[Mirikon]

Eye, technomancers only have to resist Fading when they thread a complex form higher, or compile/decompile/register sprites. When actually using their complex forms (whether threaded or not) they do not have to resist fading.

[Mäx]

You are given the option to reduce hits. Spells are pretty powerful as a whole. Magic is a dangerous thing. Mages just need to be more careful. For what they can do with spells I don't see drain being uber rediculous.Try NOT throwing force 10 spells like it doesnt matter. A force 5 spell with hits is enough to hurt people plenty. And that drain is able to be made if you have a half decent drain stat.

Except with that piece of shit rule in use it's always better to overcast and just not use any hits for damage, as that does as much damage as non-overcast spell using max hits for far less drain.
And multicasting 2 of those non-overcast spells and not using any hits for damage also does same damage for even less drain per spell.

[Eye Eternal]

I play a techno, so I know when fading comes into play. But just like a mage when it is my turn to do something, I am likely threading at least 2 complex forms up (usually my stealth first, pass sustaining to a sprite, then whatever other form I need most to hack) but I am eating fade left and right, then what if I trigger an alert? Its just as bad for a techno as it is for mage, I am not complaining. I have said many times, and someone JUST mentioned it. Geek the mage first, always been the rule. And its said for the best of reasons. If the mage gets to stunball your whole squad, who's to blame but the squad themselves? I am also in favor of a mage not just being good at ONLY spells. I DO use the net hits to drain rule, and my mage carries a damn gun. 3 agi, 2 skill, spec, smartlink = 9dp. YEAH, he spent on guns, but saving his strength for when the spells will REALLY impact is part of strategy. If the pcs have to do it, so do the enemies as well, its its balanced across I don't see problems.

[Orvich]

About the question of cover: page 160 in the paragraphs about partial cover and good cover:

So when a mage attacks you with a manaball, use cover to have Willpower + cover mod and use a smoke grenade to lower his spellcasting pool. The caster can't use goggles against bad visibility and not many mages have cybereyes.

What? No, you don't get to reduce damage on a direct spell with cover mods. Either the spell hits you or it does not, there isn't a partial effect thing going on. All cover does is force them to also make a perception check to establish LOS on you. Therefore, the amount of cover does nothing at all to the spellcasting pool!

Also, a clever mage will switch to astral perception when they see the smoke bomb go down, and target you that way. Better invest in some astral smoke grenades!

[Zilfer]

Eh.... not that I don't already Overcast like a mother you know what, but adding the net hit's add drain only makes as mentioned before people cast at a higher force for less drain and same damage....

F10 Stun bolt (10 / 2  = 5 -3 = 2 and say I use 1 net hit. was this the code I forget...? Sorry don't have book in front of me just going to continue example with this.) A total of 3 DV for 11 S (takes out an unaugmented human with 6 willpower)

F6 Stun bolt (6 / 2 = 3 - 3 = (has to be at least 1DV) + 5 hits in order to equal same damage as the one above....  thus 6DV

So tell me which are you likely to do with a Magic 6 user.... 6 Stun or 3 Physical? With a Will power + drain stat resist pool of only 9 (most are higher than this) you'll take no drain value consistantly for that type of spell. (looking back I bet the spell drain code is actually +1 for ball - 1 for Stun bolt and -3 for the touch spell huh? Damn it's been awhile.)

Still in the example you can see how overcasting becomes the norm....

Though I play in a game without this rule and I over cast F12-14 stunbolts, Lightning balls... yes i said balls, and the like. Of course I have 6 edge as a human mage to back up my drain pool or casting pool.... I don't recomend doing too many F12 lightning balls!

[Orvich]

Even if it was between taking 6 stun and 6 physical, I'd take the physical damage, especially if the fight was drawing to a close or the spell would take me out of danger. You can medkit and cast heal spells (or have a spirit with endow regen you, if you can work out how to nab a spirit with that combo) to cure up physical damage, no such luck for stun damage.

[Mäx]

What? No, you don't get to reduce damage on a direct spell with cover mods.

