A question which just occured to me in the Making the most out of magic thread:

Since people tend to handwave LoS for people behind the caster for counterspelling purposes, do you apply this handwavium to LoS for AoE spells as well?

Also, would you ever allow anyone to "edit" themselves out of their own LoS?

I'll have to consult the actual RAW, but I thought that AOE in SR4 meant multiple LOS, not 'grenades'. Or maybe it's just elemental spells?

Indirect spells are essentially grenades. Direct are multi-LOS.

I'd generally use the same LOS rule for AOE as counterspelling, just to keep it consistent. I don't think you can edit yourself out of a spell's AOE though, since targeting can also be established by touch, and you're always in contact with yourself.

Simsense can override touch as well though...

No, it overrides the sensation of touch. Not the action itself.

Being able to perceive (by sight, touch or astral sense) is what targeting of spellcasting is about though. I don't have a clue where you'd think this "action" comes in.

The statement that you're always able to detect touching yourself if a fairly thin one even. Propriosepsis tends to rule that out by default.

Interesting related question:
Could a paraplegic cast spells with a touch vector through anything but his head? He's unable to perceive anywhere else. How about when blind as well?

As in I don't feel myself touching him but I am still physically in contact with them. By your definition if someone has nerve damage and can't feel himself touch the person then spells wouldn't work for them through touch.

A touch spell is channeled via direct physical contact, whether or not you feel it is irrelevant.

EDIT: Double Post

Thank you, that's what I was trying to say.

it's the touch of the aura. not skin touch. that's why it works through cloth and kevlar

Didn't say anything about skin. Just saying physical contact is the necessary element and whether or not you can feel it is irrelevant.

Alright. Clear.

About the first portion though: can one make Powerball a cone shaped AoE by depositing it directly in front of one's face? Or does it "enjoy" the same LoS handwavium counterspelling tends to? Can the player choose between the two? If it does while counterspelling doesn't, this is an even more interesting answer of course.

Assuming one doesn't see oneself, does one target oneself with this Powerball anyway? And the questions to follow a positive answer there: can one include sight vector and touch vector targetting on the same casting of a spell without multicasting? How about including a touched invisible enemy and a sighted one 4 meters away in the same Powerball?

I'm just looking for people's thoughts, as I think a RAW bases would be hard to find for most cases. If I'm just ignorant though, I'd gladly have it pointed out to me.

Isn't Powerball a Direct? It's multi-LOS, not AOE. I thought. Fireball, on the other hand…

Powerball is a direct spell, with an area target.
Area targetting spells hit all applicable targets within F meters of the target spot, if they are within LoS of the caster.

Indirect combat spells are the sole exception of the last prerequisite. There are very little, if any questions there whatsoever. You're within F meters? You get burned. Even if you're buried in 3 meters of concrete and invisible.

There's no such thing as "multi-LoS" beyond that, and it is the default.

The invisible part is true because invisible doesn't protect you from things like fire, electricity, or gravity. But last time I checked physical spells (not mana spells) follow all physical rules. They mention that electricity spells in water get extra range and fire spells are weakened. If they follow basic laws like that then obviously a wall should stop it as well.

They do not follow the blast laws, as they do not weaken per Meter. The area is just striken with elementals power. And eveything in this area...

From the Raw point I think (but I can't put my finger on) Mardraxs is right.

Even though the jack in the heavy box getting fried, well does not feel right. But I think it is raw. (It is quite nasty against vehicles though.)

Actually after reading it I believe you're mistaken.

As they travel down the link to the chosen target such ef-
fects may be impeded by physical obstacles or mana barriers. They may
impact transparent obstacles (such as glass) and do not “bounce” off
reflective surfaces used for line of sight. Instead the spell takes effect at
the point of contact with an obstructing barrier.

Right there it says it will take effect with an obstructing barrier meaning things can stop it and it may be impeded by physical obstacles meaning the effect can be stopped by cover. It also says that non living objects roll their Armor x 2 vs the damage so a wall could protect you against it just like it would protect you from bullets.

@WyldKnight
Thats all pre hitting the designated area, I think.
(I do not know where you get your information from.)

And everyone (on a flat area) is hit with the same force. So the spell has no "center".
So as a matter of fact I think I am correct. But it would be a silly ruling, because you could fry the crew of a tank by throwing a Fireball close to the tank.
On the other Hand, indirect combat spells are otherwise quite week.

I get it from the 20th Anniversary Edition.

Page 183 says

If the target is also protected by Counterspelling (p. 185), she may add Counterspelling
dice to this resistance test. This Opposing dice pool is further modi-
fied by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see
Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160).

It says cover matters. If cover matters then physical objects stop physical spells.

SR4A, p203
"Indirect Combat spells create an external damaging medium (often elemental in nature) that is used to attack the target"

I'm pretty sure this means that cover protects from an indirect, AoE spell. The whole "shtick" of Indirect spells is that they create real, physical effects. So a real fireball won't fry people 3m under concrete etc...

*edit* Also, you resist Indirect spells with Body + Armor = that pretty much guarantees that cover also protects.

