This directly contradicts the RAW - SR4 pg.138 "Characters may go on full defense even if they don't have an action that pass, sacrificing their first action of the next Combat Turn instead.

Is this going to be changed in a future errata, and if not, what is the official stance on borrowing actions? I have, in related threads, suggested allowing a single borrow, or up to (Rea / 2) round up, and until an official statement that conforms with the RAW is made, is what I will be using in games I play, if the issue ever arises.


Could this be clarified further? It has been my impression, and that of everyone I know (through Dumpshock and RL), that against Direct Combat Spells, you "dodge" with Attribute + Counterspelling, and it is all-or-nothing. If you are hit, you take full damage with no further resistance, if you are "missed", you are unaffected.

According to RAW, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance". This could be read that you receive a Damage Resistance test in addition to the Spell Resistance test, but also could easily be viewed as stating armor does not help with the Spell Resistance. As Indirect Combat Spells specifically references resisting the damage if you are hit, it is reasonable to assume the second interpretation of how Direct Combat Spells function.


I would simply like to point out that I have a hardcover copy of the Fifth Printing, and the changes in the book are not reflected in the errata available on the site, and am curious when the errata will be updated.

Further, on the firearm charts of the Fifth Printing (page 309), Sports Rifles and Sniper Rifles are listed under Machine Pistols, and Shotguns are listed under Submachine Guns. Hopefully this, and similar errors, will be corrected/avoided in future printings.


Can we get any further clarification on these restrictions posted here until they make it into the FAQ, and will they be included in an errata?

As was mentioned in the chat, errata 1.8 will come out after Unwired is 100% final and sent to press, which should be within a couple weeks. Peter misspoke about 5th printing being equal to errata 1.5.

Thank you for the prompt reply. Any chance we could also get one involving Interrupts and Direct spell resistance?

As I said in another thread, I can pretty much guarantee that this is incorrect.

The only explanation I can think of concerning the interupt question is the technically Full Defense is not a Maneuver, and that particular ruling only applies to actual Maneuvers.

Peter Taylor is your guy for rules questions.

I would agree that Full Defense is an exception, if not that it was specifically referenced in saying you could not Interrupt if you had no action's left that Turn. If it is indeed an exception, interrupts will probably be house-ruled by the majority anyways, as it puts even more importance on having multiple passes.

My original interpretation of Direct Combat spells was that you do get a damage resistance test. The only time you don't is when the rule specifically states that you take damage without resistance. For example, when trying to survive in the wild using the Survival skill, the rules specifically state that, "If the test fails, the character suffers Stun damage based on the harshness of the environment (DV = threshold x 2); she may not resist this damage" (SR4, 118). All other times, it's implied that you do get to resist the damage. Although Direct Combat spells do not specifically state that you do get a damage resistance test, nowhere does the description state that you do not get a test.

I have since changed my interpretation based on what others told me, but some part of me still thinks that you should get a damage resistance test. That would make Direct Combat spells a little closer in line with Indirect Combat spells in terms of power. That is, Direct Combat spells wouldn't be so far superior to Indirect Combat spells for pure damage purposes.

I do agree, on paper, that you should get a damage resistance test after the spell resistance. I have not played with this, however, and so cannot say for certain how it would work.

Going by the wording of the RAW, it is unclear precisely how it works, and leads to the interpretation by a great many people that you do not get the damage resistance. There is also to consider that for Indirect spells, you dodge the attack as you would any ranged attack, and only get Spell Resistance if you are hit, for resisting damage. This also leads to the interpretation of Direct spells allowing no damage resistance, because damage resistance & spell resistance are considered the same, and you used your spell resistance to try and avoid it altogether.

If I were to house rule it (I don't GM, so I can't, exactly), I would say you get Willpower to "dodge" the attack, and Body + Counterspelling to stage down the damage.

The first few times I used Direct Combat spells, I did allow a damage resistance test. This gave the target's a fighting chance. Whether you think that's a good thing is entirely up to you, of course.

