Person A is big nasty mean melee guy, hes 1 meter away, just did serious damage with melee to Person B whos a mage. Person B now wants to cook Person A to medium rare.
Does Person A get anyway of interupting Person B, either by an "attack of opportunity" (yes D&D talk, save the flames) or does the damage he just did help interupt (besides the -3 for being at serious).
Also is said Person B is already at serious wouldn't casting a spell being pretty dumb due to drain and the fact the -3 from her current wounds (assuming she isn't casting a low force spell like improved invis).
Lastly could I ready a quickdraw action with the condition that I act if said mage casts a spell (assuming I notice the casting).
Full Version: spell interupts when in melee range
No, because this isn't AD&D.
There's no assumption the caster is doing anything that would allow you to cancel out the spell, by default there's no material, somantic, or audible components to a spell in SR, unless there's geasa involved.
If there's a geas involved, perhaps you could disrupt that.
If the spell has a fetish component she needs to pull out of her pocket the I might allow you to quick draw her. ( Since casting the spell now involves a physical movement ) Likewise if she attempted to center herself or had a geas that required a physical activity while casting.
I also as a GM might be tempted to put an additional +2 target modifier on her if the spell she was casting was exclusive. ( since she's in the middle of a melee fight ) But more than likely since she's already getting her butt kicked..... I might overlook it.
Barring any of those factors however. No she can cast a spell just by thinking about it. But take heart. Unless she is some ultra powerful magi with karma to burn it's unlikely she'll be able to cast anything that can overcome her +3 Target Modifier.
I also as a GM might be tempted to put an additional +2 target modifier on her if the spell she was casting was exclusive. ( since she's in the middle of a melee fight ) But more than likely since she's already getting her butt kicked..... I might overlook it.
Barring any of those factors however. No she can cast a spell just by thinking about it. But take heart. Unless she is some ultra powerful magi with karma to burn it's unlikely she'll be able to cast anything that can overcome her +3 Target Modifier.
I would think a delayed action would count fine. I'd allow a perception test to let him determine whether the mage is casting or not, and then they could take their attack once the mage casts, though if they don't drop the mage, the mage can still cast the spell (with some new injury mods perhaps).
Don't have my books with me, but I think it sounds reasonable.
Don't have my books with me, but I think it sounds reasonable.
Of course, it brings up the question of why wait for the mage to cast?
You can't interrupt their spell any more than you can stop someone from drawing an gun and shooting you.... unless you have a delayed action, and declare that you're going to go before the other person takes their action.
If you've delayed action, telling the GM "I'm going to hit/shoot the mage if he tries to cast a spell," then the GM can have you roll a perception test to Notice Spellcasting (pg 162 SR3) + situation modifiers (i.e. lighting, smoke, etc) to use your delayed action to stop the mage.
If you've delayed action, telling the GM "I'm going to hit/shoot the mage if he tries to cast a spell," then the GM can have you roll a perception test to Notice Spellcasting (pg 162 SR3) + situation modifiers (i.e. lighting, smoke, etc) to use your delayed action to stop the mage.
You could use Subduing (a subset of Unarmed Combat) to hold her face away from any target. If a magician can't see you, she can't target you. In theory, this opens you up to touch range spells - meaning you may be better off doing the Serious damage.
Yeah, assuming you even had a way to know spellcasting was happening, and you were holding an action then sure. But even if you beat them down but still they remain conscious, they can cast. Spellcasting is really for all intents and purposes instentaneous. You could stop them from fulfilling a gaesa, but no mage has to "pull out" a focus, all they have to do is touch it, IE stick their hand in their pocket. They dont have to whip it out and wave it around, unless they have a separate gaesa to do so.
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| does the damage he just did help interupt (besides the -3 for being at serious) |
In addition to the TN penalty to the magician for being at a Serious, there is also an initiative penalty due to the wound.
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| wouldn't casting a spell being pretty dumb due to drain and the fact the -3 from her current wounds |
The magician's wound penalty doesn't make the drain any worse, it makes it so a spell is less likely to succeed. Compare the magician to a samurai in this situation -- the samurai is still likely to shoot, even though he has wound penalties, because that's what he judges is the best thing for him to do.
Other observations:
a) While many magicians will pick the force and damage level of their spell carefully to avoid hurting themselves with drain, some will consider a "last desparate act", of throwing a spell that's almost guaranteed to give them Deadly Stun, in the hopes of taking down all the opposition.
b) Many magicians will consider using walk or run to move away, in addition to casting a spell.
