Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: RevenantBob on <02-06-19/2122:04>
-
The wording for indirect combat spells is poorly written and it's unclear what all affects them. It just says "Kinda like a ranged attack". This leaves so much interpretation.
What modifiers affect them? Can you aim them? Is this already in some FAQ somewhere?
-
Since they're treated as ranged attacks, all the usual modifiers would apply. Like cover and environmental conditions.
Range is tricky, since spells don't have range bands. Using the precedent of perception tests giving a -3 dice pool penalty for things "far away" is probably a fair measure for trying to cast a LOS spell on someone who's "far away".
-
Since they're treated as ranged attacks, all the usual modifiers would apply. Like cover and environmental conditions.
Range is tricky, since spells don't have range bands. Using the precedent of perception tests giving a -3 dice pool penalty for things "far away" is probably a fair measure for trying to cast a LOS spell on someone who's "far away".
This depends also on the spell, some indirect direct spells, Like Fireball don't need a person as a target, but a spot (They are magical grenades, in effect).
Generally speaking, if you can "see" it, you can target it for a spell. How well you have to see it - is up for debate as its not precise.
This is all covered under Choose the Target in the spell casting section. (page 281)
But for ranged targets:
If you need to see the target, line of sight can be established
with your natural vision, including using reflective
surfaces and looking through transparent objects.
Cyber- or bioware visual enhancements that have been
paid for with Essence count as natural. Any technological
visual aid that digitizes or augments the visual input
for you (a camera, electronic binoculars, Matrix feeds,
etc.) doesn’t work—you’re looking at a generated image,
not the light from the real target. Spellcasting by visual
targeting is subject to normal visibility modifiers. You can
use visual targeting to target astral targets when you’re
in astral space (you’re not technically seeing them, but
the analogy works).
So the only modifiers that apply are visibility modifiers. (foggy? dark? too bright? etc...)
Range has nothing to do with spell casting; As long as you can see your target, you can cast at it.
Now, when you get to indirect combat spells and how they work (page 283) we get some specific details.
(bold for brief notes)
Indirect: All indirect combat spells originate near the
magician’s body (most magicians use their hands or eyes,
but some use their feet for “power kicks” or emanate
power from the entire body for a kind of an aura-throwing
effect). The spell then is launched with an Opposed
Test that pits the magician’s Spellcasting + Magic [Force]
versus the target’s Reaction + Intuition, kind of like shooting
a gun (in this case with bullets made of acid, or fire,
or something equally unpleasant to be hit by). So you
don’t really need to be able to see the target—you can
cast these spells blindfolded or with artificial image enhancement—
as long as you’ve got a clear line of fire. The
Damage Value of a successful indirect combat spell is
Force + net hits, with an AP equal to –(Force). Damage
from an indirect combat spell is resisted with Body +
Armor (adjusted for the spell’s AP). Area indirect spells
travel from the magician to the point of detonation and
then go boom. The test is like that for grenades (p. 181):
a Spellcasting + Magic [Force] (3) Test with scatter of 2D6
meters. Unlike grenades, you get to add your net hits on
this test to the Damage Value of the spell, but only if you
beat the threshold; otherwise the spell still detonates, but
the hits are used to reduce scatter by one meter per hit..
* Indirect spells are basically treated like "magic bullets"
* They need a clear line of travel from caster to target
* They don't require LOS to cast
* anything between the target and the spell will cause it to miss (such as a window)
* Range is not a factor - the spell goes until it hits.. something. (remember, even a "miss" with a spell - or a bullet! - still lands somewhere...)
* Cover would affect the outcome - in some cases
So for indirect spells like lightning bolt, or flamethrower things like cover, and blind fire would apply, (and other visibility modifiers) but not a range modifier.
While for things like fireball and ball lightning; visibility modifiers (like blind fire) would apply, but things like Cover not so much. (the magical whirling flames that fills the AOE doesn't care you are hiding behind an over turned couch...)
EDITED: been drinking, cleaned up spelling and snark.
-
For environmental modifiers, there's reasonably good consensus that Light and Visibility modifiers apply to spellcasting.
