Top o' the day!

GMing my first Shadowrun 4th game, and my mage had a question I couldn't answer right away. I thought I'd toss it up onto the forum to get the answer, as we looked for about 5 minutes last night and didn't find it.

The mage was riding in an armored stretch SUV when they were caught in the middle of a firefight. The mage wanted to cast Stunbolt through a closed, ballistic glass window. Not finding the rule within 5 minutes, and not wanting to slow the game down much, I made a spot ruling that as long as the Force of the spell was higher than the Armor rating, it'd pass through.

That being said, what is the RAW answer, and where is it located so that I may study that area a bit more.

I thank you for your help!

GB

There is no penalty in this case, unless you as GM determine that the glass if dirty, tinted or for some other reason would interfere with the magician's vision in which case you'd apply a visibility modifier. But I wouldn't as I'd consider ballistic glass to be fully transparent.

So long as the magician can see the target clearly, they can cast the spell at the target without issue. Physical barriers can sometimes get in the way of the effects of a spell, e.g. with Indirect Combat spells, but not the targetting of them. E.g. if someone is partly hidden by a car door when you let off a Fireball (an Indirect Combat spell), they may get a cover bonus, but if you were looking through a big glass window there would be nothing to stop you casting your Fireball on the other side of it. However, some GM's might have ruled differently on this one than I have. Anyone else want to comment?

The case with Direct Combat spells is clear-cut however. Vision penalties will apply but not barrier ratings. The relevant section is as follows:

Yep, RAW states that it's Line of Sight, not "Line of Effect", that matters.

In a home game I'd probably house-rule physical damage spells to be line of effect, but for something like SRM it has to be RAW.

And yes, a car chase where mages are involved can be very interesting for that reason

Yet another reason for the mage to stay in an armor-glass box carried by the team's troll.

Just be sure to have a couple of air holes in it. It can turn out, "bad", otherwise.

Bah! That's what the Oxygenate spell is for. And skip the troll - just mount it on a wired only set of drone wheels or walker legs. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "glass cannon."

(Though I'd actually love a player in my game to try this. Remember kids, if you can cast a Fireball out of the little box, then someone else can cast a Fireball into the little box).

-K.

My troll sam has a rig that looks a lot like a flamethrower, but the tank doesn't contain fuel, it contains a dwarven hermetic mage with maxed Willpower and maxed, bio-enhanced Logic; the "hose" is an optical cable; the spout doesn't shoot flaming fuel, it shoots overcast Stunballs.

One-way mirrors FTW

Gah! Fine - sneak round the compound like a giant disco ball for all I care! See where being so smart gets you!

(Actually, nice one - I should have thought of that ; )

-K.

Looks like a giant disco ball, rolls like a giant hampster ball. May experience some difficulty getting through doors.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Personnally I don't allow casting indirect combat spells through transparent barriers. Those spells consist in materializing some king of energy that is then flung at the target of the spell. I can't imagine a fireball or acid wave that would simply go through a glass window as if it wasn't there, that just doesn't make sense (well, to me at least).

I could see the argument for just causing the stuff to be materialized at the target. Not saying you are wrong, just that I can see rather than creating fire in your hand and chunking it at the guy, you cause the fire to burst into existence at the guy.

But why handle it as a ranged attack that can be dodged in that case?

Why not? I haven't seen anything that says indirect combat spells can't be cast through barriers. (provided you can see through it)

By RAW, I'm fairly certain that they can be cast through barriers. You make the ranged attack based on where they start from, not necessarily where the caster is. But I put that caveat about how individual GM's might rule it because a lot of people do visualise Indirect Combat spells as starting at the caster. It would be a house rule to make barriers affect targetting (not the ranged attack), but it would be one that matched most people's preconceptions.

I'm very interested to hear any rules case that says otherwise, however.

Well the book says that indirect combat spells should be treated as ranged attacks. There are rules for ranged attacks affecting targets behind barriers, and I don't see why indirect combat spells should be an exception to those rules.

Anyway, if indeed the fireball could be materialized at any point between the caster and its target, then you could as well make it appear directly at the target, as suggested by Jago. I that case, there would be no reason to be able to dodge an indirect combat spell, but not a direct combat spell. Which is why I doubt that indirect combat spells were supposed to work that way.

Besides look at the picture on the book's cover, you can see a troll casting a ligntning bolt, and it clearly comes from its fingertips.

I agree. Ruling that indirect combat spells, which are handled as ranged attacks, can go through barriers without penalty is an exception to how ranged attacks work. Directed combat spells, which do not function like ranged attacks, are not affected by transparent barriers. But there's no reason why attacking a target behind a barrier should be handled differently for indirect spells than for any other ranged attack.

Although you could solve the whole problem with fiber optics. In order for fiber optics to make sense, the spell has to originate from the point where the mage's line of sight begins. When you're walking around, that's where your body is. But when you're looking through a fiber optic, it's where the fiber optic's end can see the target. At least, that's my take on it.

I think this was made clear in earlier editions, but AFAIK not in 4th, and it's possible I'm making this up entirely but: I've always taken it for granted that in a world where magicians can do bad things to anyone they can see, all auto glass is fully tinted or mirrored so that you can't see in; only out. This makes John Q Public feel safer in their car.
I still think that there's a quote in a book somewhere backing this up, but even without it's a pretty logical consequence of the gameworld.

This is pretty much the way I do it, with indirect combat spells being "fired" from the caster, as with ranged attacks (per SR4). In the case of a direct combat spell, if the target has cover, I apply the cover modifier to a Perception Test by the caster (which I believe is also from SR4, but I forget where I saw it); if the caster gets a hit, she can target the spell.


The way I take it is that mana in the physical plane travels [along|with|on|because of] visible light. This is why spells can bounce through fiber optic cables and off of mirrors. My fluff explanation for this is that the mana is why light behaves simultaneously as a particle and a wave.