This still confuses me too. Physical / Mana spells are both Direct Combat spells, and so don't really follow physical rules. Indirect Combat spells will follow physical rules, with electricity / fire / etc

I don't like this distinction in the rules and think it's confusing

By RAW,(as per the passage Wyldknight quoted) physical obstacles only come into play if they exist between the caster and the spell's intended point of impact. Yes, if you cast an F7 fireball at a tank, the tank will be unscathed at all, while inhabitants fry.
You can't target it inside the tank though, nor behind a pane of glass. The armchair magician needs to open his window to cast Fireballs out of it, or blow up his living room. And he can't use the spying mirror to look around the corner either, or magesight goggles. Not so for Manabolts.

Once the spell hits a surface though, everything within F meters get fried, regardless of barriers and such. (as per the passage Irion quoted, and the back end of the passage Wyldknight quoted, which says Indirect damage spells do not need LoS between caster and targets within the spell's area to affect them) The barriers have a chance of being blown to bits as well, but don't have to be for the person inside to die horribly. While the gypsum wall might survive the initial fireball, the wooden supports don't.

If you want to houserule otherwise, that's fine, but this is what RAW has to say about it.
Don't agree with how that works? I can see that. So next question: would you, if you houserule to make indirect damage spells affected by barriers when taking effect, also make them subject to Chunky Salsa rules?

While RAW, this leaves some nasty questions unanswered. If an area spell hitting one side of a concrete wall can extend it's effects on the other side without needing to breach the wall first, what does prevent it from filling each and every non-solid filled space in it's area of effect with destructive energies ?

Like, say, the free room inside your fireproofed helmet or between your insulating clothing and your body (negating worn armor completely), or even the air volume inside your lungs, mouth and assorted airways ?

I call shenanigans, I think you are reading WAY much into the rules and not interpreting them.
So, the best way for me to stop a tank is cast fireball just outside of it to fry the entire crew inside? Shenanigans!!!

Indeed... Since cover provides extra dice to soak the damage of those pesky Indirect spells, total cover (A Tank is Total Cover for this example) should protect you completely, assuming it can withstand the destructive force of the elemental effect. If the Cover survives, then you are unscathed. If not, if the cover is breached in any way, well then, you are going to have some problems.

Like I said, I totally see the point of houseruling it otherwise and calling it RAI, the fact that total cover negating damage entirely not being RAW however remains unchanged. Sure, defenders get the Good Cover +4 bonus, but that's where RAW ends. The caster would technically get the -6 Blind Fire penalty as well, which is easily negated by targetting the structure someone is hiding in (since really, you know you can't hit the person himself anyway, even if you have LoS), or someone who isn't obscured.
Prior grenade abuse of course says you should be targetting whoever you really want to target, which might or might not be someone benefitting from the same ammount of cover, . Also note that in the case of indirect magic, one can have LoS just fine, while the target technically has total cover, hiding behind a pane of glass.

Nah. Whatever the RAW fails to say, we all know that AOE indirect spells have a center, and don't teleport through objects.

Thanks Mardrax, this *is* what I meant by 'multi-LOS'; LOS is required for each target, within an area.

Let me rephrase that: So, the best way for me to stop a tank is cast fireball just outside of it to fry the entire crew inside even though the tank is not even scorched by the fireball? Shenanigans!!!

That's not what anybody is saying.

It seems to me, that is exactly what Mardrax is trying to say.

The tank would likely resist all damage through its armor. Not necessarily, but likely.
Either way, you are aware of the fact that most people who get killed inside of tank do so without the tank incurring any meaningful structural damage? A small hole in a wall won't stop the tank. The DP round going through the driver's head will stop the driver. Also, while this is less of a problem nowadays, overheating the internal environment is a huge problem for tanks, with several people in a small environment and the engine running close by. Fire-based attacks like flamethrowers play into this very well, next to the fact that a tank is far from airtight and will have plenty holes for ventilation, sight and whatnot, for any heat and fuel to enter through. Plus they're loaded with combustibles in the form of both engine fuel and gunpowder.
Really, frying all inhabitants of a tank while barely (if at all) scratching the tank itself isn't far fetched at all.

Granted, frying someone buried in 3 meters of concrete is. Which is why I say that I really see going with RAI as the sensible option there.

Not what I said Brazalian_Shinobi. If you look at the post you quoted, I agreed with you.

Tymeaus, I know, I was just refering to James post.

@Mardrax: Ok, let's change the fireball to a Lighting ball, the people inside the tank are completely isolated (faraday cage and all that stuff) and yet they would be electrified by the spell, because the spell fills its entire area from all points, instead of going from its center to the limit in a radial way. That's my argument.

Fair Enough...

Ah, you'd quoted Tymeus, which confused me. Yeah, Mardrax is 100% wrong as ar as RAW goes. Whether he has a point about relity I have no idea, as I'm not a tank expert. But the rules are clear on how spells work when you can't see the target.

But indirect combat spells don't need LOS to do damage to hidden characters. A fireball centered on the guy stepping around the corner burns his buddy farther back, too. (See SR4A, page 204)

The argument that there are air holes in the tank does seem to have some merit. Aren't they sealable against things like toxins and such? If so, then the area effect of the fireball should not get in, unless it breaks through the tank itself.