Other observations:
a) While many magicians will pick the force and damage level of their spell carefully to avoid hurting themselves with drain, some will consider a "last desparate act", of throwing a spell that's almost guaranteed to give them Deadly Stun, in the hopes of taking down all the opposition.
b) Many magicians will consider using walk or run to move away, in addition to casting a spell.
| QUOTE |
| Person A is big nasty mean melee guy, hes 1 meter away, just did serious damage with melee to Person B whos a mage. Person B now wants to cook Person A to medium rare. Does Person A get anyway of interupting Person B, either by an "attack of opportunity" |
No. You just had your opportunity, and you didn't geek the mage. Sorry.
| QUOTE |
| Also is said Person B is already at serious wouldn't casting a spell being pretty dumb due to drain and the fact the -3 from her current wounds (assuming she isn't casting a low force spell like improved invis). |
Depends. The drain won't hurt her any worse-- a drain test is a damage resistance test, and wound modifiers don't apply-- but the spell will be harder to get off. A great big fragoff spell might be in order, though.
| QUOTE |
| Lastly could I ready a quickdraw action with the condition that I act if said mage casts a spell (assuming I notice the casting). |
Not a quickdraw; you could delay an action, however, and then quickdraw a melee weapon (assuming you're an adept with the appopriate power). You'd be much better off with your weapon already out and drawn.
See, this is why you don't give your big mean nasty troll a 1 Willpower.
Just call shot a two-fingered poke to the eyes of the mage. no eyes, no line of sight...
| QUOTE |
| You can't interrupt their spell any more than you can stop someone from drawing an gun and shooting you.... unless you have a delayed action, and declare that you're going to go before the other person takes their action. |
Gee I thougth they had to sustain a spell. I guess taking 10 or so boxes of damage in 1 hit doesn't throw most people off. Nor failing the 14M knock back.
| QUOTE |
| See, this is why you don't give your big mean nasty troll a 1 Willpower. |
Actually I beat the mage to death before she got a cast off, I was just wondering. Its just odd how a person can cast a spell while they are trying to defend against melee and using dodge.
And I went with higher Willpower btw
And I went with higher Willpower btw
If they are sustaing a spell at the time of attack there is a chance they will drop it, but that's not the question you asked. Nothing prevents one from casting a spell after the attack if they can overcome the target modifier.
Kanada thats a very good point and what I most needed to know.
Since movement isn't action consuming would a hit and run work as long as by that mages turn I'm out of line of sight (such as cover)? This is of course assuming its not an area effect spell.
Since movement isn't action consuming would a hit and run work as long as by that mages turn I'm out of line of sight (such as cover)? This is of course assuming its not an area effect spell.
It depends on how the GM views the action sequence. First, remember that your movement points are divided by the number of actions you have. Second, the rules imply that actions and movement are happening near simultaneously - though this is hard to play. If you run (and take that modifier to you attack), attack, and then take cover I would give you partial cover (+4) and target running (+2) modifiers to the casters attack (a total of +9 to the TN).
Actually, the only modifiers to a mage's targetting would be cover and visibility. But still, that's a +7 TN - even dumping his entire Spell Pool and doing as many Karma rerolls as possible, I don't see that mage's spell as working that well.
A hit and run would work if you could reach cover between your action and the mage's action (for example, turning a corner, hitting the mage, and zipping back around the corner). The only exception would be elemental manipulations, which, if they are area spells, can expand into areas that are not in the mage's line of sight. But if the mage is badly stunned, I don't see any spell as being too effective.
A hit and run would work if you could reach cover between your action and the mage's action (for example, turning a corner, hitting the mage, and zipping back around the corner). The only exception would be elemental manipulations, which, if they are area spells, can expand into areas that are not in the mage's line of sight. But if the mage is badly stunned, I don't see any spell as being too effective.
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) |
| remember that your movement points are divided by the number of actions you have |
[Emphasis mine] Not exactly, but close. Your total movement distance (walk or run) is split over all the initiative passes of the Combat Turn, not just the passes where you get an action. On initiative passes subsequent to your last action you move on 0.
If wound penalties to initiative prevent you from taking any action in a Turn, you still can move at the end of each initiative pass.
If wound penalties to initiative prevent you from taking any action in a Turn, you still can move at the end of each initiative pass.
This is what I mean. Say I'm 1 meter from the mage, and have half a dozen meters of run I can use this pass. I melee the mage (complex action) then run around a corner, fully out of view. Now she doesn't have LOS on me. She couldn't manabolt me, but could manaball near me, hitting me with the radius, Correct?
| QUOTE |
| But if the mage is badly stunned, I don't see any spell as being too effective. |
That what I was thinking. Because if shes at serious on the first init pass and trys to cast lets say a manaball force 6. Isn't she going to have to roll against 7 (damage level) with a target number of 10 (6 force +1, +3 for being at serious). Seems like that a losing fight there. Corect me if I'm wrong, magic isn't my strong point.
| QUOTE |
| Say I'm 1 meter from the mage, and have half a dozen meters of run I can use this pass. I melee the mage (complex action) then run around a corner, fully out of view. Now she doesn't have LOS on me. She couldn't manabolt me, but could manaball near me, hitting me with the radius, Correct? |
Actually, if she doesn't have LOS, she can't cast a manaball at you, period. However, that's another point.
