Full Version: Indirect Combat Spells
Indirect combat spells as written suck. We all know it. How do y'all feel about making them immune to counterspelling and possibly object resistance? The rationale would be that the spell just creates the elemental effect - the effect itself is nonmagical.
Letting them bypass OR might not be bad, but letting any spell get past counterspelling instantly makes it a must-have, which in my book equates to overpowered.
QUOTE (Tanegar @ Oct 4 2010, 01:47 PM) 
Letting them bypass OR might not be bad, but letting any spell get past counterspelling instantly makes it a must-have, which in my book equates to overpowered.
Have you looked at the drain values for indirect combat spells recently? IMO, you pay for that advantage.
[Edit:] Also, ICS allow dodging. Stupid high drain PLUS counterspelling PLUS dodging is a bit much if you ask me.
[Edit 2:] ICS can be stopped by transparent barriers, unlike DCS
Well... since i use the optional rule of (direct spells get drain for net hits)... the indirect aren't that bad. Also the area effects can take out invisible targets or people in cover...
Seems good enough for me. If you let them ignore the OR... that might be possible... But then you have to check all other spells for it too (manipulations/physical illusions). And since they start at your point and travel to the foes, counterspelling should apply (to intercept) The effect itself might be physical but has to be fed. Nothing can keep on burning without fuel.
Seems good enough for me. If you let them ignore the OR... that might be possible... But then you have to check all other spells for it too (manipulations/physical illusions). And since they start at your point and travel to the foes, counterspelling should apply (to intercept) The effect itself might be physical but has to be fed. Nothing can keep on burning without fuel.
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ Oct 4 2010, 02:14 PM)
Well... since i use the optional rule of (direct spells get drain for net hits)... the indirect aren't that bad. Also the area effects can take out invisible targets or people in cover...
Seems good enough for me. If you let them ignore the OR... that might be possible... But then you have to check all other spells for it too (manipulations/physical illusions). And since they start at your point and travel to the foes, counterspelling should apply (to intercept) The effect itself might be physical but has to be fed. Nothing can keep on burning without fuel.
Seems good enough for me. If you let them ignore the OR... that might be possible... But then you have to check all other spells for it too (manipulations/physical illusions). And since they start at your point and travel to the foes, counterspelling should apply (to intercept) The effect itself might be physical but has to be fed. Nothing can keep on burning without fuel.
Maybe just ignore OR, then. Thoughts?
QUOTE (Tyro @ Oct 4 2010, 10:22 PM)
Maybe just ignore OR, then. Thoughts?
That seams ok and more sane. Oh look my big blast of fire killed all those trees but as its a drone it didn't even get hot can be silly.
QUOTE (Dumori @ Oct 4 2010, 11:30 PM)
That seams ok and more sane. Oh look my big blast of fire killed all those trees but as its a drone it didn't even get hot can be silly.
I'm pretty positive that isn't even a house rule, indirect combat spell dont mention OR in anyway on the description how they work.
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ Oct 4 2010, 05:14 PM)
Well... since i use the optional rule of (direct spells get drain for net hits)...
I bet mages in your games over cast and dual cast a lot, huh.
(and then spend no hits on damage)
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Oct 4 2010, 11:43 PM)
I bet mages in your games over cast and dual cast a lot, huh.
(and then spend no hits on damage)
(and then spend no hits on damage)
Hm.. in fact: no. While i let my NPC's overcast a lot, the players nearly never do... and i have not seen any dual cast so far.
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ Oct 4 2010, 05:47 PM)
Hm.. in fact: no. While i let my NPC's overcast a lot, the players nearly never do... and i have not seen any dual cast so far.
They actually eat the extra drain? o.O
It'd be so much more efficient to take double the drain (rolling against it twice) and do double the damage than it is to trade 1:1.
E.g. Force 6 stunbolt (0 net hits used):
F/2-2 (yes?) -> 1 drain, 6 damage (1:6 ratio drain:damage)
Two F6 stunbolts (+1 drain for double-casting)
F/2-2+1 * 2 -> 2 drain (twice), 12 damage (1:6)
One force 6 stunbolt, 6 net hits used:
F/2-2+6 -> 7 drain, 12 damage (slightly worst than 1:2)
Nah... if you split your pools you risk losing both spells (or even one) against counterspelling. Hell, maybe you even have bad luck and someone stops it with willpower alone this time. Also my mage-player has like a bazillion dice against drain (i think 18 or so)... Nearly never gets any (and likes it that way... never overcasts, weirdly... even if he could easily do so)
QUOTE (Mäx @ Oct 4 2010, 10:38 PM)
I'm pretty positive that isn't even a house rule, indirect combat spell dont mention OR in anyway on the description how they work.
