Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Direct Combat Spells
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Stormdrake
So question on Direct Combat Spell rules on pg. 195. The BBB says that DCS are handled as oppossed tests. My understanding of this is that the caster rolls to hit and the defender rolls the appropriate stat plus counterspelling to resist. If the caster wins the target takes full damage plus additional successes unresisted? Is this right? It really does not match withthe rest of the (Non-magic) combat system, so wanted to duoble check.
Muspellsheimr
That is correct.
Dragnar
Which means that yes, direct combat spells are more effective than pistol shots, especially if your target doesn't have any counterspelling. Firing a pistol doesn't hurt yourself, however and is only a simple action.
Stormdrake
Thank you,
Thought that that was correct but wanted to check.
jago668
Also the SOP isn't geek the guy with the pistol first.
TheOOB
You take damage so you still get a wound check, it just says that armor doesn't apply, at least thats how I've always interpenetrated it.

Example: Bob the mage has a magic of 5 and a spellcasting of 4, and casts a manabolt at force 5 at joe who has a body of 4 and a willpower of 3. Bob rolls an opposed spellcasting+magic agienst joe's willpower(it's a mana spell). Bob gets 4 hits and joe gets 2 hits, so the manabolt is successful with 2 net successes for 7P damage. Joe then resists this damage with his body of 4, getting 3 hits taking 4 damage overall.

The opposed check is just testing to see if your spell hits or not, and how good of a hit it is, you always get a damage resistance test, even if you're helpless.
Muspellsheimr
Incorrect. There is absolutely no Damage Resistance Test after the initial Spell Resistance Test. If you fail your Spell Resistance, you take full damage.
Hagga
A few gms will houserule that you swap elemental spell drain and direct spell drain because of the power differential.
Speed Wraith
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jan 6 2009, 03:08 AM) *
Incorrect. There is absolutely no Damage Resistance Test after the initial Spell Resistance Test. If you fail your Spell Resistance, you take full damage.


Huh? Do you have a source to back that up? Pages 139-140 in the core rulebook, which detail the sequence of combat indicates to me that a victim of an attack always receives a damage resistance test. I haven't seen anything that creates and exception for spells and the examples listed in the grimoire specifically notes a resistance test. Sure, that exact example is an indirect spell, but again, I never see anything stating that direct combat spells bypass the resistance test. If that isn't the way it is supposed to be, let me be sure my group knows that (though there is no way in hell I'd run my game like that - spellcasting is way too nasty as it is).
kzt
No, direct combat spells violate several generally established understandings for the game, as well as the actual rules.

Despite the fact that casting a direct spell on an object is a success test, it doesn't follow the rules for success tests on page 56.
Speed Wraith
Yeah, but can anyone point me to a rulebook, errata or official answer from here on DS that says this? Everything in the book seems to indicate that a mana bolt (for instance) is just like any other weapon/attack in the game. You attack the target, the target opposes the attack. Then if the attack hits you calculate damage and the targets resists the damage.

Also, how does the success test for objects not follow the normal rules?

Is my .pdf copy of the rules broken? nyahnyah.gif
vollmond
SR4 pg. 173
QUOTE
The
target resists physical spells with Body and mana spells with
Willpower. If the target is also protected by Counterspelling
(p. 175), she may add Counterspelling dice to this resistance


So it's an odd amalgamation of a resistance test and an Opposed (to-hit) test. If the target gets enough hits to match or exceed the caster's hits, then the spell fizzles. If they do not, then their hits count as their resistance test.

This helps illuminate the fact that direct combat spells are not similar to firearms attacks. You are not aiming and shooting - if you can see your target, you are directly magically affecting them - the target can't dodge, but they may inherently have more resistance to magical attacks.

