[6E] Direct vs Indirect or Mana vs Physical

  • 2 Replies


  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 2
« on: <07-20-21/1904:13> »
I think folks got a little carried away with the whole Direct and Indirect Combat Spells thing. IMHO, it should be deleted altogether and replaced with Mana and Physical Combat Spells.
How this would change the rules:
(1) Page 132, under Combat Spells, Defense Rating against Physical Spells should be normal, but against Mana Spells it should be your Astral DR (yeah that means even the most Chromed Troll Street Sammie needs an Astral DR.
(2) Page 132, Change the paragraph title of Direct Combat Spells to Mana Combat Spells. Also, state that Mana Combat Spells can only do Stun damage.
(3) Page 132, Change the paragraph title of Indirect Combat Spells to Physical Spells. Also, state that Physical Combat Spells can do either Physical or Stun damage.
(4) Page 137, Clarify in the Illusion Spells paragraph that Mana Illusion Spells are better described as Phantasms, they are only in the mind of the affected creature, while Physical Illusion Spells are best described as Illusions, with a Physical presence for anyone or anything that can view the area being affected by the Illusion.
The whole idea of Direct and Indirect was silly, IMHO. Live by the KISS "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle.
« Last Edit: <07-20-21/1906:14> by KabalahRaith »

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4433
« Reply #1 on: <07-20-21/2113:31> »
In previous editions, there were subtle but significant differences in how direct and indirect combat spells worked.  While they arguably still exist, these details weren't discussed in 6e and so as a result of streamlining the game, direct and indirect combat spells did become arguably indistinguishable from one another, besides having different dice pool mechanics.  And, in hypothetical absence of those subtle and significant differences in nature, I can see how making a distinction between direct and indirect combat spells can be reasonably seen as being a needless complication...

One of the projects the errata team is working on is getting an official FAQ published, and the magic rules will get significant attention to (re)provide those kinds of metaphysical details that previous editions provided that 6e omitted.  If that goes though as planned, it'd (hopefully) render your idea moot as it would (re)establish meaningful, tactical differences between direct and indirect combat spells. But, otoh, your idea is actually pretty sound on a first read-through, I have to say.  If one is willing to sacrifice certain sacred cows... and Shadowrun has been certainly willing to do exactly that before!
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.


  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
« Reply #2 on: <07-21-21/1159:51> »
FAQ is still otw?  lets goooooooooo