Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Direct/Indirect Combat Spells?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
yesferatu
Hey guys,

I was doing some spell research and I can't seem to find any reason to ever use an indirect combat spell.
Just so I get this straight...you cannot use a direct mana spell against a non-living target...right?
You could use a direct physical spell against it, but the test would be a threshold test.

Since indirect spells are resisted first with reaction and then again with body and half damage, vs. direct physical spells which are just resisted with body...why would you ever cast an indirect spell?

Is there a situation where the indirect physical spell is preferable to a direct physical spell?

I just can't seem to get my head around it.
Mäx
QUOTE (yesferatu @ May 10 2011, 07:13 PM) *
Is there a situation where the indirect physical spell is preferable to a direct physical spell?

When your trying to take-out drones or vehicles, an indirect spell can be a better shoice in many cases, as it doesn't have to overcome the OR of the target like the direct spell does.

And then there are ofcource those situations where you want to affect someone behind a full cover or around the corner, in those cases the indirect area spells ability to affect targets you don't have a LOS to comes very handy.
sabs
Cars
Drones
Wanting to blow up barriers.

If you cast a direct power bolt at a Drone you need 6 hits just to get the equivalent of 0 hits, and then you need more hits to actually hit. Given the force limitations, it means that to hit a drone with a direct combat spell, you need to be using force 7 or 8 minimum. That can be rough.

A Force 5 Indirect Combat spell on the other hand, is going against the Response Rating of the Drone. Which is usually a 3, 4 for military, max 5 if fully upgraded. (Ignoring War) So it's your spellcasting+magic max Force hits, vs a DP of 4. Which is going to be 1.3 hits. That starts to look a bit better. Also, Indirect AE spells can effect people you can't see, as long as they are in the AE effect. Direct ones can't.

James McMurray
Indirect spells also come with elemental side effects, like electricity knocking someone out or sound making them nauseated.
yesferatu
Ok, so...indirect spells stop being "spells" once they are cast and behave more like ranged attacks?
I wasn't sure indirect spells didn't also have to deal with the non-living threshold.
I had thought they were resisted with response, had to get more hits than object resistance, and then body + half armor...which would suck.
Mardrax
Cut the OR from that and you are correct. Sound is the stranger in the row, being resisted with Willpower (+dampeners), not Body(+armor).

Also, electricity shorts drones out. It is as awesome as poking a a troll with SnS ammo.
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (sabs @ May 10 2011, 06:27 PM) *
If you cast a direct power bolt at a Drone you need 6 hits just to get the equivalent of 0 hits, and then you need more hits to actually hit. Given the force limitations, it means that to hit a drone with a direct combat spell, you need to be using force 7 or 8 minimum. That can be rough.
You need 6 hits and get the benefit of 1 net hit. Spells weirdly need one net hit on threshold tests to take effect but drones are OR5.

QUOTE (sabs @ May 10 2011, 06:27 PM) *
A Force 5 Indirect Combat spell on the other hand, is going against the Response Rating of the Drone. Which is usually a 3, 4 for military, max 5 if fully upgraded.
Unless the drone is controlled by a rigger and/or has a response upgrade. Then the DP will be higher. The other drawback of indirect combat spells is that as of SR4A counterspelling applies to the Reaction test and not to the Damage Resistance test.

Elemental effect are rarely that great and you have to pay for them with drain.

For drones use the hawkeye spell and heavy weapons.
Tyro
Indirect spells aren't used nearly enough. Electricity's secondary effect is stupid awesome, and ignoring OR is teh shiznit [sic] ^_^
Summerstorm
Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.

Well, indirect spells are awesome on other occasions too:
You can shoot them without knowing where the target is. (Into full concealment, against invisible people, or just explode around a corner, or while effectively blind)

Then you can use them to BREAK through barriers. (Getting to people behind mirrored glass for example).