The question is rather or not you're fast enough to get in and out of total cover before the mage can get a spell off. Since the spell has the same speed as a gun firing, this is tricky at best. On the whole, I'd rule no, not unless you've got some insane movement and are capable of making ninety-degree turns in less than a fraction of a second.
| QUOTE |
| That what I was thinking. Because if shes at serious on the first init pass and trys to cast lets say a manaball force 6. Isn't she going to have to roll against 7 (damage level) with a target number of 10 (6 force +1, +3 for being at serious). Seems like that a losing fight there. Corect me if I'm wrong, magic isn't my strong point. |
Manabolt's TN is your willpower. If your willpower is at a 2, then her base TN is a 2, modified for her wounds for a total of 5-- not great, but not terrible. If your willpower is a 6, her modified TN is a 9. This is all before visibility modifiers, of course.
Moral of the story? If you don't want to be hurt by manabolts, get yourself a really high willpower.
The magician can also opt for an area of effect manipulation spell, and place the area so that you're still in the area. He suffers a +8 TN modifier agaisnt you, though.
All right, I didn't want to say much in this thread 'cause I know my view is unpopular, but here it goes anyway.
Melee combat isn't a I-hit-you-you-hit-me scenario. It lasts the entire phase and is full of attacks, counters, dodges, blocks, and feints (and it's amazing how many of the people who clutch to this when defending the use of reflexes in melee abandon it when it suits their needs such as in this thread). Unless a character spends the effort and risk of disengaging from that melee, they're going to suffer modifiers to anything they try to do while in that situation.
For Sorcery, I would apply the following modifiers at the very least on top of the ones used for Ranged Combat as per the normal rules: Friends in Melee, Reach (if it would affect the magician instead of the one with the Reach weapon) with Sorcery having no Reach, Opponent Prone, and Character Has Superior Position. The Using a Firearm in Melee would also apply... and don't clutch on to the use of "Firearm" there; it should apply to any ranged attack you make, including non-firearms like bows and crossbows.
The reason for this is because your concentration is going to be wracked to Hell as you're doing your best to block or dodge multiple swings while trying to get your spell off. If you're not up for it, disengage before you try and hurl a spell. If you can't disengage, you deserve the difficulties in casting the spell. At no point is the spell truly "interupted," however... the magician's opponent(s) are simply making it significantly more difficult to get a spell off successfully.
It should also be noted that in our house rules, Martial Arts have been obliterated from the rules and replaced with the old Unarmed Combat skill. Maneuvers, on the other hand, can be purchased for any combat skill as appropriate as long as they can logically be used with that skill (and only when they can be logically used with that skill). This includes Sorcery, even if it usually only applies to the Astral Combat specialization. But if you have Close Combat or Whirling, it would work well if trying to get a spell off while in the middle of a melee situation.
Melee combat isn't a I-hit-you-you-hit-me scenario. It lasts the entire phase and is full of attacks, counters, dodges, blocks, and feints (and it's amazing how many of the people who clutch to this when defending the use of reflexes in melee abandon it when it suits their needs such as in this thread). Unless a character spends the effort and risk of disengaging from that melee, they're going to suffer modifiers to anything they try to do while in that situation.
For Sorcery, I would apply the following modifiers at the very least on top of the ones used for Ranged Combat as per the normal rules: Friends in Melee, Reach (if it would affect the magician instead of the one with the Reach weapon) with Sorcery having no Reach, Opponent Prone, and Character Has Superior Position. The Using a Firearm in Melee would also apply... and don't clutch on to the use of "Firearm" there; it should apply to any ranged attack you make, including non-firearms like bows and crossbows.
The reason for this is because your concentration is going to be wracked to Hell as you're doing your best to block or dodge multiple swings while trying to get your spell off. If you're not up for it, disengage before you try and hurl a spell. If you can't disengage, you deserve the difficulties in casting the spell. At no point is the spell truly "interupted," however... the magician's opponent(s) are simply making it significantly more difficult to get a spell off successfully.
It should also be noted that in our house rules, Martial Arts have been obliterated from the rules and replaced with the old Unarmed Combat skill. Maneuvers, on the other hand, can be purchased for any combat skill as appropriate as long as they can logically be used with that skill (and only when they can be logically used with that skill). This includes Sorcery, even if it usually only applies to the Astral Combat specialization. But if you have Close Combat or Whirling, it would work well if trying to get a spell off while in the middle of a melee situation.
That's a little harsh. There's no reason reach should apply since you don't need to be close to your foe at all (reach is in play because your foe only needs to be within x meters to hit you while you have to be in y meters to hit him... in this case, you'd simply stay at x meters or farther). I will agree that friends in melee should apply. I really don't think any firearm-in-melee rules (are you talking about the +2 mod which doesn't actually seem to apply to someone you're actively fighting?) should apply. There's no weapon barrel to dodge or trap, you'd literally have to avoid the mage's eyes.
Unless you're planning to rewrite melee rules, there is also nothing that stops you from moving back out of melee range before launching a spell at someone.
Unless you're planning to rewrite melee rules, there is also nothing that stops you from moving back out of melee range before launching a spell at someone.
