Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Shadowrun 4: Magic
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Rotbart van Dainig
Seems this way.
evil1i
QUOTE (Spookymonster)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Sep 13 2005, 12:07 PM)
If I'm not totally mistaken, Incompetence also removed the ability to ever learn the skill?

True, but if your character concept doesn't use conjuring in the first place, is this really a limitation worthy of extra BPs?

Yes!

Aspected Magicians used to cost less than Full magicians so why shouldn't they in SR4 if you can't specifically start that way (eg making an Aspected Mage by recovering some of the BPs by taking appropriate flaws). As it is if you get 15BPs back for not being able to sling spells and being a Mage costs 25BPs so Aspected Mages costs 10BPs which is more than an Adept or Mystical Adept which they used to cost the same as.
Elldren
Correction: Full mages (The Magician Quality) cost 15 BP, not including magic increases etc.
Typhon
QUOTE (Prospero)
somebody said something about beast spirits or something? What kinds of spirits exist in SR3? I assume there are still good ol' elementals around - are shamanic spirits changed a lot? And do the traiditions change at all - as in shamans still summon their whole list and hermetics still summon elementals?


O.K. Prospero this is how it works now , their are 6 types of Spirits , each tradition gets 5 of the 6 and calls them a different name depending on his/her traditions out look but the spirits themselves still have the same stats and powers its now just the traditions view that is different , for example here are a list of the spirit/elementals : Spirit of earth(earth elemental) , Spirit of the wind(Air Elemental) , spirit of the water(Water Elemental ) Spirit of man(mind or consciousness elementals) and the exclusives Shamans get Spirits of beasts and the Hermetics get the good 'ol Fire Elemental .


QUOTE (Prospero)
Also, one of the other threads around here (the Spirit one, I think) seemed to imply that all summoners, hermetic and shamanic and whoever else, can summon spirits like shamans did in SR3 and like hermetics did - one involves just summoning and the other involves binding, too, at spirit's F*2?


Yep that is correct both Shamans and Hermetics can Summon(the new term for 3e's shaman spontaneous Conjuring) and use Binding (the old hermetic several hour ritual style summoning) its actually really simple to do as a Magician you toss out your Magic attribute + Summoning Vs. the force of the Spirit you would like to summon , compare successes(or as they call 'em now hits) if you score more hits then the Spirit every net hit is a service it owes you , if it scores more hits then you , your summoning is unsuccessful . after that its the fun part ... drain . for summoning Drain is the number of hits the spirit scored multiplied by 2 , with a minimum of a 1 DV

an example

Aberramond the Hermetic wants to summon a force 4 Fire Elemental , so he rolls his Magic 5 + his Summoning of 4 and rolls a 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, and a 6 scoring him 3 hits . at this time the force 4 fire elemental rolls its Force rolling a 1, 2, 4, and a 6 getting it one hit , comparing the hits Aberramond has 2 more hits then the Elemental causing the Elemental to owe him 2 services , now for drain Aberramond must resist 2DV( the elementals 1 hit multiplied by 2)

see simple as that , Binding is exactly the same except the Spirit uses his force multiplied by 2 so in the example above it would be Magic+Binding Vs. Force * 2

hope this answeres your question

[EDIT] Fixed a Typo and cleared up the example a bit
sapphire_wyvern
It is virtually certain that "Street Magic" will include a good variety of new spirit types to broaden the options when creating a tradition.
Prospero
That does seem kinda cool. I do hope that Street Magic has more spirit types, though. I really did like the differences between elementals and shamanic spirits, which were pretty significant. But the two types of summoning being open to everyone is damn cool. Thanks!
Siege
This may have been mentioned already, but:

The "Firebringer" totem receives a dice bonus for fire spirits.

However, the shaman tradition doesn't include fire spirits.

-Siege
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (Siege)
This may have been mentioned already, but:

The "Firebringer" totem receives a dice bonus for fire spirits.

However, the shaman tradition doesn't include fire spirits.

-Siege

That's not a problem. Mentor Spirits are now available to Hermetics and Shamans. Or any other tradition. As new traditions are expanded upon, more and more Tradition/Mentor Spirit combinations are going to be unusable. A tradition with no Water Spirits, for instance, would gain little benefit from a Shark or Sea Mentor.

