have read just about all the posts, but here is the question i have. First let me get to where i'm going.

Mage A casts Manabolt at Mook A.
Mook A rolls willpower to reduce the hits from Mage A.

Now i know if Mage A has net hits, then the spell is successful, and Mook A gets hit.

At this stage, there would normally be a Damage Resistance because you took damage.

Under the Description for Direct Combat Spells, it states that because it's a direct spell, you don't get to resist with armor.

It never says you can't resist...it just says you can't resist with armor because the spell's damage is coming from inside of you. To me that implies you still get your Body attribute only to stage down the damage.


Am i interpreting this incorrectly?
Fortune
QUOTE (john_doe @ Mar 6 2008, 07:12 AM) *
Am i interpreting this incorrectly?


Yes. There is no Damage Resistance (Body) test after the original Spell Resistance (Willpower or Body) test.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Glyph @ Feb 19 2008, 02:47 AM) *
So direct combat spells are more generally useful, but indirect combat spells can be useful in certain situations.


Sine the thread has already been necroed I'll chime in on this part of the thread.

I agree with your assessment, I'm not sure I agree with the drain values though. If something is more generally useful that is the one I'd think should have the higher drain value, not the more useful in certain situations though. Part of this is probably due to my belief that way too many spells are too light on the drain. Kick power bolt up to lightning bolt drain values please. Stun bolt and ball are just ridiculous in the new I can choose any force up to x2 my magic system. Before at least you had to buy the spell and finding a force 9+PB spell was murder. Though the I choose my staging thing was kind of lame IMO. If I take stun bolt as a spell I'm overcasting at max virtually every time. Got a 5 magic, that is only 4 drain. Good chance I can hack 4 drain, low chance my foe can take damage starting at 10.

Bring back 1e drain values and we might see some mage/mundane balance back. smile.gif
Cain
Basically, they don't get armor to help on the Spell Resistance test. Even though armor dice are often rolled simultaneously with Body dice, armor doesn't help in this case.
Edge2054
QUOTE (Cain @ Feb 19 2008, 08:47 AM) *
It's worth repeating that AOE elemental spells work like grenades. You don't have to be able to see them to affect them, and you can fire around corners. That alone makes them very worthwhile.


Where is this stated? Page 173 under area spells doesn't mention any exceptions to the LOS requirements on spell affects and I couldn't find exceptions listed under combat or manipulation spells.
Whipstitch
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Mar 6 2008, 12:25 AM) *
If I take stun bolt as a spell I'm overcasting at max virtually every time. Got a 5 magic, that is only 4 drain. Good chance I can hack 4 drain, low chance my foe can take damage starting at 10.

Bring back 1e drain values and we might see some mage/mundane balance back. smile.gif




Unless your opponent is a drone or other mage, in which case you need to at least beat counterspelling on the test and at worst have to beat object resistance with Power Bolt instead of Stunbolt or even use an elemental spell-- either way you're looking at some more drain tacked onto the test. Basically, it's like this if you're the GM: Do you intend this battle to be challenging? If the answer is yes despite the fact that the entire force are living creatures who are actually vulnerable to Stun damage in the first place, then well, I have to say it: You're Doing It Wrong.

The kind of dicepools that allow Mages to splatter people with force 10 stunbolts with minimal risk of drain are also the kind of dicepools that let Samurai threaten physical damage with 10P -2 AP HE grenades vs. any type of opponent whether it's a drone or a barghest. Incidentally, this causes no drain and doesn't leave a big fat astral signature laying around.
Fortune
QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 6 2008, 03:50 PM) *
Where is this stated? Page 173 under area spells doesn't mention any exceptions to the LOS requirements on spell affects and I couldn't find exceptions listed under combat or manipulation spells.


From the SR4 FAQ ...

QUOTE (SR4 FAQ)
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 Errata also has something to say about this subject.
Glyph
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Mar 5 2008, 08:25 PM) *
Sine the thread has already been necroed I'll chime in on this part of the thread.