Wind is a question mark. I don't use it, personally, but I wouldn't argue if another GM wanted to apply it.
As for range, I've seen a house rule where spellcasting uses the range bands of Sniper Rifles (50 / 350 / 800 / 1,500) to represent the additional difficulty of targeting someone far away. Again, this is a house rule, but it seems aligned with the what the rules intend, namely the increased difficulty of attacking a target that's smaller and/or harder to see.
-
Have they answered how indirect touch range spells work yet?
-
Have they answered how indirect touch range spells work yet?
What is to explain? Specific rules trump general rules. Indirect spells roll Spellcasting+Magic [Force] vs. the target's Reaction+Intuition. Specific rule for indirect combat spells trumps general rule for unarmed attacks.
-
Have they answered how indirect touch range spells work yet?
What is to explain? Specific rules trump general rules. Indirect spells roll Spellcasting+Magic [Force] vs. the target's Reaction+Intuition. Specific rule for indirect combat spells trumps general rule for unarmed attacks.
I don't know that it's for sure as clear cut as that. You could just as easily argue that the rules regarding those to-hit rolls are for covering ranged Indirect spells and that the extant rules for Touch attacks (requiring the additional Unarmed Combat "attack test") are clearly in play for all touch attacks. In other words: the rules for attacking with Direct Combat Spells don't invoke specific > general with regards to Touch Attacks, so why should the rules for Indirect Combat Spells?
-
We have house ruled that spell range is hampered by distance. We came up with ad-hoc -1 per 20 meters so far. We based this on how hard it is to make out any detail of something on the other side of a football field. Also we didn't want magic to compete with sniper's, nor be sniped by magic that far away (and make them nigh untouchable). So if you had anything that affected vision range, that would shift it by whatever that ability says to. For single target spells I could maybe see using assault rifle ranges, maybe. But for AoE spells, you try identifying the exact square meter next to someone over 200 meters away (more than 2 football fields). I think sometimes people assume just because you can see something, then that's all they need. I think you need to be able to identify it somehow, not just see it (I can see Jupiter at night, but I can't identify or describe it at all other then a pinprick of light - so I can cast a spell at it? extreme example but cutting to the chase when people say all I have to do is see it...). We are debating a more relaxed range of 20/80/160/320. Trying to draw the line at what is reasonable and what is just system abuse of never having to be in range to worry about getting physically in danger (Levitating mage wwwaaaaayyy up there raining fire down safely out of enemy gun range short of a sniper... who first has to find the mage)
-
Have they answered how indirect touch range spells work yet?
What is to explain? Specific rules trump general rules. Indirect spells roll Spellcasting+Magic [Force] vs. the target's Reaction+Intuition. Specific rule for indirect combat spells trumps general rule for unarmed attacks.
I don't know that it's for sure as clear cut as that. You could just as easily argue that the rules regarding those to-hit rolls are for covering ranged Indirect spells and that the extant rules for Touch attacks (requiring the additional Unarmed Combat "attack test") are clearly in play for all touch attacks. In other words: the rules for attacking with Direct Combat Spells don't invoke specific > general with regards to Touch Attacks, so why should the rules for Indirect Combat Spells?
Pretty much this. Touch range spells have a requirement of hitting them with an unarmed combat test first. Indirect spells have a rule for how they hit spellcasting+magic vs intuition+reaction like a normal ranged combat test but the text always talks about ranged combat or area of effect spells it never references touch range spells. Now this could still mean that touch falls under this system, but there is not specific rule overriding the touch rules as far as I can see.
If it overrides the touch rules, that is the easiest answer and great you are done. If not, then there are a series of other questions that can pop up. They unsuccessfully dodged your touch attack, do they get to dodge again vs the spell, if yes is it at full dice is it at -1 dice for being the second dodge, do you just use the initial roll for both defense tests.
I'm for just using spellcasting as it reduces the number of die rolls. But its not really clear and I guess it has never been answered.
-
And just what "Touch" range indirect spell are you talking about???
-
And just what "Touch" range indirect spell are you talking about???