-Frank
Straight Razor
Ok, i'm confused on the new Force rules. In the frount of the book it says something to the order of "no longer have to learn spells at a spefic force" and the sapmle Chaircters do not have a force rateing by there spell list. BUT. you have lodges with rateings. you can learn spells above you lodge rateing. As well there are force notations in the spell list. so what's up. i dont get it.
Fortune
You still choose the Force of the spell when you are casting it, up to twice your Magic Attribute (with the Drain being Physical if it is over your Magic Attribute). You just don't have to learn it at a specific Force.
Straight Razor
Spell Category Formulae Cost Personal Instruction Cost
Combat 2,000¥ Instruction skill x 1,500¥
Detection 500¥ Instruction skill x 250¥
Health 500¥ Instruction skill x 250¥
Illusion 1,000¥ Instruction skill x 500¥
Manipulation 1,500¥ Instruction skill x 1,000¥

I'm still confused. what do they mean by instruction lvl? On the sample chaircter's active skill list i see he has "Conjuring Skill Group: 3" as well as just spellcasting.

Do i need to have an active skill rateing in all the shcools i wish to cast? on page 173 they show the spellcasting test as "Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers."

johnsoga
I have some questions about Mystic Adepts.

Looking close at the description they seem broken.

A full Mage is 15bp yet a Mystic Adept is only 10bp. The question I have is do you need to split your magic attribute down the middle between Adept and Mage. Example if you have a magic rating of 5 do you have to invest 2.5 in adept powers and then 2.5 rounded down in Mage or can you just put one point towards adept power and the rest towards Mage.

I have a player that was going to make a mage but since the bp was cheaper for mystic adept he choose that. He then only bought 1 point in mystic armor from mystic adept powers and put the rest of his magic towards spell casting.

I just seems that you could spend less bp on mystic adept, take some useful adept powers yet still be a really really good spell caster.

Does anyone have any comments on this?
Fortune
Mystic Adepts rock!

Yes, he can do that. The real price that Mystic Adepts pay is their lack of, or at best limited access to the Astral. The can never Project, and have to pay a Power Point to Perceive.

The amount of Power Points assigned to Magic Use (Sorcery, Conjuring, etc) is their effective Magic Attribute for spellcasting purposes, but does not limit the Mystic Adept in other ways (the details of which I am too tired to remember, but someone will list, hopefully).
blakkie
QUOTE (Fortune)
The amount of Power Points assigned to Magic Use (Sorcery, Conjuring, etc) is their effective Magic Attribute for spellcasting purposes, but does not limit the Mystic Adept in other ways (the details of which I am too tired to remember, but someone will list, hopefully).

It limits their Magic dice available to the die pools for Sorcery, Summoning, etc. But it does NOT limit, for example, the Force of the spell they cast. So a character with a total Magic (5) and 2 of those dedicated to Adept powers like Mystic Armour, the character can still cast Force 5 spells with only Stun drain and up to Force 10 with Physical Drain.
Fortune
Thanks. smile.gif
johnsoga
Doesn't that still seem broken? What does the Mage get for the extra 5bp that the mystic adept doesn't get? besides larger dice pool for sorcery.
blakkie
QUOTE (johnsoga)
Doesn't that still seem broken? What does the Mage get for the extra 5bp that the mystic adept doesn't get? besides larger dice pool for sorcery.

Astral Projection/Perception. It costs the Mystical Adept 10BP (or perhaps 25BP if maxing his Magic) just to get Perception.
fistandantilus4.0
This has probably been answered somewhere, but I can't find it. And as istill don't have acopy of SR4 yet....


How does drain work now? Can someone show me an exmaple of what you would need to resist, say, a force 6 manabolt? You can cst multiple spells, although with difficulty as I understand it. How does the drain change for that?
NightRain
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Sep 23 2005, 08:45 PM)
How does drain work now? Can someone show me an exmaple of what you would need to resist, say,  a force 6 manabolt? You can cst multiple spells, although with difficulty as I understand it. How does the drain change  for that?