I agree with your assessment, I'm not sure I agree with the drain values though. If something is more generally useful that is the one I'd think should have the higher drain value, not the more useful in certain situations though. Part of this is probably due to my belief that way too many spells are too light on the drain. Kick power bolt up to lightning bolt drain values please. Stun bolt and ball are just ridiculous in the new I can choose any force up to x2 my magic system. Before at least you had to buy the spell and finding a force 9+PB spell was murder. Though the I choose my staging thing was kind of lame IMO. If I take stun bolt as a spell I'm overcasting at max virtually every time. Got a 5 magic, that is only 4 drain. Good chance I can hack 4 drain, low chance my foe can take damage starting at 10.

Bring back 1e drain values and we might see some mage/mundane balance back. smile.gif


I have never gotten why people think higher Drain values will balance spells. All higher Drain means is that mages will run out of juice faster. You will still have the high-dice attacks, but they will only use it for big fights, and sit twiddling their thumbs the rest of the time. I would rather have lower Drain, and encourage utility mages and spells that are viable when not overcast.

As far as comparing direct and indirect spell Drain, I think that, even though game balance is important, logical consistency is important as well. Indirect spells are higher Drain because they are shooting out an effect into the material world, instead of frying someone from the inside out. Just like manipulation spells, they should have a hefty Drain simply because of what they are doing, whether it is always effective or not.

Mundanes actually have a slightly better time than they did in SR3, where mages could still pump as many dice into an attack (with spell pool along with higher foci ratings and Totem bonuses), but could cast it at 6D and kill you with 1 net success. In SR4, counterspelling is much more ubituous (since you don't have to sacrifice any offensive dice to use it) and you also have Edge.
Edge2054
Thanks Fortune.

Anything on Environmental Manipulation spells anywhere? Seems like they should have the same exception but I didn't spot anything in the faq or errata concerning them.
Fortune
QUOTE (Edge2054 @ Mar 6 2008, 06:48 PM) *
Thanks Fortune.


No sweat. smile.gif

QUOTE
Anything on Environmental Manipulation spells anywhere? Seems like they should have the same exception but I didn't spot anything in the faq or errata concerning them.


You mean like Alter Temperature and the like? If so, I don't believe LOS is required for the full volume/area of the spell's effects, but merely the point at which the spell is targeted.
Edge2054
Yeah, Alter Temperature, Ice Sheet, all that good stuff.

It seems like it should work that way but again I couldn't find any place that says that it does. Considering the errata on indirect combat spells I'm going to convince my group to house rule environmental manipulations work the same even if it's not written anywhere.

The whole thing's been a bit of a wtf to our whole group since we started playing with the new edition but we figured we'd just roll with it. Glad to see at least indirect combat spells have been brought up in the errata.
SCARed
well, as the thread is alive atm, i want to thow in my 2 Cts, too:

people are all the time complaining, that a mage has a dice pool of 10 an the average (MAG 5 & spellcasting 5) versus the WIL of the target. but how about modifiers to the mages dice pool? visibility, cover and such stuff as noted on page 173:
QUOTE (SR4 - S. 173)
Visibility modifiers (including darkness, cover, and other impediments) noted for ranged combat also reduce the magician’s Magic + Spellcasting dice pool when casting spells.

this way the mages dicepool can go very rapidly down to 6 or so (target has partial cover, only partial light für a total of -4). that evens the chances for the target quit well. sure, the mage will still hit in most cases, but chances are much better for the target.
W@geMage
I never understood the need to tone down (combat) spells.

Even a non-optimised gunbunny will have something like 5AG+5 skill + (2) spec + (2) smartlink = 14 dice
to shoot 2 unrecoiled bursts into an average person. Don't tell me that's not going to hurt more the a spell wink.gif
+ he also won't get physical damage when he shoots his gun.

And yes, modifiers hurt combat mages.
Especially when the oppostion also has a counterspelling mage/Spirit.
john_doe
For me, i don't believe it was ever a need to tone-down the spells.

I just wanted to be sure i had a complete understanding of exactly just how the rules work so there is no confusion amongst myself, and the other players in my group.

We like to go back and forth on how we "think" it should be as opposed to how it "actually" is. Which is not to say we can't house-rule it, but we try to avoid house rules, and play the game as close to the letter as possible.
Larme
I was actually pretty darn sure that you didn't get a damage resistance test after your spell resistance test before this thread revived. Then I looked again at the working, only to find that it is damned ambiguous.

