Just a quick question,

do lightning bolts emanate from the caster and flash towards the subject, crashing into anything which may be in the path such as windows etc., or do they just appear around the subject, and go zappy?

Max,
Dunedin, NZ.

Technically speaking, you need an unrestricted path to the target, and you'll blast through anything in the way.

Mana-Stuff appears on Target, everything with an elemental effect appears at the casters location and travels in a straight line to the targets destination.
Now imagine a Mage trying to drop a Fireball through the Mage-Eye System with fibre optical cables all through a building *snickers*

Got any 4th edition page references for that?

aside for the fact that indirect combat spells(those with the flashy elemental bits) get resolved like a usual ranged attack?
no, not really, but i'm sure someone who knows their way around te rules a bit better can point out some other pointers that point to this pointed out conclusion. i guess i have made my point.
now where is my pointy head?

Actually, there have been several threads that have observed that while your description is intuitively correct, it is not RAW. As far as I can tell, the best reading of RAW is that the elemental effect simply appears at the target. You say "resolved like a usual ranged attack" except that it lacks the single most important property of ranged attacks, namely range modifiers. There is no short/medium... range for indirect combat spells. Sure there are visibility modifiers, but those apply to direct spells too.

Yours,
Joel Halpern

PS: Given how often this comes up, I would not be surprised if there are also threads that came to the opposite conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOQI-LAEzM

Question answered.


The clip above also demonstrates why you shouldn't torture someone with low-force lightning in front of his dad and near a pit.

but visibility modifiers and mana does not care about range, as long as you can see something, it is IN RANGE . . you could simply say that short range is about 10.000m . .
against elemental spells you get to dodge and your armor adds to your body roll instead of no dodge and no armor and no body but willpower . . that's pretty much ranged attack

That really has no revelance to the question att hand.
You get the armor+body roll becouse it's a physical effect thats harming you and not pure mana. Getting dodge doesn't in any way tell us whether the lightningbolt come to being at the caster or the target.

well, it's a bloody stupid example . . especially with such things as sound and electricity elemental effects . .
but how would you want to DODGE the Fire-Ball if he just goes kabloey on your position?
if he flies in yxour general direction, you can see and dodge just fine . . doesn't really explain how you would dodge lightning either from the fingers of the mage or coming from the heavens above . .

It just appears at the target, like all the other spells. There is nothing in the indirect combat spells descriptions that makes a flamethrower hit the glass instead of someone behind it.

The Indirect Combat spell description does mention blasting through barriers, however.

Does that mention refer just to area spells, though? Just a curious bystander that has already used up his allotment of misread/interpreted rules for the day

No, it mentions it for Indirect combat spells in general. It's not especially clear, but the rules it refers to are explicitly for blasting through barriers.

Uh, no, it does not. Not that I can see anyway. The only mention of barriers at all is for how nonliving objects resist the damage (with their armor ratingx2).

And a page reference, which is almost entirely taken up with how to shoot through a barrier.

But the reference it to the fact that they resist the damage with armorx2. The same way barriers do. It does not explicitly reference the shooting through a barrier text, nor make any hint that that is the text to be referred to.
SR4, 196, "Note that nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat spell with their Armor rating x 2 (see Barriers, p. 157)."
SR4, 157, Barriers, "Barriers
Sometimes, a character may wish to attack through a barrier,
either to get at a target on the other side or to make a hole through
which he can move. The procedure for each is described below."

The text is referencing the destroying barriers rules, as the method for resolving damage to inanimate objects with an indirect combat spell. It does not say you must shoot through a barrier.

P. 196
"Indirect Combat Spells: Indirect Combat spells are
treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic
+ Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction. If the
spell hits, the target resist with Body + half Impact armor
(+ Counterspelling, if available), with each hit reducing the
Damage Value. If the modifi ed spell DV does not exceed the
modifi ed Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun. Note
that nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat
spell with their Armor rating x 2 (see Barriers, p. 157)."

P. 157
"Sometimes, a character may wish to attack through a barrier,
either to get at a target on the other side or to make a hole through
which he can move. Th e procedure for each is described below."

Small snippet of some interest in that section
"Against Indirect Combat spells and explosives attached
directly, barriers roll only their Armor rating."

If I understand your argument, you claim because indirect spells include a reference to barriers, that all indirect spells must travel from caster to target otherwise why have barriers referenced?

