Exactly. If the argument is 'fluff says they're rare, you can't change that without wrecking the world', then that's just ridiculous. What does 'rare' even mean in that sentence? If it means TJ's 70/30, then that might well be fine and no changes needed. If it means ikari's 90/10, then maybe not fine, depending on the personal taste of the group.

I think the fluff is just as flexible and tweakable as the crunch. You just need to change both, so that the verisimilitude of the setting is preserved. Even that execrable optional rule changed the fluff as well as the crunch. The problem with them doing that is that the in-game universe already had existing fluff that was almost the exact opposite - essentially they were saying "The universe used to work that way, now it's working this way". Individual tables that do house rules don't have that same problem.

If you are looking to quantify elemental effects, prior editions of Shadowrun might be a good source to look at. IIRC, elemental effects used to be a lot more quantified.

Where, exactly, is this fluff that people keep talking about? I can't find anything in the fluff on this topic whatsoever.

Unfortunately apple is right. The FAQ contradict RAW in this case as well, and you provided proof. While indirect combat spells work like ranged attacks, they do not fire in single shot (or semi-automatic or burst fire) mode. It takes a Simple Action to fire a SS weapon and another simple action to make the weapon ready to fire it again. Neither is the case for indirect Combat Spells. Ergo indirect combat spells are not launched in SS mode.

I am of the opinion that it was the intention to allow called shots for indirect combat spells but sadly they wrote the rules saying otherwise and FAQ cannot provide rule changes. That's what Errata are for.

Excuse me, but fluff is arbitrary. A sap could deal Stun damage equally well because it is made out of pink and purple polka-dotted plastic or leather. It's a fluff change, and fluff is arbitrary. Just like Direct/Indirect spells. It's a fluff reason (it's harder to make elemental effects) that Directs have less Drain that could easily be changed (it is more dangerous to channel raw, destructive mana).


*cough cough* ork birth rates *cough cough*

Was not referring to fluff. Try reading the spell creation rule in SM. There are reasons that indirect spells have more drain and they are not related to fluff.

… Which is based on partially on fluff and specifically what he suggested changing.

Which parts of the spell creation rules are based on fluff? The part where they cause physical damage? Or maybe the part where they are physical spells? Or possibly the part where they have elemental effects? All of these items are in the spell description, not fluff.

And if you are calling that based on fluff, then the whole damn game is based on fluff.

And now on page 11 I will leave this thread as we have come in a complete circle and have gotten no where.

So pessimistic. For me, it's only page 3!

I have trouble with the idea that the game *isn't* based on fluff, though. …Isn't that the whole point?

Quick question (kind-of related)...

Net hits are restricted to Force...

For Indirect spells, do you count Net hits before or after the dodge roll?

-D

Net hits aren't restricted to force. Hits are restricted to force. So yes, before the dodge roll.

Never mind

To have choice you must be able to choose inferior options, otherwise there is no choice.

--



The rules state that the weapon must fire in SS, SA, or BF modes. The rules do state that a single shot weapon fires as a simple action but only once per round. That is all there is to it. It is worth noting, however, that SS mode states weapon while SA/BF explicitly state firearms. However, one could simply check for this by locating a firearm that has SS, SA, or BF modes and requires a complex action to fire. Such a weapon will qualify for Called Shot since it is still firing in those modes even though it is using a Complex rather than Simple action. The Savalette Guardian serves as a good weapon to call into question the reliability of the rules. It can fire in burst fire mode using a Complex Action rather than a Simple Action. By RAW, since it is not a simple action it is not "technically" firing in burst fire mode and it cannot gain the benefit of a called shot when using that option. Throwing Knives, Shuriken, crossbows, and technically bows also cause problems. Aside from the fact that they lack firing mode designations and are not melee weapons and thus should not qualify for a called, it is a simple action to throw a knife or shuriken and you can do so as long as you have one readied. Their firing mode is SA yet the SA firing mode explicitly states firearms.

One must conclude one of the following.
A: That the rules of the firing mode are what matter for determining whether a weapon is firing in that mode. In this case the Savalette cannot Call Shot when using its burst fire mechanic.
B: The method of the attack is what matters. In which case the Savalette qualifies since it is firing a burst.