I hope some of this made sense smile.gif
TheOOB
QUOTE (vollmond @ Jan 6 2009, 02:40 PM) *
SR4 pg. 173


So it's an odd amalgamation of a resistance test and an Opposed (to-hit) test. If the target gets enough hits to match or exceed the caster's hits, then the spell fizzles. If they do not, then their hits count as their resistance test.

This helps illuminate the fact that direct combat spells are not similar to firearms attacks. You are not aiming and shooting - if you can see your target, you are directly magically affecting them - the target can't dodge, but they may inherently have more resistance to magical attacks.

I hope some of this made sense smile.gif


Except that ranged attacks are opposed checks. If you get equal to or greater hits with your reaction then they got with their agility+skill roll, you don't get hit. You still have to make a damage resistance test after you get hit even after the opposed test.

Besides, direct combat spells mention quite clearly that armor doesn't apply, and since armor only applies on damage resistance tests and implies a damage resistance test takes place. Unless otherwise stated you always get a damage resistance test when you take damage, some things can change the exact numbers of a test(electricity uses half impact armor, drain is resisted with willpower+mental stat, not body, ect), but you always get the test.
vollmond
That's what I'm saying - the target's body/willpower + counterspelling IS the damage resistance test, with the extra feature that if they resist more than the caster's hits' worth of damage, the spell fizzles. It's a ranged attack that they cannot dodge, but that's counterbalanced by the fact that they can negate the damage without actually resisting it all.

Note that the rules for INdirect combat spells specifically says that they do get normal dodge and resistance tests - in contrast with direct combat spells. Indirect combat spells are treated as a ranged attack with -half AP. This is called out as different from direct combat spells (SR4 pg. 196)
Speed Wraith
Yeah, that is one of the weird bits of wording that confused me and my group for a while, but seeing as there is nothing that says that you don't get to resist the damage as normal we chucked it up to bad editing...I would like to note that pg 152 includes spells (without a distinction between direct and indirect) along with "guns, explosions, bladed weapons". Nowhere in the section on damage does it indicate any form of attack ignores the resistance test, although it does mention that damage is typically resisted using body plus armor rating. Armor is out in the resistance test, per page 196, but it is never stated that direct combat spells are the exception to the rules.

So I'm unswayed...since magic is still way overpowered (and it should be, really!) I see no reason to make it even MORE powerful by skipping the damage resistance test. I would still love to hear from someone who can officially answer the question just because I'm curious, but I can't possibly believe that direct combat spells, and only direct combat spells don't allow a damage resistance test when everything else that causes damage in the game (including indirect combat spells) does...

And I'm not trying to be a jerk, it is simply that this was a confusing issue for my group when we first started learning the current rules, I made a ruling that the rest of my group agreed with so I'm sticking with it, but it'd be nice to know if we're totally wrong...
Magus
QUOTE
SR4 BBB
Pg. 167 Sidebar “The Nature of Mana�
Sorcery involves the intuitive manipulation of the mana
fi eld by a magician, who shapes it in certain ways for certain
effects. A good metaphor for this is to equate the mana fi eld
with the airwaves, making the use of Sorcery the transmission
of certain radio signals that create different effects. To
cast a spell, a magician channels mana through herself and
transmits it on a specifi c frequency. The act of channeling
is fatiguing to a magician, and causes drain. The signal that
the magician creates is based on a spell formula that the
magician has learned, determining its form and effect. The
target of the spell is the radio signal receiver, and the signal is
sent on the target’s frequency. When the signal is received, it
channels mana through the target to create a specifi ed effect
(thus Direct Combat spells bypass armor, because they
affect the target from within). All of this occurs on the same
plane—physical or astral—as the magician and the target.
Area-effect spells work roughly the same way, except
that instead of transmitting a signal to one target, the caster
sends the signal out on multiple frequencies corresponding
with the targets within the area of effect. If there are targets
within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be
affected, because the caster cannot synchronize with them
to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive.

