Hi there!

The players in my SR3 group don't use elemental manipulation spells. Probably because everyone thinks they are crap.

Anyways, I wanted to bring a few NPC mages into the game. who use them.
But, I have some issues with the secondary effects, which sound super great if they work and crappy if they don't. It seems that a lot of handwaving is required by the GM there.


1. The Target Number is listed with four and disregards range modifiers. Are other sight modifiers (darkness etc.) applied?
(I remember having a discussion with one of my players about when he tried to levitate another player who was in free fall from a plane).

2. What would be the object resistance of the following objects: clothing, form fitted body armor, an AK-98, a sniper rifle, ammunition?

3. Unsure especially when to use high-tech (8+) or industrial high grade products (10+)?

4. How much would you break down an object: E.g. a computer itself is a high tech part, but some parts of it like a cheap plastic casing encasing it would be a lower grade, therefore making it realistic that a mage hurls a fireball into an office room with the intention to trigger a fire there. Initially the computer (high tech) would not burn up, but the casing would begin to melt and burn if the die roll is high enough.

Thank you for reading this far

1. Yes modifiers apply, the Sorcery section of the rulebook are fairly explicit about how this works (ie: blast radius working like grenades)
2. Depends on the Clothing usually 5 or 8, FFBA 8, AK98 8, Sniper Rifle 8, Ammo 8,
3. Advanced Plastics (Custom Carbons, Kevlar, Nylon Gortex weave), Alloys (so bronze and steel), Electronic Equiptment (what it says on the tin) are all High Tech. Computers (things with bits of rock that we tricked into thinking when electricity is passed through them), Complex Toxic Wastes are High Grade Industrial.
4. Up to you but you are "calling a shot" at that point and magic tends to work along conceptual lines instead of segmented ones. In the case of a fireball you are not testing against OR as it doesn't use an "or OR" Target Number (being either a listed Stat or it says OR) but has a 'static' base TN of 4 and the Flames are actual Flames, same as if they came from a non-magical source - only specific magical defenses can protect you.

Thanks for the quick response.

The OR part comes from the general description of the secondary effects which should be valid for all elemental manipulation spells.
Still the Fireball was a bad example, because of your reasons given (AOE = real flames everywhere = computer burns up regardless of the OR).

Let's change the example to the cheaper Flamethrower spell. Primary effect is applied of cause and then you roll for secondary effect with 2d6 against 8 (depending on the chosen damage level this value is increased even by 2 or 4). Or would you vote also to use "common sense" instead of the OR rule here?

Secondary effect explicitly uses OR and has it's own rules - so you would use that. Computers would use the Computers OR not the OR for just the casing, but once things are igniting all around in subsequent combat turns common sense applies.

The rules as written make it very unlikely that secondary effect would apply.

Going for "common sense" I think is a bad idea, because people always get amazed how little of their so-called common senses they actually share.

How likely is it that a fireball or an electrical discharge causing medium damage to a human also causes damage to objects is not really obvious. Electrical discharges are weird, and I never was clear on how a fireball did exactly damage people that much, but what I know is that humans can get terrible burns from stuff that won't set wood on fire.

Frankly, I wouldn't care much about the secondary effects. The point of elemental manipulation is the different mechanics they rely on: TN relying on vision rather than some of the target's attributes. If you really want them to be usable and interesting, I would limit the application of shielding and spell defense, which are probably the biggest reason people avoid them.

The huge advantage to Elemental spells though, is the easy targeting. You heard an Ares firewatch team stacking up on that corner and know they're planning something? Have a massive powerball or stunball ready to go, with their name on it? Tough - won't work, no target. Until someone pokes their head around the corner, those combat spells won't work. And when someone does poke their head aroud, you can target them and only them. Their 9 squadmates out of LOS are safe and sound.

Throw a nice big lightning ball down the corridor and you can target that blemish on the wall - then all of those chummers are in the AoE and are in line for some juicy soaks. And sure, they might get some spell defence from their squad mage to help them soak it down (but remember, they only get 1/2 impact armour verses elemental damage, so even well armoured troops in 6/4 armoured uniforms only take 2 off the damage - so if you can be throwing F6-8 spells, that's still a hard soak). But if they do get spell defence, then those are dice that mage is not using for spell *offence*. And if you throw those spells downrange at damage level S or D, you can make some people roll dice for cookoffs. And if there's a squad, the chances are that someone is going to get unlucky, causing further havoc.

The other side of things depends on the game you're playing and the role of magic and how the team works. You throw a stunball or powerball, and people sort of just fall over, or maybe look a bit squishy. You throw a high force fireball, and people know they've got Karl Kombat Mage to deal with, and all the intimidation that brings to the party.

I'd not discount elemental manipulations. It only takes one of your team members to have, or to cause a grenade to cook off, and combat changes dramatically.

And also - shits and giggles. Lemme tell you a story about our game a good decade ago or more. One of the players (Lee - playing Marius in my current smuggler game if that helps) was playing "Teppic", an Egyption style hermetic mage. Spells were big, spelles were powerful, very much a "go big or go home" kinda caster. High force lightning bolts and fireballs. Big elementals. Lots of pew pew.

