What are the game mechanics for a Fireball (indirect AOE combat spell)?
What are the defense mechanics?
A Fireball is cast on a target.
B Fireball is cast next to a target.
C Fireball is cast on a target protected by antimagic.
D Fireball is cast and someone in its area of effect is protected by antimagic.
Full Version: Fireball SR1-4
I'm pretty sure that all of those situations work out the same.
Does counter spelling help against indirect elemental spells?
I'm pretty sure that you're not resisting magic, you're resisting fire, so the only thing that helps is your dodge skill and 1/2 your impact armor.
<edit>This response is for SR4 and 4.5</edit>
Does counter spelling help against indirect elemental spells?
I'm pretty sure that you're not resisting magic, you're resisting fire, so the only thing that helps is your dodge skill and 1/2 your impact armor.
<edit>This response is for SR4 and 4.5</edit>
How does it work with?
SR4A p.183 Step 5:
“The Spellcasting+magic must generate at leat one net hit to succeed. … Failed Spells have no Effect. …”
SR4A p.185 Spell Defense:
“… 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 spells cast as with any opposed test. …”
and
SR4A p.204 indirect Combat Spells:
“… If the spell reaches the chosen target and it fails to doge with Reaction (+Counterspelling. If available). The target then resists damage with Boldy + half Impact armor. …”
SR4A p.183 Step 5:
“The Spellcasting+magic must generate at leat one net hit to succeed. … Failed Spells have no Effect. …”
SR4A p.185 Spell Defense:
“… 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 spells cast as with any opposed test. …”
and
SR4A p.204 indirect Combat Spells:
“… If the spell reaches the chosen target and it fails to doge with Reaction (+Counterspelling. If available). The target then resists damage with Boldy + half Impact armor. …”
Indirect combat spells follow their own rules. They create a physical effect. Fireball creates a real, tangible, blast and flame. So, you dodge the fireball, and then resist the damage just like you would if it was a hand grenade.
SR4 Fireball
So, if a Shaman is active protecting himself with counterspelling and a mage throws a Fireball next to him on the ground;
The Fireball hit the ground. The ground can defend itself against the fireball with 0 dices because it cannot run away. The Fireball explodes and everyone in a radius of its Force gets hit, like the shaman.
The Shaman can now, what? Dodge the Fireball with Reaction (+Counterspelling +Fulldefense)?
The Shaman resists only the damage?
The fire is magical? If it is not magical, are spirits immune against it, can critter regenerate this kind of damage?
I could not find anything that say an indirect AOE combat spell is something special and follow another set of rules, neither could I find anything “official” how a Fireball exactly works. And the passages I found are a little bit open for interpretation.
So, if a Shaman is active protecting himself with counterspelling and a mage throws a Fireball next to him on the ground;
The Fireball hit the ground. The ground can defend itself against the fireball with 0 dices because it cannot run away. The Fireball explodes and everyone in a radius of its Force gets hit, like the shaman.
The Shaman can now, what? Dodge the Fireball with Reaction (+Counterspelling +Fulldefense)?
The Shaman resists only the damage?
The fire is magical? If it is not magical, are spirits immune against it, can critter regenerate this kind of damage?
I could not find anything that say an indirect AOE combat spell is something special and follow another set of rules, neither could I find anything “official” how a Fireball exactly works. And the passages I found are a little bit open for interpretation.
I believe the Shaman treats it exactly as he would a hand grenade. He dodges, counterspelling doesn't help, and then he resists damage if he didn't get enough hits on the dodge roll. With 1/2 impact armor because it's elemental damage.
It's not magical, but spirits are affected by non magical stuff, they're just resistant to it. So a spirit's ITNW would still apply, but 1/2 impact because it's an elemental attack.
So, a force 6 spirit would have an armor value of 12 against normal weapons, but 6 against a fireball because that's how fire works. It would also have an AR of 6 vs a flame thrower or a shock glove or whatever. Would a rock be considered "earth"?