SR4 BBB
Pg. 173 Determine Effect
Spells cast on living or magic targets are oft en resisted,
and an Opposed Test is required. For area spells, the magician
rolls only once, and each target resists the spell separately. Th e
target resists physical spells with Body and mana spells with
Willpower.

Example from pg.174
A go-ganger is about to ride Raze down on
his motorbike, so Raze casts a Powerbolt at her. He
chooses Force 5 and rolls his Magic 5 + Spellcasting
4 (9 dice), and gets 4 hits. The ganger rolls her Body 3 to resist, and gets only 1. The base damage of the
Powerbolt is 5, increased by the net hits to 8—ouch!
The Drain Code for the Powerbolt is (F Ă· 2) + 1,
so Raze must resist 3 DV, rolling his Willpower +
Logic (he’s a mage).

Combat Spells Pg 195-196
Combat spells use mana to create damaging eff ects, either
by direct or indirect means. Direct Combat spells channel
damaging power directly into the target’s inner being, aff ecting
them from within, and so bypass armor. Indirect Combat
spells create an external damaging medium (oft en elemental in
nature) that is used to attack the target.
Direct Combat Spells: Handle these as an Opposed
Test. Th e caster’s Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target’s
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). Th e caster needs at least one net hit for the spell to take eff ect. Direct Combat spells aff ect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Speed Wraith
See, still nothing that states you don't get a damage resistance test. I want it stated explicitly if that is in fact the case. I seriously doubt you don't get one though, especially since the power bolt example above says the spell generates a "base damage" and not "final" damage value. Base DV changes to final DV after the damage resistance test, when the final damage is recorded. This also tracks with the Effect of the spell. The effect of a cast and resisted mana bolt could potentially (for instance) a base DV of 7. That's the effect, producing damage. Damage is damage, so now you have to resist the damage you've taken.

Here is the crux of my argument:
All combat (astral, physical, matrix) is handled with the same procedure. If direct combat spells were the exception to the rule, why isn't it spelled out that it doesn't allow a damage resistance test?
Brigandier
I'm not sure if I'm right on this or not, but in reading the go-ganger/powerbolt example above, it would seem that the 'to-hit' roll is also the resistance roll as it were. What I get from that example is that yes, the direct combat spell will indeed auto hit as long as there are any number of net hits on the test. The mage isn't so much rolling to hit as he's rolling to see if anything happens at all. In the example if the Go-Ganger had gotten the same number of hits or more than Raze, then the powerbolt would have merely fizzled and nothing would have happened at all, but because he did get net hits the spell resolves and the go-ganger takes damage. I could be wrong, but it simply seems that direct combat rolls forgo attempting to hit at all and just move straight to a damage resistance test to determine effect in which you either fully resist the spell or you just get blasted in the face.
pbangarth
EDIT: Brigandier already said much the same.

Peter
RedeemerofOgar
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ Jan 6 2009, 05:46 PM) *
See, still nothing that states you don't get a damage resistance test. I want it stated explicitly if that is in fact the case. I seriously doubt you don't get one though, especially since the power bolt example above says the spell generates a "base damage" and not "final" damage value. Base DV changes to final DV after the damage resistance test, when the final damage is recorded. This also tracks with the Effect of the spell. The effect of a cast and resisted mana bolt could potentially (for instance) a base DV of 7. That's the effect, producing damage. Damage is damage, so now you have to resist the damage you've taken.

Here is the crux of my argument:
All combat (astral, physical, matrix) is handled with the same procedure. If direct combat spells were the exception to the rule, why isn't it spelled out that it doesn't allow a damage resistance test?


The crux of your argument is that the editing, and indeed the general writing of the rules, in SR4 is shite. That is indisputable. However, your argument in no way provides the ANSWER to your original question. In fact, the SR4 rules seem to have been written by brain-damaged monkeys who on a number of occasions assume that you are familiar with all of the rules from SR3, and wrote SR4 to expand on 3 instead of replace it. Given that, when a dispute like this comes up, I tend to refer back to SR3.