They were chasing after a free spirit who had done some Bad Things ™ and tracked them down into the service tunnels under a shopping centre - lots of grey corridors made with plascrete forming 10 foot wide mazes that sort of made it feel like an old school D&D raid into undermountain.
Teppic sees the bad guy at the end of the corriodr, and unleashes hell - all the spell power and grade and extra magical force he could muster, into a high force cast. Sure, he's not going to get many successes, but he's casting at D and only really needs 1-2, so thowing dice at the problem makes it all cool.

right up until they discovered the reason I was trying so hard to keep a poker face. See, I'd randomly rolled up the metamagics and powers of the spirit, just to keep things interesting. Reflective Shielding...
so that big old elemental AoE spell hurtles down the 10 foot wide corridor, hits the shield, the spirit gets a little lucky, and wouldn't you know it, bounces back up the corridor towards them. With them stuck in an area with nowhere to go, and ALL being aware of the chunky salsa like effects of blast in a confined space.

They treated the spirit with a little more respect and a lot more caution - once they'd put the fires out.

Except that with vision modifier to take into account, you're at a minimum of TN 12 to shoot at targets you can't see. And in my experience, elemental manipulation is probably one of the only spell where mages are actually worried of getting any kind of drain, considering you need more success on a drain resistance test. Plus, the targets CAN dodge those spells, at TN4, with a combat pool they're not very likely to need if they are concealed. And that's with an easier soak than combat spells, as you said.

So what will likely happen: your mage has to spend all his spell pool (and probably some karma pool) to get one or two successes (granted, I've seen TN12 beaten regularly). You might suffer some drain if you want this to be any danger: even trying to make light damages has a serious drain, and since you need high force and have no spell pool left, that's difficult to shrug off… The opposing understanding what happens let the thing go, maybe yells "brace" to his friends, and everybody dances around avoiding most of the flames or electrical arcs bursting everywhere in the area. Frightening yes, but apart from a few light or medium burns, everyone's pretty much ok. Now the mage, seeing an opportunity, guessing his opposition has not much left in terms of spell defense, yells "attack!" and while his friends unleash fire, will procede to toast your team easily with a good stunball he can cast at highest force and Serious damage, because you are serious opposition and he needs to make sure you don't get another occasion to display power.



I am really not sure that is true in a world where magic does exist and people know the majority of mages will kill you just by looking at you. This very idea is much more terrifying than a guy making fireworks by waving his hands. For guards forming at being shot at, taking grenades into account and so forth, that might actually be kind of reassuring that the mage is using something they can see to try to kill them.

It's true though that the fluff describes such spell as likely to be used by combat mages. But I am really not much agreeing with the idea that a combat mage focuses on combat spells… Logic would suggest many other spells for such a character looking for combat efficiency. The ability to play on visibility, or to take control of an opposing soldiers action (that's what I'd have done in the situation described earlier), and have detection, would be a high priority.



What spell gets the chunky salsa effect?

I think perhaps you misunderstand me - there's no way (at least at my table and in that situation) that the mage would be on TN 12. They'd be on 4s.
They're not shooting at the people around the corner. They're shooting at the wall - just with a spell that makes real elemental effects and has a blast radius. So shooting at the wall at the end of the corridor, on the corner that the bad guys are hiding around, they'll be on TN4 - so looking at getting 50% of their dice as successes.

So first off, a lot more successes, means a lot more staging up to higher damage, and a lot harder to dodge.
Secondly, the guys stacked up around the corner (at least in my example) - unless they can see the attack coming, or have some tech means to spot it (rigger warning over CCSS, mirrors on sticks, fibre optic camera around corner, whatever) - I'm not giving them a full on dodge. Just like you don't get to dodge a sniper bullet that catches you by surprise.
Off the top of my head, I'd go with half combat pool max (they're in a combat area, stacked up and planning an assault - they're expecting trouble, pain and lead rain, they're hyped up on adrenaline at least, if not jazz/kamikaze. A fireball appearing is surprising, but not unexpected). Now with that half combat pool, they're trying to dodge an AoE, with a lot of successes - that's a lot less easy to dodge.
As regards the vision thing - meh. Different views. I can certainly see our current "man down the pub, claims to be SAS / Marine Force Recon / SEAL" changing by 2060 to "I'm a mage you know, don't push me". Being able to do visible magic that has a tangible effect is a sure fire way to stop those kinds of arguments.
Leads onto a very much non-canon / RP thing. I've always let my mages have "cantrips" - little magical effects that aren't really useful in game terms, but that I think they should have as 'easy' spells or effects - like the mage who lights his nicostick by flicking the end of his finger like it's a zippo. I mean technically he doesn't have "tiny flame" a -2L drain spell. But come on... that's kinda cool. And so based on that head / table canon that we have, it's easy to see those kind of little RP effects confirming that someone is a mage after all. Or someone with a cyber lighter in their prosthetic finger, pretending - but that's for the players to work out with a perception check and a bit of psychology or assensing, and that's a different story...

As to the chunky salsa effect - I'd put it on for any elemental spell (which as you say, do have their issues - they can be quite weak when you factor in the drain, compared to some other spells) - just because the elemental effect does create a physical mass of stuff, in the real world, with velocity and kinetic energy.
If a grenade goes off, it creates a blast of fire, over a radius N. If it hits walls with a barrier rating high enough to withstand the blast, the blast is rebounded, leading to chunky salsa. If a mage throws a fireblast spell at a target, it has an area as well, defined by their magic rating. While the creation of the blast is magical, once done it exists int he physical world and obeys all the normal rules (hence the bit about having to blast through windows in the description of elemental effects), so why wouldn't it bounce of barriers in just the same way as a non magically created blast? By the point of hitting the target, the two forces should be indistinguishable?

