Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Direct vs. Indirect Combat Spells
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
BlackHat
So, I don't play a lot of magicians, but I found myself recently looking at the spells again.

I think I am missing something pretty basic, but I'm not sure what. I figure somebody here can help me out.

Despite my favorite mage character being a fire-specialist, I found myself wondering why anyone would ever learn an indirect combat spell? The drain is 2 points higher. The target gets more dice to resist (first with reaction, then if there are any hits left, with body + 1/2 armor + elemental resistance armor mods, as opposed to only rolling body with, say, powerbolt). The elemental side-effects are nice, but most of them (except maybe fire) don't seem like they would come up that often - certainly not enough to make up for 2 points of drain, and giving your enemy about 6-12 extra dice to resist with.

Street magic confirms that someone thinks that elemental affects are worth +2 increase to drain, and having to be "indirect" (which seems to suck) - but I am not really seeing that much of an advantage to indirect combat spells. It seems that if you're interested in your combat spell dealing damage (as opposed to knocking your opponent down, having a small chance of stun, or making his ExEx ammo go off) you're much better off just using powerbolt.

Am I mad?

ô.o
Abschalten
No, you aren't going crazy. Most of the time it is a bum deal to use an indirect combat spell over a direct one. However, there are times it is more advantageous to use indirect spells.

The first one is against targets with lots of counterspelling protection. If you use a direct combat spell (single target or area effect) then there's a good chance it'll just get swatted away. Meanwhile, indirect spells don't get that same treatment. They're defended against like normal ranged attacks. If it hits, THEN they get the counterspelling protection added to their Body+ half armor damage resistance test. The result is usually that they get hit but reduce the damage. But that's preferable to having your spell take no effect anyway.

Additionally, indirect spells have some sort of physical medium that travels between you and the target. If you kinda know where the target is, but he's invisible, then you can still cast a spell towards him and have a chance to hit. Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Finally, some of the indirect spells have secondary effects. Setting off Ex-Explosive ammo, creating slicks of ice, exuding choking (concealing) smoke, zapping with electricity (and using the electricity attack rules), etc... all of these can be used in strategic ways and create effects that direct combat spells just can't do, since you're just channeling invisible, destructive power into your target.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (BlackHat @ Jul 22 2008, 03:38 PM) *
Am I mad?

ô.o


Yes.

It's a tradeoff between spells and what you cando. Is it worth the drain codes? That's a matter of opinion, so you will get different answers.

Note that Direct spells, if resisted with that single test, do no damage, if not resisted, then they do the whole damage. Indirect Spells, while getting two resists, have to be staged down completely.

Also compare against what kind of targets you are hitting, and also consider line of sight rules. Can a direct spell affect that drone sitting around the corner?
BlackHat
The counterspelling argument makes sense. I was thinking that (without counterspelling) the initial resist is either body (for powerbolt) or reaction (for indirect spell). Those should be about the same value, and if either one gets you down to 0 net hits, the spell does nothing. I didn't notice that counterspelling was applied at different stages for the two types.

The hitting-things-you-can't-see makes sense with invisible opponents, but otherwise only applies for the area-effect versions. I should have specified that I was only comparing the single-target versions in my analysis - where, if the guy is around the corner, you can't hit him with a lightning bolt either.

But, thanks for the replies. That helped clear it up.
Now, if only I could delete my accidental post in the Welcome to the Shadows forum.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Abschalten @ Jul 22 2008, 02:03 PM) *
Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Well, not without mirrors or other toys.
Abschalten
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jul 22 2008, 04:30 PM) *
Well, not without mirrors or other toys.


True enough. My mental image was casting on the fly down a hallway and trying to hit some guys hiding just around the corner. I wasn't thinking about alternate methods of gaining LOS. Even so, I think casting through fiber optic toys and mirrors gets you something like a -4 pool penalty to spellcasting attempts.
Tarantula
Mirrors no, the fibreoptics yes.
Jaid
drone-mounted mirror anyone? (someone's GM is probably going to hate me for that...)
sunnyside
There is other stuff too.

(Hopefully this is all correct I think I'm getting some edition blur in my head here but I think this is all 4th).

For one indirect spell can be used for utalitarian stuff. A direct spell can target a whole car. Only an indirect spell can target the tires. Same for the rest of the targeting etc options.

