Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Indierect spells why?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Shinobi Killfist
Why use direct spells that is. So um I pay the same drain for casting a worse spell, why would I do that. Don't get me wrong I like clout but its a physical spell that people get more defense against and take less damage. I mean sure if I really need a physical stun spell I guess this is it, but it still sucks. The same deal with all the elemental spells. Sure elemental effects are cool but at best they balance the spell with a direct spell that doesn't deal with reaction to dodge first and the 1/2 impact added to the body to resist. So I pay a ton of drain why again?

In 3e I could accept it because of the TN 4 instead of body. It made it a decent spell against groups where there could be targets with bodies so high you'd be lucky to get a single success. This really looks like a legacy problem or something. They forgot that the TN system changed so both direct and indirect spells now have a TN of 5 so the indirect spells no longer got a advantage in that arena and only have penalties.
FrankTrollman
OK, I'm a little unclear as to whether you think Direct or Indirect combat spells are the only way to go. Here's a list of the advantages of a Direct Spell:

*Target gets no armor.
*Target gets no reaction roll to dodge your spell.

Here are the advantages of an Indirect Spell:

*Counterspelling and Body is added to the damage resistance test rather that the to-hit roll, so an opponent with high body or a lot of counterspelling can still take some damage.
*The attack bypasses object resistance.
*The attack bypasses magical targetting rules and is resolved as a ranged attack, allowing it to be targetted through ultrasound goggles and the like.

That being said, I think you'll notice the advantages of Direct Spells more often. Usually you are going to be firing combat spells against enemy metahumans in combat, and they have a strong tendency to have both armor and reactions, but to not necessarily have counterspelling or object resistance ratings.

-Frank
sapphire_wyvern
And many Indirect Combat spells have secondary elemental effects, like destroying armor (Acid), causing explosive ammo and grenades to cook off (Fire), or taser-style stunning (Electricity).
Shemhazai
QUOTE
*The attack bypasses magical targetting rules and is resolved as a ranged attack, allowing it to be targetted through ultrasound goggles and the like.


Can you tell me where it says this? I checked the Combat Spells section regarding direct and indirect spells and could not find this. Further,

QUOTE
technological visual aids that substitute themselves for the character’s own visual senses—cameras, electronic binoculars, Matrix feeds, etc.—cannot be used [to target anyone or anything with (any) spells]. P.173


It makes sense that spells that use indirect means to damage something may be targeted indirectly. I just want to find the rule so I can show people.
Abschalten
I personally believe that the Punch/Clout/Blast family should be an elemental attack, given that in SR3 "Blast" is considered a secondary elemental effect. Additionally, if you'll notice, that family is the only set of indirect non-elemental attacks. I imagine P/C/B doing double-damage against barriers and being useful for knocking opponents down/backwards or causing them to fall, whereas the direct combat spells just kinda "zap" them.

However, I've just been treating P/C/B as the rules indicate until the next magic supplement can (hopefully) shed some light on it. Insofar as pure numbers go, the spell is a weaker, more easily resisted, higher drain alternative.
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