It's not magical, but spirits are affected by non magical stuff, they're just resistant to it. So a spirit's ITNW would still apply, but 1/2 impact because it's an elemental attack.
So, a force 6 spirit would have an armor value of 12 against normal weapons, but 6 against a fireball because that's how fire works. It would also have an AR of 6 vs a flame thrower or a shock glove or whatever. Would a rock be considered "earth"?
SR1 and SR2 treated the Fireball spell and all others with "elemental effects" differently than later editions: There was no distinction "direct" vs. "indirect" and they were considered as combat spells. As far as the four situations from the OP and the indirectly asked question about spell defense/dodge are concerned the only important parts of information there are:
SR3 made some significant changes to the general spell resolution mechanics in general and additionally re-classified spells like Fireball into the spell subcategory "Elemental Manipulations". This subcategory received its own resolution mechanics (derived from ranged combat instead of normal spell resolution). The relevant aspects there being:
SR4 re-integrated "Elemental Manipulations" back into the combat spell category and created the distinction of "direct" vs. "indirect". Since I'm not a SR4 expert I'm not sure about all details but to me it appears as if as far as the discribed situations are concerned SR4 is pretty much identical to SR3 but uses the different basic game mechanics that SR4 introduced.
- The spell was always targeted at an area and not on an individual target => Situations A and B were identical: Any target within area of effect individually had to resist the spell's effect. The resolution mechanics however were vastly different in comparison to SR3 and SR4
- Individuals under some form of spell defense did get bonus dice for their individual resistance tests. So no difference for situations C and D either.
- The caster needed at least one net success against an individual "target" within area of effect in order to harm that individual with the spell's primary damage.
- Successful resistance by an individual within area of effect didn't necessarily protect against the potentials of secondary effects like catching fie. However the rules on these secondary effects were - particularly in 1st Edition - less detailed.
- Since the spell wasn't treated as ranged attack dodging was not allowed
SR3 made some significant changes to the general spell resolution mechanics in general and additionally re-classified spells like Fireball into the spell subcategory "Elemental Manipulations". This subcategory received its own resolution mechanics (derived from ranged combat instead of normal spell resolution). The relevant aspects there being:
- The spell was still targeted at an area rather than individual targets. So still no difference for situations A and B.
- The LOS requirement against targets within area of effect was explicitly removed.
- Due to the resolution mechanics the caster could still cause damage due to the spell's primary damage component dispite individual targets scoring more successes during their resistance test than the caster created during his sorcery test => These spells no longer required net successes against an individual target to cause damage.
- Although the spell was treated as a ranged attack in some regards the spell defense mechanics still applied => A target under spell defense received the respective bonus dice (and TN modifiers in cases of more advanced defense mechanisms) for their "spell resistance test" which technically was a standard ranged combat damage resistance test with body and armor applied. Still no differences for situations C and D.
- The treatment as ranged attack additionally opened the (at times debatable) possibility of dodge attempts. However, spell defense dice could by no means be used on dodge because the rules technically only replaced the standard spell resistance test with the ranged combat damage resistance test and dodge - despite being part of the ranged combat resolution and creating similar effects (no damage) when successful - is a separate entity
- Secondary effects could still occur despite successful resistance but the rules on how were a bit more precise ... and still open to some degree of argument.
SR4 re-integrated "Elemental Manipulations" back into the combat spell category and created the distinction of "direct" vs. "indirect". Since I'm not a SR4 expert I'm not sure about all details but to me it appears as if as far as the discribed situations are concerned SR4 is pretty much identical to SR3 but uses the different basic game mechanics that SR4 introduced.
SR1-3 Fireball; thanks that was informative
SR4 Fireball
Someone told me once that “I believe” is a Synonym for “I don’t know”.
Are there any references to support this interpretation? It’s not that I don’t like it but for me it is still unclear.