To me, the clincher is: how did it work in SR3? When in doubt, go with tradition. I think there are a lot of places where they tried to stick to SR3 tradition, but failed to clearly state that in the rules. But I forget how it worked in SR3. Though I'm reasonably sure that failure to negate all of the spell's net hits meant that it did its base damage to you without any resistance. If that's the case, then it seems like the ambiguous wording should be interpreted to work the same way.
samuelbeckett
QUOTE (Larme @ Mar 7 2008, 03:58 AM) *
I was actually pretty darn sure that you didn't get a damage resistance test after your spell resistance test before this thread revived. Then I looked again at the working, only to find that it is damned ambiguous.

To me, the clincher is: how did it work in SR3? When in doubt, go with tradition. I think there are a lot of places where they tried to stick to SR3 tradition, but failed to clearly state that in the rules. But I forget how it worked in SR3. Though I'm reasonably sure that failure to negate all of the spell's net hits meant that it did its base damage to you without any resistance. If that's the case, then it seems like the ambiguous wording should be interpreted to work the same way.


It seems pretty unambiguous to me to be honest.

QUOTE (BBB p.195 Combat Spells)
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.


QUOTE (BBB p.196 Damage Value of Combat Spells)
The base Damage Value for Combat Spells is based on Force, which is chosen by the magician at the time of casting. Any net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increase the DV by 1 per net hit.


So the opposed test is the only resistance, and you either prevent the spell completely (no net hits on the Magic + Spellcasting), or you take Force + net hits in damage. I presume the idea is that you are resisting the spell itself, rather than the damage the spell causes.
SCARed
and to stick with traditions: direct combat spells like manabolt have been "all or nothing" at least since SR2 (where i got in). so i'd rule, that are still are or nothing.
john_doe
I believe in SR3 Mana spells had a TN equal to the target's Willpower. Then the target was able to roll Willpower in hopes to resist.

Not sure which method is better per-say, but given the ability to reduce a mage's dice pool through mods doesn't make it any worse then having a street sam hit you in the face with a vibro sword.

Chances are in both cases, you are gonna fall down.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Whipstitch @ Feb 19 2008, 05:25 AM) *
5 Will and some Daredrenaline's enough to do it. It's not really -that- difficult to afford. But regardless, yes, mages are on top of the magical arms race. Not sure what exactly it is people expect to do about it.


same thing they have done for ages, kill the mage first...

a couple of high-speed, high-caliber bits of metal should take care of that smokin.gif
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (SCARed @ Mar 7 2008, 08:46 AM) *
and to stick with traditions: direct combat spells like manabolt have been "all or nothing" at least since SR2 (where i got in). so i'd rule, that are still are or nothing.



Well IIRC in 1e attack spells started at light or 1 box of damage and scaled from there, so effectively if you got more successes than the spell caster it usually did no damage.
KurenaiYami
QUOTE (samuelbeckett @ Mar 6 2008, 08:14 PM) *
I presume the idea is that you are resisting the spell itself, rather than the damage the spell causes.

Yeah, but where does it say they don't then get the same damage resistance after the initial spell resistance?

I notice that most on this forum agree with the "all or nothing" ruling, but I'm still on the fence. Why does the spell being resisted with Body instead of Reflex mean they don't get to resist damage?
Fortune
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Mar 8 2008, 06:19 PM) *
Well IIRC in 1e attack spells started at light or 1 box of damage and scaled from there ...


I am pretty sure that 1st edition Combat Spells came in L, M, S, & D varieties, each having to be learned seperately.
Glyph
Shinobi is half right. Combat spells had an initial Wound Category of Light, and staged up from there. It was still one test, though, pitting the mage's spell Force in dice plus spell pool (any sorcery skill dice not used for spell defense) against the defender's Body or Willpower, and the defender took no damage if he got more net successes than the spellcaster. In First Edition, there were no indirect combat spells - fireball used the same mechanics as stunbolt.

The spells did come in different varieties (mana dart, mana bolt, etc.), but the difference was the staging, with the high-powered spells having lower staging.
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