In SR3, Indirect spells were called "elemental manipulation spells." You cast a spell with a Sorcery Test. Elemental spells were treated like normal ranged attacks using Sorcery as the Ranged Combat Skill and following all ranged modifiers, and were dodgeable and affected by armor. "Living targets may always make a Spell Resistance Test against spells, unless the target of the spell is willing. The target makes a Resistance Test using the targeted Attribute (usually Body, Intelligence or Willpower)... For elemental spells, the Resistance Test is actually a Damage Resistance Test, as described under Ranged Combat... the caster's successes are compared to the successes generated by the target. If the target generated the same number or more successes, the spell odes not affect the target. If the caster generates more successes, the spell has an effect. The spell's effect is measured as the diference between the caster's successes and the target's." - SR3BBB, p.183

CONCLUSION: Given that you are playing SR4 not SR3, and given that SR4 rules are poorly written, and given that everyone's game is different, you may houserule however you wish. It is nonetheless clear from both the SR4 examples and wording, and the SR3 precedent, that the INTENTION was to have targets make only a single test, using Body or Willpower, vs a Direct Combat Spell.

Game on!

Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (May Shadowrun Chat Transcript)
Tycho litte rulequestion: Is it right, that I get a Damage Resistence Test (without Armor), if I get hit by a direct combat spell and fail the Spell Resistence Test?
Bobby Derie Yes, that is correct.


QUOTE (Synner @ May 23 2008, 04:58 AM) *
I happened to be dealing with 20 other questions and passed this question (amongst others) on to him. This time he made a mistake and I didn't catch it (either in the chat or before posting the pdf).


QUOTE (Ancient History @ May 23 2008, 05:04 AM) *
<-Bobby

I goofed. It happens, and I'm very sorry it happened in the chat. Trying to answer questions as quickly as possible does that to you.


Source Thread

There is absolutely no additional Damage Resistance Test to a Direct spell after the initial Spell Resistance Test.
kzt
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ Jan 6 2009, 10:17 AM) *
Also, how does the success test for objects not follow the normal rules?

Success tests have to exceed the threshold. Magic doesn't work this way.

Notice the two highlighted sections below:

Page 56: Thresholds
Hits represent a measure of achievement on a test. In order to succeed completely on a Success Test, you must meet or
exceed a gamemaster-determined threshold with your hits. The higher the threshold, the more difficult an action is. The standard threshold is 1 (so only 1 hit is necessary to succeed), though other tests may have a threshold as high as 4. The Difficulty Table lists a range of difficulty levels along with a standard threshold for each. In some cases, a threshold modifier may apply to an action, raising or lowering the threshold by the stated amount.

The more net hits a character scores (the more hits exceed the threshold), the more the task was pulled off with finesse
and flair. So a character who rolls 4 hits on a threshold 2 test has scored 2 net hits.

Page 173: Step 5: Determine Effect
Some spells simply require a Success Test, with hits determining the level of success (as noted in the spell description). The Magic + Spellcasting test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if the effect has a threshold for success.


Page 174 Example
A go-ganger is about to ride Raze down on his motorbike, so Raze casts a Powerbolt at her. He chooses Force 5 and rolls his Magic 5 + Spellcasting 4 (9 dice), and gets 4 hits....

If Raze had targeted the bike instead of the ganger, his 4 hits would have been enough to reach the threshold of 4, as a motorbike counts as a highly-processed object. Since nonliving objects cannot resist against Directed Combat spells, the bike would have taken 5 DV from the spell (Raze didn’t score any net hits over the threshold to raise the damage).
TheOOB
I suppose we have word of god on the subject. Oh well, I suppose now our group just uses that as a houserule, C'est la vie.
Speed Wraith
That's what I was looking for, thanks Muspellsheimr!

