Edit: SR4 not SR*

So as previously noted, not actually played a game for SR4 yet. Still reading rules and trying to forget the SR3 rules that are ingrained in the membrane.

While trying to get my head around SR4 in prep for GM'ing, I've got to the point of tackling spells.

Firstly, I like the way learning works. You pay 5 karma and learn the spell (after you've taken the time to learn it). You can then cast this it ANY force up to twice your magic rating? i.e. gone are the days of learning a spell at a specific force? Think I've read that right. If so, thats a nice simple mechanic. Me likes

Now, onto my actual subject of this post: Physical & Mana Barriers.

So as I read it, if I have a character with say Magic 5 & Spellcasting 5, who wants to put up a barrier, he chooses his force of say 5... rolls 10 dice and gets 3 hits. Therefore the barrier has an armour and structure rating of 3? Or is it 8?

I hope it's 8 otherwise this is rubbish. Could someone please clarify? A barrier of 3 would be broken down in a single shot from a holdout!

I presume I am getting a combat spells mechanics right in my head too...
Same mage casts stunbolt against his target at force 5 again. Again he scores 3 hits. The target has a willpower of 4 and gets 2 hits. The target therefore takes 6 boxes of stun? If the target had managed to get 3 hits, he would have take no damage right?

The drain on this spell is now where I also get a little confused, purely as there is one example in the book that adds a little bit extra that I cant back up. On P184, the example says that you add the net successes to the amount of drain you have to resist... yet under drain and in the example on P204 it does not.

Therefore as it is a stunbolt, the drain is (D/2)-1. Is this 2 or 1 (5/2= 2.5 is this rounded up or down). Do I add net successes this if the target got NO hits on his resistance, my mage would have done 9 boxes of stun to him but would be adding 4 to the drain?

Thanks in advance

You also need a trainer or formula to study.

Yup




It's 3, Force limits the maximum amount of hits you can achieve it doesn't give anything inherently to most spells.


Correct, remember that you treat indirect spells as ranged attacks, including cover, visibility and such, also remember that unless you throw in background count/enemy mages/clever use of terrain your magi can abuse the hell out of mana spells.


Optional rule, the listed drain values are the standard.

Here's the thing about barriers, though, even those put up magically. You don't actually bring down a barrier unless you attack it specifically to destroy it or put a hole in it. If you attack something on the other side of the barrier, it adds its barrier rating to the armor of the defender, and blocks the shot completely if it happens to be milder than the barrier rating. But it stays up at its original strength. So, you either attack the barrier, or you attack the guy behind it. You can't do both at once.

So that rating 3 Physical Barrier could be brought down easily, but that shot that brought it down couldn't be used to damage the defender behind the barrier. And if it takes damage but not enough to destroy it, a magic barrier rebuilds itself at the end of the combat round. Not very likely for a rating 3 Physical Barrier... but still. And it adds a -1 visibility modifier to attacks at targets on the other side. It can be useful.

pbangarth:
The spell description says otherwise... it specifically says if it's penetrated it fails. So the original author is correct.

The rules for attacking through barriers specifically go into how they're penetrated. In this case so long as the modified damage value along with AP is higher than the barrier the round pierces it. The guy gets the extra armor from the barrier for that one shot as the physical barrier collapses, he also gets the benefit of the -1 visibility penalty to the shooter for that shot.

Nothing in the spell description is contingent on attacking the barrier instead of the people behind it. Otherwise, I agree with your reading as the two sentences together... could be read to say that. The first in my opinion only establishes that the barrier can be attacked normally and that it regenerates unless brought down as do all magical wards. The second sentence is independent of the first and states if pierced it collapses (piercing either by attacking it directly or firing rounds through it at people behind).


That said while physical barriers may not be as useful against people with guns... it's still very useful against melee types. Because the melee guy has to attack the barrier to get to you! So physical barrier still has some good uses as movement control. Also it's good because you can use it as an 'accident' power... you can keep causing a vehicle to make crash tests as they hit newly created onces in front of them.


Another thing I see above:
All spells whether indirect or direct get cover bonuses to the defender to resist. Indirects use the full list of ranged combat modifiers though.

