Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Lightning bolts, from the caster or just appear?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Hagga
Pity the blast effect is so fuzzy. Somehow, I don't think killing yourself to turf off a force 32 blast spell is going to destroy an armoured bunker.
Cain
QUOTE
If you can see him, then by your reading he gets protection from the "barrier", by my reading you possibly get some visibility modifiers from the "barrier".

Actually, no. He gets protection from having physical objects between himself and the lightning bolt. Tarantula says he doesn't get that, which would mean he doesn't get armor either-- even though the spells explicitly say you get armor.
Enin
Other people have said this, but how the hell could you dodge something that appears at your position instantaneously?! If the defender receives a dodge bonus, then it is implied that the defender would see it coming which would therefore imply that the effect originates at the caster. That's just common sense, no need to delve into rules.
Stahlseele
which makes the appearing at aura-limit(3 to 5 cm from skin i'd guess) and traveling the rest of the way to skincontact in an instant simply not possible . . how do you dodge the 5m radius fireball completely if it allways follows your aura before getting physical? and how do you dodge something by 5m if it appears 5cm from your body?
Sir_Psycho
I won't chip in to the RAW debate going on, but I personally rule them as travelling from caster to target. Flamethrower throws flames.
AllTheNothing
QUOTE (Earlydawn @ Nov 11 2008, 11:05 PM) *
On the topic, how do you guys run direct combat spells, in terms of appearance? I understand that they simply strike the target directly as the mana begins to gather around the target, but does anyone rule that they create a visual effect? I know the book says that it largely depends on tradition, but it seems anti-climactic to simply have a mage chant with his eyes closed and subsequently drop six guards. I rule that all direct spells have a visual effect, but it depends on the force. A level one manabolt may only have a tiny glint of light, like a reflection off of metal, whereas a force 12 may have a giant globe of charged mana materialize.

Thoughts?



If the direct spell is mana-based it's visual effect is similar to mana illusions, living beings can see it cameras can't (unless it's on astral in which case it can be seen only by astraly active entities), if the spell is phisical it can be detected by cameras.
Stahlseele
actually, magic is quite sneaky without the elemental effects.
cameras / people won't pick up the spell itself in about 90-100% of the cases, if it is a mana-spell.
they can see the mage, looking bored, they can see the guards suddenly dropping, but they can't see what happened.
only on the astral the spell is percieveable. . now the elemental stuff, that can be picked up by anyone . .
manipulation spells like telekinesics can't be seen either, only the effect of something deciding not to obey gravity any more
Tarantula
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 11 2008, 07:34 PM) *
Tarantula is completely wrong on the second part. If I center a fireball to encompass a spherical object, I only blow a single one-meter hole in it for every [Structure] points of damage I deal to it. That's the official ruling on p 158 of your hymnal.

As for his other argument: Armor is just a barrier you wear. If you take it off and hold it up, suddenly you can punch holes in it, but you can't hit the guy on the other side with a fireball?

Yes and no. The rules don't deny my interpretation, and I think its a little less out there than to hit a wall with a 10 meter fireball, and only have 1 square meter cave in.

If you take armor off, you aren't wearing it, and you would not get the benefit of it if someone shot you (not the armor your holding, but just you). So, no, either the armor blocks the mages LOS and he can't target you. Or, he can target you, and you get no benefit from your held (but not worn) armor.

QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 11 2008, 08:16 PM) *
Actually, no. He gets protection from having physical objects between himself and the lightning bolt. Tarantula says he doesn't get that, which would mean he doesn't get armor either-- even though the spells explicitly say you get armor.

No, he does not get protection from having barriers between himself and the lightning bolt. He does get it from armor. Why? Because the rules do say that he gets armor. They do not say that you must shoot through barriers with indirect combat spells. That makes them function the same as direct combat spells.


QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Nov 12 2008, 03:45 AM) *
which makes the appearing at aura-limit(3 to 5 cm from skin i'd guess) and traveling the rest of the way to skincontact in an instant simply not possible . . how do you dodge the 5m radius fireball completely if it allways follows your aura before getting physical? and how do you dodge something by 5m if it appears 5cm from your body?

Maybe theres a visual effect that is what allows for the chance to dodge. Dodging area effect spells always was weird anyway. (example of someone whos used all their movement for the round already to get into an elevator, gets hit with force 12 fireball. Makes his reaction test and so the spell misses entirely. How? He can't move any more (already used it) and the spell has a 12 meter effect.)