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| This is what I mean. Say I'm 1 meter from the mage, and have half a dozen meters of run I can use this pass. I melee the mage (complex action) then run around a corner, fully out of view. Now she doesn't have LOS on me. She couldn't manabolt me, but could manaball near me, hitting me with the radius, Correct? |
So you're trying to engage in melee combat (Complex Action) and run away at the same time? Doesn't work.
You engage in combat, and on your next turn you can run away.
We had a guy who used to pull this kind of stuff - "I use athletics to run really fast down the hallway, around the corner, kick the door down, fire my grenade launcher into the room. dodge out of the doorway and ready my assault rifle."
GM: "OK, that takes all four of your initiative passes."
Player: "What! Fire weapon and Ready weapon are two simple actions!
GM:"Using athletics run faster - complex action. Using unarmed combat to beat defenseless door - complex action. Moving out of doorway - simple action. Put away Grenade Launcher - simple action. You're out of actions for the entire Combat Turn.
Reach should definitely apply. If your opponent is using a spear to smack you around, he's not just going to toss it aside and wait for you to get your spell off.
And immobility or forgoing any movement that phase (such as not saying you're moving at the beginning of the Turn in order to avoid other target modifiers) certainly does stop you from being able to disengage.
If it were in my game, I'd also allow the magician to ignore all of those modifiers by dropping his guard. However, he'd be considered "passing by" his opponents, and each and every one of them within melee range would get a free attack as per the rules for Interception.
And immobility or forgoing any movement that phase (such as not saying you're moving at the beginning of the Turn in order to avoid other target modifiers) certainly does stop you from being able to disengage.
If it were in my game, I'd also allow the magician to ignore all of those modifiers by dropping his guard. However, he'd be considered "passing by" his opponents, and each and every one of them within melee range would get a free attack as per the rules for Interception.
I think what TinkerGnome is trying to say is that, reach applies when Opponent A has a long weapon and Opponent B is trying to attack A with B's shorter weapon. If a Mage just wants to get a spell off, there's no need for B to try to get in closer to cast it, all B needs to do is stay away from A's longsword, or spear, or whatever. Still has to defend, mind you, but B can defend at any range.
Now, anything past that, I don't know. I just can understand the logic that "reach only applies when both people are going after each other's throats with different-length weaponry".
Now, anything past that, I don't know. I just can understand the logic that "reach only applies when both people are going after each other's throats with different-length weaponry".
Length of your opponent's weapon isn't relevant if you're not trying to strike them, at least not in the same way it is if you are. If your opponent's reach is 3 meters or 1 meter, it shouldn't matter since your goal is not to get inside that reach and strike with a shorter weapon. Otherwise, two trolls with combat axes would give each other huge penalties to their rolls.
For the rest... an average mage with moderate combat skill would never, ever get a spell off with all of those modifiers. It's your game, though, so play it how you like.
For the rest... an average mage with moderate combat skill would never, ever get a spell off with all of those modifiers. It's your game, though, so play it how you like.
Which is the reason they should move away. If they don't, they deserve to have troubles.
Obviously, since a line-of-sight spell has a much longer reach than a spear, the troll should get massive penalties to resist it.
In my mind, the penalty applies because the attacker is doing his best to muck with your ability to concentrate long enough to get the spell off -- which takes a full Complex Action. Whacking you on the head with his spear is a lot easier than whacking the spear away, hence the Reach bonuses applying as appropriate.
Whether he wants to be there or not is a moot point. He's there, and he's in the middle of a fight. He can't just say "time out, guys, I need time to fry you with a spell!" There's no good reason why he shouldn't suffer penalties for trying to cast a spell while fending off attacks left and right. None whatsoever.
But whatever. Note the first line of my original post on the topic. I knew these would be the kind of responses that would crop up. To each their own.
Whether he wants to be there or not is a moot point. He's there, and he's in the middle of a fight. He can't just say "time out, guys, I need time to fry you with a spell!" There's no good reason why he shouldn't suffer penalties for trying to cast a spell while fending off attacks left and right. None whatsoever.
But whatever. Note the first line of my original post on the topic. I knew these would be the kind of responses that would crop up. To each their own.
Eh? It's worth talking about. Just because you're not agreed with doesn't mean it's not a good thing to discuss it. My personal viewpoint is that your average mage who gets into melee against someone with a reach weapon is likely to be a magic-kabob within the first round and won't be casting anything except for his own blood onto the tiles.
Are you allowing for the reach of any melee weapon the mage is casting to count as well? That might help.
Are you allowing for the reach of any melee weapon the mage is casting to count as well? That might help.
If the magician has a melee weapon in hand while casting, I'd allow its Reach to counter his opponent(s), yes. But if he has a gesture geas or is otherwise unarmed, he's stuck with a Reach of --.
| QUOTE (ShadowGhost) |
| So you're trying to engage in melee combat (Complex Action) and run away at the same time? Doesn't work. |
Maybe it doesn't work in your game, but it's canon by the book.
| QUOTE (MOVEMENT @ SR3 p. 108) |
| In addition to choices of Free, Simple and Complex Actions, characters may also choose to move during their Combat Turn. Movement in no way changes the availability of Free, Simple, or Complex Actions. |
The character is at +4 on his Action due to his choice of Running movement. A character can clearly fire a weapon and run around a corner, or run around a corner and fire a weapon.