And agreed TheOOB: HR that sucker in wink.gif
Malachi
Direct Combat Spells are why Counterspelling is so, SO, SOOOO important in SR4. All Sammies with low WIL should be pointing their Ingram at their team's mage until he activates Counterspelling.

Under SR3 it was even more in the Mage's favour. Counterspelling had to be pre-declared from Spell Pool at the beginning of the combat, which many Magicians forgot to do, or neglected to do because they wanted to save the Pool for their Casting tests or their Drain tests. Thus an attacking mage simply rolled a Spellcasting test against the target's Willpower as the target number. Generally, this meant 6 dice against TN 3 or 4 (on average). Again, in SR3 this was the damage resistance test. Oh and that attacking Mage probably threw his Spell Pool into the attack. What's that? Combat Pool? Sorry not for this action, you can only use your Mage's Spell Pool dice that he allocated for Counterspelling. He didn't? Tough nuts to you. Even if the friendly mage did allocate Counterspelling dice, they actually went away as they were used. So if the Mage allocated 6 dice for Counterspelling, and someone used 4 before you, then you only had 2 left. After that, everyone was out of luck.

I have seen the average hits on Direct Combat spells actually go down in SR4.
raggedhalo
Also, the really good thing about Direct Combat spells not offering a separate Resistance Test is that those characters with all the armour in the world do actually have some vulnerability...
cryptoknight
Well... I was doing some reading of past chat transcripts...


http://www.shadowrun4.com/resources/downlo...08Shadowrun.pdf
QUOTE
Tycho litte rulequestion: Is it right, that I get a Damage Resistence Test (without Armor), if I get hit by a direct combat spell and fail the Spell
Resistence Test?

Bobby Derie Yes, that is correct.

Brigandier
Muspellsheimr already quoted the same transcript on the page before, and also quoted where the person who gave said answer also pointed out the answer he gave was incorrect. He was just in a hurry when he answered.
Lance
Sadly, Direct Combat Spells are overpowered IMHO according to RAW. There is no mention of an additional damage resistance. So either you eat LOADS of damage or none at all seems to be the way it is. (which sucks) I never liked the "you cant counter magic AT all unless you have a mage yourself" way of SR.
Magus
Magic has always been that strong in Shadowrun. Mage trumps Mundane if they can see you. Yes that is the equalizer Tatical thinking. Smoke Grendades, Flashbang, and use of tatical cover if you even suspect a mage is present. Break line of site.

It really gets me about all the whining and crying of Direct Combat Spells. Yes Magic is powerful it is supposed to be people. But it can be countered and not only by another mage. Manatech was developed for the mundane to be alert that magic/spirits are present and to defend against it.
Malachi
There are a few ways that Mundanes can counter Magic. Clogging up Line of Sight being the biggest one. Mages cannot (usually) use any sort of vision enhancement with which to cast spells, so the first thing mundanes should be doing is throwing down Smoke Grenades or Flashpacks and running for cover. Some of the devices in the Manatech chapter help as well. However, I like the "magic must be countered by magic" factor of SR. I believe I've read that the designers intended Magic to work like this as well. Without the threat of Direct Combat Spells, armored Trolls became way too scary.

EDIT: Magus beat me to it, so, ditto what he says.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (Brigandier @ Jan 7 2009, 02:28 PM) *
Muspellsheimr already quoted the same transcript on the page before, and also quoted where the person who gave said answer also pointed out the answer he gave was incorrect. He was just in a hurry when he answered.



Blah I missed that... :/ teach me to run into what I thought was the answer to something while I was looking for something else.. and quickly get it where I think it goes... (hmmm sounds similar to the initial error I erroneously quoted, ah well).

I do wish they'd put that in a FAQ... doing google searches and whatnot doesn't always find what you want... but if it was on the FAQ, at least then it would be over and done with eh?