My gut was that there was no such thing, as well. But there's at least one: Punch. I stopped looking for more before replying after seeing that... it may well be that's the only spell that's both Indirect and has a range of Touch.
-
Punch is the only one i am aware of. I like the concept of it and wish they had added more, ones with elemental effects. And sure I watch too much anime. Oh how i miss spell creation. But, I haven't the foggiest idea of how they are supposed to work. Spellcasting+magic to hit makes sense on some level I mean it works for why your laser beams, ice bolts etc hit so it does sub in for a combat attack roll, so why not this one as well.
edit to add Apparently there is a corrode spell as well, but it only hits objects so a defense test may be moot.
-
We have house ruled that spell range is hampered by distance. We came up with ad-hoc -1 per 20 meters so far. We based this on how hard it is to make out any detail of something on the other side of a football field.
If I were you, I'd turn it into a Ranged Category rather than a separate dice penalty. That way it's properly unified with other penalties, such as Glare (including the 'heaviest counts, 2x heaviest = 1 category worse'). Maybe grab Medium Crossbow as your baseline?
-
Wow, I never noticed Punch before!
Sadly, if you want to take a direct reading of the order of events, it would go:
"Melee attack", cast spell, determine effect, drain (page 281-282)
So, in this one case the target would actually get two "resistance" tests; the first to resist the "melee attack" and the next to resist the spell...
If the caster fails his melee attack, he doesn't have a valid target for the spell - thus no spellcasting. IF he is successful in the melee attack, then he has a valid target and can now cast the spell... and the target resists again.
Under "touch attack" on page 187 it has this to say:
TOUCH-ONLY ATTACK
If the intention of an attack is to simply make contact,
whether to discharge a spell, plant a RFID tag, or just
playing tag, than the attacker gains a +2 dice pool bonus.
Additionally, if all that is needed is contact, the attacker
and not the defender succeeds on a tie.
So the "touch attack" is not technically an attack (deals no damage), but can be used to deliver something that may cause damage. (the Spell, a Stim patch, etc)...
And, its easier to do then a melee attack (hence the +2 dice and tie to the attacker..)
-
Yeah, personally I would require the unarmed touch attack test then the spellcasting test as well. It's mechanically awkward.. a success on the first test is doing nothing but granting the second test. But that's exactly how the Touch rules present it, so there we go. I guess that's the mechanical "price" of the lower drain for Touch range spells: you have to make two tests to deliver them.
-
Wow, I never noticed Punch before!
It's a spell to be used against a target with no actions left in the Combat Turn.
-
Here's how I handle touch combat spells:
Direct Touch: The touch attack is a separate test, but considered part of the spellcasting action (melee attacks are always Complex Actions, though, so you can't use reckless spellcasting with touch combat spells). Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. the target's Reaction + Intuition defense test for the touch-only attack (see p.187). Extra hits on the touch attack are good for style, maybe, but have no real benefit. If you succeed on the touch, then cast the spell: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. (Body or Willpower) + Counterspelling (if any).
Indirect Touch: Like Direct combat touch spells, the touch attack is a separate test that happens in the same Complex Action as the spellcasting test. Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. Reaction + Intuition. If you succeed, then cast the spell. Here's where Indirect differs from Direct: Indirect combat spells are resisted with a regular Reaction + Intuition defense test, but the target already had one to avoid the indirect touch spell, and failed. They don't get a second bite at that apple; they can resist with Counterspelling, but that's all. Roll Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Counterspelling (if any).
-
Here's how I handle touch combat spells:
Direct Touch: The touch attack is a separate test, but considered part of the spellcasting action (melee attacks are always Complex Actions, though, so you can't use reckless spellcasting with touch combat spells). Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. the target's Reaction + Intuition defense test for the touch-only attack (see p.187). Extra hits on the touch attack are good for style, maybe, but have no real benefit. If you succeed on the touch, then cast the spell: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. (Body or Willpower) + Counterspelling (if any).