If the guard in your example is behind heavy cover while screaming for backup... he rolls his 4 willpower + 4 more good cover == 8 dice and resists your spell lets say, even light cover like standing behind a desk is +2. (cover used to be a visibility penalty applied against the caster.. in SR4a cover is a defense bonus given to the defender)

Except that direct combat spells is not a defense test, it's a spell resistance test you roll willpower(+counterspelling) end of. Downside is that you can't affect something you do not have direct line of sight to, while as with an indirect spell you can.

Physical barrier has tons of non-combat uses as well, if you're creative with it.

This is incorrect.. read the spellcasting section as well as the ranged combat section.

Partial cover, full cover, and the spellcasting section all state to add cover to the targets defense.

So no it is not what you just stated.
You roll (Willpower or Body) (+ cover) (+counterspelling).
Mana spells use wil, physicals use body.


In SR4 cover was part of visibility penalties applied to the caster. In SR4a visibility was changed to a defenders bonus instead of a visibility penalty.

So it seems... I never bothered reading the 4A magic section to any great length, since it was already the rules I had the best grip with.

Just to clarify here, i.e. if my Physical barrier at rating 3 is up protecting me. Some tramp with a holdout pistol shoots at me. I get three armour as a bonus and the barrier goes down? (should have just taken Camouflage!)

Yes physical barriers aren't much use against bullets unless at fairly high force and a lot of casting successes... if the barrier matters it's the kind of test you wish to edge.

In your example of rating 3... the hold out goes through... the attacker makes his attack at -1 extra visibility penalty from the barrier. You gain +3 armor for the barrier.


However, they're quite useful against melee. Or for controlling movement because they need to waste time attacking the barrier. There's other uses as well.

There is another spell in War which is very useful in combination with barriers. It changes the speed of things and acts as a great bullet shield... If you multicast the barrier and it at the same time.. most people won't even realize it's there and think the barrier is stopping the bullets. The trick is you cast the barrier at high force so it's very noticable and the 'slow' spell at low force so they don't notice it...

So don't view it so much as this spell is useless... just not as valuable for the purpose of stopping bullets as you thought.

Here we go with semantics again.

The "however" in the sentence regarding bringing the barrier down connects that sentence to the previous one, which talks about attacking the barrier directly. Which itself follows a sentence which says treat the barrier as a physical wall. So, I read the whole paragraph as telling me you can shoot at the barrier or through it. I understand and respect Falconer's read, I just don't agree with it. Were he my GM I would be perfectly willing to play it his way.

X-Kalibur has it right. There are lots of other uses as well. Patch a hole in a leaking ship. Create a walkway across a chasm. Stop that motorcyclist bearing down on you.

You need to double check your grammar and paragraph, sentence construction. The entire paragraph deals with the entirety of the barrier rules... not specifically with attacking the barrier with the sake of breaking it. Diagramming the paragraph quickly...

Last paragraph by sentence...
1st... It creates a gas permeable barrier. (not all barriers are gas permeable)
2nd.. Use normal barrier rules for anything bigger.
3rd.. it's translucent and has -1 visibility instead of -6 blind fire visibility of a normal barrier.
4th.. it does not hamper spells (fireballs go right through them... it takes a mana barrier on the physical plane to impair those, see indirect combat spell subsection)
5th.. Creates an exception to the normal rules for attacking a barrier by stating that it regenerates damage toitself
6th... Another independent sentence... establishing if the barrier is penetrated... it collapses. Nothing once again to make this only for attacking the barrier... as there are two ways to penetrate barriers in the barrier rules. (shooting through, or attacking to make holes)

The however does not connect the two sentence by any of the standard rules of grammar. It would need to be used as a conjunctive at the start of the sentence...

The second sentence establishes a clear conditional... "If the barrier is penetrated, *dramatic pause* however, ..." it collapses. Nothing in that sentence is dependent on the previous sentence. It's embedded in a paragraph entirely devoted to how physical barriers differ from the normal rules governing barriers.

The 6th sentence as written could be the first, second, 3rd, 4th, or 5th sentence in that paragraph and it would still make full sense. It is not dependent on the sentence prior.

I would treat it as any other barrier, you'd need to attack it directly to bring it down. Penetrate is a very vague term to use as it's not used anywhere else in connection to barriers.