I have yet to play another session with the rule that Direct Combat spells do not allow a damage resistance test, so I don't yet have first hand experience as to if that's too powerful.

Looking at the spell design rules in Street Magic, there is no drain modifier for Direct Combat or Indirect Combat spells, which implies that they should be about equal. Not allowing a damage resistance test for Direct Combat spells makes them much more powerful in most situations.

I do agree that the wording isn't the best. Just a few more words in the book would have eliminated this debate.

I'm going to step up and apologize here for the confusion; those questions were answered in a rush and not in as detailed a manner as I normally prefer, hence the poor wording and confusion. Mea culpa. I'm sorry it's taken so long, but I really wanted to make sure these were correct this time!

Re: "Borrowing" actions
This came up when writing the section, and again during playtesting. The intention was never for players to stand around for two minutes after combat is finished, nor to squeeze the equivalent of six Combat Turns of actions into a single turn. Except where explicitly stated (the quoted Full Defense, p.138, SR4) a character cannot borrow actions from future Combat Turns.

Re: Direct Combat Spells
Under the current rules, characters do not receive both a Spell Resistance Test and a Damage Resistance Test when targeted by Direct Combat Spells; Direct Combat Spells are simple all-or-nothing affairs. The answer given in the chat was a mistake on my part based on an earlier version of the rules.

Thanks for the clarification Ancient.

Regarding the interrupts, this ruling effectively means that Finishing Move is impossible unless you have more than one IP, and that Riposte and Throw become more conditional with only one IP i.e. you can only Riposte if attacked before using your action in that Combat Turn, and you can only Throw if you triggered Full Defense normally using your action from the previous Combat Turn, and you are attacked before your action in the current Combat Turn (not after your action in the previous Combat Turn, as that would require borrowing into the next Combat Turn).

This means effective use of those maneuvers is only really possible with magical or technological boosting for more IPs.

At least it should provide an answer to the numerous 'interrupt' threads floating around, even though I presume most people will be houseruling to allow maneuvers to at least borrow one action ahead into the next Combat Turn.

Or by spending Edge to boost your IP, which requires a bit of prior planning.

I take back my thoughts about Direct Combat spells, then. They simply are that powerful.

always have been, always will be...

How official is your posting? (no offense, but some time ago in an other topic you said to me, that your answers are not official)

As I am the one who asked this question, I know the wording is really unclear, but in my opinion direct combat spells are much too powerful, if the damage can't be resisted. I mundane character has very little to no chance to resist the spell, the mage has easily double dice to roll and I think a damage resistance test is just fair (and without armor the is only little chance to soak all of the damage).

And I don't think the rules are really clear about this:



it is nowhere said, that you don't get a damage resistance test if you take damage by a direct combat spell, so in my opinion you get one...




Here it is unclear, which resistance is meant, but in spell resistance there is no armor rating anywhere, so why write this sentence, if not to describe the mod (no armor) for the damage resistance test?

I would like to hear Peter Taylor on this topic, if he is the one to decide in rule questions.

In my opinion, damage resistance an direct damage spells will be good for the balance between mundane and magic-users. I really don't know any mage that uses indirect combat spells, because the have more Drain, mostly less damage because the opponent has 2 Tests to avoid damage. So everybody takes manabolt and without damage resistance it is really a 1Spell - 1Hit(and mostly dead) show against mundane.

cya
Tycho

Well, I think it is the same point as with the manifesting mages before the errata. You could argue that he can use mana based spells an the physical plane, while he can be affected by them.

Now we have got the same point again.






As you see, there is no point in the explanation of the direct combat spells, that you can't make any damage resistence test. So you can make the test only without any armor rating. If there shouldn't be any damage resistence test, you will have to add a sentence to prohibit the damage resistence test. I think this is one more point for the errata 1.8.