Have you considered that Indirect Spells can be targeted at Barriers, and thus the Barrier rules are referenced in case someone does so?

If in most cases if I have LOS for the targeting range for a spell I can create that effect at any single point in that range, why is it in the case of Indirect Spells that I can only have the effect if it starts at my personal location and must then travel to the target?

'cause of the pyrotechnics and SFX

I think the barriers line is intended for player that want to get rid of them, if it's in the way just destroy it; a different case are indirect area of effect phisical spells, if want to hit a target who has complete cover you can use phisical AoE spells to include him/her/it in the spell radius and the spell works as usual, if you can't do that (or don't want do that) you can try to blast trough the barrier aiming at the section that you think covers the target and do enough damage to breach the barrier.
In reguard of the original question I think that lightning bolts simply appears, otherwise you wouln't be able to use magesight goggles.

how about casting a indirect spell when there is a closed window between the caster and the target?

thats the classical example from earlier editions...

It works just fine. The window does not need to be blown out. Happens the exact same as if they cast a powerbolt.

I'm constantly having problems mixing up my SR3 RAW and SR4 RAW. In SR3, it unambiguously stated that indirect elemental spells traveled from the caster to the target, and had to break through any intervening barriers (like, armored glass, for instance). This fit with the idea that the target could dodge the attack (since they could see it coming). The target is still allowed to dodge the attack, which I take as support for my stance that the attack travels. But I'd agree that it's ambiguous enough that you could interpret the other way.

From a fluff perspective, I like the idea of shooting lightning bolts from my fingertips, rather than a little cloud of lightning suddenly popping up and discharging at the target. YMMV.

meh, i just mailed them at info@shadowrun4.com about it.

I have always ruled that Indirect Combat spells travel from the caster to the target.

'cause otherwise the handling like ranged attack with dodge would not make sense at all . .

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?

to each their own . . i guess it would balance them a bit more, if regular people can see them happening . . i mean, they do more damage on average and have lower drain allready . . they don't have to be more sneaky as well <.<

That trick NEVER works.

The text is referencing both. In fact, it gives specific rules for attacking the barrier itself, then uses the page ref to say what happens when you want to shoot through a barrier.

It references the barrier section as a whole. The fact that it references it immediately after stating how inanimate objects resist damage from an indirect combat spell (with armor) heavily implies that they intended to reference the destroying a barrier rules for how inanimate objects use armor to resist the damage.

Another point against it, is that the shooting through barriers text references specifically, shooting through the barrier with a weapon, blunt melee attacks, and edged melee attacks. No mention of casting through a barrier is made.

of DOOM!

the word shooting is used, yes. but if that means using some kind of projectile firing weapon only, or should include a indirect spell is not spelled out.

the rules can imply a lot of things, but as long as its not spelled out, its either up to the individual group, or a third party mediator. that third party will most likely be the faq, if it ever shows up there (or maybe the errata).

hobgoblin, it quite explicitly shows shooting through a barrier is accomplished with a weapon. Spells aren't called weapons in the rules anywhere that I know of.

Ok, heres another point. The destroying barriers section does explicitly mention indirect combat spells as being applicable. So, shooting through a barrier has, weapons, blunt melee, and edged melee listed. Destroying barriers has any attack, with indirect combat spells and direclty attached explosives being mentioned directly. This also gives further evidence that the effect appears at the target, since it functions the same as if you stuck C4 directly onto the wall.

Indirect spells are treated as a normal ranged attack, which means they are bound by the "shooting through barriers" rule.

and the whole barrier section is found in the combat part of the book. using a indirect spell when such a thing has not been introduced yet to anyone reading the book from cover to cover would be basically confusing.



and the C4 does its thing by hammering the wall with a shockwave of of energy, that does its best job right next to the target. and spells, unlike bullets or shockwaves, do not loose energy by traveling any kind of distance.

thing is we can bounce this back and forth and we still get a potato situation. both ruling are perfectly valid given the text we have in front of us, and only the writers can tell us if one is wrong and the other is right (as we cant set up a experiment inside the SR existence and record it).

It seems a little odd that, by your reading, one could only "shoot" someone through a barrier if the barrier were transparent or translucent. If the magical effect travels from you to the target then surely you would be able to blindfire indirect combat spells, and yet that is explicitly disallowed.

in the end it all hinges on that one, does it not...

i wonder if using "behaves like" rather then "treated as" would have removed the need for this thread...