Yes you can handle it this way, and it make sense … somehow.
But someone else can still just say.:
“A Fireball is not a grenade.” “Nothing in SR4 says that a Fireball is somewhat a grenade, that is another spell named [elemental] grenade.” “The rules say I can use counterspelling in addition to dodge indirect combat spells.” “The rules say hits on counterspelling negate net hits from the caster.” “The rules say you need 1 net hit or a spell fails.”
SR4 Fireball
Someone told me once that “I believe” is a Synonym for “I don’t know”.
Are there any references to support this interpretation? It’s not that I don’t like it but for me it is still unclear.
Yes you can handle it this way, and it make sense … somehow.
But someone else can still just say.:
“A Fireball is not a grenade.” “Nothing in SR4 says that a Fireball is somewhat a grenade, that is another spell named [elemental] grenade.” “The rules say I can use counterspelling in addition to dodge indirect combat spells.” “The rules say hits on counterspelling negate net hits from the caster.” “The rules say you need 1 net hit or a spell fails.”
You are looking for this.
You don't get to add Spell Defense/Counterspelling to the Dodge Test, only to the Resistance Test. So it won't help you avoid being in the blast radius of the spell, in this specific regard it is similar to dodging a grenade and mostly guess work, you will however get the Spell Defense/Counterspelling to reduce the Fireball's effect on you.
QUOTE (SR4a pg 185)
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 characters are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.
You don't get to add Spell Defense/Counterspelling to the Dodge Test, only to the Resistance Test. So it won't help you avoid being in the blast radius of the spell, in this specific regard it is similar to dodging a grenade and mostly guess work, you will however get the Spell Defense/Counterspelling to reduce the Fireball's effect on you.
I don't think you get counterspelling dice to reduce the effect either. Because with a fireball, you aren't defending against magic. You are defending against an explosion and fire. What created the explosion isn't important. What created the fire isn't important. It's not "magic fire", it's just "fire". If it were "magical fire" you couldn't hurt people you didn't have LOS to.
The same with Lightning Bolt or Acid Splash or whatever. You aren't resisting a magic spell. You are resisting elemental damage. The spell creates the element in question.
The same with Lightning Bolt or Acid Splash or whatever. You aren't resisting a magic spell. You are resisting elemental damage. The spell creates the element in question.
@Shaidar
I know this passage, I quoted this on already. ^^
Together with the something else from indirect combat spells that tell you a total different story.
And these contradictions are irritating me. They are in the book, but they don’t fit together, and I can’t find anywhere anything about which are true. Or, which aren’t true for [Elemental] ball / indirect AOE spells.
Ok I could just say everything is true.
In this case the mage would cast his Fireball. The Fireball hit its target location and the shaman dodges with reaction + counter spell. The hits from counter spell reduce the mages fireball net hits. After that the Shaman resists damage with body+ half impact armor + counter spelling (again). Again the hits from counter spell reducing the mages fireball net hits. And should the mage at this point have no net hits left, than there wasn’t any fireball at all and he can resist the drain with zero effect.
But that sound wrong. And cannot be right … right?
@Bearclaw
Ok this one is easy. (Or so I thought.) I may have no clue what about the actual cast and defense mechanics but I am pretty sure that the Fireball is magic. Ok I am not sure. But I believe, and with that I mean I don’t know, that there was a passage that magical elemental effect does not persist. Ok on could argue that “SR4A p203 Duration” explains that only spells with the keyword permanent can create something that becomes natural, but I thought that there was something more direct. But I can’t find it.
So let’s try something else.
Fireball is a variation of [elemental] ball, an indirect combat AOE spell. But fire isn’t the only element. Let’s take some other elements (SM p. 164-165).
Let’s take sound and light. If the spell light/sound ball could create natural light/sound the damaging effect could hardly be confined on a space with a radius of force meter. 1 meter could not make the difference between full damage and no damage.
