[Namikaze]

Whiskeyjack, it sounds like your issue is with direct spells and not specifically with Flame Burst.  Though, I do wonder if the spell was intended to be a direct spell after all.  Part of a direct spell's casting is that it must be cast on a thing the mage can see.  The flames aren't actually direct in that case.  The spell must be cast as direct so that you don't just spawn a flame burst in the middle of the room (that'd be like a fireball).  But I think the actual effect of the spell (the flame bursts) should be treated as indirect.

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskeyjack, it sounds like your issue is with direct spells and not specifically with Flame Burst.  Though, I do wonder if the spell was intended to be a direct spell after all.  Part of a direct spell's casting is that it must be cast on a thing the mage can see.  The flames aren't actually direct in that case.  The spell must be cast as direct so that you don't just spawn a flame burst in the middle of the room (that'd be like a fireball). 

No, I just don't see the advantage that Flame Burst is going to provide over either Ball Lightning or Stunball when faced with waves or a room of foes, aside from being a continuous damage source that only creates 1 issuance of Drain, at the cost of needing sustaining.

But I think the actual effect of the spell (the flame bursts) should be treated as indirect.

Really? Why so? You're casting the spell on yourself and it affects an area around you. Indirect targeting never comes into play. But it is really weirdly written and has weird thematics for a direct spell, that is for sure.

[Sendaz]

Probably because it is pretty much the only direct spell to also have an elemental effect, most spells with elemental effects are indirect.

Direct spells are supposed to zip across through the astral and basically ground out through your aura, hence the need to see the target whereas Indirect just gush out through the material plane and can hit things even if you don't necessarily see them, but they can be dodged and interrupted/blocked by things between you and the target.

So yeah, suspect this was meant to say Indirect, but will have to see....

[Whiskeyjack]

So yeah, suspect this was meant to say Indirect, but will have to see....

It would be a significantly better spell at Indirect. At the same time, if it were intended to be Indirect, what would that say about the ongoing quality of SR5 book editing these days?

[Namikaze]

Really? Why so? You're casting the spell on yourself and it affects an area around you. Indirect targeting never comes into play. But it is really weirdly written and has weird thematics for a direct spell, that is for sure.

No offense, but did you read my post?

The flames aren't actually direct in that case.  The spell must be cast as direct so that you don't just spawn a flame burst in the middle of the room (that'd be like a fireball).  But I think the actual effect of the spell (the flame bursts) should be treated as indirect.

The spell gets cast in a direct fashion, on a target.  But the effect on the world isn't Direct.  This is a direct-indirect kind of thing.  One shouldn't be able to throw down a Flame Burst in the middle of empty space, but the flames themselves aren't targeted at all (which is the definition of an indirect spell).

[Lucean]

Yes, for it to be direct, it should behave like an on-off-switch each time you have new targets, since direct spells require you to have targets.
So that as long as you sustain the spell, you bath any viable target in flames, when it comes in range, but if not the effect is inactive/suppressed.

As indirect spell you could use it to show off and try to impress people with a burst of flame in front of you, but not so much with a direct spell.

[Whiskeyjack]

The flames aren't actually direct in that case.  The spell must be cast as direct so that you don't just spawn a flame burst in the middle of the room (that'd be like a fireball).  But I think the actual effect of the spell (the flame bursts) should be treated as indirect.

The spell gets cast in a direct fashion, on a target.  But the effect on the world isn't Direct.  This is a direct-indirect kind of thing.  One shouldn't be able to throw down a Flame Burst in the middle of empty space, but the flames themselves aren't targeted at all (which is the definition of an indirect spell).

I can't see this kind of "hybrid" spell (cast on yourself is direct, radiating effects on others are indirect) as anything but a hugely problematic rules jumble.

Perhaps the whole thing should just be indirect then, is that what you mean?

[psycho835]

Probably because it is pretty much the only direct spell to also have an elemental effect, most spells with elemental effects are indirect.

Direct spells are supposed to zip across through the astral and basically ground out through your aura, hence the need to see the target whereas Indirect just gush out through the material plane and can hit things even if you don't necessarily see them, but they can be dodged and interrupted/blocked by things between you and the target.

So yeah, suspect this was meant to say Indirect, but will have to see....

Yeah, I thought this is strange, but I figured that until errata comes out I will treat it as per RAW.

[Namikaze]

Perhaps the whole thing should just be indirect then, is that what you mean?

That is exactly what I mean.  Indirect, but with a target of Self.

[Whiskeyjack]

Perhaps the whole thing should just be indirect then, is that what you mean?

That is exactly what I mean.  Indirect, but with a target of Self.

That would both make it more sensical in the rules and make it a significantly better spell.