I myself also like the "manipulation"-combat spells. Turn too goo, ignite, the area-barriers. All very nice in the right circumstances.
Tyro
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ May 10 2011, 09:56 AM) *
Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.

Well, indirect spells are awesome on other occasions too:
You can shoot them without knowing where the target is. (Into full concealment, against invisible people, or just explode around a corner, or while effectively blind)

Then you can use them to BREAK through barriers. (Getting to people behind mirrored glass for example).

I myself also like the "manipulation"-combat spells. Turn too goo, ignite, the area-barriers. All very nice in the right circumstances.

A simple fireball is often better than ignite for starting fires, as it doesn't have to get past OR. Turn to goo has crazy high drain, though it does have some interesting niche uses. Area barriers can be nice. Can you imagine laying down an electricity barrier in front of a speeding motorcycle? ^_^
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Tyro @ May 10 2011, 08:10 PM) *
A simple fireball is often better than ignite for starting fires, as it doesn't have to get past OR.
Yup Ignite is weird. By RAW it is easier to ignite a rock (OR 1, natural material) than gasoline (OR 2, processed material) silly.gif
QUOTE (Tyro @ May 10 2011, 08:10 PM) *
Turn to goo has crazy high drain, though it does have some interesting niche uses.
It all depends on how fluid the goo really is and how well it sticks to non goo parts i.e. cyberware. Both are not mentioned in the rules. Otherwise it is just a paralyisis spell (which is achieved more easily with Decrease LOG/CHA)
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Summerstorm @ May 10 2011, 12:56 PM) *
Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.


Source for this?

I know on p.164 SR4A for Lightning damage type it specifically describes the following effects.

"Electronic equipment, vehicles, and drones can also be affected by Electricity damage.
They never suffer Stun damage, but they do roll Body + Armor (drones and vehicles) or
Armor x 2 (other objects) to resist secondary effects. If they achieve equal or more hits than
the attack, they are unaffected. Otherwise, they cease to function for a number of Combat
Turns equal to 2 + net hits scored on the attack test (and may need to reboot after that)."

So while the secondary effects are unlikely, it does not mean a drone is immune.

Note that Lightning spells do Physical damage, not stun.
tagz
QUOTE (yesferatu @ May 10 2011, 04:46 PM) *
Ok, so...indirect spells stop being "spells" once they are cast and behave more like ranged attacks?

It's a bit murkey.

I think they should be played like you said. Which would make Indirect spells bypass OR, not bypass ITNW (though it would still cut the armor by ½ making it more likely to damage), and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.

That's not how it's played though, least not from what I've heard and seen. I'm fairly sure that most games play them as bypassing ITNW, still effected by counterspelling, and not effected by OR. Treats them as spells that bypass OR, but still spells.

Personally, I think treating them as no longer spells once cast makes them more appealing. Not effected by CS or OR makes it a good weapon against drones and other mages or targets protected by mages. And the loss of bypassing ITNW isn't a big deal, it still cuts armor by half and hits for Force + Net hits damage. Just cast at the Force you think the spirit is and it will hurt if it hits. Or you could just use Direct for Spirits, which is more likely anyhow as it can be used on the astral and all the other reasons Direct spells are more appealing. But whatever.
Fortinbras
QUOTE (tagz @ May 10 2011, 03:33 PM) *
and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.

Counterspelling adds to the target's Reaction roll to Dodge the attack.

Dakka Dakka
OR is a tricky thing. On one page the BBB tells us that you always have to beat the OR of a non-living object on another it says only some spells need to.
I think only those spells that explicitly state it should have to overcome OR.
@ItNW: The interesting thing thing about beating it is that most spirits don't have real armor. So as soon as ItNW is circumvented (by magic) the spirit only gets its BOD dice to resist.