This also means indirect spells can be used in a utalitarian manner (lighting fires, shorting stuff without totalling it, eating something with small amounts of acid).

Also sometimes direct spells will have a hard time with object resistance. This would probably be most notable if you're trying to zap a lightly armored drone when you've got some penalties on you from this that or the other. The direct spell still has to clear the high tech threshold. The indirect spell just has to connect against the drones pathetic dodge capability.

Indirect spells can also eat up the terrain. For example lets say someone is shooting at you around a corner using their smartlink. With direct spells your only option is to try and zap the gun. And indirect spell can blow some drywall.

Hank
We dropped the drain codes by two for all indirect combat spells. It was totally unbalancing. Ever since, the game has been ruined by mages constantly targeting enemies they can't see or specific parts of vehicles.
ohplease.gif
Give me a break. If you can't see an enemy, are you going to pull out all the stops and cast your uber powerful, drain intensive spell or just chuck a grenade? Does anyone think that the mana equivalent of a grenade is really powerful enough to justify that drain code? Or are we all just worshipping RAW?
Ustio
Just a random thought:

Since an indirect spell is "treated as a normal ranged attack test" (quick somebody find me the page number I'm at work) the following are potential options:

- Called shot to increase damage
- Called shot to bypass armour

Other (less RAW) option

- Convincing a GM to allow you to lean a burst or full auto version of a spell (+1 and +2 drain do you think?) mmmmmm Supressing lightning bolt love.gif
The Jopp
The main problem i find with mana spells is that it's to easy.

Overcasting a stunbolt to F12 is simple as a walk in the park and you resist 5P drain.

The mage still rolls around 12+ dice
The poor target rolls between 1-6 in resistance dice
Most of the time they roll around 3-4

End result - target always loose and you dont always have a mage with spell defense around.

I have no problem with overcasting but it is always numbercrunching instead of the mage actually thinking about that he MIGHT DIE...

The main advantage over mana spells is also that they are invisible, and for a runner that is good.

In game balance terms stun spells and spells that hardly leaves a trace should have a higher drain than the obvious raw destructive mana of indirect spells.
sunnyside
Had much luck stunning a drone lately?

Also stunbolted enemies have a tendency to come back.

But on top of it all I think SR currently likes the idea of runners not leaving a trail of bodies behind. Hence stick 'n shock.

The Jopp
QUOTE (sunnyside @ Jul 23 2008, 10:39 AM) *
Had much luck stunning a drone lately?

Also stunbolted enemies have a tendency to come back.


Well, the equivalent of the stunbolt would be the powerbolt against drones (or people) and that spell also has a piddling drain for what it does and cannot be seen.
Drogos
Clearly you haven't been using astral signatures much. They are decidedly not traceless...damn Lone Star Forensic Mages mad.gif
The Jopp
QUOTE (Drogos @ Jul 23 2008, 11:02 AM) *
Clearly you haven't been using astral signatures much. They are decidedly not traceless...damn Lone Star Forensic Mages mad.gif


Well, i didn't mean detection of them, rather that someone actually SEES the mage cast the spell. For a runner using a stunbolt is much more preffered than using clout since the former can take someone out in one hit.

Casting a fireball at a group of people is very very obvious but the powerball or stun equivalent are basically invisible unless someone looks astrally, and most people wont be doing that and thus lesser chance of being detected.
Mäx
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 02:21 PM) *
Casting a fireball at a group of people is very very obvious but the powerball or stun equivalent are basically invisible unless someone looks astrally, and most people wont be doing that and thus lesser chance of being detected.


It's pretty damn obvious that something magical is going on when a group of quards just hit the deck for no apparant reason.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 23 2008, 12:34 PM) *
It's pretty damn obvious that something magical is going on when a group of quards just hit the deck for no apparant reason.


Yes and No.

There is no fiery explosion, no fire alarms, no smoke, and most importantly - Not a streaking ball of energy from the caster to the target that a crowd can see.

The caster can stand in a crowd and look as amazed as the rest of them as a group of sec guards suddenly hit the deck for no apparent reason.

Direct combat spells are invisible in visual detection of the caster and a visible effect. Indirect spells are damn obvious in comparison.
Mäx
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 02:58 PM) *
most importantly - Not a streaking ball of energy from the caster to the target that a crowd can see.