Ok, lets say you have a magic 5 hermetic mage that throws a force 6 manabolt. It has a Drain Value (DV) of F/2, or in this case, 3.

This value is the number of boxes of damage the spell will do, though you do get the chance to desist drain to reduce it. So lets say our mage has a Willpower of 4 and a Logic of 4. That will give him 8 dice to resist the drain. Each hit on the roll reduces the drain value, and thus the number of boxes of damage. So if he rolls 3 hits, he gets no drain. If he rolls 2 hits, he takes 1 box of damage

Because the force of 6 is over his Magic rating of 5, the DV is physical instead of stun. If instead of a force 6 spell he threw a force 5 spell, the DV would have been 2 (you round down for spell drain), and the damage would have been stun instead of physical

If he were casting multiple spells, he has to split his dice when making the spellcasting test. He doesn't split his dice for resisting drain though, so the mage in the above example would get to roll 8 dice against both spells. Each spell has it's DV increased by the number of additional spell he cast though, so if he were casting 2 force 6 manabolts, the DV would have been 4 for both of them (and both doing physical damage, as the force is greater than his magic)
fistandantilus4.0
And I assume spells like fireball require more successes, like the good ol' F/2 +2 or something to that effect?

Danke
Crusher Bob
Depending on your tradition your use will + some other stat to resist drain. For hermetics, it log + will, for shaman, its will + cha.

Then the drain of the spell is either psycial or stun, if the spell is cast at higer force than your magic rating, it's phyisical.

The 'drain power' is based on the force of the spell divided by 2, round down, +/- any other modifiers.

So, a mage with magic 5, casting a spell at force 7, with a drain code of '+1' would be resiting (7/2)+1 = 4P drain.

If we was a hermetic with Log 5 and will 5, he would roll 10 dice to resist the drain. Let's say he gets 3 succeses on the drain resistance test. This means he takes 1P damage.

[edit]
Sigh, too slow
[/edit]
NightRain
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)
And I assume spells like fireball require more successes, like the good ol' F/2 +2 or something to that effect?

Exactly. Though Fireball specifically has F/2+5 smile.gif
fistandantilus4.0
So a Force 6 Fireball would deal 8 boxes of mental dmg (assuming magic 6) if you don't roll any successes. In the example of a hermetic, they would roll Will + Logic to resist. So they would needs 8 5+'s . Got it. Thanks a bunch guys.
Azralon
QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Sep 23 2005, 06:27 AM)
So a Force 6 Fireball would deal 8 boxes of mental dmg (assuming magic 6) if you don't roll any successes. In the example of a hermetic, they would roll Will + Logic to resist. So they would needs 8 5+'s.

Correct. Now, getting 8 hits (on average) requires 24 dice. Since the most you can ever boost an Attribute or Skill is 50% of your maximum, it's pretty hard to build someone who can casually toss Fireball:6's all day.

Let's say the mage is a dwarf, and he's gone and paid for the Quality that ups his Willpower's maximum by 1. Maxing out the stat, that's an 8. Let's say he's also maxed his Logic out (through gameplay, since you can't start with two maxed Attributes) and picked up Cerebral Booster 3 for a total of Logic:9. He's also got Focused Concentration:2, which is an expensive Quality but Willpower boosts are hard to come by so this is the best we've got.

I imagine our dwarven mage will have Initiated and/or hooked himself up to some Power Foci in order to bring his Magic Attribute back up to a 6. I'll let someone else run the numbers on how many Build Points and in-game Karma Points we've had to spend so far to make our little ubercaster; suffice to say he's not very well-rounded.

In any case, he's rolling 8 (Willpower) + 9 (Logic) + 2 (Concentration) = 19 dice to resist an 8 Drain Value. That's an average of 6.33 hits, which means typically even this tough-brained halfer is going to be taking 2 Stun boxes. He could spend 1 point of Edge to invoke the Rule of Sixes in order to likely negate 100% of the Stun, but Edge supplies aren't infinite.