Every spell by RAW has to beat OR unless exempted. Just as it doesn't mention it in that part alone. Its stated in all spells part.
QUOTE (Dumori @ Oct 4 2010, 06:10 PM)
Every spell by RAW has to beat OR unless exempted. Just as it doesn't mention it in that part alone. Its stated in all spells part.
This is untrue.
QUOTE
Direct Combat Spells:
Handle these as an Opposed
Test. The caster’s Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target’s
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). The caster needs at least one net
hit for the spell to take effect. Direct Combat spells affect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are
treated as Success Tests; the caster much achieve enough hits to
beat the item’s Object Resistance (see p. 174). Net hits increase
damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test).
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
modified 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).
Handle these as an Opposed
Test. The caster’s Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target’s
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). The caster needs at least one net
hit for the spell to take effect. Direct Combat spells affect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are
treated as Success Tests; the caster much achieve enough hits to
beat the item’s Object Resistance (see p. 174). Net hits increase
damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test).
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
modified 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).
Hm... what is wrong with me... of course it already is so. Sigh... If i look back on it, i never asked for OR when shooting at something with an indirect spell. Why did i even consider not doing it, when i am already not doing it? (As it is the normal ruling)
Ah well...
Ah well...
SR4A p183, last sentence.
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist damage (Barriers, p177).
Pretty sure the RAI on this is that OR is not a factor when using direct spells on a non-living object, though it doesn't specifically say it isn't subject to OR. Either RAW interpretation is valid but I like the one that ignores OR as it actually gives Indirect Combat spells a point in the game and makes fluff sense as well.
Edit: Scooped by Draco. Different quotes though, both indicating the same thing, that Indirect spells ignore OR.
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist damage (Barriers, p177).
Pretty sure the RAI on this is that OR is not a factor when using direct spells on a non-living object, though it doesn't specifically say it isn't subject to OR. Either RAW interpretation is valid but I like the one that ignores OR as it actually gives Indirect Combat spells a point in the game and makes fluff sense as well.
Edit: Scooped by Draco. Different quotes though, both indicating the same thing, that Indirect spells ignore OR.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Oct 5 2010, 12:44 AM)
This is untrue.
No it's not.
QUOTE (SR4A pg 184)
A spell cast on a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted, as the
object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to
oppose the casting of the spell (note that only Physical spells will affect
non-living objects; mana spells have no effect). Highly processed and
artificial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects.
Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold
based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table).
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage
(Barriers, p. 166).
object has no life force and thus no connection to mana with which to
oppose the casting of the spell (note that only Physical spells will affect
non-living objects; mana spells have no effect). Highly processed and
artificial items are more difficult to affect than natural, organic objects.
Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold
based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table).
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or
just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage
(Barriers, p. 166).
The spell has to beat OR and armour. No place dose this get changed.
Edit: looks like I've been ninja'd
Yeah, right there in your underlined bit:
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack;
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack;
QUOTE (tagz @ Oct 4 2010, 07:58 PM)
SR4A p183, last sentence.
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist damage (Barriers, p177).
Pretty sure the RAI on this is that OR is not a factor when using direct spells on a non-living object, though it doesn't specifically say it isn't subject to OR. Either RAW interpretation is valid but I like the one that ignores OR as it actually gives Indirect Combat spells a point in the game and makes fluff sense as well.
Edit: Scooped by Draco. Different quotes though, both indicating the same thing, that Indirect spells ignore OR.
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist damage (Barriers, p177).
Pretty sure the RAI on this is that OR is not a factor when using direct spells on a non-living object, though it doesn't specifically say it isn't subject to OR. Either RAW interpretation is valid but I like the one that ignores OR as it actually gives Indirect Combat spells a point in the game and makes fluff sense as well.
Edit: Scooped by Draco. Different quotes though, both indicating the same thing, that Indirect spells ignore OR.
Strongly agree.
Hell, it makes sense logically as well. A direct spell works by ripping the target apart from the inside.
A indirect spell in comparison creates a outside force and directs it towards the target (much like a bullet or rocket).