The area of a breakage should be big enough to fit at least a small human through to count as being broken. Air vents etc are to small to allow any sort of violent effect through, imo.

Especially since we're talking about air vents on a tank. Their presence should already be included in the tank's armor rating.

They are. This is why a tank doesn't get to include its armor against things such as gas attacks, and only half against most elemental based attacks.

A tank could be made completely airtight by having a Life Support II mod. Life Support I does something to fix it. Neither protect against elemental attacks though.

Air vent are big enough to let through air. Including superheated air, ionised air, air full of sand, cold air, or whatever you'd like to add to the air to make it damaging. You don't need a metahuman sized hole to accomplish this. You don't even need a hole bigger than those in your usual mosquito net. Do note that barrier breakage in RAW works in 1 square meter increments and doesn't acknowledge anything smaller.

In any case, it's just an example (a realistic one at that) of how RAW applies. As the passage on Indirect Damage spells states, they are handled as ranged attacks(so get ranged defense applied to them, which means cover) but don't need LOS from any point to anything in the spell area to affect it (meaning total cover is moot). You can argue all you want, but that passage doesn't change, and really can't be interpreted any different. Just that RAI says it shouldn't work like that isn't a valid argument to say it isn't RAW. If anyone does have any valid arguments though, I'd love to hear them.

As for me, I'd definitely go with that same RAI in a lot of cases. I'd probably apply most blast rules to them, in fact. There should be plenty of cases where it should work as RAW dictates though.

@Yerameyahu

From where? If what you said is true, the damage would be reduced the farer you go from the center. It stays the same.

I would go that the spell ignores normal cover but does not have the possibility to jump into closed compartments (as tanks).
So if you are sitting behind a metall box you get hit for full damage, if you are inside the metall box, you may apply the armor raiting of the box.

I've always thought of Indirect AOE spells as magical, instantaneous mini-grenades. You can shoot a minigrenade from your MGL-6 so that it goes off in an intersection, hitting targets around the corner that you didn't have LOS to. But the grenade had to have LOS to the target it hit, at time of detonation. Conversly, if you had a concrete partition running down the middle of the hallway and you fired down the left side of the wall and a bad guy was on the right side of it, the bad guy would get the benifit of protection from the wall (which is in between him and the exploding grenade/indirectspell) even though there's nothing impeding the caster/shooter's view of the man.

Is there anything in RAW that contradicts this interpretation of indirect spells?

Not necessarily. That's like saying that in order for a spell to have some similarities to a grenade it must be exactly like a grenade in all respects, which I don't think necessarily follows.

I just gave a quote from the book stating that cover applies so if cover applies physical things may stop a spell. If physical objects may stop a spell then logic dictates that spells can't magically pass through things.

No. This is how it works.

If I am behind a wall, and you know this, and you cast a fireball at me, I am not hit by the fireball unless it blows through the wall or can conceivably "wrap around" it. Despite the interesting ideas about casting fireballs at tanks and using them to roast the people inside, it doesn't work that way, for the same reason you can't napalm a bunker and roast the people in the bunker, unless the napalm has a way into bunker in the first place. I.E. by having to blast through a barrier, or get resisted by a vehicle, or whatever. As WyldKnight says, if you have *cover*, you can apply cover as a bonus, but if the spell can't actually hit you from where it is without blowing through things, the mage is outa luck.

*sigh* Let me just recount all RAW has to say on indirect area spells, all emphases mine:




"Like ranged combat attacks" means all applicable modifiers and conditions apply, except the explicitly indicated exception of being able to affect targets the caster cannot see. In all other cases, if the opposed roll pans out in the caster's favor, any applicable target is in fact affected, according to RAW.
Anything about cover, beyond the indicated penalties and bonusses on the attack/defense rolls is purely RAI and not supported by RAW.

So no, Adarael, that is not how it works according to RAW, while it might be how it works at most tables.

@WyldKnight
No, you did not. Mardrax did provide inside to your quote, so the why is already provided.

As a matter of fact the only rule on how the "-ball" spell work after hitting the area of effect is in the quote I provided.
But as beeing in cover is a defensive modification (to armor) and not a modifcation to the spell, you could argue you still get the dices.
Since you are in cover after all. I overlooked it. But I can't find it now either, so I can't tell for sure. (Just remembering something vague)

So the cover or the armor of the tank could apply.

I suggest we introduce a new acronym : RAPW - Rules As Poorly Written !

Again, it doesn't matter if there's a big error in the RAW. Let's forget about the tank, with its complications of 'tiny holes' and things. We know that indirect effects do not *teleport through* solid objects.

Irion, look above. Just look at it. Do you see it? Good. It says right there that cover applies. So lets break this down shall we?

Cover applies = Physical objects effect it

Physical objects effect it = Physical objects can stop it

Physical objects can stop it = It can't phase through obejects

It can't phase through objects being the point of what we're arguing against. Now please show me something that states otherwise.