Neither is there a one when you use a fireball, there's just a fiery explosion midlle of the quard group.(at least thats how i understand it).
sunnyside
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 06:58 AM) *
Direct combat spells are invisible in visual detection of the caster and a visible effect. Indirect spells are damn obvious in comparison.


Um. Not generally. Now I could see some debate about what happens right where the spell hits and all. But the section on noticing magic is pretty clear on the threshold to notice it. Which means if you're throwing potent mojo it's obvious to everyone even remotely in the area. By the time you're casting a force 12 stunbolt the old lady who lives below you is banging on the ceiling and telling you to quite down.
Sma
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 12:56 PM) *
Well, the equivalent of the stunbolt would be the powerbolt against drones (or people) and that spell also has a piddling drain for what it does and cannot be seen.


If by cannot be seen you intend to say any onlooker needs to beat at most a threshold of 1, I agree.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Sma @ Jul 23 2008, 01:33 PM) *
If by cannot be seen you intend to say any onlooker needs to beat at most a threshold of 1, I agree.


No, I mean that the actual casting of the SPELL cannot be seen, The EFFECT of the spell is always obvious regardless of spell. Something explodes, dies etc.

The main point im making is that there is no direct link between caster-target that the casual observer might see as mana spells are invisible to the naked eye.
Sma
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 02:37 PM) *
No, I mean that the actual casting of the SPELL cannot be seen, The EFFECT of the spell is always obvious regardless of spell. Something explodes, dies etc.

The main point im making is that there is no direct link between caster-target that the casual observer might see as mana spells are invisible to the naked eye.


The rules disagree with that notion by making it a 6-force perception test to notice someone using any sort of magic.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Sma @ Jul 23 2008, 01:52 PM) *
The rules disagree with that notion by making it a 6-force perception test to notice someone using any sort of magic.


How?

Sure, you can roll the dice to your hearts content, there is just a problem:

QUOTE
since most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world


If the mage has no geas, no need to say anything, wiggle his fingers or pray to a god or just facing away from you there is nothing that tells you WHO cast the spell.

People might be AWARE that magic is being cast but not WHO cast the spell unless they look at/towards him and/or manages to pick hom out of a crowd.

If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot
Mäx
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 04:38 PM) *
If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot

wobble.gif
This isn't D&D mages don't trow balls of fire around, the spell comes to being on target.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 23 2008, 03:01 PM) *
wobble.gif
This isn't D&D mages don't trow balls of fire around, the spell comes to being on target.


I disagree.

Since the shooting rules are used and intervening objects can stop the fireball (like a glass window) and the target gets to dodge i would definitely say that it "shoots" from the caster and is visible.

How would dodge a fireball when it suddenly EXPLODES around you...
Sma
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 03:38 PM) *
How?

Sure, you can roll the dice to your hearts content, there is just a problem:



If the mage has no geas, no need to say anything, wiggle his fingers or pray to a god or just facing away from you there is nothing that tells you WHO cast the spell.

People might be AWARE that magic is being cast but not WHO cast the spell unless they look at/towards him and/or manages to pick hom out of a crowd.

If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot



Yes I tend to actually roll the dice if that´s what the rules tell me to do, to resolve a situation where the outcome is open to interpretation. And in this case they are quite explicit. If a player gets enough hits on his perception test she notices the caster using magic.

Now the rules do not go into detail how this noticing is accomplished, which is unfortunate. As are the various pieces of fluff suggesting otherwise, since it leads to a mixed message on the way magic is portrayed.

But making up some flickering lights, runes or whatever is not really that hard and can help in fleshing out the various traditions.

As for the inability to identify a spells source, yes that perception test does not explicitly give you a direct link to the caster. So in situations where you cannot see the caster and the spells effect you will have a hard time guessing what happened. But in most cases you´ll see a guy lighting up and then the drones explodes. Connecting the dots is not unreasonable.

To sum up: Yes, indirect spells are more noticeable than direct ones. Direct ones are far from being exceptionally hard to notice though.
DireRadiant
The hairs on the back of my neck just... did something.

It tickles.
Grayson7
I don't really see what the big debate is about the direct vs indirect combat spells. At first, I thought that direct spells were much better until I saw the May chatlog. The target of a direct combat spell still gets a Damage Resistance test, albeit without the benefit of armor, after failing the Spell Resistance test. Direct spells really don't seem any better or worse after finding out that little tidbit. Of course, I have a tendency to be a bit generous with Elemental Effects since they add +2 to the spell's Drain. Maybe I am just missing something.