As such, magic has very little to do with what happens with the target. It basically gets a close encounter with a mass of fire, sonic vibrations, electricity, high pressure water (consider that water jets are used to cut steel after all) or something similar.
And then there are all the fun secondary effects
A indirect spell in comparison creates a outside force and directs it towards the target (much like a bullet or rocket).
As such, magic has very little to do with what happens with the target. It basically gets a close encounter with a mass of fire, sonic vibrations, electricity, high pressure water (consider that water jets are used to cut steel after all) or something similar.
And then there are all the fun secondary effects
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Oct 5 2010, 01:17 AM)
Yeah, right there in your underlined bit:
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack;
Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the
damage as they would any ranged attack;
Its an addition as direct combat spells don't face armour ect. Nowhere does it say and don't need to overcome OR.
You mean aside from every description of indirect spells that does not mention OR and every description of direct spells that does? 
Say:
"Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack."
Say:
"Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack."
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Oct 5 2010, 03:36 PM)
You mean aside from every description of indirect spells that does not mention OR and every description of direct spells that does?
Say:
"Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack."
Say:
"Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack."
Yup the fact the the section discribing all spells says all have to beat OR then says they indirect also have to face armour. I'm not say the supposed house rule of letting them ignore OR is bad I am saying it is a house rule even if RAI. Till they errata it as it stands in missions and such direct spells are wank I mean higher drain need a direct path as to beat OR and armour to do damage and can be dodged and counter-spelled the only positive they have is you can use the area ones like none scattering 'nades.
Do every description of indirect spells say anything about OR? As I believe the section on how all spells are dealt with covers all spells.
I have been over this multiple times in the past. Dumori is correct.
Edit:
Rephrased as rules statements. Book quotes will likely be provided later.
Spells are subject to Object Resistance (when targeted against non-living objects).
Object Resistance provides a Threshold to succeed.
Some [Undefined] spells may be [Have Possibility Of] exempt from this rule.
Indirect Combat spells are treated as Ranged Combat tests [Spellcasting vs. Defense test].
Indirect Combat spells allow a Damage Resistance test.
Indirect Combat spells are not listed as an exception to Object Resistance.
Threshold tests are not exclusive from Opposed tests.
Indirect Combat spells allow a Defense [Opposed] test, must succeed against Object Resistance [Threshold], and allow a Damage Resistance test.
The intent of the rule (generally clear as written, and clarified by designers) is that Indirect Combat spells are not subject to Object Resistance.
The intent of the rule contradicts the Rules as Written, and until included in errata is a House Rule.
Edit:
Rephrased as rules statements. Book quotes will likely be provided later.
Spells are subject to Object Resistance (when targeted against non-living objects).
Object Resistance provides a Threshold to succeed.
Some [Undefined] spells may be [Have Possibility Of] exempt from this rule.
Indirect Combat spells are treated as Ranged Combat tests [Spellcasting vs. Defense test].
Indirect Combat spells allow a Damage Resistance test.
Indirect Combat spells are not listed as an exception to Object Resistance.
Threshold tests are not exclusive from Opposed tests.
Indirect Combat spells allow a Defense [Opposed] test, must succeed against Object Resistance [Threshold], and allow a Damage Resistance test.
The intent of the rule (generally clear as written, and clarified by designers) is that Indirect Combat spells are not subject to Object Resistance.
The intent of the rule contradicts the Rules as Written, and until included in errata is a House Rule.
The section on Direct Spells specifically mentions OR tests.
The section on Indirect Spells does not.
It seems like the intent was for Indirect spells to not suffer from OR.
The power of indirect spells seems to be they can be Area of Effect, and that they can have secondary elemental effects.
As for Drain Values:
Direct and Indirect both have the same base drain value. F/2
Touch spells get -2 DrV
Area Spells get +2 DrV
Spells with an Elemental Secondary effect get +3
It is a bit weird that Stun Bolt is -1 dv compared to the equivalent punch/clout/blast spell
The section on Indirect Spells does not.
It seems like the intent was for Indirect spells to not suffer from OR.
The power of indirect spells seems to be they can be Area of Effect, and that they can have secondary elemental effects.
As for Drain Values:
Direct and Indirect both have the same base drain value. F/2
Touch spells get -2 DrV
Area Spells get +2 DrV
Spells with an Elemental Secondary effect get +3
It is a bit weird that Stun Bolt is -1 dv compared to the equivalent punch/clout/blast spell
It doesn't say you get to do reaction+dodge+counterspelling
It says reaction+counterspelling (if you have it)
So it's not really a 'dodge' test.