Let’s take acid, water, sand or metal. Each cast of an acid/water/sand/metal -ball would create up to V(m³)=4/3*pi*force(m)³ natural acid/water/sand/metal. And that is just … bad/broken.
I know this passage, I quoted this on already. ^^
Together with the something else from indirect combat spells that tell you a total different story.
And these contradictions are irritating me. They are in the book, but they don’t fit together, and I can’t find anywhere anything about which are true. Or, which aren’t true for [Elemental] ball / indirect AOE spells.
Ok I could just say everything is true.
In this case the mage would cast his Fireball. The Fireball hit its target location and the shaman dodges with reaction + counter spell. The hits from counter spell reduce the mages fireball net hits. After that the Shaman resists damage with body+ half impact armor + counter spelling (again). Again the hits from counter spell reducing the mages fireball net hits. And should the mage at this point have no net hits left, than there wasn’t any fireball at all and he can resist the drain with zero effect.
But that sound wrong. And cannot be right … right?
@Bearclaw
Ok this one is easy. (Or so I thought.) I may have no clue what about the actual cast and defense mechanics but I am pretty sure that the Fireball is magic. Ok I am not sure. But I believe, and with that I mean I don’t know, that there was a passage that magical elemental effect does not persist. Ok on could argue that “SR4A p203 Duration” explains that only spells with the keyword permanent can create something that becomes natural, but I thought that there was something more direct. But I can’t find it.
So let’s try something else.
Fireball is a variation of [elemental] ball, an indirect combat AOE spell. But fire isn’t the only element. Let’s take some other elements (SM p. 164-165).
Let’s take sound and light. If the spell light/sound ball could create natural light/sound the damaging effect could hardly be confined on a space with a radius of force meter. 1 meter could not make the difference between full damage and no damage.
Let’s take acid, water, sand or metal. Each cast of an acid/water/sand/metal -ball would create up to V(m³)=4/3*pi*force(m)³ natural acid/water/sand/metal. And that is just … bad/broken.
I was wrong about the counterspell part. It says right in the discription of indirect spells that you get dodge (+counterspelling dice if available).
As to the rest of it, yea, good point.
As to the rest of it, yea, good point.
ONLY IF YOU ARE THE TARGET do you et a DODGE test. But Spell Defense doesn't apply to Dodge tests only Resistance Tests.
Stern and I are having this same discussion over here at the same time.
Stern and I are having this same discussion over here at the same time.
I would not call it a discussion, because that would mean I have I point of view that difference from yours. In fact I share your interpretation but I cannot blindly follow it.
I play and gm in a round with rotating gm’s and situation/rules with different ways of interpretation can kill a lot of time, with rule discussions. So I try to tap down every gap, milk every thread and get as much as I can, in the next days.
The ideal case would be that the one who wrote this rules will descend down to us mortals and say X, or a dozen master of rules/laws scream at me something like “sternenwind you stupid bitch, Shaidar is right, l2r and stfu!”. A text preferably written in capitals, to support their opinion.
But …
How about?
SR4A p203 Range
“… Other spells affect all valid Targets within an area, defined as a circle to the spell’s Force in meter.”
SR4A p204 Indirect Combat Spells
“… Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are caught within the spell’s area of effect.”
One could say that the mage may aim next to the shaman. But the fireball is a LOS(A) spell and and because of that the shaman is a valid target of the fireball, and the half dozen rat in its area of effect too. They all are valid targets of the fireball.
I play and gm in a round with rotating gm’s and situation/rules with different ways of interpretation can kill a lot of time, with rule discussions. So I try to tap down every gap, milk every thread and get as much as I can, in the next days.
The ideal case would be that the one who wrote this rules will descend down to us mortals and say X, or a dozen master of rules/laws scream at me something like “sternenwind you stupid bitch, Shaidar is right, l2r and stfu!”. A text preferably written in capitals, to support their opinion.
But …
How about?
