NEWS

Indirect spells and melee combat

  • 79 Replies
  • 14242 Views

Dakka

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
« Reply #15 on: (16:52:27/10-21-10) »
We thought of that. The problem we had with that approach is counterspelling is applied before any spellcasting roll is made (or if any spellcasting roll is made at all).  This is how we came to the single dodge roll for the touch and the spell (with counterspelling adding to the spell defense when appropriate).

Bradd

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
« Reply #16 on: (17:01:31/10-21-10) »
@FastJack: You still need to roll Spellcasting in there somewhere. ;)

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #17 on: (18:56:29/10-21-10) »
The Spellcasting is as normal to figure out the hits for the Opposed Resistance Test.

Bradd

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
« Reply #18 on: (19:13:47/10-21-10) »
OK, I'm not sure why you included Counterspelling in the touch attack then. That normally goes on the Spellcasting test. Could you please go through all of the tests that you think are involved in resolving a touch-range indirect combat spell?

Here's my thoughts on how it's supposed to work.

1. Establish magical link. For touch spells, this is an Unarmed Combat + Agility vs defense test (touch only, win grazes).

2. Cast the spell down the link. For indirect spells, this is a Spellcasting + Magic vs defense + Counterspelling test.

3. Resist the damage (indirect combat spells only). Reduce damage by Body + half Impact Armor + Spell Resistance.

The parts I'm not sure about: Can you consolidate any parts of steps 1 & 2? For touch spells, is step 2 a ranged or melee attack?

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #19 on: (19:24:22/10-21-10) »
Too many steps.

1) Establish Magical Link: Unarmed Combat + Agility vs Defense test + Counterspelling - The counterspelling is there because this is where the link is established and where the target can break that link.
2) Once the touch "hits", the spell goes off. Spellcasting + Magic to determine how successful the spell was vs. the target's Resistance test.

voydangel

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 537
  • SR GM since 1990. Damn I'm old.
« Reply #20 on: (19:44:41/10-21-10) »
In my groups we run it in 2 steps as well, but slightly differently than FJs 2 steps.

We go:

1) Establish Magical Link: Standard melee combat test. (Unarmed Combat + Agility vs Defense test) The attacker/caster gets +2 dice because only a touch is required as per SR4A pg. 159.
2) If the melee touch attack succeeds: Spellcasting + Magic vs. Body/Willpower + Counter-spelling (and some armor and other random stuff if applicable to the spell). To determine spell effectiveness/potency.

This is fairly directly explained on pg. 183 where in Step 3: "Choosing a target", it mentions that if its a touch spell you must succeed in a melee attack vs the target to create the link. Then in step 4 you make your casting test, then step 5 the target resists.

Also on pg 203, it explains that a standard melee attack is required as part of the complex action of casting when using touch based spells.
My tips for new GM's
Unless it is coming from an official source, RAI = "Rules As Imagined."
SR1+SR2+SR3++SR4++SR5+++h+b+++B+D382UBIE-RN---DSF-W+m+(o++)gm+MP

Dakka

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
« Reply #21 on: (20:15:33/10-21-10) »
@voydangel
+Counterspelling on the body/willpower in a indirect spell is just straight wrong.  It's always on the reaction test to get out of the way.

@FastJack
I SUPPOSE allowing counterspelling vs unarmed makes sense in that context, however ranged indirect spells don't use throwing to make contact (or something similar) they use spellcasting.  It seems unfair to force not only the training of an additional skill but also the application of the enemies skill to to weaker of the two skills.  Also what becomes of the net hits on the unarmed combat test?  Are they added to the spellcasting test?  To the eventual spell DV?  Spellcasting + Magic vs Resistance test seems wrong for an indirect spell.  They would get no chance to "dodge" the spell portion, which is a key difference in indirect vs direct spells.
« Last Edit: (20:17:13/10-21-10) by Dakka »

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #22 on: (20:16:21/10-21-10) »
Also on pg 203, it explains that a standard melee attack is required as part of the complex action of casting when using touch based spells.
This is why I put the Counterspelling as part of the Opposed Melee test.

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #23 on: (20:18:59/10-21-10) »
@FastJack
I SUPPOSE allowing counterspelling vs unarmed makes sense in that context, however ranged indirect spells don't use throwing to make contact (or something similar) they use spellcasting.  It seems unfair to force not only the training of an additional skill but also the application of the enemies skill to to weaker of the two skills.  Also what becomes of the net hits on the unarmed combat test?  Are they added to the spellcasting test?  To the eventual spell DV?
The net hits mean nothing on the Opposed Melee test. Since you're looking to just touch to target to establish the magical link for the spell, extra hits won't increase that link's strength. Also, the Unarmed Combat makes perfect sense. Otherwise, you'd have a mage with Magic 6 + Spellcrafting 6 easily touching a Street Samurai.

Dakka

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
« Reply #24 on: (20:32:18/10-21-10) »
Right, all that I get.  The need for a touch attack, and the use of unarmed.  

So using your method said mage would touch the target and then roll spellcasting plus magic of lets say 6 + 6 on a force lets say 9 indirect Punch spell.  (Spellcasting (12d6.hits(5)=3))  He now resists 12 stun and is unable to dodge?  This seems to go against "the caster makes a Spellcasting + Magic Success Test versus the targetís Reaction." which I know is for ranged indirect spells but still.  Seems wrong to me.
« Last Edit: (20:37:58/10-21-10) by Dakka »

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #25 on: (20:37:54/10-21-10) »
Yes. Because he already failed the dodge on the Opposed Melee test.

Dakka

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
« Reply #26 on: (20:39:15/10-21-10) »
So spell casters interested in ranged touch indirect spells are better off with Unarmed 6 and Spellcasting 4 than the other way around.

Bradd

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
« Reply #27 on: (20:42:43/10-21-10) »
@FastJack: Counterspelling doesn't apply until after you've established a magical link, so it doesn't belong on the unarmed attack test.

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5451
  • Kids these days...
    • Coming soon!
« Reply #28 on: (20:44:26/10-21-10) »
Quote from: SR4A, p 185
Counterspelling is used to interrupt other spells, either as they are being cast (counterspelling) or while they are sustained (dispelling).

Bradd

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
« Reply #29 on: (20:47:02/10-21-10) »
Right, and "as they are being cast" is the Spellcasting test. Note how it works with most spells (other than indirect combat spells). You make an unarmed touch attack and then make a Spellcasting test vs Counterspelling. That shouldn't change for an indirect combat spell.

(Or to put it another way, Counterspelling can't stop somebody from touching you.)

(And remember that I'm talking about indirect spells here. I think voydangel's method is correct for direct & non-combat spells.)
« Last Edit: (20:50:10/10-21-10) by Bradd »