Ok then, but I think the original questions were regarding the game rules. I did suggest an house rule (limit spell defense), but I underlined it was one. Since you hadn't mentioned you heavily house-ruled manipulation spell, I thought you suggested effects that would happen when using rules from the books. In any case, that was the occasion to clarify things for everybody!

On the dodge stuff, the rules really say it's all or nothing. No combat pool if you are not aware of the attack. I'd be weary to apply modifiers based on GM-fiat for that. And the only case for limiting this comes from critters using elemental manipulation spell-like powers, which cannot be completely dodged with combat pool. And I really wouldn't like, as a player, to have some GM-based limitations on my dodge test based on whether I'm more or less supposed to be surprised by the opposition's attack. Using similar arguments, there could be a case made for limiting dodge pool when being shot at from behind while fleeing: after all you don't SEE the attack coming…

Now, if one applies the chunky salsa effect and cancel vision modifiers for area effect manipulation damages, that makes them an actual must-have for many mages. I'd go as far as saying that in this case, since many shadowrun involve fighting in buildings, that's quite overkill. At least to obtain the same effect, the street sam has to expend a grenade…

If you really read the fluff around a fireball in the book, it really doesn't make a "blast". The flames burn out after touching things, except if they set them on fire. So if they hit a wall, they don't bounce: they burn out. There is a reason actual grenades don't make a fireball: a real blast does deal much more damage, especially with schrapnels flying around.

I perfectly agree that mages should have some minor effects which wouldn't cost anything. Having small flames bursting from your hand is perfectly ok. But that has nothing to do with wanting manipulation spells or not. I was mentioning a case with real opposition willing to hurt you.

Just to add to that point - Core SR3 rules, P149

So there is precedent in at least one other case for affecting the combat pool of characters. In our case we've always rationalised it as the downsides of seatbelts, confined quarters and the vehicle impeding your movement. In the case of elemental manipulations, I think it would be just the same - you're trapped in a corridor with nowhere to dodge to - the best you can do is stop, drop and roll...

Thanks for the reference! I almost never use the vehicle's rules and that indeed constitues a precedent.

The problem with the dodge test, is that it doesn't really represent you dodging bullets, arrow, sword strike or fireball. It more accurately represents how much you're trying to evade your opponents aim. Using your combat pool to dodge means that you're not so much focusing on your own offense rather than trying to not be a target.

It just depend on how you see the lightning ball or fireball actually travelling to the target. The fact that they still need to be aimed, even on an area, always suggested to me they more accurately are multiple traits of flames or lightning bursting from your hands and striking in a semi-random, semi-aimed way a large area.

Speaking of elemental manipulation spells...I just realized that I've always assumed the power of the spell is equal to the force with which it is cast. But...does anyone know where any ofbthe books come out and SAY that?

From the BBB, p. 183:

"Spell Resistance Test
Living targets may always make a Spell Resistance Test against spells, unless the target of the spell is willing. The tar- get makes a Resistance Test using the targeted Attribute (usu- ally Body, Intelligence or Willpower). The target number of the test is the Force of the spell. No target modifiers apply to this test except where specifically noted. Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a Resistance Test.
Elemental Manipulation Spells: For elemental spells, the Resistance Test is actually a Damage Resistance Test, as described under Ranged Combat (see p. 109). The Combat Pool may be used to resist elemental spells."

I think that settles it. Later they explain impact armour applies at half value.

I was never totally sure if combat pool could apply myself.

Yes, but what is the Power of the damage being resisted?? You know the TN for a Spell resistance test...but this is specifically not that, it's a Damage resistance test. RAI, my guess is that it's supposed to be Force, but the book words it very poorly.

The Spell Resistance test for an Elemental Manipulation takes the form of a Damage Resistance test vs the Force of the Spell. Its under Elemental manipulations in Sorcery.

Freudqo posted that section in the post just above mine. It doesn't state what the Power of the attack is for the Damage Resistance test of an elemental manipulation spell, only what the TN is for a Spell Resistance test is (which Elemental Manipulations are not).

Just gone through and read the rules, and I do agree that there is sloppy writing there (in a Shadowrun book? Surely not!)

No where that I can see does it specfically say for an elemental manipulation spell that the target number for the Damage Resistance test is the Force of the spell. I think it's strongly implied by the rest of the rules and how the other resistance tests work, and it fits with the system for both ranged and melee combat. But it's not definitevely said. Which is a bit wub.

I think the section I quoted is detailing how manipulation spell differ from regular combat ones. So they didn't think necessary to repeat that the TN to beat for the damage resistance is the same as the one they quote just before.

That's really unambiguous.

I would say "obviously not" as it spawned the question on this thread, and to at least some people it wasn't clear, or was at least questionable.

I can see the chain of logic that goes
Spell resistance test is always equal to the force of a spell
Elemental spells work a bit different
An elemental spell resist is actuall a damage resist test
Because it's a damage resist, you get half armour, and you can try to dodge.
Therefore to soak an elemental damage test, it's vs the force of the spell.

I just think that if they'd worded it as
"For elemental spells, the Resistance Test is actually a Damage Resistance Test (vs force of spell), as described under Ranged Combat (see p. 109). The Combat Pool may be used to resist elemental spells."
instead of
"For elemental spells, the Resistance Test is actually a Damage Resistance Test, as described under Ranged Combat (see p. 109). The Combat Pool may be used to resist elemental spells.
the addition of 4 words could have made it explicitly clear what to test against - *that* would have been umambiguous.

But they didn't, so *shrug*. One I shall correct though in my SR3.5 rules.