Hey, you want to apply Reach rules to spellcasting, no problem.
But answer me this question: What is the Reach of a LOS spell?
It isn't 0. Touch-range spells have Reach 0. By the general rule of thumb that weapons have Reach approximately equal to their effective range in meters, LOS spells should have a Reach of, oh, 1000 or more. So, sure, I'll apply Reach modifiers to spells. Your spear-wielding troll now has a TN of 1000 in the melee contest. He's also resisting the mage's spell casting with a TN penalty of +996.
You want "realistic" justification for this? Your troll is no longer just trying to stab the mage with his spear. He's now trying to do it while not letting the mage see him for even the second that it takes to get a spell off. And he has to close through the mage's spell range and get into spear reach before he can do anything at all, all while not letting the mage get a look at him.
Ridiculous? Yeah. Breaking the abstraction of the action/initiative sequence system? Yeah. Totally unbalanced in favor of one combatant for no good reason? Yeah. But it's the same thing you're doing, and it's perfectly consistent with your "logic".
But answer me this question: What is the Reach of a LOS spell?
It isn't 0. Touch-range spells have Reach 0. By the general rule of thumb that weapons have Reach approximately equal to their effective range in meters, LOS spells should have a Reach of, oh, 1000 or more. So, sure, I'll apply Reach modifiers to spells. Your spear-wielding troll now has a TN of 1000 in the melee contest. He's also resisting the mage's spell casting with a TN penalty of +996.
You want "realistic" justification for this? Your troll is no longer just trying to stab the mage with his spear. He's now trying to do it while not letting the mage see him for even the second that it takes to get a spell off. And he has to close through the mage's spell range and get into spear reach before he can do anything at all, all while not letting the mage get a look at him.
Ridiculous? Yeah. Breaking the abstraction of the action/initiative sequence system? Yeah. Totally unbalanced in favor of one combatant for no good reason? Yeah. But it's the same thing you're doing, and it's perfectly consistent with your "logic".
<sighs> I already explained myself on that particular subject.
Sorcery, whether casting a LOS spell or not, doesn't have a Reach modifier because it's not being used as a frelling melee weapon. You're not swatting any weapons away with it (unless that's the spell you're casting, at which point it doesn't take effect until after you've finished casting it) -- you're in the process of using it to concentrate long enough to get your spell out, period. The fact that people are beating you with clubs and spears is not something your use of Spellcasting has any bearing on whatsoever, whether or not your LOS is unlimited or not. Unless you want to come up with some retarded justification about shooting telekinetic bursts out of your eyes in the process of casting some wholly unrelated spell simultaneously. But at that point, its your idiocy, not mine.
Also, I've never given a fuck about "realism." I'm all about believability... and there's nothing believable about suffering no penalties whatsoever for casting a spell while you have a bunch of people bitchslapping you while you're doing it vs. not getting smacked around. Maybe you find that more "realistic," "logical," or even more believable, but I certainly don't and it certainly has no bearing on the logic I'm using.
Focus on one word in what I've been saying, and maybe you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. The word: "Concentration." LOS means nothing. It's a limitation (or lack thereof) of the spell itself, not the process of casting it.
Sorcery, whether casting a LOS spell or not, doesn't have a Reach modifier because it's not being used as a frelling melee weapon. You're not swatting any weapons away with it (unless that's the spell you're casting, at which point it doesn't take effect until after you've finished casting it) -- you're in the process of using it to concentrate long enough to get your spell out, period. The fact that people are beating you with clubs and spears is not something your use of Spellcasting has any bearing on whatsoever, whether or not your LOS is unlimited or not. Unless you want to come up with some retarded justification about shooting telekinetic bursts out of your eyes in the process of casting some wholly unrelated spell simultaneously. But at that point, its your idiocy, not mine.
Also, I've never given a fuck about "realism." I'm all about believability... and there's nothing believable about suffering no penalties whatsoever for casting a spell while you have a bunch of people bitchslapping you while you're doing it vs. not getting smacked around. Maybe you find that more "realistic," "logical," or even more believable, but I certainly don't and it certainly has no bearing on the logic I'm using.
Focus on one word in what I've been saying, and maybe you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. The word: "Concentration." LOS means nothing. It's a limitation (or lack thereof) of the spell itself, not the process of casting it.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| <sighs> I already explained myself on that particular subject. Sorcery, whether casting a LOS spell or not, doesn't have a Reach modifier because it's not being used as a frelling melee weapon. You're not swatting any weapons away with it (unless that's the spell you're casting, at which point it doesn't take effect until after you've finished casting it) -- you're in the process of using it to concentrate long enough to get your spell out, period. |
Ah, so the root of the problem is that you don't know what "Reach" means. "Reach" does not mean "I have something I can parry with". "Reach" means "I have a longer implement of destruction than the enemy, so I can do unto him before he does unto me". And sorcery (assuming, again, LOS spells, not touch-range ones) has a longer reach than any melee weapon, which means that, if you're going to apply Reach modifiers to it, it should get huge favorable TN modifiers, that being the way Shadowrun rewards reach.