On the upside, if he's somehow got his Spellcasting maxed out to 10 (6 Skill cap + 1 Quality + 3 bonus dice from somewhere) and his Magic at a 6, he's throwing 16 dice on the attack roll. That's likely 5.33 hits, which means the base incoming damage to all of the targets of his Fireball is 11 Physical, and they use only half of their Impact armor when making that Body roll.

A security guard with a Body of 6 can take 11 Physical before falling over. Put him in some Impact:6 armor, and he's rolling 6 (Body) + 3 (half Impact) = 9 dice to resist; that's an average of 3 hits.

So, on average and without spending Edge, that customized dwarf can nuke an entire room full of tough and very armored guards (and any other flammables), leaving the guards with only 3 boxes left while taking 2 boxes of Stun himself. The guards would be at a -3 penalty due to their injuries; the dwarf would be at -1.

Even if the mage's Body Attribute were the dwarven minimum of 2, he'd easily recover from that Stun an hour later.

But you've also built an expensive one-trick pony. The BP cost is significant. smile.gif

EDIT: "Magician" is a 15 BP Quality. "Exceptional Attribute" is a 20 BP Quality. You can't have more than 35 BPs of Qualities; so no Focused Concentration or Aptitude to increase a Skill cap. So it'd be 17 dice to resist Drain. Ouchie.
Azralon
Hrm, and all Indirect Combat Spells are treated like normal Ranged Attacks, so I wonder if the targets got to roll Reaction before soaking the damage. I'll have to go look.

In either case, Powerball and Manaball are more efficient AoEs than Fireball. Or if you want to go for supercheap Drain Values, throw Stunballs (and hope they don't have active Pain Editors). Those things still floor entire rooms of people with hardly any effort from the caster, and you can easily Overcast them into Physical Drain without much worry.
warrior_allanon
QUOTE (Azralon)
Hrm, and all Indirect Combat Spells are treated like normal Ranged Attacks, so I wonder if the targets got to roll Reaction before soaking the damage. I'll have to go look.


yes they do, because it has a manifestation on the physical plane you get to dodge then soak
NightRain
QUOTE (Azralon)
Hrm, and all Indirect Combat Spells are treated like normal Ranged Attacks, so I wonder if the targets got to roll Reaction before soaking the damage. I'll have to go look

Nope. The caster makes a success test (not an opposed test) vs the opponents reaction.
Rotbart van Dainig
In fact, you are both right, and the rules are wrong:
QUOTE (SR4 p. 196)
Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction.
Ranged Combat is an Opposed test.
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
In fact, you are both right, and the rules are wrong:
QUOTE (SR4 p. 196)
Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction.
Ranged Combat is an Opposed test.

I'm not sure that they're completely wrong per se. Rolling magic +spell casting vs the targets reaction is like a ranged combat test.


But anyways powerball, manaball, stunball are not nessicarily better than fireball. Depends on the application. If you just want to kill your target. Yeah the others are probably better. If you want to hurt him and set him on fire along with the surroundings, and or set off other combustable people ect, then fireball is the way to go.

matter of preference and tactic.
Azralon
Sure, and if your targets aren't alive, then you need to be throwing Indirect Combat spells. This hasn't changed from SR3.

Electricity remains king as far as I can tell. It's considered Stun damage (and yet doesn't have cheaper drain) and metallic armor doesn't protect against it at all. Also, when you hit someone with an electrical Indirect Combat spell, they have to make a Body + Willpower test and get 3 successes or immediately drop prone and be incapacitated (unable to take any actions). They're down for a number of Combat Turns equal to (2 + net hits scored on the attack test). Even if they succeed, they have a -2 penalty for that time period. Electronic devices have to make the same test, using Body + Armor (for drones & vehicles) or Body x 2 (for everything else) or be shut down for Combat Turns, just like a person.

Acid spells make smoke, imposing some visibility modifiers. Whee. indifferent.gif If the acid damage comes from a non-spell source, then it turns into a "damage over time" thing as the acid eats into stuff. That doesn't apply to spells, though.