I'm not denying that they didn't word it exactly right. 3rd edition is full of this kind of stuff.

And it might be because I'm not a native speaker and/or ambiguity is a "false friend" (do you use this term?), but to me "ambiguous" means there's a reasonable/credible alternative for understanding a sentence/phrase/word. And I'm willing to say that here, there aren't any other candidates for power of the damage but spell force.

I didn't say it was clear or obvious. I said unambiguous.

Something I find rather ambiguous, for example, is this:
BBB p. 44:
"A player can only use Combat Pool dice to augment or resist magic-related tests in the case of elemental manipulation spells. The player uses these dice to dodge or resist damage from such spells in the same manner as normal Ranged Combat Tests (see Elemental Manipulation Spells, p. 196)."

Aren't there ways to read that as allowing for combat pool when casting?

That word "augment" sure makes it seem so.

"Unambiguous" and "clear" are synonyms. That entry is ambiguous in that it does not actually state that the Force of the spell is the target number of any resistance tests besides Spell resistance. The lack of a clear alternative does not make the entry unambiguous, it just means you can infer it through an assumption.

That second passage is actually more clear to me. The use of the word "augment" indicates that combat pool dice CAN be used. Additionally, on page 183 it states that elemental manipulations are "treated as normal ranged attacks". This would indicate you can use both combat and spell pools when casting an elemental manipulation spell.

It does, doesn't it?

But then, is the next sentence detailing the applications of the first one? Or is it just detailing the "resist" part? It doesn't help that the first sentence is actually poorly written. What meaning does it have, in the game to "resist magic-related tests"? I think you're making resistance test to resist magic effects. It seems to be exactly the kind of mistake I make when I partially rewrite a sentence without taking into consideration all parts of the sentence…

Not always.



I agree on all that. But for me the ambiguity comes from the following sentence, as well as the fact that it is never explicitly stated in the whole magic chapter. I think RAW would be you can use it. And that would make sense.

Thanks for the insights and the great feedback from all of you!
This gave a lot of insight, and things to think about.

I agree that shooting on a wall to trigger an "explosion" sounds like I would like to have it working too. The description of the rules in the elemental spell section seem to support this, as they point out that the explosion of an elemental manipulation spell is physical and works like a grenade. A few pages later the rules state again that it works like a ranged attack with distance modifier 4 PLUS modifiers for sight / protection etc.

By this definition we are looking at TN12 for a target hidden behind a wall.
TN8 for someone partially concealed
TN4 for someone on the plain field

So tough call here. I think the explanation with multiple projectiles flying into the AOE sounds like what should be happeneing. Which makes the spell worse.

Initially I thought that there is no way to have combat pools in a spell. But yes, the rules clearly state, that its a ranged attack. So I fully agree that this is what should happen. In fact, spell pool should not be allowed for the attack then. Therefore you would have casting an elemental manipulation spell: sorcery + combat pool and drain: willpower + sorcery pool. This should allow for a strong all out attack - and exposes the mage to heavy return fire, Unless he wiped the opposition out

I disagree with this house rule. Elemental manipulation spells, and especially the area ones we're talking about here, already come with MONDO drain codes. If you want to cast them with a Damage level of S or higher, you're adding at least +2 to your drain code which will be paired with Deadly stun. Meanwhile, the damage code to resist is limited to the Force at which the spell is cast (or at least that's what we all agree the most likely intent of the rules is). For most, that's going to be limited to 6, giving the spell the same Power as a light pistol. That's...not much. If someone wants to throw in every last die they can, Drain be damned, then I say let them. Otherwise, most cases are going to go exactly the way you described anyways: combat pool for the attack, sorcery pool to help avoid taking Drain.

I'm still not sure it's RAI, but I'd go with allowing combat pool. And as shev said, I agree that sorcery pool should definitely be allowed. It's (for once) explicitly written in the rules, and that would make them much more interesting. Shev mentions that Force is likely to be 6, and that's minus half impact armor… So more likely to be 5 against most opposition…

And don't forget, unlike other spells these can be dodged.

Indeed…

Actually, the last time I saw such a spell come into play, that was from a player who was new to the game and insisted on having such a tool, because he was used to some fantasy setting with mage fireballing and the like. The results were… really not in favour of using it, although the player was really not likely to want to put gloves and fear such things as drain.

Despite there being a lot of fighting, he actually only used it like twice. Because even for him, there were like tons of things to do before using such spells. He remained ready to counterspell, actually shot things or punched them in the face (was a troll), sent them some spirits to kill them, did other magic, and so on.

There were two times the spell would be useful. The first one was when trying to fireball a cafe full of fanatics. That was totally counterspelled, because there was one initiate and at least another magician inside. Really disappointing, but probably would be the same with other spells. Second time was when the players ambushed a bunch of said fanatics looking for them in some forest. The setup was actually kind of perfect. Good line of sight, the enemy mages had just been appropriately dispatched by the group's sniper, and the victims didn't have time to take cover. Fireballs are pretty big actually, like 12 m diameter if I recall correctly at F6. So I let him have a lot of the ennemies in the spell's area. I'm not sure I added visibility modifier because of the night (that's like +1 or +2 for a troll I think), but definitely not partial cover that could be argued by the simple fact of advancing in the woods. Anyway, only like 2 from the opposition couldn't totally avoid the spell. None of them were even in serious damage at the end, which was the limit to have them leave combat.