For a short while I thought I had been running magic incorrectly... As I had always run it per BBB with no additional DR test.
Apathy
QUOTE (Magus @ Jan 7 2009, 03:44 PM) *
Mage trumps Mundane if they can see you. Yes that is the equalizer Tatical thinking. Smoke Grendades, Flashbang, and use of tatical cover if you even suspect a mage is present. Break line of site.

If you have to choose just one, use smoke instead of flashbangs, since smoke obscures the astral as well, while flashbangs just affect the physical sight and won't restrict astral perception.
Speed Wraith
The problem is that if I want to slow the characters down in-game and give them some excitement/quicken the pace a bit I can't just toss some minor threat at them because no minor threat exists when you have a mage in the party. It might make sense in the story for the crimelord the characters are chasing to hire some gang to harass the party, but it is pointless to do because what should be a fun and exciting scene (and a chance for all of the characters to strut their stuff) ends the second the group's mage goes. So yeah, there are ways to counter it, but they just aren't practical/make any sense for story purposes a lot of the time.

The other problem is that I can see no reason for a player to use any indirect combat spell for any reason at all ever. Elemental affects just aren't that great if the target can full dodge and if you're trying to attack an object (say a wall) then technology is far easier and comes with no drain. Of course I have yet to see anyone other than low-level annoyance mages take any drain at all anyway, but that's a whole other issue...
cryptoknight
I know of one elemental effect indirect damage spell that's pretty useful.

Lightning Ball.

Carries the electricity carrier effect. If you don't dodge it... after you resist damage. You then make a second resistance test of WILL + BOD (+ insulation if you have it) vs the initial damage value. If you don't resist all of the initial damage... the result is the number of rounds you're incapacitated.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ Jan 7 2009, 04:01 PM) *
Of course I have yet to see anyone other than low-level annoyance mages take any drain at all anyway, but that's a whole other issue...


I have to agree there... the only time I saw somebody take drain at all... they threw a force 10 powerbolt at a vehicle. I think the result of that was 1 physical drain... Blew the vehicle to pieces.
vollmond
I use a fireball occasionally. Useful for the grenade effect - you don't have to see all your targets. Also was useful against the werewolves we ran into last night.... fluzzy firestarters biggrin.gif

As far as drain, I must be playing an annoyance mage. I regularly come out of a run with at least 3-5 stun drain and 1-2 physical (since I probably overcast something). Granted I'm a Norse troll, so I'm at 5 Willpower + 4 Charisma for DR (no spellcasting/power foci yet).

Also, don't forget your hits are limited by the Force of the spell. The most damage a Force 5 manabolt can do is 10, and that's if they don't resist ANY of it. In my experience, that's going to get taken down to 6/7P Our street sam regularly does more damage than that, and nobody claims he's overpowered.

EDIT: clarity
Malachi
QUOTE (Speed Wraith @ Jan 7 2009, 06:01 PM) *
The problem is that if I want to slow the characters down in-game and give them some excitement/quicken the pace a bit I can't just toss some minor threat at them because no minor threat exists when you have a mage in the party. It might make sense in the story for the crimelord the characters are chasing to hire some gang to harass the party, but it is pointless to do because what should be a fun and exciting scene (and a chance for all of the characters to strut their stuff) ends the second the group's mage goes. So yeah, there are ways to counter it, but they just aren't practical/make any sense for story purposes a lot of the time.

The other problem is that I can see no reason for a player to use any indirect combat spell for any reason at all ever. Elemental affects just aren't that great if the target can full dodge and if you're trying to attack an object (say a wall) then technology is far easier and comes with no drain. Of course I have yet to see anyone other than low-level annoyance mages take any drain at all anyway, but that's a whole other issue...