Cold spells have no immediately obvious game effects. They can freeze liquids and make solids brittle, but there are no explicit rules for any of that. Double whee. indifferent.gif indifferent.gif

Fire damage continually applies the initial damage over and over again until it's put out. Now, that sounds massively damaging until it mentions that the GM arbitrarily decides if the subsequent Damage Values increase or decrease. So you could drop your 13 DV fireball onto a car and the GM could say that the next turn the fire went completely out, or just as easily decide that the car explodes and the flaming shrapnel blankets the area for another 20DV per turn.

They really should have put in concrete rules for that.
Rotbart van Dainig
Ranged Combat is an Opposed test, as the target does not set a Threshold, but generates Hits against you - if Inderect Combat Spells would be a Success Test, then the Reaction of the Target would be the Threshold... but that's not 'like ranged combat'.
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
Ranged Combat is an Opposed test, as the target does not set a Threshold, but generates Hits against you - if Inderect Combat Spells would be a Success Test, then the Reaction of the Target would be the Threshold... but that's not 'like ranged combat'.

ah ok I see what you're refering to and how it could be directly translated into a threshold. Bad wording on mine and the books part there biggrin.gif
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Sep 23 2005, 10:16 AM)
In fact, you are both right, and the rules are wrong:
QUOTE (SR4 p. 196)
Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction.
Ranged Combat is an Opposed test.

I'm not sure that they're completely wrong per se. Rolling magic +spell casting vs the targets reaction is like a ranged combat test.


But anyways powerball, manaball, stunball are not nessicarily better than fireball. Depends on the application. If you just want to kill your target. Yeah the others are probably better. If you want to hurt him and set him on fire along with the surroundings, and or set off other combustable people ect, then fireball is the way to go.

matter of preference and tactic.

which is why powerball, manaball etc are better. The elemental effect spells are frequently worse and sometimes better and you get to pay more drain for the glory of that. Yeah if you want to set things on fire its the only way, but there generally worse in combat with some side benefits. I can' conceive of paying more drain for that. With the possible exception of electricity effects which are fairly large extra benefits, the extra benefits don't justify the extra drain.
Azralon
I prefer Stun spells myself, and not just because of the significantly cheaper Drain. The Stun damage track is shorter than the Physical, and there are three races that have bonuses to Body while only one has a bonus to Willpower (which is equal to their bonus in Body anyway, so that's a wash).

Sure, stimpatches can quickly undo the Stun I've just done, but then I've also cost an enemy an Initiative Pass while they were medicating themselves. That's one less chance for them to shoot at me.

Taking enemy gear is a great way to supplement the financial value of a run. Gear is usually more functional when it's not charred to a crisp, and usually easier to fence when there isn't blood all over it.

Also, if you're caught, the charges for making people sleepy aren't as bad as for melting their brains. Then there's the whole datagathering aspect of taking prisoners or Mind Probing incapacitated foes. Or you can just apply inexpensive, non-Draining bullets to the foreheads of unconscious enemies. smile.gif

.... But y'all already know all that.
Azralon
Now that I've been plenty preachy, my turn to ask a question:

Since Indirect Combat Spells are considered Ranged Attacks, does that mean I can call shots with them? That is, can I sacrifice up to 4 dice on my attack roll and add a flat +4 DV onto the spell by shooting someone in the face with lightning?

I'd imagine this wouldn't be possible with AoEs.
Shadow_Prophet
powerball, manaball, stunball, are all better for your style and for what you yourself want to do. Though they are not always better. All spells have their advantages and disadvantages.

As for calling shots with spells? I'd say no but thats me...
Azralon
To clarify: I'm asking about called shots with Indirect Combat Spells only, since they're just ranged attacks. You're making real-world fire shoot from your hands, and directing it at your target rather than just synching a spell's energy with a target's aura and letting it ground out (as in the case of Direct Combat Spells, which bypass armor). I agree that DC Spells can't call shots, since you're blasting their whole aura.

If it's possible to call shots with IC Spells, then that's a significant saving grace.
Clyde
I'd say that you could. It says treat the thing as a ranged attack, and you can call shots with ranged attacks. Definite bonus to indirect spells there.

As for whether to choose a straight combat spell or the fireball, one thing to consider is the psychological effect. Most people fear being burned. Fire and acid would have that effect in a way that a straight stunball cannot. If facing a large number of less trained opponents a psychological edge helps a lot.
Eagle
I've got a slight problem with the object resistance table
I would have thought that a computer was a piece of electronic equipment. With the amount of processing power in everyday items it's pretty difficult to separate the two.