You can't use Gymnastics Dodge
You can't use your Dodge skill, or the MBW modifier to it.
Reaction and things that add directly to your reaction die pool.
It says reaction+counterspelling (if you have it)
So it's not really a 'dodge' test.
You can't use Gymnastics Dodge
You can't use your Dodge skill, or the MBW modifier to it.
Reaction and things that add directly to your reaction die pool.
And objects get their Armor * 2 and don't cause an OR test.
(Versus an OR test and only Armor)
(Versus an OR test and only Armor)
QUOTE (sabs @ Oct 5 2010, 09:12 AM)
As for Drain Values:
Direct and Indirect both have the same base drain value. F/2
Touch spells get -2 DrV
Area Spells get +2 DrV
Spells with an Elemental Secondary effect get +3
It is a bit weird that Stun Bolt is -1 dv compared to the equivalent punch/clout/blast spell
Direct and Indirect both have the same base drain value. F/2
Touch spells get -2 DrV
Area Spells get +2 DrV
Spells with an Elemental Secondary effect get +3
It is a bit weird that Stun Bolt is -1 dv compared to the equivalent punch/clout/blast spell
Incorrect.
+1 Drain: Physical Spell
+0 Drain: Mana Spell
+0 Drain: Physical Damage
-1 Drain: Stun Damage
-2 Drain: Touch Range
+0 Drain: Line of Sight Range
+2 Drain: Area of Effect
+2 Drain: Elemental Effect (Requires Physical Spell)
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Oct 5 2010, 10:11 AM)
Threshold tests are not exclusive from Opposed tests.
Wrong. From SR4A, p. 63, last black-text sentence on the page:
QUOTE
Note that thresholds are never applied to Opposed Tests.
Which means that Indirect Combat Spells ignore OR, since they are specifically resolved as Opposed Tests even against nonliving objects, and Opposed Tests do not use thresholds.
I was slightly off in that I combined Physical spell +1 with the elemental effect to get +3 
everything else was actually right.
everything else was actually right.
Congratulations Fringe, you are one of very few people who have proven me wrong.
Sad part is probably over 20 people have argued about that with me without ever providing a rules quote to actually support their side. And I had personally searched for at least an hour for a line of text such as that before posting on the subject without being able to find it.
I cannot remember off the top of my head, but there was at least one other area in the rules that used both a Threshold and an Opposed test. I'll have to find it again for the "Broken Rules" thread, as it obviously cannot function that way.
Sad part is probably over 20 people have argued about that with me without ever providing a rules quote to actually support their side. And I had personally searched for at least an hour for a line of text such as that before posting on the subject without being able to find it.
I cannot remember off the top of my head, but there was at least one other area in the rules that used both a Threshold and an Opposed test. I'll have to find it again for the "Broken Rules" thread, as it obviously cannot function that way.
QUOTE (Fringe @ Oct 5 2010, 11:28 AM)
Which means that Indirect Combat Spells ignore OR, since they are specifically resolved as Opposed Tests even against nonliving objects, and Opposed Tests do not use thresholds.
Good catch, Fringe.
QUOTE (Fringe @ Oct 5 2010, 04:28 PM)
Wrong. From SR4A, p. 63, last black-text sentence on the page:
Which means that Indirect Combat Spells ignore OR, since they are specifically resolved as Opposed Tests even against nonliving objects, and Opposed Tests do not use thresholds.
Which means that Indirect Combat Spells ignore OR, since they are specifically resolved as Opposed Tests even against nonliving objects, and Opposed Tests do not use thresholds.
Wow nice catch I must have read over that a good few times. That fixes a few weird areas in the rules. If only it wasn't a page ender and thus more likely to be missed.
Am glad to see RAI reflected in RAW.
It's even in the CGL print of the BBB. Don't have an older text to hand so not 100% if this was errataed or just over looked. There's also the posablity that a new book conterdics this rule.
Well done Fringe! Color me very impressed.
Maybe make them immune to counterspelling if they're used indirectly? If you can't see the mage but you can see the target, you can't notice the effect until the AoE fries the target. Thoughts?
Maybe make them immune to counterspelling if they're used indirectly? If you can't see the mage but you can see the target, you can't notice the effect until the AoE fries the target. Thoughts?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.