Your villain NPC's probably know there is a Mage in the party and will take steps to counter it. Smoke Grenades are very cheap and readily available. The opponents can lay an ambush and focus on your group's Mage first. Find ways in the book to stack modifiers on him even if they can't take the character out. Attack from cover, use devices that incur penalties, and focus on the Magician. The other evil thing to do as a GM is have your opponents send drones after the party. Direct Combat spells are nearly useless, drones can carry great weaponry, the controller probably has 3 IP's and a good Init, and sending drones presents a much smaller risk to the attackers than putting their butts in line of a Manabolt.
toturi
QUOTE (Malachi @ Jan 8 2009, 07:18 AM) *
The other evil thing to do as a GM is have your opponents send drones after the party. Direct Combat spells are nearly useless, drones can carry great weaponry, the controller probably has 3 IP's and a good Init, and sending drones presents a much smaller risk to the attackers than putting their butts in line of a Manabolt.

Drones are good, until they get stolen.
Glyph
If you think mages are overpowered, play a SURGED fomori with Astral Hazing.
Muspellsheimr
QUOTE (cryptoknight @ Jan 7 2009, 03:08 PM) *
Carries the electricity carrier effect. If you don't dodge it... after you resist damage. You then make a second resistance test of WILL + BOD (+ insulation if you have it) vs the initial damage value. If you don't resist all of the initial damage... the result is the number of rounds you're incapacitated.

Actually, it's Willpower + Body (+ Insulation) Threshold 3, regardless of the damage dealt.

Personally, I think it should be Threshold one-half DV, round up.
Apathy
The main point to indirect spells would be the elemental effects. Depending on GM interpretation, I believe the secondary effects (fire igniting flammables, etc) could be applied even when the primary damage of the spell is completely resisted.

In terms of making challenges for the mage I think it mostly boils down to four things:
  • background count
  • drones
  • visibility issues [and other modifiers]
  • applying area of effect restrictions

Say you and your team are walking through a dark sewer (visibility mods unless you're cybered or astral percieving). Suddenly a mob of devil rats surges up out of the piles of refuse all around you, coming out from under debris, out of holes, dropping from ledges on the ceiling... With 40 d.rats you don't have time to bolt each of them. They're in among you so if you hit them with an area effect spell you'll also hit your own teammates, and you won't hit them all because you won't even see 2/3rds of them which haven't yet emerged from the debris.

It's even worse if there's any background count, haze from leaks in the connecting steam tunnels, smoke from the exhaust a nearby factory is venting into this area, distraction mods for the stench, the freezing cold water and slippery/slimey concrete you're walking on, etc.

If instead of rats you get ambushed by a hoarde of small security drones spewing smoke/neurostun and firing stick-n-shock, you're truely fucked.
cryptoknight
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Jan 8 2009, 04:49 AM) *
Actually, it's Willpower + Body (+ Insulation) Threshold 3, regardless of the damage dealt.

Personally, I think it should be Threshold one-half DV, round up.



Ah yes... it's the number of rounds you get stunned.. which is based on the hits... +2... teach me to not read the book before mentioning something smile.gif
TheOOB
I'd just like to re-remind everyone, smoke grenades are cheep, don't cause collateral damage, and can easily be bypassed by thermal vision which is also cheep, just hope you hope you don't run into any troll or dwarf mages.

Indirect spells have uses, but they should be more seen as utility spells then pure damage spells. Lightning bolt/ball has a chance of taking anyone down for a few rounds regardless of damage, and will at least slap down some penalty's if it hits. Fire spells set the target on fire, which can be dangerous if the target has poor armor or is carrying too much ammunition/explosives, and acid spells have a tendency to render objects useless even if they don't outright destroy them.

Also, you can't counter them with counterspelling, nice against that mage who has 6 counterspelling and a spec in combat spells.
vollmond
QUOTE
Also, you can't counter them with counterspelling, nice against that mage who has 6 counterspelling and a spec in combat spells.


I'm not at work right now - do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that counterspelling could still be used.

EDIT: errrr rather I AM at work and thus away from my books.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Malachi @ Jan 7 2009, 10:25 AM) *
Direct Combat Spells are why Counterspelling is so, SO, SOOOO important in SR4. All Sammies with low WIL should be pointing their Ingram at their team's mage until he activates Counterspelling.