Ofcource you dont, as there is no damage reduction test, but cover modifier is added to the "dodge" test(so it becomes willpower+cover mod + counterspelling)

[Zilfer]

You cannot heal Physical damage caused by drain Orvish, but yes I generally tend to agree hence why I overcast to flat out end a fight at the risk of ending my own life. I like the DO OR DIE rolls I throw myself into sometimes.

Also I think Orvish was the one who posted this but he may have a point when it conserns those "cover mods" sure you have "good cover" from where the caster is but I don't see why they would get that bonus if you explode that fireball or lightning ball behind their barrier. Why would you?

I think that's what he's trying to get at Max.

[Orvich]

Not according to the RAW!

It makes sense for you to get cover mods to 'dodge' indirect spells ONLY. With an indirect spell, the caster is lobbing magic AT you, you can dodge said magic. Indirect spells are resolved like ranged combat tests (SR4A pg 204), so cover mods and penalties for moving targets and what have you all apply as normal, just as they would to a projectile attack.

Direct magic, on the other hand is magic generated directly ON the target. There is no flightpath to dodge, no ranged combat rules resolution. The only thing you can avoid is the LOS from the mage. For combat spells, there is no 'dodge' roll. You skip directly to damage resistance with WP or BOD + Counterspelling, as appropriate.  The only thing that cover potentially does is allow you to avoid LOS period.

This is all pretty explicit in the book. Ranged combat rules = cover mods. No ranged combat rules = no cover mods.

[Noble Drake]

This is all pretty explicit in the book. Ranged combat rules = cover mods. No ranged combat rules = no cover mods.

SR4A, page 183, Step 5: Determine effect. 2nd paragraph, 5th line.
"This Opposing dice pool is further modified by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see Defender/Target has Partial or Good Cover., p. 160)."

Rather than using infiltration rules or relying strictly on the GM's whim, the influence of cover stopping the mage from getting line of sight for any type of spell is handled by adding the cover modifier to the target's resistance roll, as explicitly stated in the book.

[Zilfer]

I see.

I also notice i'm mixing up Direct and Indirect spells again. I keep thinking one is the opposite of the other... my bad!

[Orvich]

This is all pretty explicit in the book. Ranged combat rules = cover mods. No ranged combat rules = no cover mods.

SR4A, page 183, Step 5: Determine effect. 2nd paragraph, 5th line.
"This Opposing dice pool is further modified by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see Defender/Target has Partial or Good Cover., p. 160)."

Yep, and this is referring to resolving indirect combat spells! You do get a bonus  to your dodge/defense roll where appropriate, indirect combat spells. If you go to that section of the rules, it says that this bonus is on 'Defense rolls'. You get no defense roll on direct combat spells, you skip directly to damage resistance! The only time you see an actual Defense Roll during combat-type spell casting is indirect spells.

EDIT:
From the section about resolving direct combat spells:

This Opposed Test is done in place of the standard Damage Resistance test.

Not a defense test at all!

EDIT2: In a combat situation, I don't know that I'd allow infiltration rolls at all, unless you're doing something clever like sneaking up behind a mage. If you're just ducked behind cover you have a 100% chance to avoid the spell. If a part of your body is sticking out (and there isn't some sort of smoke grenade or other similar visibility mod), you have a 0% chance to avoid the LOS, assuming the mage can see that body part. If there is some sort of penalty to sight going on like smoke or camosuit, they roll perception, only need 1 hit to distinguish SOMETHING from the background and establish an arcane link to that for a direct combat spell.

[Noble Drake]

Yep, and this is referring to resolving indirect combat spells!

No, it isn't - go actually read page 183. It is detailing the general rules for spellcasting, not covering the specific cases of each different category of spell.

The only mention of Indirect spells found on page 183 is this "Note that objects targeted by Indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage (Barriers, p. 166).

The part of the book you seem to think I am referencing, the portions specifically about Combat Spells, are on pages 203 (for direct) and 204 (for indirect). Neither of those entries contradict the general application of cover bonuses mentioned 20 pages earlier.