As far as spells being noticeable or not, to me it depends on the spell. Usually something that damages a target, even if direct as opposed to indirect, I make it quite visible, light show and all. Spells that control minds, probe minds, or detect life or whatever, I require the Perception roll. However, I am pretty up front with my players about that kinda stuff from the get go so there are no surprises. Just my two cents.
Sma
That particular tidbit about staging down direct combat spells was a mistake by the person answering it. Synner clarified that in one of the threads about that chat.

Personally I think it adds a nice dimension where Influence isn't the best spell ever, since it´s at least obvious that magic is being used by someone, thus allowing the rest of the team to help out by distracting the target. But as you said it is imporant that everyone is aware of that particular rule beforehand since it´s easy to assume otherwise.
sunnyside
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 08:38 AM) *
QUOTE
since most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world






If the mage has no geas, no need to say anything, wiggle his fingers or pray to a god or just facing away from you there is nothing that tells you WHO cast the spell.

People might be AWARE that magic is being cast but not WHO cast the spell unless they look at/towards him and/or manages to pick hom out of a crowd.

If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot


Yeah but your mage probably isn't flinging "most spells". You could fling around force 2s pretty well. And a low force health spell could be pretty easy to miss.

But per the rules when you're casting higher level stuff you're pretty easy to spot.

I do believe you're right about the line from impact to caster painting where you are. But on the other hand if somebody is obviously doing magic and somebody else explodes, well, it's suspicious.

By the way to do books still tell players and corpsec to geek the mage first or did they drop that in 4th?

Grayson7
QUOTE (Sma @ Jul 23 2008, 02:07 PM) *
That particular tidbit about staging down direct combat spells was a mistake by the person answering it. Synner clarified that in one of the threads about that chat.


That was a mistake? Well damn, I think I'll keep it anyway. I does seem a bit more balanced.
kzt
It's pretty hard to spot the mage casting manabolt at you from a car with tinted windows. Or notice the invisible mage in the corner.
Glyph
QUOTE (kzt @ Jul 23 2008, 09:39 PM) *
It's pretty hard to spot the mage casting manabolt at you from a car with tinted windows. Or notice the invisible mage in the corner.

You could say the same thing about that hypothetical mage casting fireball.


Personally, I don't have a problem with direct combat spells being "better" in most situations, with indirect combat spells still being useful in some circumstances. The rules should reflect how Magic works in the game world, and channeling energy directly into a target should be easier than creating an actual blast of energy in the physical world. Game balance is good, but I need verisimilitude too.


I also don't think how direct combat spells are resisted is "unbalancing", either. If you take the combat mage archetype, and have him roll his 10 dice against someone with a Willpower of 3, he will average about 3 successes to his target's single success, doing 7 damage if it was a Force: 5 spell. That's assuming no visual modifiers, an unwounded/unfatigued mage, and no counterspelling. All in all, mages are a lot less fearsome than they were in SR3, where you could cast a 6D spell with lots of dice, and usually insta-kill your hapless target, without needing to resist physical Drain.
kzt
Mages who want to kill people overcast manaball and use edge. Then the defender and all his friends get to deal with 14 physical damage. The mage takes 4-5 physical without edge, 2-3 with edge, which is then first aided to nothing. Overcasting makes the entire system a joke.

The fact that it isn't as bad as it was doesn't mean it's balanced.
Dashifen
QUOTE (kzt @ Jul 24 2008, 12:26 AM) *
Mages who want to kill people overcast manaball and use edge. Then the defender and all his friends get to deal with 14 physical damage. The mage takes 4-5 physical without edge, 2-3 with edge, which is then first aided to nothing. Overcasting makes the entire system a joke.

The fact that it isn't as bad as it was doesn't mean it's balanced.


I had a table with four powerful mages at it and it was too powerful so I instituted a house rule for that game and that game only. It was meant to specifically curb the use of overcasting:

QUOTE ("Dashifen's House Rule")
When an awakened spellcaster overcasts, subtract his or her magic from the Force of the spell. 50% (round up) of that becomes the threshold of an Edge test that must be successful in order to avoid magic loss.