Under SR3 it was even more in the Mage's favour. Counterspelling had to be pre-declared from Spell Pool at the beginning of the combat, which many Magicians forgot to do, or neglected to do because they wanted to save the Pool for their Casting tests or their Drain tests. Thus an attacking mage simply rolled a Spellcasting test against the target's Willpower as the target number. Generally, this meant 6 dice against TN 3 or 4 (on average). Again, in SR3 this was the damage resistance test. Oh and that attacking Mage probably threw his Spell Pool into the attack. What's that? Combat Pool? Sorry not for this action, you can only use your Mage's Spell Pool dice that he allocated for Counterspelling. He didn't? Tough nuts to you. Even if the friendly mage did allocate Counterspelling dice, they actually went away as they were used. So if the Mage allocated 6 dice for Counterspelling, and someone used 4 before you, then you only had 2 left. After that, everyone was out of luck.

I have seen the average hits on Direct Combat spells actually go down in SR4.


The big thing about SR3 was the variable TN, and this applied more so to combat spells because the TN was the target's resistance stat, while the target's TN was the spell's Force. As a result, mages had to play smarter. Throwing a Force 4 Powerbolt against a Body 12 Troll was all but useless (you have a 1/36 chance of success per die while he has a 1/2 chance and throws 12 dice). At the same time, characters with high Willpower were also extremely difficult to manabolt.
And to reduce the probability of the character totally resisting the spell, you had to cast at a high force practically all the time.
Malachi
QUOTE (TheOOB @ Jan 9 2009, 03:29 AM) *
Also, you can't counter them with counterspelling, nice against that mage who has 6 counterspelling and a spec in combat spells.

This is not correct.
QUOTE (SR4 BBB pg. 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 modified 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).
Glyph
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 9 2009, 02:45 PM) *
The big thing about SR3 was the variable TN, and this applied more so to combat spells because the TN was the target's resistance stat, while the target's TN was the spell's Force. As a result, mages had to play smarter. Throwing a Force 4 Powerbolt against a Body 12 Troll was all but useless (you have a 1/36 chance of success per die while he has a 1/2 chance and throws 12 dice). At the same time, characters with high Willpower were also extremely difficult to manabolt.
And to reduce the probability of the character totally resisting the spell, you had to cast at a high force practically all the time.

Even so, I concur with Malachi that mages were more lethal in SR3. They threw a lot of dice, so even the guy with a Willpower of 6 was rolling 6 dice against potentially 18 or more dice. And there were some combat spells that could be cast at 6D where the mage still had a decent shot at soaking all of the Drain. Mages in SR4 can only approach that level of deadliness with overcasting, Edge, or both.
Tyro
QUOTE (TheOOB @ Jan 8 2009, 11:29 PM) *
<snip>
Fire spells set the target on fire, which can be dangerous if the target has poor armor or is carrying too much ammunition/explosives
<snip>


Actually, most security or military-grade ammo and explosives are pretty damn stable, especially the explosives. We can assume that both have been made even MORE stable over the years, and even today most explosives won't go off without a blasting cap or similar device.

Admittedly I'm no expert; could the experts back me up on this with hard data, please?
kzt
This is about Shadowrun, where the geniuses that write the rules think you just run electricity into explosives to make it explode. Not only are they notably ignorant about how weapons, computer and explosives work, they are proud of their ignorance and have worked hard to maintain it.

"Plastic Explosives: Highly stable, moldable, and adhesive, plastic explosives are ideal for certain jobs—like blowing a hole in a wall. They are usually color-tinted to indicate the level of current needed to detonate them, from the black of magnetic-field induction to the chalky white of 440-volt industrial explosives."

Yeah, everyone needs commercial explosives that are so unstable that having anything that uses batteries within a few hundred feet blows you up.....
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