If you're just ducked behind cover you have a 100% chance to avoid the spell. If a part of your body is sticking out (and there isn't some sort of smoke grenade or other similar visibility mod), you have a 0% chance to avoid the LOS, assuming the mage can see that body part. If there is some sort of penalty to sight going on like smoke or camosuit, they roll perception, only need 1 hit to distinguish SOMETHING from the background and establish an arcane link to that for a direct combat spell.

That is an interpretation that directly contradicts the rules in the book - better known as a house-rule. If you want mages to be more powerful than they already are, it is a solid rule to use.

[Orvich]

Page 183 says this about resolving all spells:

This Opposing dice pool is further modified by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160).

Following the trail along to page 160 to see the rules for benefiting from cover modifiers, you read this:

If more than 50 percent of the defender’s form is obscured by intervening terrain or cover, he gains a +4 dice pool modifier to his Defense roll against any attack.

This says that cover modifiers are only useful during an Attack/Defense opposed roll situation.

This is all well and good. Go down to how to resolve combat spells:

Direct Combat Spells:
Handle these as an Opposed Test. The caster’s Spellcasting + Magic is resisted by the target’s Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus Counterspelling (if available). This Opposed Test is done in place of the standard Damage Resistance test. The caster needs at least one net hit for the spell to take effect.

Direct combat spells have no Attack/Defend Opposed roll. You merely resist damage, with a threshold. Unlike normal combat rolls where there is an Attack/DEfend phase and then a damage phase, direct spells are ONLY damage phase.

Go back the second quote from the book in this post. During direct combat spells you can't get a modifier to a defense roll that doesn't exist, or a negative attack roll that doesn't exist. You aren't making an attack roll!  It says 'any cover modifiers the target might benefit from'. In this situation, they wouldn't normally benefit from ANY cover modifiers!

Use an indirect spell and there is an Attack/Defend opposed roll, the target would benefit from a cover modifier normally and so cover modifiers exist to the spellcasting roll.


And yes, that's a house ruling on establishing LOS. There are no separate rules for establishing LOS, it only mentions that visibility penalties can apply to it. That is my take on what that statement means!

EDIT: Beyond the RAW stating that it works this way, it also makes fundamental sense.

Why does only seeing half your body shield you from my magic if your armor does not? It's not absorbing any of the power going into your body, no more than your armor is (which it isn't).

However, a chest-high wall CAN take the brunt of a fireball, so you take less damage. It's actually reducing the power of the effect, via reducing the spellcasting pool.

[Noble Drake]

Page 183 says this about resolving all spells:

This Opposing dice pool is further modified by any positive cover modifier the target might benefit from (see Defender/Target has Partial Cover or Good Cover, p. 160).

Following the trail along to page 160 to see the rules for benefiting from cover modifiers, you read this:

If more than 50 percent of the defender’s form is obscured by intervening terrain or cover, he gains a +4 dice pool modifier to his Defense roll against any attack.

This says that cover modifiers are only useful during an Attack/Defense opposed roll situation.

Okay... I see where you are going with this - you are saying that page 183 specifically stating that cover bonuses apply to the opposed roll to resist a spell, without specifying it isn't talking about every category of spell, and then referencing the page that tells you what amount of dice each type of possible cover comes out to is trumped by a section not talking about magic in any way.

Have you ever heard the phrase "specific beats general"? It is part of what is called exception based design - basically, the book states the rules in general situations and other paragraphs of rule text (typically found later in the book) that are more specific in their application are allowed to be an exception. Your view is that page 183, the portion I quoted, is not allowed to be an exception to page 160.

My view is that page 183 is not only allowed to be an exception to the rules found on 160, but actually is.

Why does only seeing half your body shield you from my magic if your armor does not?

Because your ability to visual perceive your target is pretty much the only component necessary for forming the mystic link which the mana of a spell construct is channeled through to produce a spell effect in the first place - less of your target visible = a weaker link = more chance the spell is resisted.

That's not a direct quote, but it only uses info found under the Step 3: Choose the Target(s) entry on page 183 where it states that establishing a "targeting link" requires line of sight or touch, and has the specific mention "Line of sight can even be established using reflective surfaces and through transparent objects, and is subject to normal visibility and lighting modifiers."

Isn't the whole reason why cover makes it harder to hit someone because your visibility of the target is impaired?