Granted, that was useful: we all know what happens in SR3 when PCs have still 2 initiative passes and one of them is a sniper and the other wielding a custom made full auto fully compensated heavy pistol plus a shotgun wielding troll to opposition WITH NO COMBAT POOL LEFT. You're looking at 6 or 7 NPCs incapacitated (Sometimes even 6 or 7 dead) per initiative passes. That's not really the problem. That went as planned, they brought the enemy where it didn't want to be, had them split and surprised part of them by setting an ambush at a place they didn't expect, and were fucking crazy professionals. They sustained some wounds though.

But the real problem is: what would have happened if the mage had casted regular manaball, or even a stunball a Serious or Deadly ? He would have downed at least half the opposition by himself at the cost of being kind of tired. A 6D stunball is drain 4D. With Totem modifier, whatever, you can totally expect to get out of that with medium stun damage.

Really, the 6th world is not about Fireballs.

It does describe under FORCE at the start of the magic chapter that the Force of a spell is the TN to resist it's effects. Given that language any roll to resist a spell effects, Spell Resistance and Damage Resistance uses Force of Spell.

Actually, on rereading the elemental manipulations, I have to say that while Fire and lightning suck, Acid seems quite overkill. It deals damage AND gives a +4 modifier to ALL tests for people in the affected area until the end of the combat turn.

I genuinely don't think Fire and Lightning suck, Getting set on fire with ammo cooking off is no fun, nor is the electrics frying in a vehicle, deck or cyberware

It would be if it was any reliable.

So let's look for the most reliable lighting people on fire. Supposing clothing are low-tech manufactured (excluding combat suits your better opposition will use then). That's Object Resistance 5. At deadly, you have thus 85% chances of setting people on fire. A deadly fireball is drain 5D at Force 1. Object Resitance 5 necessitates at least Force 2. So unless you use exclusive action for drain, you are at 6D to just set 5 people out of 6 on fire for Medium Damage ONCE per combat turn (and only at the end, and only if they don't go to the ground rolling or somtehing to quench the fire). How is that better than casting a deadly stunball at Force 6 for 4D drain? Or just serious for 2D drain? Maybe in a few chosen cases, you never know, but seriously?

And personnally I'd read "If, after applying the primary damage of the spell, anyone is left standing and in some way vulnerable to the secondary effects," as meaning people who dodged the spell don't get secondary effects. So really, that 85% chance doesn't concern many people. And if you cast at serious, because you want to use your spell pool to have more successes or whatever, and having a drain of "only" 4D, that's now setting people on fire only like 60% of the time.

So next, you could cook off ammo or wreck some basic electronics. Except, not that often. OR is now 8, which you get to 7 because of this awesome minus 1. So now, you wreck these object 60% of the time with a deadly spell. That's bad. And going to serious is giving you OR of 9 now. That's what, less than 30% chances. And now, you are casting at a minimum of Force 4, and even at exclusive for drain, that's 6D for Deadly damage and 4D for Serious Damage. And that's not even going to wreck a computer, which is OR10+. And a fucking automatically air-timed minigrenade or whatever may well be 10+ too.

You really want to compare that to inflicting +4 to ALL tests for ANYBODY in the affected area for a whole combat turn. And inserting the secondary effects (possibility to reduce armor by -1, and destroying weapons when casting at D) in the preceding paragraphs only make them acid MUCH better than the two others.

Also, ammunition cooking off isn't what a lot of people think.

(Hollywood ballistics strikes again ...)

When typical cased ammunition cooks off, the weak point in the system is the unsupported thin brass case, not the heavy bullet. The case will burst open, giving a very brief flame, but won't be substantially worse than the flame that cooked it off in the first place. The bullet doesn't fly off.

Caseless ammunition doesn't even have the bursting brass case. If it's outside any kind of serious combat armour, you've just started a fire on the outside of the armour which, again, isn't substantially worse than what caused the conflagrants to cook off in the first place.

The worst part about cooking off ammo is that it's no longer available to shoot.

Stunball requires a visible target, living, target to centre on.
Acid side effects are basically negated if you are wearing a respirator, have a cyber oxytank or tracheal filter.
I never said either were not good though.
F2 Fireball cast at Serious for a Drain of 4D will be setting most people on fire on 7s, which is good odds on 2d6 (per item worn), plus their other stuff on 10s (per item) and will require at least Body 7 to have a chance at reducing to No Damage. If you get an ammo cook off of type it counts as a hit from the weapon which bypasses armour completely AND if they are on fire they will be taking 6M end of turn 1 of being on fire, then 8M, then 10M etc until the flame is doused.

It all comes down to the tactical situation - but discounting Fire and Lightning is unwise.

My point was that whoever wrote that rule about the ammo cookoff knows less than nothing about how ammunition actually cooks off, what kind of damage results, nor even how it's generally carried by people in combat roles.

It shouldn't even necessarily apply to grenades, let alone standard cartridges. As for the caseless ammunition standard position, the whole point is that it doesn't even have a case to do any kind of driving of the bullet until and unless it's chambered, which by definition, outside the weapon, it's not.

There's so much wrong with their comprehension, it's hard to actually cover it all. Starting with the composition of propellant isn't high explosive, it's conflagrant, and for very good reasons.

Oh well ....

And invisible targets are TN12 for area elemental manipulations. There are no ways to reliably success. And they are dodgeable on TN4.

The only question here, is do you really think a target that dodged or wasn't hit by the fireball is "in some way vulnerable" to the secondary effect? The rules are badly written, but they suggest that you test for secondary only after applying primary. Applying damage means that you ticked some box on your damage conditions. Shrugging damage means you also shrug secondary effects.