The same way he dodges that fireball, is how people always can dodge it.
Mäx
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Nov 12 2008, 04:26 PM) *
Dodging area effect spells always was weird anyway. (example of someone whos used all their movement for the round already to get into an elevator, gets hit with force 12 fireball. Makes his reaction test and so the spell misses entirely. How? He can't move any more (already used it) and the spell has a 12 meter effect.)

QFT

I have never understood dodging area effect spells and grenades.
Sceptic
QUOTE (Mäx @ Nov 13 2008, 05:13 AM) *
I have never understood dodging area effect spells and grenades.

I'd guess it's supposed to reflect ducking behind some sort of cover, or things like that.

Still, at least there's a penalty for dodging area effects.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Sceptic @ Nov 12 2008, 09:45 AM) *
I'd guess it's supposed to reflect ducking behind some sort of cover, or things like that.

Still, at least there's a penalty for dodging area effects.


There is? Where?

Guy gets 2 hits on reaction, mage gets 1 hit on spellcasting. Guy dodges spell. Doesn't matter if hes in a 2x3x2 meter elevator and the spell is force 12. Guy doesn't get hit by it.
Stahlseele
so he used up his walking/running movement for the round, but that movement does not have anything to do with reaction does it?
reaction dodge would probably be more like reflexive ducking of jumping out of the elevator . . and jumping does not figure into your running/moving value either i think O.o
Tarantula
But dodging doesn't actually move you at all. And, this is assuming hes already used up all his ability to move for the round. So how does he dodge it without actually moving about?
Mäx
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Nov 12 2008, 06:56 PM) *
so he used up his walking/running movement for the round, but that movement does not have anything to do with reaction does it?
reaction dodge would probably be more like reflexive ducking of jumping out of the elevator . . and jumping does not figure into your running/moving value either i think O.o

Where exactly does someone jump to dodge an incoming force 12 fireball.
Drogos
Into the Astral biggrin.gif

And as the GM, you are permitted to apply situational modifiers to their defensive dicepools just as the caster had to take a hit based on visibility.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Drogos @ Nov 12 2008, 10:12 AM) *
Into the Astral biggrin.gif

And as the GM, you are permitted to apply situational modifiers to their defensive dicepools just as the caster had to take a hit based on visibility.


I do not recall reading this anywhere, quote please?
Stahlseele
QUOTE (Mäx @ Nov 12 2008, 06:05 PM) *
Where exactly does someone jump to dodge an incoming force 12 fireball.

i'd guess OUT of the elevator and to the side from the door?
so the explosion is in the elevator and you're out of blast-direction
Tarantula
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Nov 12 2008, 10:28 AM) *
i'd guess OUT of the elevator and to the side from the door?
so the explosion is in the elevator and you're out of blast-direction


You realize the reason elemental spells are nice, is because they effect the entire area. So 12 meters of space from that center of effect is hit. I"m pretty sure out of the elevator and around the door is 1) movement, which he's already used up and 2) still within 12meters from the center of the spell, and thus still effected.
Stahlseele
you can fire them around corners, true.
but don't tell me now that if i fire the force 12 fireball in a good and solid 2x2x2m room everything outside on all sides gets hit as well?
explosions usually should not work like that . . the one open side should get the brunt of the reflected blast, but aside from that, everything else should be more or less safe O.o
Tarantula
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Nov 12 2008, 10:33 AM) *
you can fire them around corners, true.
but don't tell me now that if i fire the force 12 fireball in a good and solid 2x2x2m room everything outside on all sides gets hit as well?
explosions usually should not work like that . . the one open side should get the brunt of the reflected blast, but aside from that, everything else should be more or less safe O.o


Does the spell say that you need LOS to the entire area to work on it? Does it say that barriers impede it affecting the entire area?

Heres an example... Guy his holding a ceramic pot. Its normal brown clay. Mage wants to have some fun, and decides to cast a force 1 fireball centered in the middle of the pot. 1 cubic meter of area is affected, with the center on the pot. So the guy holding it would get to make his reaction test to avoid getting hit, and if he failed, he would have to resist the damage.
Cain
QUOTE
Yes and no. The rules don't deny my interpretation, and I think its a little less out there than to hit a wall with a 10 meter fireball, and only have 1 square meter cave in.

The rules explicitly deny your interpretation. If nothing else, think of it this way: a lower force spell is more effective that high-powered explosives under your interpretation, since a concentrated shaped-charge at rating 20 can only blow a 2-meter hole in a Structure 10 wall, while a force 5 AoE spell with 5 successes will blow it to smithereens.