Indirect Touch: Like Direct combat touch spells, the touch attack is a separate test that happens in the same Complex Action as the spellcasting test. Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. Reaction + Intuition. If you succeed, then cast the spell. Here's where Indirect differs from Direct: Indirect combat spells are resisted with a regular Reaction + Intuition defense test, but the target already had one to avoid the indirect touch spell, and failed. They don't get a second bite at that apple; they can resist with Counterspelling, but that's all. Roll Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Counterspelling (if any).
This makes some in world sense, but its kind of broken. Odds are you are casting these at a fairly high force due to the -6 drain, getting gross hits to damage instead of net is kind of too good. Though I guess most mages aren't unarmed combat experts and getting the skill/agility is a investment.
-
The problem with Direct Spells is that you just need to make a connect to the aura of the target so even a glancing hit is a fullblown hit, so it would not make sense to resist them with Reaction+Intuition+Willpower/Body, though it would be a lot easier from a mechanical point of view.
It would just be a one roll test - (Direct Spells: Magician makes a standard spell check, target resists with only willpower/body for ranged direct spells but reaction+intuition+willpower/body for touch spells. Magician would suffer drain in both cases.
You could of course make it a two step resist check for the target: first roll reaction+Intuition, if you beat spell check no damage and no drain for the magician. Otherwise resist remainder of damage using willpower/body.
The latter I would use for indirect touch spells too, of course the damage would involve armor too
-
I agree with Shinobi, it's a little overwhelming to let the spellcasting test go (essentially) unresisted. Personally, I would either
a) allow a second dodge test to "avoid the incoming energy wave"
b) use the same result from the first dodge test, so those hits count for dodging both attack rolls
c) have an indirect touch range spell not require a separate "touch" roll, treating the specific rule that indirect spells are also the attack roll as superseding the need to make a separate roll to see if initial contact is made.
-
I agree with Shinobi, it's a little overwhelming to let the spellcasting test go (essentially) unresisted. Personally, I would either
a) allow a second dodge test to "avoid the incoming energy wave"
b) use the same result from the first dodge test, so those hits count for dodging both attack rolls
c) have an indirect touch range spell not require a separate "touch" roll, treating the specific rule that indirect spells are also the attack roll as superseding the need to make a separate roll to see if initial contact is made.
You make a good point. I might end up going with option (B) on this.
-
I feel like I'm missing something on the hesitance to give the target in effect two resistance rolls.
In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool. That's effectively two resistance tests.
What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?
-
In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool. That's effectively two resistance tests.
What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?
I think it’s easier to accept two different tests for direct spells, because you’re doing two different things - touching the person, then overwhelming the body or mind. For an indirect spell, you would be making two rolls to do the same thing - hit the person with the spell. Personally, I’d make the caster of the indirect touch spell make two rolls, but use the same Defense test of Reaction + Intuition for both. The first one would only need to get a glancing blow (a tie would be sufficient), but the second would determine net hits.
The more relevant question - what real incentive is there to cast a direct touch spell? Sure, Death Touch is F - 6 instead of F - 3 for Manabolt, but since the minimum drain is 2 you have to cast at least a Force 8 spell to get full effect from it. Plus, unless you have a lot of dice to roll, the extra Force isn’t going to make a difference. It’s a bit different with an indirect spell, as Force + net hits determine damage.
-
In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool. That's effectively two resistance tests.
What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?
I think it’s easier to accept two different tests for direct spells, because you’re doing two different things - touching the person, then overwhelming the body or mind. For an indirect spell, you would be making two rolls to do the same thing - hit the person with the spell. Personally, I’d make the caster of the indirect touch spell make two rolls, but use the same Defense test of Reaction + Intuition for both. The first one would only need to get a glancing blow (a tie would be sufficient), but the second would determine net hits.
The more relevant question - what real incentive is there to cast a direct touch spell? Sure, Death Touch is F - 6 instead of F - 3 for Manabolt, but since the minimum drain is 2 you have to cast at least a Force 8 spell to get full effect from it. Plus, unless you have a lot of dice to roll, the extra Force isn’t going to make a difference. It’s a bit different with an indirect spell, as Force + net hits determine damage.