True for clothes, wrong for other stuff. You need Force 4 Fireball to win against OR 8. That's now Drain 5D! Hurray for drain! And even at F2, did you think of maybe spell defense?

And very wrong to think that you launch 2d6 "per item worn". Because no one will let you roll the dice 10 times for an enemy just for clothes in winter. But that's a good question. What do the rules say?

"If, after applying the primary damage of the spell, anyone is left standing and in some way vulnerable to the secondary effects, roll 2D6 to determine the effect for any non-living targets."

Is the "for any non-living targets" linked to "effect", or to "roll 2D6". Since the second hypothesis is incredibly stupid, I think you roll only once. And then apply the secondary effect to the "vulnerable targets".



No, that's 6M every round. Cannon Companion rules don't supercede. They might be considered valid in saying you need a fire extinguisher and 2 combat turns to quench the fire. Myself, I would house rule that someone rolling on the ground, taking off his clothes, whatever, extinguish in one round if they spend a complex action doing so, but that's just me.



Yes, it comes down to tactical situation, and you have to come up with such convoluted tactical situations to have them more efficient than combat spell that they can be wisely discounted from any but the most exhaustive spell lists.

You can see the target?

If yes: Stunball or Powerball. Less drain, more efficiency.

If no: do they have spell defense?

If yes: don't waste your time: you're at a major disadvantage when compared to the opposing mage.

If no: can they access their combat pool (i. e. they are aware of you attacking them)?

If yes: you're probably wasting your time. Most of them will be able to dodge your very reduced number of success on TN12

If no: you're probably wasting your time trying to reach this TN12. But risking some bad drain, you have good chances (like 60%) of setting them all on fire. Is that the best course of action to get rid of people you obviously have the drop on?

AOE in Shadowrun is dodgeable on 6s (edited because I was thinking of wrong game with no dodge vs grenades)
The TN for targeting That piece of open air X metres away is 4. No more, no less.
Spell defense doesn't help if you (or your spell defense targets) are not the Target of the spell itself.
Canon Companion doesn't supersede but MITS Elemental Effects does.

Or to run some numbers, lets take the Combat Mage example character and give him Fireball 4 instead of some other spell.
He knows there is a bunch of ganger's hiding behind the service gantry in the cheap greasy spoon he's just walked into looking for them. But they are out of LOS. He's not concerned about taking anyone alive so he tosses a Force 4 Serious Fireball aimed a couple of meters behind the service gantry.
Our hero has Sorcery (Spellcasting) 5(7) so he decides to keep his spell pool for Drain.
He casts at TN4 and gets 3 successes.
He resists Drain at 5D - Impressive 6 success, takes Light Stun.
Now our Gangers are pretty tough at Body 5 with armoured jackets. So they are soaking at TN2 and probably want to add some combat pool, say 2. Results come in at Light, Moderate, Serious, Moderate injuries.
The Light and both Moderates also catch fire on 7, 8, 8. Serious only got a 4.
When any ammo cooks off is a little obscure, but treating it like regular explosives we will say end of turn.
Now the Gangers can act.
One may move and return fire without much hassle apart from wound penalties.
Three may want to try and put out the fires, throw away ammo, or attempt to return fire themselves.
All have wound penalties - Three in this case would have penalties for trying to shoot while on fire.

I never saw that AoE dodge is 6, and I'd like to see a reference for that. Heard it a lot, so I may be wrong but:



I looked at Cannon Companion but didn't see anything.



Sigh… It is not. Please can you read the rules, it's tiring to actually have to reference them all the time while it does seem like you're just using bad memory…



Frankly, it's really easy to find…



No it does… See above…



Yep, my bad. Didn't think about looking there. Still minor stuff. And a rare occasion where the rules contradict themselves without stating it explicitely. Both interpretation are valid.

-----

So, about the notoriously suboptimal character from the book.



No he doesn't, because without loss, as explained many times, he gets about 0 success.



No, he resists Drain at 5D - he has willpower 6 and Spell pool 5 right? That's eleven dice, let's say 12, so that he has 4 successes and is at Moderate, because you don't get to arbitrarily pull such numbers as 6 successes instead of 4 on TN5. So he is moderately stun. That sucks.



No, they are soaking TN3, because that's half impact armor. And they're using the whole combat pool, because they can't see you and are always better off doing so since if they reply they are better having the least penalty.

Anyway, you present a case where most of your targets are at moderate damages at the end. So really still able to toast you if sufficiently motivated. Those who catch fire will die, by the rules, in about 3 rounds. But you are at moderate.

ANYWAY, what could the mage do?

He could walk in where he could see them. Unless they fire at random people coming to their hide without even saying hi, he will easily cast Stunball at Force 6 (in case of doubt, walk in invisible) at Moderate Damage Damage, using his whole spell pool against their average willpower of 3. He averages 8 successes, the gangers average 1/2 success. They are all down, and he has to face Drain 2S, which he survives at light but could have done better using his spell pool more smarly.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

The TN for the Spell is 4, as an AoE Elemental Manipulation spell he can target anywhere in LOS, like say X meters away X meters off the deck, midair. That's TN 4. It even explains this in spell TNs under Sorcery - I have no idea where you are getting a 12 from as this is not Blindfiring to hit the people, you are placing your spell's central point of detonation. An AOE Elemental spell doesn't need a Target in the same way a Combat Spell does, it can Target a location - like a grenade does - only as it auto explodes midair is a valid target. If you're going to take that kind of tone I suggest you go back and read the chapter entitled Magic again, with special interest on Spell targetting and Elemental Manipulations. .