Indirect Combat spells should at least work as in SR4: They are Spells ergo not a normal weapon, they are used like ranged weapons i.e. called shots etc. apply and counterspelling can only be used to mitigate the spell's damage since the spell is not cast at a protected target but travels from the caster to the target in a fire and forget way.
Mardrax
QUOTE (tagz @ May 10 2011, 10:33 PM) *
I think they should be played like you said. Which would make Indirect spells bypass OR, not bypass ITNW (though it would still cut the armor by ½ making it more likely to damage), and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.


They should bypass ItNW as all non-normal weapons do, like everything that does elemental damage.
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Mardrax @ May 11 2011, 01:06 AM) *
They should bypass ItNW as all non-normal weapons do,
Yes.
QUOTE (Mardrax @ May 11 2011, 01:06 AM) *
like everything that does elemental damage.
No. Mundane sources of elemental damage (flamethrowers, SnS, water guns etc.) do not and should not circumvent ItNW, since they are normal weapons. They only grant the benefits of the element (1/2 Impact armor, incapacitation etc.)
tagz
QUOTE (Fortinbras @ May 10 2011, 08:50 PM) *
Counterspelling adds to the target's Reaction roll to Dodge the attack.

I ommited the rest as it didn't contain anything relevant to this point, but feel free to check, maybe I missed something.

QUOTE (SR4A p 185 Counterspelling)
...
When a protected character is targeted with a spell, she rolls Counterspelling dice in addition to the appropriate attribute (Body or Willpower) for the resistance test. Hits generated on this test reduce the net hits of the spell's caster as with any Opposed Test. If multiple protected character are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.
...


So, first it specifically states Body or Will. But, if you interperate that line to mean the appropriate attribute with Body and Will as examples and not specified stats, it still states that Counterspelling dice are added to the resistance test. In the case of Indirect spells, they have an avoidance test first (Reaction + Dodge if Full Defense), then the resistance test of Body + ½ Armor. So in the case of counterspelling Indirect spells, the Counterspelling dice are added to the Body + ½ Armor roll as that is the resistance test.

Anyhow, the point was simply that if Indirect spells were point and click, no magic except at the point of origin, then things like OR, counterspelling, and ITNW would be effected.


QUOTE
@ItNW: The interesting thing thing about beating it is that most spirits don't have real armor. So as soon as ItNW is circumvented (by magic) the spirit only gets its BOD dice to resist.

Not sure what you mean here.

Per SR4A p295 Immunity, last line first paragraph says that "this "armor value" is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor."

So, hitting them with something magical should bypass the automatic failure part of the test, but still add Armor dice, no?
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (tagz @ May 11 2011, 01:26 AM) *
So, first it specifically states Body or Will. But, if you interperate that line to mean the appropriate attribute with Body and Will as examples and not specified stats, it still states that Counterspelling dice are added to the resistance test. In the case of Indirect spells, they have an avoidance test first (Reaction + Dodge if Full Defense), then the resistance test of Body + ½ Armor. So in the case of counterspelling Indirect spells, the Counterspelling dice are added to the Body + ½ Armor roll as that is the resistance test.

Anyhow, the point was simply that if Indirect spells were point and click, no magic except at the point of origin, then things like OR, counterspelling, and ITNW would be effected.
The Introduction to Combat spells clearly states when and how counterspelling is used against indirect combat spells: REA(+Counterspelling) to avoid being hit BOD+(modified Armor) and no Counterspelling to soak damage.



QUOTE (tagz @ May 11 2011, 01:26 AM) *
Not sure what you mean here.

Per SR4A p295 Immunity, last line first paragraph says that "this "armor value" is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor."

So, hitting them with something magical should bypass the automatic failure part of the test, but still add Armor dice, no?
This armor only applies, if the weapon is not magical. If it is, only armor from other sources applies (Armor Power, Equipment etc.). ItNW does not grant Hardened Armor, it grants armor that works like the Hardened Armor Power, if the attack is not magical.
Stahlseele
QUOTE (DireRadiant @ May 10 2011, 10:24 PM) *
Source for this?