A few things for me.
1 what you are pointing out I agree with its a too hit roll that you already hit with. Using the dodge result for both seems to fit there to some degree.
2. Its just too many rolls.
3. If I'm not using the same roll, now I have to wonder is this a second attack they are dodging, are they at -1 for it being a second attack are there any other modifiers.
4. Also I think the descriptions of how they work is a bit different. Indirect spells you are creating a bolt, explosive projectile of fire and trying to hit someone or someplace with it. With direct spells the range is determining how you are syncing the auras so you can hit it with death energy or whatever. So thematically you are creating a ball of energy in your hand and slapping someone with it, not touching them and then going okay I've got a link try and charge a fire spell into them, because you don't need a link to their aura.
As for your second point, I have a hard time justifying casting a direct spell period. But a single target ranged one, yeah force 5 gets me minimum drain and I probably wont get more than 5 hits anyways so do I need to take a touch range spell, losing range is huge on its own worth the -3 drain even before we talk about needing a separate attack roll. The direct line really seems to be set up for edge based attacks, I guess they work as finishers if the street sam shot someone for 8 boxes of damage or something. If melee attacks were simple and you consistently could get enough hits for it to matter then maybe the -6 vs -3 could make a difference for casters who like to quick cast. It is one of the many spells/rules that didn't translate well to the new rules.
-
The question about how Punch works has been coming up since 2013.
If I may, here is some clarification offered by Aaron Pavao, one of the SR5 developers. (He has both a writing credit and a Rules Committee credit on page 7 of SR5.) This is from the [SR5] Rules Clarifications and FAQ thread (page 44 if you want to track it down yourself):
2: How does the Indirect Touch spell, Punch, work?
In the specific case of a touch-range combat spell, the Spellcasting test takes the place of the Unarmed attack. So you only need to make the Spellcasting Test, which is defended against by the target's Reaction + Intuition.
Another poster followed up about a week later (on page 49) with a "did you really mean that?" post that covered some of the same balance questions that have been going back and forth in this thread, and citing the +2 touch-only attack bonus on page 187 that specifically refers to spells. Aaron confirmed that, yes, Punch is really intended to be a one-roll spell. Just Spellcasting, no Unarmed.
My personal experience is that I've played it both ways and I prefer Aaron's interpretation. I didn't like the extra rolling of the separate Unarmed attack, and I didn't find it to be unbalancing to get rid of it. But that's my preference; other GMs can and will feel differently, which is also reasonable.
-
The question about how Punch works has been coming up since 2013.
If I may, here is some clarification offered by Aaron Pavao, one of the SR5 developers. (He has both a writing credit and a Rules Committee credit on page 7 of SR5.) This is from the [SR5] Rules Clarifications and FAQ thread (page 44 if you want to track it down yourself):
2: How does the Indirect Touch spell, Punch, work?
In the specific case of a touch-range combat spell, the Spellcasting test takes the place of the Unarmed attack. So you only need to make the Spellcasting Test, which is defended against by the target's Reaction + Intuition.
Another poster followed up about a week later (on page 49) with a "did you really mean that?" post that covered some of the same balance questions that have been going back and forth in this thread, and citing the +2 touch-only attack bonus on page 187 that specifically refers to spells. Aaron confirmed that, yes, Punch is really intended to be a one-roll spell. Just Spellcasting, no Unarmed.
My personal experience is that I've played it both ways and I prefer Aaron's interpretation. I didn't like the extra rolling of the separate Unarmed attack, and I didn't find it to be unbalancing to get rid of it. But that's my preference; other GMs can and will feel differently, which is also reasonable.
Thanks, my search-fu did not find that. It found me asking about it and discussing it way way back in time, heck it may have even been 4th edition.
-
For full disclosure, Aaron's ruling directly contradicts what the book says on page 282:
Some spells require you to Touch (T) the target—if the target is unwilling, you’ll need to make an unarmed attack against the target (see Accuracy, p. 168).