Also i rolled dice for the results for a bit of flavour - it wasn't arbitrary - the 'average' would indeed leave him on Moderate.

He cannot use Stunball without LOS to one of the targets and cannot hit any of them without LOS to them.

Dodging AoE Grenades and Blasts is +2 TN according to the SR3 FAQ that was ported to catalyst from the FASA / FANPRO/ WIZKIDS site.

Sure he COULD move to where he can see them, Assuming their hiding place is within Quickness metres - it's probably not. Assuming also that none of them is waiting from a higher initiative point to shoot the mage the moment he comes into view, with combat pool available, ruining his day, and assuming you're not having to spend a simple action to get through the door.

Spell Defense only works for Elemental manipulation spells if the target of spell defense remains a valid target for Spell targeting. IE: Lightening Bolt has a single Target which is then effected by the spell, spell defense works here. An AOE Elemental Spell does not need to target any of the characters covered by spell defense to still hit them - thus they are not longer covered by Spell Defense.

I'm sorry for my tone, and for the exasperation, because I understand where you're coming from. But unfortunately, I am right on this… Please reread the rules carefully.

Spell targetting:

"Elemental Manipulation Spells: Elemental manipulation spells work a little differently from other spells. An elemental spell creates a damaging medium in the physical world (fire, acid, lightning) which the caster directs at the target of the spell just like any other ranged attack. Because an elemental spell creates actual matter or energy, it is impeded by physical obstructions like glass and other barriers. The matter or energy of the spell hits the obstruction, and one of them has to give (see Firing through Barriers, p. 124). Because the physical com- ponent of the spell is directed and controlled by magic, it can still be blocked by anything that affects spells, including Spell Defense and astral barriers.
Because an elemental spell creates a physical medium, it affects targets in the area of effect in the same way as a phys- ical explosion or grenade. Make the Sorcery Test and compare the result to the target numbers of all the targets in the area. Targets with complete visual cover can still be affected. Targets hidden behind a wall within the radius of a Fireball spell will still get cooked, even if the caster cannot see them."

Emphasis mine on the bolded paragraph… It concerns the AOE… Sorry, but you have to beat the TN for each target.

And in case of doubt about the modifiers for the TN, next paragraph about sorcery test:

"Elemental Manipulation Spells: Elemental spells are treat- ed like normal ranged attacks (see p. 109) using Sorcery as the Ranged Combat Skill. Spell Pool dice may be added as normal. They have a base Target Number of 4, regardless of range, as long as the caster can see the target. Cover, visibility, injury and sus- taining modifiers apply. These spells can be dodged (see p. 113)."



FAQ is not cannon, not RAW, not even RAI. That's house rule.

I think we are clashing over the bolded element. The Blindfire Range Combat penalty for hitting a target doesn't apply for an AoE for example - so the TN for a hidden target is 4, however if they have cover from the angle of the blast then the TN would be going up for Cover, meaning that the blast would then not effect them - the key is "Appropriate Ranged Combat Modifiers" and in the example I'm giving the appropriate ranged modifiers are not LOS but rather LOE from detonation point.

The FAQ is an official Games Resource produced from FASA onward to clarify and confirm the mechanics of the game (like Called Shot to Bypass Armour) https://www.shadowruntabletop.com/game-reso...rd-edition-faq/

What you're describing is described for AoE blast from grenade and explosives via a totally different mechanic. The Power of the attack decreases with distance from the center and is diminished by the barrier rating of your cover. If they wanted fireballs to use this mechanic, they would have described it accordingly I think. What you describe, I have not seen anywhere else, but my memory might fail: the caster's TN raising from the target being undercover from the center of the blast effect.

The idea that there is a blast which you could take cover from is interesting. Because there are none: Fireball have a radius of Magic Meter, be there wind, for or snow. The only thing preventing them from happening is a "sealed" barrier. Interestingly, the rules can confirm that in the bold paragraph:

"Targets hidden behind a wall within the radius of a Fireball spell will still get cooked, even if the caster cannot see them."


Do they minutely describe a wall being usable as a cover from some kind of blast when you choose some angles or whatever? No. You're in the radius, there are flames everywhere. And this is from the people asking you to compute the chunky salsa effects in a game where you might very well have grenades going off in the middle of a 4x3 m2 room. If they wanted you to do that, they'd tell you.

There is no blast, and 2 out of 3 spells described in the BBB are NOT described as explosions, and nothing suggest that they "blast" from a central point. Acid Wave is a wave. Ball lightning is whatever you can imagine that to be. Only fireball is described as an explosion of flame, and that's just a fluff description.

And let's be RAW here, anyway, forgetting all these debates. The rules tell you for elemental manipulation to compare you spell test results to the TN of each target in the area. They then tell you that for elemental manipulation visibility and cover modifier do apply the next time they tell you about it. They compare them to normal Ranged Attacks, not grenades. The only time they use the term "grenade" is to say they have an area of effect, not to say they use the same rules. By RAW, TN for a fully covered target is 12, AoE or not.



You're specifically quoting an example where they contradict the mechanics of the game (called shot to bypass armour): they allow to bypass armour of a person, while the BBB specifically doesn't include that option. So that's not clarifying or confirming: that's suggesting a house-rule. A house rule by some people working at FASA, but a house-rule.