Example:
Huggy the Love Troll, a mage with a Magic of 5, casts a Force 10 stunbolt. The Force of the spell minus her Magic is 5. Thus, she must past an Edge (3) test to avoid Magic Loss.

I still saw overcasting at that table, but rarely Forces of 10+. Granted a Force 9 stunbolt will still ruin the target's day, but even with a Magic of 6, that's an Edge (2) test to not burn out some synapses. Use it if you want to. To this day I'm not convinced that it was a balanced rule, but it did what I needed it to do at the time.
The Jopp
The problem with overcasting is that it becomes a numbercrunching game instead of a philosophical one.

Does the mage KNOWS the numbers for how great the risk is for him to take physical damage when overcasting?

How about a composure test

Overcasting Force – Magic Rating is the threshold for the mage to will himself to overcast?

Overcasting from 6 to 12 would be an impressive force of will as you might very well kill yourself.

Or what about making the drain F+Modifier instead of F/2+Modifier.

That would make mages a lot more careful as overcasting is simply to easy.
JoelHalpern
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 24 2008, 09:42 AM) *
The problem with overcasting is that it becomes a numbercrunching game instead of a philosophical one.

Does the mage KNOWS the numbers for how great the risk is for him to take physical damage when overcasting?
...


If you want to go down that path, it has to depend upon the spell.
A mage overcasting a fireball (+5 Drain Value) is going to take some serious physical damage.
A mage overcasting a stunbolt (say Force 9), may well expect not to take any drain at all. (12 dice drain resistance for a starting mage, and a Drain Value of 3. You might get 1P damage. Presumably the GM won't let you using the buying hits to declare that there is no drain effect.) And yes, an experienced mage is going to know the difference between the risks for those two cases.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Apathy
QUOTE (kzt @ Jul 24 2008, 02:26 AM) *
Mages who want to kill people overcast manaball and use edge. Then the defender and all his friends get to deal with 14 physical damage. The mage takes 4-5 physical without edge, 2-3 with edge, which is then first aided to nothing. Overcasting makes the entire system a joke.

The fact that it isn't as bad as it was doesn't mean it's balanced.

So in ideal conditions (no modifiers) a mage can kill those people he has LOS to in a 10-12 meter radius (including his own teammates if he's not careful), but has to spend two points of edge and still ends up with 2-3 physical drain. Doesn't sound that unbalanced.

I think the main point to indirect spells isn't the damage code, but the elemental effects. Short-circuiting eletronics, igniting combustables, knockdown, disorientation, etc. can be really useful, even if the damage gets resisted.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Apathy @ Jul 24 2008, 03:01 PM) *
I think the main point to indirect spells isn't the damage code, but the elemental effects. Short-circuiting eletronics, igniting combustables, knockdown, disorientation, etc. can be really useful, even if the damage gets resisted.


True, if the GM plays through the secondary effects to the hilt then there will be lots of fun. With a minor problems.

Lightning bolts becomes useless against vehicles as they are faraday cages and ignore secondary effects.

People set on fire will be dístracted
Light effect will blind people
etc...
Tarantula
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 24 2008, 08:08 AM) *
True, if the GM plays through the secondary effects to the hilt then there will be lots of fun. With a minor problems.

Lightning bolts becomes useless against vehicles as they are faraday cages and ignore secondary effects.

People set on fire will be dístracted
Light effect will blind people
etc...


Actually, since the car has metallic armor, and electricity damage specifically says to ignore metallic armor, it doesn't help it in the least. And what does a faraday cage matter to magically directed lightning? Of course it does full damage, secondary effects and all.
sunnyside
Actually if we're talking about hitting people with spells we probably should be talking about an electric effect instead of the harder to quantify fire effects. Connect at all and they may be messed up. Also you can get that extra effect without having to switch to overcasting.

Actually in the non overcasting regime lightning bolt might be better. In the sense of trading off a damage resistance roll vs the extra elecric effects.

As for how much damage it done in general with combat spells remmeber this is shadowrun. If the sammy can see somebody they can probably kill them too, and without hurting themselves. Magics comparative advantage is that you can't walk down the street with a gyro mounted weapon. Though again a sammy with a good pistol can take down most targets in one hit if they get a clean shot.