In light of Aaron's ruling, some rules scholars have taken this passage to apply to non-combat spells, like Decrease Attribute or Mind Probe. But then you're in the awkward situation of using one set of rules for combat spells and another set of rules for other spell categories. But then you can contort yourself further and argue that maybe Aaron's approach makes sense for Instant spells (like combat spells) while maybe the book's approach makes sense for sustained spells like Mind Probe where you can probe once per Complex Action while the spell is sustained...
As I said before, I use Aaron's interpretation and it works well for me, but if someone doesn't like it then there's plenty of support from the book itself to ignore it.
-
After some "deep thinking" on the issue (IE: I have been drinking);
I have to say, I think there is a need for the two stage roll for touch ranged spells. And it all has to do with the Meta of the game.
There is a running joke for a long time that Shadowrun's real name is Magicrun... And really they are not wrong. There has been a stready creep in magic power for a long while now.
This puts a little bit of a break to the meme: 'Shadowrun: There's a Spell for That.'
-
For full disclosure, Aaron's ruling directly contradicts what the book says on page 282:
Some spells require you to Touch (T) the target—if the target is unwilling, you’ll need to make an unarmed attack against the target (see Accuracy, p. 168).
In light of Aaron's ruling, some rules scholars have taken this passage to apply to non-combat spells, like Decrease Attribute or Mind Probe. But then you're in the awkward situation of using one set of rules for combat spells and another set of rules for other spell categories. But then you can contort yourself further and argue that maybe Aaron's approach makes sense for Instant spells (like combat spells) while maybe the book's approach makes sense for sustained spells like Mind Probe where you can probe once per Complex Action while the spell is sustained...
As I said before, I use Aaron's interpretation and it works well for me, but if someone doesn't like it then there's plenty of support from the book itself to ignore it.
The book phrases you might need to make an unarmed combat test for a unwilling target. Might implies to me its only some spells
-
After some "deep thinking" on the issue (IE: I have been drinking);
I have to say, I think there is a need for the two stage roll for touch ranged spells. And it all has to do with the Meta of the game.
There is a running joke for a long time that Shadowrun's real name is Magicrun... And really they are not wrong. There has been a stready creep in magic power for a long while now.
This puts a little bit of a break to the meme: 'Shadowrun: There's a Spell for That.'
While I agree its a issue, I don't think touch spells is where its at. It is just anecdotal but i don't think I have ever seen people use touch attack spells in 5 editions of play.
If they ever do a 6e I think they need some fundamental changes to how spells/magic works. If force is one of those sacred cows they can't slay things like the force determining how many simple actions it takes to cast the spell. Though IMO its really spirits that break mages, the spells are nice but not game breaking.
-
Wait, wouldn't an Indirect-Touch as follows...
Spellcasting+Magic+2 v/s Reaction+Intuition
to connect........ Then ....
Power & Net Hits v/s Body, Armor, & Counterspelling ?
Basically the same as a an Indirect-Bolt spell but w/ a -2 for touch only ?
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong but that seems like the way it would work.
-
Aaron has directly contradicted the book at times in ways that never hit any kind of FAQ/errata afterwards, so personally I do not follow his rulings when they so clearly clash with RAW.
-
This seems like a possible call to the "specific trumps general" rule.
The rule that touching an unwilling target for is accomplished by making an unarmed attack is the general rule for a touch-range spell. However, indirect combat spells (specifically) use the specified rule that hitting the target is accomplished through the spellcasting test.
OR Aaron's suggestion was an attempt at simplifying things. Since the Spellcasting Test is already opposed by the same thing that the unarmed attack would have been, eliminating one of the redundant attacks seems reasonable. We don't want to eliminate the Spellcasting test, so the clear candidate for elimination is the extra initial to-hit roll.
Personally, I think that works just fine. Technically, because it is an indirect spell, the caster doesn't even really need to make complete contact in the same way that you would with a direct spell. When you cast the Punch spell, it's going to go off no matter what you end up touching. As the spell says, you "smack the target(s) with invisible psychokinetic force." That force is being set off, whether you hit or not. Just, with the Punch spell, the target has to be close enough to touch...