(Note: I have serious problems with Shadowrun's treatment of Reach, rooted in years of actually dealing with opponents with weapons much longer than mine. But that's an entirely different argument, and not relevant here.)
| QUOTE |
| The fact that people are beating you with clubs and spears is not something your use of Spellcasting has any bearing on whatsoever, whether or not your LOS is unlimited or not. |
Okay, look at it like this. There are three possible outcomes to the troll attacking the mage.
1) The mage wins the melee contest.
2) The mage loses the melee contest, but soaks all the damage.
3) The mage loses the melee contest, and fails to soak all the damage.
In situation 1, the mage has successfully avoided whatever attacks the troll is making against her. The troll's tried to hit her to disrupt her concentration, but her l33t dodging sk1llz prevailed, and he failed. (And I'm assuming she's using full defense here, so as not to open that can of worms with a counterattack.) Now it's her turn, and he gets to eat mana.
In situation 2, the mage didn't evade all the attacks, but whatever the troll is hitting her with is so wussy that it doesn't actually hurt her (gods know what it might be, because your typical melee troll can beat a tank to death with a Nerf bat). She shrugs off this pathetic attempt to disrupt her concentration by slapping her with a feather or whatever and roasts his brains with her manabolt.
Situation 3 is the only one where she's actually being beaten with clubs and spears. She's been hit, she's been wounded, probably seriously, and she's in severe pain. She can still cast spells, but she's doing it through the haze of pain from being stabbed with a spear, and she's got a drastically lowered chance of success. This is reflected by the wound modifier... she's at +3 TN for everything but soaking damage if she's taken an S. If the troll has a reasonable Willpower, that makes the difference between an easy kill with a manabolt, and a spell that might well fail completely even with lots of Spell Pool dice dumped in.
And if, for some crazy reason, you're still convinced that, all else being equal, being stabbed with a long weapon is more distracting than being stabbed with a short one, note that, due to the huge TN bonuses that the SR melee rules give long-Reach weapons, your Reach makes it much, much more likely that you'll get situation 3 (or even 3b... the mage loses the melee contest, takes enough damage to kill her outright, and never casts another spell again) with the long one, which I'd say adequately reflects the extra difficulty of staying out of reach of the longer weapon.
To sum up, where you're going wrong is in trying to figure the difficulty of dodging the melee attacks directly into the mage's Sorcery test, when the game mechanics have already done so at the time the melee attacks were actually resolved.
| QUOTE |
| Unless you want to come up with some retarded justification about shooting telekinetic bursts out of your eyes in the process of casting some wholly unrelated spell simultaneously. But at that point, its your idiocy, not mine. |
No, that's entirely your idiocy. Don't try to pin it on me.
That's also the most blatant straw man I've seen in a long time. No wonder BitBasher's sig pisses you off so much.
<just rolls his eyes>
You inability to read anything beyond what you want to read is astonishing, so responding is pretty much a moot point. But that's not surprising coming from someone who couldn't comprehend something as simple as the encumbrance rules, preferring instead to assume that some imaginary black hole existed therein.
So on that note... <reaches up to adjust some imaginary knobs as I tune yet another virtual voice out>
You inability to read anything beyond what you want to read is astonishing, so responding is pretty much a moot point. But that's not surprising coming from someone who couldn't comprehend something as simple as the encumbrance rules, preferring instead to assume that some imaginary black hole existed therein.
So on that note... <reaches up to adjust some imaginary knobs as I tune yet another virtual voice out>
I'll take that as an admission that you're unable to counter my argument.
And my point is proven again. Thanks.
here here John, that was what I was trying to figure out how to say.
SR magic is thoughts, can you think and dodge at the same time, hell yes. so why should I be penalized because I am avoiding getting hit, if all I have to do is think about the spell(s) I want to cast.
there is no movement required to cast the spell and the time it takes is not defined, otherwise casting 6 spells would take longer than casting one. which it doesn't, if I am insane enough to try casting 6 spells t once I can do that in one complex action.
-Mike R.
SR magic is thoughts, can you think and dodge at the same time, hell yes. so why should I be penalized because I am avoiding getting hit, if all I have to do is think about the spell(s) I want to cast.
there is no movement required to cast the spell and the time it takes is not defined, otherwise casting 6 spells would take longer than casting one. which it doesn't, if I am insane enough to try casting 6 spells t once I can do that in one complex action.
-Mike R.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| And my point is proven again. Thanks. |
So your point was that when someone responds to one of your posts with a lengthy rebuttal, you can sling an ad hominem (oh, whoops, there I go referring to stuff in BitBasher's sig again) and run away without addressing a single thing they said?
I guess that's been proven quite effectively, but I'm not at all certain why that's a point that you'd want to prove.