There is also no requisite for a second simple action to be taken to ready a SS weapon to fire. The Ruger Superwarhawk is, in fact, one such weapon. It fires in SS mode but requires no action to ready it to fire again. It requires six action phases before you must commit another action besides firing (reloading, which is a complex action) compared to the three action phases it would take for a SA weapon with the same ammo capacity. The rules for Single Shot mode contain no references requiring a weapon to be readied before it can fire in SS. The only rule that it contains is that it a single shot is fired as a simple action.

You are right about the readying of an SS weapon but that is besides the point. A spell is never fired. It is cast. As such it does not have a firing mode. As such you cannot use called shot on spellcasting even if the casting is resolved like a ranged attack.
A spell is not a weapon either. So there is no requirement for being cast in any of the four firing modes.

You are right, by RAW projectile weapons and projectiles cannot use the called shot rule either. I always said this rule is stupid, but those are the rules.

Personally, I have always felt the Direct Combat spells were a little too good in SR4. I remember in SR1/2 of always having Combat and Manipulations because both were exceedingly useful and no one spell was the right answer. Stunbolt and the other DCS like it are too useful IMO.

I wonder if anyone has thought about making it Will + Essence + (other stuff) in the roll to avoid the Direct Spells. Thematically it does represent that you have a holistic integrity that should ostensibly resist offensive magic. Implants obviously make that go down the more of them you have. The mechanic exists for healing spells as reductions in Essence make it harder to heal you.

I also don't recall there being this much complaining back in SR1 & SR2 as the spells were (or at least appeared to be) fairly well balanced in terms of utility, availability, and power.

On the other hand, I've even seen people say that low Ess should make you more resistant to these. It all depends if you wanna make the sams or the mages more resilient, I guess. Me, I think it's safer not to mess with Essence for magic, just because the crunch is hard to balance.

Thanks.

So in conclusion Indirect spells are actually really lame. Got it.

You guys rock! (no sarcasm intended, truly a complement)

-D

I read that as "Shadowrun 0.5" and thought to myself "this guy played the original playtest?! Lucky!"

ROFL!! I didn't even think of that when I typed it. Hopefully you understood that I meant SR1 & SR2.

You don't really have to retcon, you can always make it part of the story. Have an event that pollutes astral space and then say its effect was to make spells where you have to form a link with the target and effectively cross astral space with your will harder to cast while the same event raised ambient magical levels and made some other spells easier to cast. X horror gets brought in with magical ritual or whatever. It makes as much sense as hey we came up with a universal magical theory and now every tradition can summon 5 spirits types, and they can all be broken down into drain stat and which 5 spirits.

I did; it took me a couple seconds though.

I would like to add something that came up in conversation at our table this past weekend. I have noticed that everyone is bringing up the fact that with indirect spells, the target (or people in the area) get to dodge, then soak and they don't like that. But here is something that no one has brought up: "Defender unaware of the attack." If they don't know it is coming, they can't dodge it. Then all you have is the soak. And in combat, unless you are looking right at the mage to see him casting, you will not know it is coming (much like a sniper).

Another thing is the -1 per additional defense since defender's last action. That could easily be a -2 to -5 depending on the number of team members targeting the defender. With three team members, 2 weapons attacks per team mate per IP = 6 attacks for a -5 for the defender. So now that high reaction defender has 5 less on the reaction, if they know it is coming.

As for the soak, it is body + 1/2 impact armor. Unless your enemies are running around with military grade armor, you are looking at like body + 4 on the high end.

The rules say indirect spell are treated like ranged attacks so let's compare them.

PJSS Elephant Rifle vs. Lightning Bolt (Force 9): They are both defended by a reaction roll (or target unaware of the attack no defense). They they are soaked, rifle with body + ballistic armor and spell with body + 1/2 impact armor. Rolling the same number of successes on both attack tests, you are more likely to have a higher damage outcome with the spell because of less soak. In addition you have possibly just fried the target's commlink and other electronics with the secondary effect. The main difference is that you now have to resist the 7 drain on the spell and there are no range penalties (yes there are things that will help eliminate the range penalties, like image scopes or vision mag, but they require you to use a simple action Take Aim every time you change targets so no matter what weapon you use you are only getting one shot off per IP).