SR4A p203 Range
“… Other spells affect all valid Targets within an area, defined as a circle to the spell’s Force in meter.”
SR4A p204 Indirect Combat Spells
“… Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are caught within the spell’s area of effect.”
One could say that the mage may aim next to the shaman. But the fireball is a LOS(A) spell and and because of that the shaman is a valid target of the fireball, and the half dozen rat in its area of effect too. They all are valid targets of the fireball.
Ah, so your main trouble stems from the somewhat ambigious use of the term "target" and the effects of successful spell defense (=counterspelling) on the caster's net hits.
I guess you're overanalyzing the situation there. Going by the text excerps given - parcticularly the part about indirect combat spells hitting "targets" that are "invisible" to the caster but within area of effect - I'd still say that the spell itself actually targets the area defined by the spell's center (which must be visible to the caster) and the spell's radius. Anything/anyone within that area becomes a "target" of the spell's effect and that effect must be resisted by each "target" individually. Succesful resistance - with or without counterspelling - will not cause the spell to fail in general (just like that IIRC wouldn't happen for a direct area combat spell) but will prevent the "target" from suffering the spell's primary damage.
As far as a person being the targeted center for the area of effect is concerned: Successful resistance - with or without counterspelling - by that individual would still only concern the individual's resistance and not the whole spell.
I can't seem to find any obvious contradictions there with RAW of SR4 - within my limited exposure - and it would be in line with how it worked in previous editions.
The only thing that really irks me is the part about counterspelling dice being available for both a dodge attempt and a subsequent damage resistance test if a full dodge could not be achieved.
I guess you're overanalyzing the situation there. Going by the text excerps given - parcticularly the part about indirect combat spells hitting "targets" that are "invisible" to the caster but within area of effect - I'd still say that the spell itself actually targets the area defined by the spell's center (which must be visible to the caster) and the spell's radius. Anything/anyone within that area becomes a "target" of the spell's effect and that effect must be resisted by each "target" individually. Succesful resistance - with or without counterspelling - will not cause the spell to fail in general (just like that IIRC wouldn't happen for a direct area combat spell) but will prevent the "target" from suffering the spell's primary damage.
As far as a person being the targeted center for the area of effect is concerned: Successful resistance - with or without counterspelling - by that individual would still only concern the individual's resistance and not the whole spell.
I can't seem to find any obvious contradictions there with RAW of SR4 - within my limited exposure - and it would be in line with how it worked in previous editions.
The only thing that really irks me is the part about counterspelling dice being available for both a dodge attempt and a subsequent damage resistance test if a full dodge could not be achieved.
QUOTE (Sternenwind @ Jan 14 2015, 02:33 PM) 
So, if a Shaman is active protecting himself with counterspelling and a mage throws a Fireball next to him on the ground;
Stern, what do you mean by the bold section of the quote?
Has used a Free Action to designate Spell Defense for himself and the Party?
Or
Has Delayed Action to Counterspell magical threats against the Party?
Because other than using the Counterspelling Skill to provide defense for himself and the Party they have differing mechanics.
I was not aware that there is a delayed counter spell action. I thought that sustain (and not yet permanent) spells are the only spells a spell caster can ban.
In doubt let’s talk about/ check out both cases.
In doubt let’s talk about/ check out both cases.
QUOTE (SR4a pg. 185)
Counterspelling
Counterspelling is used to interrupt other spells, either as they are being cast (counterspelling) or while they are sustained (dispelling).
Spell Defense
A magician can use Counterspelling to defend herself and others against a spell being cast. To do this, the magician must spend a Free Action and declare who she is protecting. If Counterspelling was not declared in advance, it may not be used to defend others, unless the magician has delayed her action (see Delayed Actions, p. 145). A protected character must also stay within the magician’s line of sight in order for Counterspelling to be used. Note that a magician can always use Counterspelling to defend herself, unless surprised.
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 characters are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.