You're also doing a pretty lousy job of ignoring me.
| QUOTE (Fahr) |
| SR magic is thoughts, can you think and dodge at the same time, hell yes. so why should I be penalized because I am avoiding getting hit, if all I have to do is think about the spell(s) I want to cast. there is no movement required to cast the spell and the time it takes is not defined, otherwise casting 6 spells would take longer than casting one. which it doesn't, if I am insane enough to try casting 6 spells t once I can do that in one complex action. |
Wrong. Casting a spell has a clearly defined duration; one Complex Action. It takes less time to draw and fire a pistol than it does to cast a spell.
Sure, you can rush through the act of getting a spell out in order to sling a couple of different ones in the same time frame but, shock shock, you suffer massive penalties for doing so (a fraction of the dice and a sizable TN penalty). You can do the same thing while trying to perform the calculus or something else that requires even a little concentration in the same amount of time, but don't be surprised when you mess up along the way. That's why it's insane to cast six spells at the same time; your chances of success (+12 TN for each spell and one/sixth of your normal dice per spell) at that are even worse than trying to do just about anything else in the game.
Likewise, Sorcery is a Willpower-linked skill. It relies on the concentration of the spellcaster to get the spell out. Spells are not cast "on a thought." If it were, it would be linked to Intelligence and would be a Free Action -- if that -- to cast a spell. But it's not and it's not because it's not cast "on a thought."
Tell you what. The next time you need to perform some activity that takes your undivided attention and concentration, how about I come over to your house and beat your head in with a bat repeatedly while you try and perform it. Let's see how successful you are at getting it done in a timely fashion while I'm busy doing so. Let's see how unstoppable your line of vision is at avoiding that.
| QUOTE (John Campbell @ May 11 2004, 03:15 PM) |
| So your point was that when someone responds to one of your posts with a lengthy rebuttal, you can sling an ad hominem (oh, whoops, there I go referring to stuff in BitBasher's sig again) and run away without addressing a single thing they said? I guess that's been proven quite effectively, but I'm not at all certain why that's a point that you'd want to prove. |
Nope. My point is that you're an oblivious twit with no interest in actually reading, or even trying to comprehend, what I was saying. Because I went through it in detail, twice, already. Yet your bizarre little mind read something completely different into it based upon your own ill-conceived ideas and obvious disdain of me.
So yes, I'm not going to bother replying to anything you have to say on the topic because it's just going to be wasted breath. Despite already stating that as well. But not surprisingly, you couldn't even comprehend something that simple and that direct, either.
| QUOTE |
| You're also doing a pretty lousy job of ignoring me. |
Yes, it seems to be the rule of thumb around here.
So you would add "Reach" modifiers, and "Friends in Melee" modifiers to the street sam how tries to draw his gun and shoot in combat as well?
I would, yes, if he was in a melee situation when he was doing it.
Personally, I think CWL, John and Fahr are looking at the situation in black and white, which I don't think really helps the matter.
John and Fahr are right as far as the actual rules go. According to the way SR combat works (rules wise mind you) attacking and dogeing of said attacks takes place at the same time during the combat turn. If the mage does avoid all the attacks during that chunk of the combat phase, it is assumed that she managed to maintain her concentration long enough to get the spell off. (Providing nothing goes horribly wrong on the actual spell roll.)
But at the same time Lime does bring up a good point. Combat is chaotic and messy, and trying to keep your concentration on one singular thing among that chaotic, swirling meele is difficult. And that's true wether your talking about Shadowrun or D&D. If a troll with a spear is in your face, trying to give you a nasty poke, it is gonna be harder to get that spell off. If for no other reason then the fact that while your trying to remember the spell, you will also be remembering that this troll could run you through and stick ya to the wall in one smooth motion. (Which, on an un-related note, I think I'd like to watch.)
And Farh, its not that easy to think of something specifc and dodge at the same time. This is definatly true when your trying to remember where the flag is hidden in a game of paintball, only to be ambushed by a flanking party.
John and Fahr are right as far as the actual rules go. According to the way SR combat works (rules wise mind you) attacking and dogeing of said attacks takes place at the same time during the combat turn. If the mage does avoid all the attacks during that chunk of the combat phase, it is assumed that she managed to maintain her concentration long enough to get the spell off. (Providing nothing goes horribly wrong on the actual spell roll.)
But at the same time Lime does bring up a good point. Combat is chaotic and messy, and trying to keep your concentration on one singular thing among that chaotic, swirling meele is difficult. And that's true wether your talking about Shadowrun or D&D. If a troll with a spear is in your face, trying to give you a nasty poke, it is gonna be harder to get that spell off. If for no other reason then the fact that while your trying to remember the spell, you will also be remembering that this troll could run you through and stick ya to the wall in one smooth motion. (Which, on an un-related note, I think I'd like to watch.)