As for your other argument, you're forgetting once again: Barriers add to your armor rating. You can call a shot on an indirect spell to bypass armor, and everything that modifies armor applies. Thus, increases to armor from barriers apply as well.
Tarantula
Cain, your example is bogus. Force 5 spell with 5 success = 10DV. 10DV < 20 structure, the spell makes no holes at all.

Barriers add to your armor rating IF you shoot through them. Indirect combat spells are not a listed option for shooting through a barrier, so it cannot happen. Either they appear at the target and effect them without the barrier in-between intervening, or you cannot cast it on the target because LOS is blocked.
Cain
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Nov 12 2008, 10:16 AM) *
Cain, your example is bogus. Force 5 spell with 5 success = 10DV. 10DV < 20 structure, the spell makes no holes at all.t

That's why I said 10 Structure wall. And you didn't answer the question. How can a force 5 spell be more powerful than a force 20 explosive?

QUOTE
Barriers add to your armor rating IF you shoot through them. Indirect combat spells are not a listed option for shooting through a barrier, so it cannot happen. Either they appear at the target and effect them without the barrier in-between intervening, or you cannot cast it on the target because LOS is blocked.

And indirect spells are another ranged attack. So, you not only have an either-or fallacy, you're missing the point. Technically speaking, bullets aren't mentioned in that section either; does that mean you can't shoot through glass with a gun?
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Nov 12 2008, 01:16 PM) *
Cain, your example is bogus. Force 5 spell with 5 success = 10DV. 10DV < 20 structure, the spell makes no holes at all.

Barriers add to your armor rating IF you shoot through them. Indirect combat spells are not a listed option for shooting through a barrier, so it cannot happen. Either they appear at the target and effect them without the barrier in-between intervening, or you cannot cast it on the target because LOS is blocked.


Indirect combat spells have the advantage of being blind-fireable. You don't need LOS to the target.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 12 2008, 11:43 AM) *
That's why I said 10 Structure wall. And you didn't answer the question. How can a force 5 spell be more powerful than a force 20 explosive?

Either I"m blind or you ninja edited... whatever.

Structure 10 wall. Force 5 fireball with 5 successes. Vs Rating 20 explosive? Well since every structure has armor rating, I'd assume that this would too. Since there is no 10 structure example on page 157, i'll go with midway for the ones that are given. Reinforced is 8/9. Structural is 12/11. So we'll extrapolate 10/10 for this wall. 10 armor gets 3 hits, and the fireball does nothing, and the explosive blows a 1 meter hole.

QUOTE (Cain @ Nov 12 2008, 11:43 AM) *
And indirect spells are another ranged attack. So, you not only have an either-or fallacy, you're missing the point. Technically speaking, bullets aren't mentioned in that section either; does that mean you can't shoot through glass with a gun?

SR4, 157, "If the weapon’s modified Damage Value does not exceed the barrier’s Armor rating (modified by the weapon’s AP), then the weapon is simply not strong enough to pierce the barrier, and the attack automatically fails."
Bullets are shot from weapons, which have DVs. Spells are never defined as being a weapon, and thus are not viable to shoot through a barrier.

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Nov 12 2008, 11:43 AM) *
Indirect combat spells have the advantage of being blind-fireable. You don't need LOS to the target.

I believe that the intent of saying that indirect combat spells are treated like a ranged attack was to help people make the connection that it functions similar to the opposed test for a ranged attack. The text does not say that they use the ranged combat modifiers table, and as such, they do not get to blind fire. (But, subject to the regular spellcasting rules, they do take visual penalties during casting).

All spells always need LOS to the target.
Drogos
Well, I suppose there is no listed modifier on the table for situational. Silly SR writers, don't they know that without expicitly stating that there are flexible modifiers that are left to GM fiat that people will proclaim they don't exist. I'm glad my players can look at a situation and say, "Well, at least you get some sort of roll, even if it is at -5."
Tarantula
QUOTE (Drogos @ Nov 12 2008, 12:14 PM) *
Well, I suppose there is no listed modifier on the table for situational. Silly SR writers, don't they know that without expicitly stating that there are flexible modifiers that are left to GM fiat that people will proclaim they don't exist. I'm glad my players can look at a situation and say, "Well, at least you get some sort of roll, even if it is at -5."


More like the SR writers didn't want to make the dodging an attack rules overly complex, so they didn't make them change any for area attacks. Causing some wonky situations.
Fortune
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Nov 13 2008, 05:43 AM) *
Indirect combat spells have the advantage of being blind-fireable. You don't need LOS to the target.