If more than one magician protects a target with Counterspelling, handle it as teamwork (p. 65).
Note that Counterspelling is not “used up” after it defends against a spell—it continues to protect the designated characters against other spells until the magician decides to end it.
A magician who is actively Counterspelling can even defend against spells she is unaware of—specifically, Detection spells and Illusion spells—as the magician is actively “jamming” the mana around him. This does not mean, however, that the magician is aware such spells are being used. The gamemaster should make a secret Intuition + Magic (3) Test to determine if (and to what extent) the magician noticed the defense.
Using Counterspelling to defend against a spell as it is cast does not cause Drain.
Glitches: A glitch on the Counterspelling Test might “deflect” the spell onto another (friendly) target, or might cause the magician to suffer the Drain of the spell she is trying to counter (if the spell’s Force is greater than her Magic attribute, the Drain causes Physical damage). A critical glitch on the test could make both the original target(s) and the Counterspelling magician suffer the full effects of the spell.
Counterspelling is used to interrupt other spells, either as they are being cast (counterspelling) or while they are sustained (dispelling).
Spell Defense
A magician can use Counterspelling to defend herself and others against a spell being cast. To do this, the magician must spend a Free Action and declare who she is protecting. If Counterspelling was not declared in advance, it may not be used to defend others, unless the magician has delayed her action (see Delayed Actions, p. 145). A protected character must also stay within the magician’s line of sight in order for Counterspelling to be used. Note that a magician can always use Counterspelling to defend herself, unless surprised.
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 characters are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.
If more than one magician protects a target with Counterspelling, handle it as teamwork (p. 65).
Note that Counterspelling is not “used up” after it defends against a spell—it continues to protect the designated characters against other spells until the magician decides to end it.
A magician who is actively Counterspelling can even defend against spells she is unaware of—specifically, Detection spells and Illusion spells—as the magician is actively “jamming” the mana around him. This does not mean, however, that the magician is aware such spells are being used. The gamemaster should make a secret Intuition + Magic (3) Test to determine if (and to what extent) the magician noticed the defense.
Using Counterspelling to defend against a spell as it is cast does not cause Drain.
Glitches: A glitch on the Counterspelling Test might “deflect” the spell onto another (friendly) target, or might cause the magician to suffer the Drain of the spell she is trying to counter (if the spell’s Force is greater than her Magic attribute, the Drain causes Physical damage). A critical glitch on the test could make both the original target(s) and the Counterspelling magician suffer the full effects of the spell.
As a Delayed Action reacting to a spell cast at the party from a caster you are aware of Counterspelling Actively your use can cause the spell not to happen as you are interfering with the casting as it happens. If successful the Fireball in question will affect no one.
Sequence of events
1. Shaman's turn he uses a Free Action to declare Spell Defense and Declares Delaying his remaining Actions to Actively Defend his Party from Spells.
2. Later in the Turn, an opposing Mage decides to cast a Fireball at the Party and begins casting. Mage rolls Spellcasting + Magic.
3. Now the Shaman's Delayed Action comes into play. Shaman rolls Counterspelling + Magic.
4. Directly compare successes, Mage < Shaman = Fireball successful, add Shaman's success to parties Resistance Test (Parties with Delayed Actions specified to evade incoming Fire may dodge where they think the Fireball is going). Shaman < Mage = No Fireball, YEAH!!
Without the Delayed Action
1. Shaman's turn he uses a Free Action to declare Spell Defense and does other stuff with his remaining actions.
2. Later in the Turn, an opposing Mage decides to cast a Fireball at the Party and begins casting. Mage rolls Spellcasting + Magic.
3. Fireball successful, add Shaman's Counterspelling to parties Resistance Test (Parties with Delayed Actions specified to evade incoming Fire may dodge where they think the Fireball is going).
I refer to the Delayed Action option as Active Spell Defense, and the other as Passive Spell Defense.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.