If it doesn't behave the exact same way, then inanimate objects would give no protection to an indirect spell. Armor does work, however, and barriers add to the Armor rating.

Armour gives protection because indirect spells affect the target from the outside. I don't think barriers are any actual help (besides breaking LOS) unless one takes your interpretation.

yes, but what is the easiest model that allows a outside attack, and allows the target to dodge?

I couldn't wrap my head around that - let's say I scored.. 9 points of damage on a 10 armour barrier, net. And that barrier is.. a sphere, so it is magically going off inside. The radius of the spell is slightly greater than the sphere. Does that destroy the sphere entirely? Hole it? Do nothing at all? What if the structure was 10, the force was 10, the spell was a blast effect? What if it was 11 points of damage?

As far as I can tell, it's just ka-boom for the barrier, or holes.

Even if they only affected the target from the outside, they'd cause a cloud of energy around the target, both inside and outside his clothing, if it just "appeared at the target". As far as barriers go, they add to armor against a ranged attack, and you get armor to resist. Additionally, against AoE indirect spells, breaking LOS isn't that big of a deal; you can fire around corners with these kind of spells.

I do admit that I'd like to see spells that fan out, or do something other than form a sphere. It'd be a lot more interesting.

As per the rules: If you score 9 net successes on a rating 10 barrier, you deal 9 point of Structure damage to the barrier, which does nothing-- you need to equal or exceed the Structure rating to punch a 1 square meter hole in it. If you dealt 10 points, or 11, you'd blow a 1-meter hole in the barrier.

The tricky rule is shooting through barriers, which is what we're arguing. If you shoot an indirect spell at a target behind a barrier, the damage should be lessened by the barrier.

and the hole created by that "shot" will be anything from a bullet hole to something less then 1 meter squared.

the rules are there for two specific uses. attacking someone behind a door, wall, or some other solid object, and making a opening in said solid object for people to walk thru.

at 1 meter squared or larger, a adult human male should have a fairly good chance of getting in. anything less and its worthless for that use.

but it may still damage whoever is on the other side (see the special rule about blasts blowing thru a barrier and turning the debris into shrapnel).

Nitpicking here, but they are "treated like ranged combat attacks"


This point is made invalid in the fact that indirect combat spells are explicitly mentioned in the destroying barriers section. Obviously, not wanting to introduce a concept not yet discussed is not the reason they are omitted from the shooting through barriers section.


Actually, they're coupled together, because explosives directly attached halve armor, and indirect combat spells also halve armor. Since barriers resist with armorx2, it is easy to say that for those 2 effects, they only resist with regular armor instead, as the effect of halving the doubled armor value is the original armor value.


Sure, we can. Both rulings are valid interpretations of the raw text, however, your interpretation is willfully ignoring indicators that point towards the other interpretation.


It doesn't behave the exact same way. Armor grants a bonus because the effect doesn't manifest inside the body, but outside of it. Look at clout for example. Thats an indirect combat spell, that hits with "invisible psychokinetic force". Why should such a spell with no physical object created be hindered in anyway by a glass window between the caster and the target?


The interpretation that manabolt and other direct combat spells ignore armor because the effects take place inside of the body of the target. Indirect spells manifest outside of that (say, at the edge of the aura) and travel into the target.


Depending on the structure rating of the barrier... (but if we take say, reinforced material, at 8/9). You get 9 points of damage (say a force 6 spell with 5 hits. Barrier gets 8 armor, so 2 hits, making 9 damage). Barrier is a sphere, you targeted the inside of it. Total boxes of damage dealt = 9. Structure rating = 9. Attack has made a 1 square meter hole.

Since it is an area attack, I'd say that for every square meter of the barrier you effect, you do damage to that section, since the area of the spell entirely encompasses the barrier, you'd blow a 1 meter hole in every square meter of barrier, effectively shredding it to pieces.

As I said, think of it as started at the targets aura (which by definition extends beyond clothing). And traveling from there into the target.

Ah.



Ta, that is what I was after. I had a suspicion, but without OFFICIAL TEXT (must be capitalised) I was a bit lost.

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?

This is, unless I'm mistaken, a strawman argument. By either reading of the rules, if you can't see him then you can't target him.

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".

Of course, if he's just holding up his armour, then engulfing the armour in a fireball should immolate the guy as well, but that's just common sense...