To compare to a different weapon, you would lower the force of the spell to the base dv of the weapon. Then you are left with the one spell and 2 shots differential. This can be solved by switching to that area spell. Now that does raise the drain by 2 but you can hit everything within (force)meters of the blast center, and you don't get the -2 penalty for switching targets in the same IP.

Just some thoughts from our table.

I don't know where you get those numbers. Even an armor jacket+helmet has 8 impact armor which is halved to 4. There is no reason not to add+6 of the appropriate elemental protection. Unless you use the optional rules from Arsenal the armor jacket could have +6 to almost any and all elemental effects. Prepared opposition most likely will be in the range of BOD+10

if your a GM and your mage is willing to use indirect spells frequently rather then the stunbolt/manabolt/powerbolt overcast overkill... why punish him for it?

thats why you take krav maga martial arts and gain take aim as a free action :3

Don't get him started. Suffice it to say that Free actions are a limited resource as well.

That is very true. However it would end up being 3 shots every 2 IP with krav maga (IP1: Free aim, simple shoot, simple aim to change targets. IP2: simple shoot, free aim to change targets, simple shoot. Repeat IP 1 & 2) since you only get 1 free per IP.

@Dakka Dakka, we do use the optional Arsenal rules so that armored jacket doesn't have the slots for +6 elemental to everything (in our game). And we did that specifically because of the reason you brought up. In addition, unless the wearer of that armor (jacket and helmet) has at least a body of 5, they are taking a -1 to their Agility and Reaction tests so that is 1 less on the dodge roll as well.

You don't need a simple action to change targets.

I think its Too late haha. still 3 per 2 is alot better then 2 per 2 :3 specially when your firing narrow long bursts lol (if using an automatic weapon)

No, but if you wish to take aim you would need to spend that simple action, otherwise you can certainly go for him. but you will be at not only your recoil modifier and the -2 for swaping targets, but any type of range modifier as well.

I've never heard of the -2 penalty for changing targets. Can you produce a source?

Page 152 Corebook. 20th anv. Ed.

Multiple targets
If a character attacks multiple targets within a single action phase, he takes a -2 dice pool modifier per additional target. For example if a character engages two targets with burst fire he receives a -2 modifier for the second target.

their is no penalty if you swap but do not fire until your next action phase.

Go figure. Thanks for the quick lookup.

Edit : Wouldn't there still be a penalty? It's going on action phases, and not initiative passes.

A combat turn is made up of all initiative passes.
An initiative pass is made up of the action phases of all characters taking part in the initiative pass.

If you cast a spell during IP1 then target a second character in IP2 there is no penalty for switching targets since these as separate action phases. The -2 penalty can only apply to characters who can attack as a simple action.

Also, the penalty is only for attacking separate targets and not for targeting separate targets.

So Free action aim, simple fire, simple fire, pass 2, free action aim target 2, simple fire, simple fire. 4 shots, two passes. Yeah?

yes you could do that, IF you didn't kill the target with the first round of fire. which is many cases is what happens to most people that use pistols, ( though i have one shot my far share with a superwarhawk with mods) just remember that second simple fire actions if using long. short bust is at a -8 cumulative recoil modifier, and you wont get bonuses from take aim and the like. if useing pistols you will usually just lose the take aim benefits on the second shot.

If you read my post that originally started this, I was referring to the fact that to eliminate the range penalties with a firearm (as the spell does not have any) you can use the image scope or vision magnification. But those items require you to use a Take Aim action (be it the standard simple action or the free action with krav maga) whenever you change targets (including acquiring the first target). So in that case, yes if you did not kill your target with the first shot, then your scenario would be correct, 2 shots per IP. However, if you did (like with most sniper rifles) then it would be 3 shots every 2 as I showed above. And the -2 for multiple targets would come in on the 2nd IP because you are attacking a different target with your 2nd shot that pass.

Okiedokey, apologies.

No problem.