As for mages remember that corpsec guys like to fire their smartlinked guns around corners and drones are cheaper than people. And even if they don't hype it this edition. the corpsec mantra is "geek the mage first." Most runner teams follow that too. Not only can mages do all sorts of powerful stuff, but they also tend to go down relatively easily.
The Jopp
QUOTE (sunnyside @ Jul 24 2008, 03:27 PM) *
"geek the mage first."


True, but how do you find the mage?

he might be the assault rifle wielding troll laying down Full Auto cover fire...

And the geeky little nerdy guy might actually be the speedsam of the group with a fetish for mystic symbolism on his clothing...

Shadowrun is fun because there are no clear stereotypes and not everything is not what they appear to be.
Tarantula
If the troll is laying down cover fire, he sure isn't casting. Not to mention the "noticing magic" tests that would make someone stand out fairly well.
sunnyside
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 24 2008, 10:35 AM) *
True, but how do you find the mage?


Obviously if the team is just walking down the street someone about to attack might not know who the mage is. I'm just saying that once it's obvious most people will target the mage all other things being equal.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (The Jopp @ Jul 23 2008, 07:38 AM) *
If the mage has no geas, no need to say anything, wiggle his fingers or pray to a god or just facing away from you there is nothing that tells you WHO cast the spell.

QUOTE (SR4 p.168)
Noticing if someone is using a magical skill requires a Perception Test (p. 117) with a threshold equal to 6 minus the magic's Force - more powerful magic is easier to spot. The gamemaster should apply additional modifiers as appropriate, or if the perceiver is Awakened themselves (+2 dice), astrally perceiving (+2 dice), or if a shamanic mask is evident (+2 dice)

I am pretty sure anyone can make a Perception test with a threshold of -6 to notice your Force 12 Manaball. Of course, they have to be able to perceive you, but not hard if you are standing in a crowd. They also do not know you just dropped all those guards, but you obviously casting a high-power spell the instant before they dropped, while staring at them can get suspicious...


QUOTE (Grayson7 @ Jul 23 2008, 12:00 PM) *
I don't really see what the big debate is about the direct vs indirect combat spells. At first, I thought that direct spells were much better until I saw the May chatlog. The target of a direct combat spell still gets a Damage Resistance test, albeit without the benefit of armor, after failing the Spell Resistance test. Direct spells really don't seem any better or worse after finding out that little tidbit. Of course, I have a tendency to be a bit generous with Elemental Effects since they add +2 to the spell's Drain. Maybe I am just missing something.

As said, this was a mistake clarified shortly after the chat on these forums, in a thread started by me asking for such clarifications. A Direct spell is resisted with Attribute (+ Counterspelling, if available). If not fully resisted, the subject takes Force + Net Hits damage, with no further resistance allowed.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jul 24 2008, 09:59 PM) *
A Direct spell is resisted with Attribute (+ Counterspelling, if available). If not fully resisted, the subject takes Force + Net Hits damage, with no further resistance allowed.


This is the point which i feel makes the drain on direct spells being to low.

The target of the spell gets:
Resist with attribute
Takes Damage

While a target from an indirect spell gets:
Dodge / Full Defense
Resist damage with Armour/2+Body

Average runner nets a 3-4 in mental attribute unless a twinked mage or hacker and the average runner walks around with body 4 and 8 in armour AND a reaction attribute of say 2-4 in the low end and the extreme sammies in 8-12.

Harming someone with an indirect spell is much much harder while you can drop an entire team with a direct combat spell and hardly take any drain as compared to an indirect spell.
Tarantula
Direct combat spells also get + counterspelling to negate them entirely. While indirect spells get it to resist damage.
kzt
Unless you are running a mage team with teamworked counterspelling you won't get enough successes to stop a spell using edge very often (at least until everyone has CS at 6+) But yes, it's easier for a good mage team to fully soak a F10 manaball then a F10 fireball, even with the the extra 3-12 dice from armor and body. You'll almost always end up taking at least a few pints of stun, possibly taking quite a bit of damage.

The interpretations of LoS I've seen used on the board are also quite varied and greatly impact how effective CS is.
Zaranthan
So, indirect spells move Counterspelling from the dodge roll to the soak roll. Seems like that makes them better choices when up against other mages, whereas the direct spells will whoop any mundane's hide. Sounds like a good option to me.
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