Coldan

It's as official as the incorrect answer he gave in the May chat. Neither has appeared in a FAQ or Errata. However being non-official doesn't negate the fact that this time, AH is correct.

I see no prof in the rules, neither for one side nor the other. So either way it should be included in the Errata or FAQ and for so long there is no correct answer to the question, unless one of the developers determines this problem. If you have a logical explanation, why there is no damage resistance test, i would like to hear it.

cya
Tycho

But there is proof. If the caster has one net hit on the opposed test, the spell takes effect (causes damage). You need to find a quote that gives you a damage resistance roll for this occasion (which does to my knowledge does not exist). Compare the description of indirect spells.

no, because I get automatic a damage resistance test, if I get damage. There must be a quote that denies me the damage resistance test, which is not there...

see:


The Spell resolve in a Effect: The Effect of a direct combat spell is: You get x Damage.

But as mentioned in the rules: If you get Damage, you can, unless otherwise noted, make a Damage Resistance Test to avoid the damage.
and it isn't noted anywhere, that the damage of a Direct combat spell can't be resisted.

cya
Tycho

Yes, it is poorly worded. But then so are many things in SR4. Regardless, AH was the one who answered the question during the chat, and later clarified on this thread it was a mistake based on earlier versions of the rules. While I do agree that Direct spells are to powerful, as of the current version, they do not allow a Damage Resistance test after the initial Spell Resistance.

I understand that rule to mean that if you get to resist, you usually roll Body+Armor. Else they would have written "If a character is damaged, he resists rolling Body+Armor (unless otherwise noted)."

This is not correct. You get a Damage Resistance Test against a weapon's damage code. A Direct Combat Spell isn't a weapon and doesn't even follow that flow chart. It just fills in wound boxes. It doesn't have a pointer to the Combat rules, because it doesn't follow those rules. An Indirect Combat Spell is resolved as a ranged attack, so there's an attack roll, a defense roll, and a damage resistance test. A Direct Combat spell is not and does not. It just has a spellcasting test and a spell resistance test. That's sometimes better and sometimes worse, mostly depending upon how much Counterspelling the enemies have.

-Frank

Do you also let spellcasters take a Damage Resistance Test when they still have boxes of damage left after their Drain Resistance Test? The example given for handling drain in the book does not indicate that you should, and yet, there is no specific disclaimer that "This damage is applied without a Damage Resistance Test." It seems clear to me that both the Drain Resistance Test for the caster and the Spellcasting Resistance Test for targets of direct combat spells are merely specialized forms of Damage Resistance Tests, and that allowing the generic form afterwards is not warranted, but as always, play how you like.

@RunnerPaul:
I get your point and it makes me think.

I mostly try to get along the rules with common sense and if you had already a Drain Resistance Test, you clearly don't get another Damage Resistance.

In the case of the direct combat spell damage I don't see a clear solution, but I lean to the Damage Resistance Test (reasons are above) Either way I would like to see it in an Errata or FAQ for clarification.




I also get one, if I fall from a building/get hit by a car/etc. so you get a damage resistance test, if you get damage, there are some exceptions, but the paragraph Damage Resistance Test is clearly not only for weapon damage.

It is right, everybody should play the way he likes and I will, but I would like to hear an official statement, because I often GM and play on Conventions, where I need to know the official rule to prevent misunderstanding between players and GM.

cya
Tycho

The 'official statement' has been made several times in this thread by Ancient History, who was, in this instance, posting in a official capacity. While this issue may or may not appear in a future FAQ, it is unlikely to be included in any upcoming errata, as there is no actual error to fix.

No offense intended, but.... this thread proves this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the Errata or FAQ.

As a recovering Rules Lawyer this issue needs to be nailed down or it will keep coming up.

As to an error needing to be fixed, if there is no damage resistance roll for Direct Combat spells then this sentence, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance." should be rewritten.

Saying armor does not help with resistance implies that there is a Body only damage resistance test.