Changing the rules of the game is called an errata. If they believed called-shot bypass armor or dodging blast from grenades is TN6, they could do an errata. It's their fracking book. FAQ is, as you said, for clarifying the rules, not inventing them. That's their mistake.

Called Shot to bypass armour us introduced in Man and Machine when dealing with Armoured cyberlimbs - and by extension if logic of the rule unarmoured noncyber limbs. You can choose to ignore the faq in the same way you can ignore any rules in the books, it is still an official rules document.

As to the rest. Obviously you're convinced that things work the way you interpret them in which case, yes, Elemental Manipulations are utterly useless spells with drain costs nonsensically high for their effects. Shockingly, when I'm running them they way I have described they feel quite well balanced in their Drain values and effects Vs regular combat spells.

Nope, it is not an official rules document. I'll let you explore this very forum where it has been explained numerous time. Their FAQ actually has a very lame "oh, we're sorry, in a preceding interpretation we explicitely contradicted an example of the game". FAQs are mere opinions of people who did write the books. Erratas are corrections.

Called shots to bypass armor was introduced in M&M for exposure to chemical via a weapon. That was lame. Then, for some even lamer reason, they give you an option to bypass armor with the non-chemical damage of the weapon. But it remains an option for chemical vectors. Generalizing it has terrible balance issues due to the way damage and armor work in shadowrun.



I'm not convinced. I'm right, it's explicitly written in the rules. You had to invent a new and unexplained mechanics unseen anywhere else in the game where the GM pulls semi-random 'appropriate ranged combat modifiers'. What are the modifiers that apply with your explanations? None, but maybe you would give some, you know, because blast effect something.

The most amusing is that the FAQ actually refers to elemental manipulation in a strange way there:



Oh, a question where the guy writing the FAQ states that what follows is his "opinion". Who would think FAQs are just opinions by the designers?

That's a parenthesis, but this answer is terrible in many ways. They could have ruled two ways: either it works, either it doesn't. Both have good rationalizations: the first is RAW, the second is RAI (Manaballs affect everyone for whom you know the exact positions, you "see" through the aura of you hands, whatever). They went with "Now you should fuck the player really hard, because is having the wrong type of fun and should have guessed that what he was doing was clear rule abuse". That's awful. That's the opposite of why I like shadowrun: there are rules.

Anyway, strangely, in this question, the FAQ's god actually mention elemental manipulations, to say that they work in case of total cover. And then, they remind that blind fire is TN+8 when it comes to cover. And that's about area spells. Ain't that like, super fun? Oh, I know, it's not saying exactly "elemental manipulations is TN+blindfire when you can't see the target.".

But I'm pretty happy for you if you have fun with your own little twisted interpretation of the rules. Please don't pretend it is balanced. It makes area manipulation spells super OP, actually much better than area combat spell: you have a TN that is always 4 and ignores any kind of modifier for cover, which exists a lot in this game.

EDIT: I might stop beating this dead horse at this point: there are probably tens of such forum thread explaining, in better words I guess, what I have explained.

Though the discussion seems to be tense, I find it still very useful and helpful in the end. I would really like to give most spells a purpose - if the rules allow for it more or less - I think some ppl mentioned it already, but there is a way to reduce the drain a bit by learning the spell with a fetish or as exclusive action (modifier -1 or -2).

I wish there would be a somewhere a nice collection of rules-improvements from some SR3 gods who balance everything

I think some people tried what you said at the time of 3rd edition to 4th. That was supposed to be called SR3 Revised or something. I remember skimming through their forums, but the problem was that people seemed to have very different opinion about what to change or not, and what to keep from SR4 (which real problem was the fixed TN (for them), but had some interesting ideas otherwise).

You can reduce the drain by learning the spell on exclusive, but the problem is that you're always looking at having the opponent facing some TN of 6 to be sure of dropping them. And the problem is that using half impact armor, even Force 6 won't do the trick… That really is a mess. And then again, you could wonder "why bother, I can also put a fetish or exclusive on a powerball…

I remember first reading how they worked, and understanding the idea of using combat pool to dodge, having them being resisted with impact armor too. And I thought why not, having a TN not based on an attribute gives you an interesting alternative mechanic, and the price (one more drain level) was okay I guess. But my main problem always was spell defense. If you decide that these are ranged attack, you can't be bad enough as to let the opponent have spell defense too!

There are several solutions here that I'd propose, and I'll try to sum up the changes to the rules that I'll apply:

- Common change to all cases: get rid of secondary effects entirely. The mechanic is clumsy and ridiculous, like in you success not having any effect on the secondary effect, that's quite lame. One could propose some stuff based on having the secondary effect apply instead of staging damages with successes or the like (to sum up, one should be very careful there, and of course at the caster's choice).

- Get rid of spell defense entirely. In exchange though, I'd apply whole impact armor to the spell resistance and forbid to use combat spell explicitely for casting. That would make them a very interesting options in many cases, and especially as some kind of last resort when the opposition has some strong magic, or way to damage enemy mages, etc. They would still be a niche, but a reasonnable option to complete a spell list.

- Have spell defense be more difficult. Like applying a flat +2 to the spell force or have the spell force multiplied by 1.5 for spell defense purpose.

This really is off the top of my head. But I'd like to know what people think if it would make them overpowered or still keep them too much underpowered.

<Deep Breath...>
ExxxX-PLOOOOOOOOOSION!!!
<Spent...>
ie: The spell, "Blast"
Or for real terror, "Elemental Blast". Those TN's are that high for a reason children.

-Tir