Technically, that's not true. You do actually need LOS to the primary target.

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.
Stahlseele
soo . . if i wanna grill someone who has hidden himself in a bunker or something, that has a barrier rating of, let's say 9 and is completely impossible to get into, once sealed from the inside . .
let us assume, that the wall is about 1m thick just for an example . . and the room inside is about 5m diameter . . so if i drop an elemental spell with force of let's say 12(yes, much edge has to be used to accoplish this without dead mage afterwards), i can affect the guy inside no matter what is between the spell and him? because everything inside the force=range radius gets affected equaly?
Tarantula
QUOTE (Stahlseele @ Nov 12 2008, 12:19 PM) *
soo . . if i wanna grill someone who has hidden himself in a bunker or something, that has a barrier rating of, let's say 9 and is completely impossible to get into, once sealed from the inside . .
let us assume, that the wall is about 1m thick just for an example . . and the room inside is about 5m diameter . . so if i drop an elemental spell with force of let's say 12(yes, much edge has to be used to accoplish this without dead mage afterwards), i can affect the guy inside no matter what is between the spell and him? because everything inside the force=range radius gets affected equaly?


Yes.

I will note, I think they need to address this, as it makes cooking people in vehicles (or sealed bunkers) and the like still quite possible.
Stahlseele
that's what was irking me . . that seems REALLY overpowered . . heck, not even a nuke in some distance will hurt the guy in there, but the spell right outside does not even care about the walls . .
Tarantula
Yeah, but the spellcaster has to know there is someone in there to fry, and the person in there will be getting a reaction test to dodge (which they just might do).
Stahlseele
even if the room is so small, that no matter where in there he runs, he can not get out of the range of the spell?
heck, either they did not think anyone would be this picky or they botched when making those rules . .
Tarantula
Or they intended for barriers to block the effects, but failed to make it so that they do.
Drogos
Because adding a +/- Variable for situational (read: GM Fiat) would of been too complex?
Tarantula
QUOTE (Drogos @ Nov 12 2008, 12:33 PM) *
Because adding a +/- Variable for situational (read: GM Fiat) would of been too complex?


GM Fiat is always allowed, but is up to the variety of GMs to implement. Its generally accepted that we ignore GM Fiat from discussions here because of how much it can vary. Also, the answer to everything would be "Have your GM fix it."
Stahlseele
QUOTE (Drogos @ Nov 12 2008, 08:33 PM) *
Because adding a +/- Variable for situational (read: GM Fiat) would of been too complex?

no, 'cause GM Fiat is bad
Drogos
Well, then, I have done precisely jack to add to this discussion. IGNORE ME!! biggrin.gif silly.gif
Fortune
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Nov 13 2008, 06:33 AM) *
Or they intended for barriers to block the effects, but failed to make it so that they do.


I think they succeeded quite adequately simply by stating that Indirect Combat spells are treated as a Ranged Combat attack. I can find no text that exempts them from being subject to any and all modifiers and the like that are relevant to Ranged Combat, including the rules for Barriers.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 12 2008, 01:05 PM) *
I think they succeeded quite adequately simply by stating that Indirect Combat spells are treated as a Ranged Combat attack. I can find no text that exempts them from being subject to any and all modifiers and the like that are relevant to Ranged Combat, including the rules for Barriers.


Except, they do not state they are treated as a ranged attack. They say they are treated like a ranged attack. "As" implies the exact same. "Like" implies similarities, but not an exact replication. The text then shows how it is like a ranged attack, in that the user gets to make a reaction test to dodge, and armor is used in the resistance test. Beyond that, it is handled as a spell is.


I think I understand your side, and you say that it shows what is different from a normal ranged attack (spellcasting + magic instead of weapon skill + agility) and that other than that it is the same as a ranged attack. I do not think this has as much support in the rules, as then hyzmarca would be correct in that you could blind fire indirect combat spells.

If the text said treated as a ranged attack, I would lean towards your interpretation. As that implies it is the same as a ranged attack, except for the shown differences. Since it says like a ranged attack, that implies it is different except for the shown similarities.
Fortune
QUOTE (Tarantula)
I do not think this has as much support in the rules, as then hyzmarca would be correct in that you could blind fire indirect combat spells.

Not really, because blind-firing Indirect Combat spells is specifically disallowed. You still need LOS to the (primary) target as per the normal spellcasting rules.

I see it like this ...