I know on p.164 SR4A for Lightning damage type it specifically describes the following effects.

"Electronic equipment, vehicles, and drones can also be affected by Electricity damage.
They never suffer Stun damage, but they do roll Body + Armor (drones and vehicles) or
Armor x 2 (other objects) to resist secondary effects. If they achieve equal or more hits than
the attack, they are unaffected. Otherwise, they cease to function for a number of Combat
Turns equal to 2 + net hits scored on the attack test (and may need to reboot after that)."

So while the secondary effects are unlikely, it does not mean a drone is immune.

Note that Lightning spells do Physical damage, not stun.

Well, faraday for example would come to mind . .
You are pretty safe in a car, when there's a thunderstorm out there, most of the time . .
tagz
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ May 10 2011, 11:36 PM) *
The Introduction to Combat spells clearly states when and how counterspelling is used against indirect combat spells: REA(+Counterspelling) to avoid being hit BOD+(modified Armor) and no Counterspelling to soak damage.



This armor only applies, if the weapon is not magical. If it is, only armor from other sources applies (Armor Power, Equipment etc.). ItNW does not grant Hardened Armor, it grants armor that works like the Hardened Armor Power, if the attack is not magical.

Ok, now that you pointed out the location, I see it on the Counterspelling. Sorry, my bad.

On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.
Stahlseele
QUOTE (tagz @ May 11 2011, 01:44 AM) *
Ok, now that you pointed out the location, I see it on the Counterspelling. Sorry, my bad.

On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.

Have a magical Nail?
Needs a magical Hammer.
jakephillips
Also worth pointing out that in SRV4A as a balancing factor for direct combat spells they added +1 box of drain for each net hit on the success test for direct combat spells. Note that this is an OPTIONAL rule for direct spells.
For example I mana bolt you at force 6 so F %2 -1 equals 2 boxes of drain in RAW. I get 6 successes you take 12 boxes of damage and probably die unless you are counter spelled and I laugh off the drain.
With Optional rule in SR4A same formula F%2 -1 equals 2 + 6 net successes =8 boxes of drain I still kill him but get a big headache and can't do that to many more times.
Makes Lightning Bolt at F%2 +3 look a little better in comparison.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (tagz @ May 10 2011, 04:44 PM) *
On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.


And this is bad Why, exactly?
Udoshi
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ May 10 2011, 05:12 PM) *
Yes.
No. Mundane sources of elemental damage (flamethrowers, SnS, water guns etc.) do not and should not circumvent ItNW, since they are normal weapons. They only grant the benefits of the element (1/2 Impact armor, incapacitation etc.)


This is 100% accurate.
However, Mundane Elemental Damage is still AP Half, which is most often enough to circumvent the Hardened Armor that ItNW gives without the weapon being magical at all.
HunterHerne
QUOTE (jakephillips @ May 10 2011, 10:33 PM) *
Also worth pointing out that in SRV4A as a balancing factor for direct combat spells they added +1 box of drain for each net hit on the success test for direct combat spells. Note that this is an OPTIONAL rule for direct spells.
For example I mana bolt you at force 6 so F %2 -1 equals 2 boxes of drain in RAW. I get 6 successes you take 12 boxes of damage and probably die unless you are counter spelled and I laugh off the drain.
With Optional rule in SR4A same formula F%2 -1 equals 2 + 6 net successes =8 boxes of drain I still kill him but get a big headache and can't do that to many more times.
Makes Lightning Bolt at F%2 +3 look a little better in comparison.