Either say there is no damage resistance test or that armor and body do not help with resistance.

It should be closer to:

"Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor (or body for that matter) does not help (there is no damage resistance roll)."

Or

"Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so there is no damage resistance roll."

The other option would be to change the Powerbolt example on page 174 to say that the go-ganger takes 8 damage.



Quote From
"According to RAW, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance". This could be read that you receive a Damage Resistance test in addition to the Spell Resistance test, but also could easily be viewed as stating armor does not help with the Spell Resistance. As Indirect Combat Spells specifically references resisting the damage if you are hit, it is reasonable to assume the second interpretation of how Direct Combat Spells function

There is no need for errata since the "resistance" being referenced in context is the Spell Resistance Test (which armor does not help with). This topic has been slated for a FAQ. The "official" rule is that those targeted by Direct Combat Spells do not get an additional Damage Resistance Test beyond the Spell Resistance Test.

This means that Direct Combat Spells are quite powerful, which in turn means that gamemasters should ensure they are applying all the relevant modifiers (namely visibility modifiers) to the spellcasting roll. As I've said several times now, not applying the appropriate modifiers is the single most common unbalancing factor with spellcasting I've seen at most tables. In anything but a high-noon showdown on a main street or an ambush, typical visibility modifiers in combat should be in the -5 to -7 range (Good Cover -4, spellcaster attacking from cover -1, - additional "Visibility Impaired" modifiers. Please note I've not factored in magical defenses like Counterspelling, background count, mana barriers, wards, and mana static spells). The result is that Direct Combat spells are all or nothing affairs, with most Spellcasting dice pools being reduced to 2-3 successes on average and making resistance a little more probable. If magical defenses are active, Indirect spells actually become more appealing.

Also, unless the spellcaster is overcasting (with the risks that implies), the reduced number of successes leads to less instakills and still leaves direct combat spells behind the results of a couple of bursts from an automatic weapon, let alone a sniper shot.

thx Synner

sure thing - the modifiers do make a BIG difference.

but on the other hand: would a damage resistance test change the balance of the game THAT dramaticly? Joe Average with his KON 3 getts approximatly 1 hit on that test, staging down the damage from the spell by one box. and even his friend Toni Tanktroll with KON 10 will most often get a nice amount of damage from a force 5 manabolt, as he will "only" get 3 to 4 hits on his damage resistance test.

i played all the time without the test (as it was always that way in SR), but the diskussion made me think about it and i tend to agree Tycho, that it would e quite nice for balancing mundanes vs. mojo-slingers.

and i'm STRONGLY looking forward for that point being clearified in an FAQ, maybe even better in an errata, as some people have a habit of ignoring the FAQ an only accept errata as part of RAW.

It does change the balance depending on the power level of your campaign. Casters of manabolt 5 do care, as their spellcasting pool is likely to be small. If you can not gurantee a takedown with three complex actions, you are in a world of hurt before you are done.

I don't think the spellcasting pool of a caster is likely to be smaller than the Wil of the target (unless there is a Mage with Counterspelling).

Moreover, what does the Caste of Flamethrower 5 think, he has the same casting pool and the target gets much easier tests to avoid the damage and he gets more drain. The world is unfair?

cya
Tycho

Flame Thrower is superior against unaware targets or heavily spell defense protected targets because it skips the spell resistance roll and is handled as a ranged attack.

In most circumstances, you would indeed be better off not using Flamethrower, because most of the places where it is of high utility, a handgun would work about as well. But it is a real spell that is really useful sometimes. The drain code is steep, and this channels Shadowrun magicians into using effects that look more like Akira and less like Dragonball most of the time. It's a stylistic choice.

-Frank

You still get the counterspell at the damage resistence test for indirect combat spells.

To resist the damage, yes. To avoid the attack entirely, no. That is why you use Indirect spells against enemies protected by counterspelling - they tend to do less damage, but also have less of a chance to be avoided entirely.