If one interprets the rules in the manner I described, most of the problems disappear, and the various sub-rules all fall into place. But if one interprets them in another manner, it causes even more problems to come up. Common sense tells me to choose the option that seems to make all the rules gel together comfortably.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 12 2008, 01:15 PM) *
Not really, because blind-firing Indirect Combat spells is specifically disallowed. You still need LOS to the (primary) target as per the normal spellcasting rules.


With your interpretation, you said an indirect combat spell is treated as a ranged combat attack. Including the ability to call a shot or shoot through a barrier. So where does the text make the distinction between it having to shoot through a pane of glass to reach the person, but not be able to be blind fired?
Fortune
The Magic rules lay out the requirments for LOS when spellcasting. The FAQ clarifies these rules. If that requirement is not met, then the spell cannot be cast as desired. If LOS is met, then the spell can be cast. Perhaps I don't quite understand your question.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 12 2008, 01:25 PM) *
The Magic rules lay out the requirments for LOS when spellcasting. The FAQ clarifies these rules. If that requirement is not met, then the spell cannot be cast as desired. If LOS is met, then the spell can be cast. Perhaps I don't quite understand your question.


So, do they follow the spellcasting requirements, or do they follow the ranged combat ones? You say that indirect combat spells are treated as a ranged combat attack. Thus, they must be able to have a called shot, and to hit someone behind a pane of glass it must be shot through the glass. If thats the case, why then are they not also able to be blind fired, as a ranged attack is. Since the text specifying that they act like a ranged attack is more specific to indirect combat spells than the generic spellcasting section.
Fortune
Maybe that's why the rules state that they are treated like a Ranged Combat attack instead of as a Ranged Combat attack. There are differences, in that Indirect Combat spells also have to meet spellcasting/LOS requirements as well as being subject to the Ranged Combat rules.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Fortune @ Nov 12 2008, 01:37 PM) *
Maybe that's why the rules state that they are treated like a Ranged Combat attack instead of as a Ranged Combat attack. There are differences, in that Indirect Combat spells also have to meet spellcasting/LOS requirements as well as being subject to the Ranged Combat rules.


Which is precisely my point. The only thing that it specifically states they do like ranged combat is that the target gets a reaction test to dodge, and then a damage resistance test. Other than that, they should be treated as a regular spellcasting test. And, thusly, a glass window between mage and target would not hinder a flamethrower from being cast. Just like it would not hinder a powerbolt from hitting the target.
hyzmarca
The FAQ ain't canon.
Falconer
Here's another problem with treating it AS a ranged attack.

I have 4 targets in the zone... I can't see one. One is in plain sight, 2 others are in varying degrees of cover/visibility (say -2 and -4 dice).

How do you roll the spell so that it hits each one AS a ranged attack, when a ranged attack against each one would suffer differing dicepool mods.

As is, you just target somewhere you can see as clearly as possible and hit them all, rolling as many dice as possible. (which befits their MASSIVE drain compared to other spells). Then they all resist against that single dicepool.


Here's another one... does the guy who can't see it coming get no reaction as surprised? (no probably not, he's aware a fights going on...)

Overall, even the single target versions I think are just mini foot diameter balls of fire and such which pop up in the same space as the target, don't necessarily fly. The AOE versions are just larger balls. Then again w/ all the dice to avoid and resist them, they're best used as surprise attacks to deny the reaction test portion of the attack to be worth the drain.
Fortune
From the Shadowrun 4th Edition FAQ (which might not be considered actual 'canon', but is still considered 'official')

QUOTE (SR4 FAQ)
Isn't tossing a grenade on the ground by someone's feet (a Success Test) easier than trying to hit them directly with a grenade (an Opposed Test)? Does everyone caught in the blast get a chance to dodge/react?

If the intent is to catch a target in the blast radius, then it should be an Opposed Test, whether the grenade is actually thrown at the target or thrown a few meters away.

If the intent is to catch a group of targets in the blast radius, the attacker still picks one as the primary target. The Opposed Test is made between the attacker and that target only, with scatter determined accordingly. Any targets caught in the blast radius make Damage Resistance Tests as normal.


Which goes with ...

QUOTE (same 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 same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed.
Sceptic
QUOTE (Tarantula @ Nov 13 2008, 05:49 AM) *
There is? Where?


QUOTE (p151 SR4 - Attacker Using Area Attack Weapon)
Dodging explosions is not as easy as it seems in the movies. Apply a -2 modifier when trying to defend against weapons like grenades, rockets, or missiles with a blast effect.


I'd argue that this modifier should apply for area effect spells as well. By a strict reading of the wording it may be arguable (and probably will be argued by someone), but I think anyone sensible will agree with me. cool.gif
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