I use a rule based on the Food fight 4.0 quick start, to treat direct spells as only net hits for damage.
Mäx
QUOTE (jakephillips @ May 11 2011, 04:33 AM) *
Also worth pointing out that in SRV4A as a balancing factor for direct combat spells they added +1 box of drain for each net hit on the success test for direct combat spells. Note that this is an OPTIONAL rule for direct spells.
For example I mana bolt you at force 6 so F %2 -1 equals 2 boxes of drain in RAW. I get 6 successes you take 12 boxes of damage and probably die unless you are counter spelled and I laugh off the drain.
With Optional rule in SR4A same formula F%2 -1 equals 2 + 6 net successes =8 boxes of drain I still kill him but get a big headache and can't do that to many more times.
Makes Lightning Bolt at F%2 +3 look a little better in comparison.

Or i just cast 2 of those force 6 manabolts and don't use nethits to boost damage, so the target takes 12 boxes of damage and i resist 3 points of drain twice laughing of the drain.
The lightning bolt still looks like a very bad choice cool.gif
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 12 2011, 04:59 AM) *
Or i just cast 2 of those force 6 manabolts and don't use nethits to boost damage, so the target takes 12 boxes of damage and i resist 3 points of drain twice laughing of the drain.
The lightning bolt still looks like a very bad choice cool.gif

Indeed. All that Optional Rule does is promote Multicasting over Overcasting. It was not all that well thought out.
sabs
Don't allow multicasting. It's a poorly thought out mechanic

Dakka Dakka
Why not forbid mages altogether?

More seriously, a houserule to make an optional rule less stupid, isn't the way to go, IMHO. Just don't use either. So what, direct combat spells are better most of the time, still the mage won't be as effective as a street sam with appropriate weaponry. Also creating real world effects has always been more difficult/straining in SR it is part of the setting.
sabs
Over react much? Do you Dakka?
Mäx
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jul 12 2011, 04:03 PM) *
Indeed. All that Optional Rule does is promote Multicasting over Overcasting. It was not all that well thought out.

I wouldn't really say it promotes Multicasting over Overcasting.
More that it promotes both of them over "regular" casting
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (sabs @ Jul 12 2011, 06:39 AM) *
Don't allow multicasting. It's a poorly thought out mechanic


I actually like the Multicasting Rules, though likely not for the reasons you think. I have never used it to cast two Combat spells simultaneously. I tend to use it for Utility Spells, where it is often advantageous to cast Multiple (different) Spells in Parallel, rather than doing so in Series. And even still, I have not used it all that much.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Mäx @ Jul 12 2011, 06:57 AM) *
I wouldn't really say it promotes Multicasting over Overcasting.
More that it promotes both of them over "regular" casting


Well, Multicasting will be your preferred choice over Overcasting, when using the Optional Rule. You will suffer Less drain, for generally the same Damage overall. Assumming you hit, of course.
Dakka Dakka
The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Jul 12 2011, 07:24 AM) *
The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.


This is true...
DamienKnight
QUOTE (DireRadiant @ May 10 2011, 03:24 PM) *
Source for this?

I know on p.164 SR4A for Lightning damage type it specifically describes the following effects.

"Electronic equipment, vehicles, and drones can also be affected by Electricity damage.
They never suffer Stun damage, but they do roll Body + Armor (drones and vehicles) or
Armor x 2 (other objects) to resist secondary effects. If they achieve equal or more hits than
the attack, they are unaffected. Otherwise, they cease to function for a number of Combat
Turns equal to 2 + net hits scored on the attack test (and may need to reboot after that)."

So while the secondary effects are unlikely, it does not mean a drone is immune.

Note that Lightning spells do Physical damage, not stun.

The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.
Dakka Dakka
Well unless the mage kills himself with it, a fireball is pretty wimpy as well. Additionally he probably won't even hit if an opposing mage is around since SR4A.
Randomonioum
QUOTE (DamienKnight @ Jul 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.

Im pretty sure tasers are designed to have high voltage, low amperage, so they DON'T do permanent damage. As far as I know, lightning doesn't have that restriction.
HunterHerne
QUOTE (DamienKnight @ Jul 12 2011, 11:43 AM) *
The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.