And Farh, its not that easy to think of something specifc and dodge at the same time. This is definatly true when your trying to remember where the flag is hidden in a game of paintball, only to be ambushed by a flanking party.
as a programmer who often is wrinting posts on this board while atlking on the phone and doing mouse work on another computer, I am pretty sure I can multi-task. and as for thinking/concentrating while someone is attacking me, can you talk while being attacked? I know I can, I know I can hold an unrelated conversation while sparring seriously and not lose the match because of the conversation.
besides, If I can (by canon) cast one spell in a complex action or two, or three, than the time it takes to cast the spell is obviosuly not set. if it were, than I would be limited (like D&D) to one spell at a time.
if we were to follow your logic to its conclusion, melee would be an Exclusive action, like the exclusive casting, but it is not.
ACL, what gets us all mad at you, is you seem to not understand that we want to understand you, and we want to discuss this in a civil manner, but you can't seem to get over people disagreeing with you.
I disagree with people on this board all the time, do I call them names? no. do I get my panties in a wad because someone disagrees with me? no. do I occasionally admit I am wrong? yes. why can't you?
-Mike R.
besides, If I can (by canon) cast one spell in a complex action or two, or three, than the time it takes to cast the spell is obviosuly not set. if it were, than I would be limited (like D&D) to one spell at a time.
if we were to follow your logic to its conclusion, melee would be an Exclusive action, like the exclusive casting, but it is not.
ACL, what gets us all mad at you, is you seem to not understand that we want to understand you, and we want to discuss this in a civil manner, but you can't seem to get over people disagreeing with you.
I disagree with people on this board all the time, do I call them names? no. do I get my panties in a wad because someone disagrees with me? no. do I occasionally admit I am wrong? yes. why can't you?
-Mike R.
I am not saying it is not difficult, but I don't think that there is any more reason to add all those penalties to the mage on the casting.
If I were to agree that there should be penatlies for the mage at all, I would make those penalties be on the melee test. not the casting. concentraing on your enemy to focus a spell on them doesn't strike me as being much different than what I would already be doing in a melee.
maybe guns in melee if the target was not my opponent. but even then I don't think I would apply them in my games.
oh well.. enough of my rambling.
-Mike R.
If I were to agree that there should be penatlies for the mage at all, I would make those penalties be on the melee test. not the casting. concentraing on your enemy to focus a spell on them doesn't strike me as being much different than what I would already be doing in a melee.
maybe guns in melee if the target was not my opponent. but even then I don't think I would apply them in my games.
oh well.. enough of my rambling.
-Mike R.
Fahr, multi-tasking is quite different than doing the same thing in mellee combat. When you multitask at a computer, you do have some control over your enviornment. Now it is true that something random might crop up and throw you off, but for the most part you are in control.
Combat is another matter entirely. You have no control over your enviornment or the actions of you opponent. You know no more than what intell you can dig up before hand, you don't know what tricks and traps your enemy might have set up. And, combat is scary. The adreneline starts to pump and the whole fear/ fight or flight deal kicks in, and that's just when your playing a frikin war game.
Combat with real bullets and weapons isn't something you can do while thinking about something else. Bullets fly, weapons clash and then there's that nagging reminder that you could die at any minute. Which is why the magic user should hide behind something (perferably the combat monster), and concentrate on casting spells. If they do get cornerd by the enemy combat monster, you better pray you can get your spell off before he can swing his weapon, or your gonna be in trouble.
Combat is another matter entirely. You have no control over your enviornment or the actions of you opponent. You know no more than what intell you can dig up before hand, you don't know what tricks and traps your enemy might have set up. And, combat is scary. The adreneline starts to pump and the whole fear/ fight or flight deal kicks in, and that's just when your playing a frikin war game.
Combat with real bullets and weapons isn't something you can do while thinking about something else. Bullets fly, weapons clash and then there's that nagging reminder that you could die at any minute. Which is why the magic user should hide behind something (perferably the combat monster), and concentrate on casting spells. If they do get cornerd by the enemy combat monster, you better pray you can get your spell off before he can swing his weapon, or your gonna be in trouble.
ACL's reasoning for the length of time an action takes is flawed.
With an initiative of 50, my complex actions take less time than the simple actions of someone with initiative of 5; because all of them have to occur in a 3 second time frame.
Using the action type to define how long or how complicated an action is on the time axis is not a meaningful definition. It depends entirely on the relative initatives of the people involved.
Thus, because magic is defined simply as an act of thought in most cases, I fail to see how getting hit would stop a spell; unless youre brain was cut into pieces by the attack. It might make it harder to concentrate on the single mental task of casting a spell, but lo and behold theres a tn modifer to casting it while wounded.
With an initiative of 50, my complex actions take less time than the simple actions of someone with initiative of 5; because all of them have to occur in a 3 second time frame.
Using the action type to define how long or how complicated an action is on the time axis is not a meaningful definition. It depends entirely on the relative initatives of the people involved.
Thus, because magic is defined simply as an act of thought in most cases, I fail to see how getting hit would stop a spell; unless youre brain was cut into pieces by the attack. It might make it harder to concentrate on the single mental task of casting a spell, but lo and behold theres a tn modifer to casting it while wounded.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.