Now if meant electrical equipment ie gross items without any processing power such as an electric motor, voltage transformer, old style washing machine (no chips, only mechanical clicks) then I could understand it.
Azralon
My initial guess would be that computers nowadays contain more fiberoptics than electronics, but that still doesn't feel intellectually comfortable to me.
Dogsoup
Since IC spells counts as ranged attacks, could you "take aim" prior to such a spell?

Oh, and IC spells used against barriers: Is it Barrier Armor Rating alone or BARx2? Page 157 and 196 seem to contradict each other.
Azralon
QUOTE (Dogsoup @ Sep 29 2005, 08:00 AM)
Since IC spells counts as ranged attacks, could you "take aim" prior to such a spell?

Off the cuff and without checking the RAW, I'd say yeah. If you can target locations, then logically it sounds like you can aim. You can aim with normal ranged combat and IC spells use those rules.

However, I could see how the game designers could have skirted that issue easily by mentioning that the spell energy isn't present until the precise moment of casting. You wouldn't have anything to aim until you were already throwing dice. Kinda like how you're unable to aim until your gun is drawn (which I don't believe they explicitly stated either).

Prepare to houserule!
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Eagle)
I've got a slight problem with the object resistance table
I would have thought that a computer was a piece of electronic equipment. With the amount of processing power in everyday items it's pretty difficult to separate the two.

Now if meant electrical equipment ie gross items without any processing power such as an electric motor, voltage transformer, old style washing machine (no chips, only mechanical clicks) then I could understand it.

You want to burn the CPU: OR 4.

You want to melt the tires, fool the camera's CCD, rupture the gastank and set the thing on fire: OR 3.

Basically I rule that unless it's a drone, a nanite, or a commlink you're probably looking at OR 3. Drones get that extra bit 'cause they're cool that way. smile.gif

And honestly that's hard enough for the average mage to hit, though I suppose child's play so some of the casting monsters we see on here.
Dogsoup
QUOTE (Azralon)
QUOTE (Dogsoup @ Sep 29 2005, 08:00 AM)
Since IC spells counts as ranged attacks, could you "take aim" prior to such a spell?

Off the cuff and without checking the RAW, I'd say yeah. If you can target locations, then logically it sounds like you can aim. You can aim with normal ranged combat and IC spells use those rules.

However, I could see how the game designers could have skirted that issue easily by mentioning that the spell energy isn't present until the precise moment of casting. You wouldn't have anything to aim until you were already throwing dice. Kinda like how you're unable to aim until your gun is drawn (which I don't believe they explicitly stated either).

Prepare to houserule!

I'm starting to weigh in favour of allowing "take aim", but my personal houserule would be to only use as a way to make up for negative modifiers: You can never throw more dice than your spellcasting pool due to aim.
Rotbart van Dainig
Take Aim itself is pretty limited in use, too.
Space Ghost
Actually, it does state that you can only "Take Aim" with a readied ranged weapon. That doesn't settle the argument, since many will claim that a spell is the most "ready" weapon anyone can have, except maybe a cybergun.

My vote goes for no, though. i take "ranged weapon" to mean something that comes off of one of the ranged weapon charts in the street gear section.
Fortune
I vote 'no' as well. I feel that there is no real way to improve the aim of the spell without other magical means.
NightRain
QUOTE (Fortune)
I vote 'no' as well. I feel that there is no real way to improve the aim of the spell without other magical means.

What a wonderful idea for a new form of metamagic
Fortune
Now that I would agree with! smile.gif
Eyeless Blond
That would be neat, to have a metamagic that lets you throw more dice into spellcasting by doing something extra. Y'know, to center yourself so you cast better? Hmm, let's call it... Goodercasting! nyahnyah.gif

In all seriousness, if you don't allow Take Aim to be used with spells, then there's no way to use optical vision magnification to zoom in on your targets. Of course, as in SR3 there are no rules for spell ranges, are there?--so the point is sadly moot.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012