I generally assume Lightning bolts from the sky do about 20S damage. It`ll KO almost anyone, and have a good chance of killing, especially if you use the Severe damage rules (and the other optional rules around it)
Yerameyahu
I thought Lightning Bolt spells did P, not S.

If you want to 'realify' the taser rules, go ahead. RAW, they affect vehicles, spirits, etc. :/
Mäx
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 12 2011, 09:54 PM) *
If you want to 'realify' the taser rules, go ahead. RAW, they affect vehicles, spirits, etc. :/

Well they atleast affect small drones with no extra armor, you have to have a pretty damm good pool for shooting that taser to score more hits then a bigger vehicle with added armor can score with its Body+Armor pool.
Lanlaorn
QUOTE (DamienKnight @ Jul 12 2011, 09:43 AM) *
The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.


Why is the lightning bolt spell like a natural lightning bolt? Why can't it be like, say, an arc welder?

Electricity is very versatile, it can be used to stun people or to melt metal. A mage's ball lightning, if it overcomes half the impact armor, is doing physical damage to the body of that car or drone or whatever. Just because 6s(e) SnS rounds and a Force 6 spell both have the number 6 in them doesn't mean they're equally "wimpy". One is designed with the voltage and amperage of a taser and the other, for all we know, is an electric arc smelter tearing that car apart and outright cooking people.
Yerameyahu
Right, Mäx. It's not a huge issue, though it can happen with great shooters and bad vehicles. smile.gif
UmaroVI
The answer to "what combat spells should I use" is:

One target:
living: Stunbolt.
nonliving, Reaction/3+Armor/2 >= Object Resistance: Powerbolt
nonliving, Reaction/3+Armor/2 < Object Resistance: Any P-damage single target elemental attack.

Multiple targets:
All alive and all visible: Stunball
All alive, not all visible: Soundwave
Not alive, all visible, Reaction/3+Armor/2 >= Object Resistance: Powerball
Other: Any P-damage area of effect elemental attack

There's a little bit of fuzziness around the borders of the "use Power* vs Element" call; sometimes, you'll be in a situation where you will do more average damage by overcasting a Power spell by more, but risk pinging.
Udoshi
QUOTE (yesferatu @ May 10 2011, 10:46 AM) *
Ok, so...indirect spells stop being "spells" once they are cast and behave more like ranged attacks?
I wasn't sure indirect spells didn't also have to deal with the non-living threshold.
I had thought they were resisted with response, had to get more hits than object resistance, and then body + half armor...which would suck.


Indirect spells ARE actually treated like ranged attacks. Namely, the biggest difference, is you can dodge them.
Also you can soak them, and they deal with armor instead of object resistance.
They also have a clause about creating a physical effect that travels, meaning it can be stopped by walls, but also that area attacks can hit things you can't see. So throwing a fireball around a corner still explodes everything around the point it hits, even if you don't have line of sight.


Compare to direct spells.
Which can't be dodged.
No damage resistance test - you just take damage.
You only need one net hit to take effect. (against people anyway). And net hits add to damage.
Dice pool superiority. Spellcasting+magic+foci vs Body or Willpower. (+counterspelling, but its not guaranteed).

Its not that indirect spells are bad, per se. Its that direct spells are so much better.
Amazeroth
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Jul 12 2011, 04:24 PM) *
The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.

I probably will look pretty dumb, but I got a question regarding this: How can you do this? How can you NOT use your net hits to increase damage?
Dakka Dakka
You say "I apply 0 of my net hits to damage". There is no rule that forces you to use all of them.
Amazeroth
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Jul 13 2011, 11:53 PM) *
You say "I apply 0 of my net hits to damage". There is no rule that forces you to use all of them.

So there is a rule that allows you not to use your nets hits for damage? I only know the text out of the "combat spells" chapter and it goes like this "Net hits increase the damage as normal", but I don't know what "normal" refers to. Still it sounds like it would always be the case.

So is there a rule?
Amazeroth
-double post-
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