Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: brombur on <02-01-18/2220:14>
-
I've been going over the rules and can't find a clear answer to the following question
A mage casts an indirect combat spell, say flamethrower, at a running target, what, if any modifiers do I apply to the targets defense and the mages spell cast.
It seems logical that the defender gains his bonus to his defense pool, as he can dodge the spell but I don't see anywhere clearly where that is stated
The mage taking a penalty to their spell casting roll is where this becomes problematic. I can't find any hard written info. Assigning penalties for the targets actions would also impact the glitch chance as well as the drain roll and that is where is feels a little weird to me. Is this clarified anywhere in the FAQ or rule books?
-
Just like any other spell casting it is only modified by visual modifiers, nothing else.
-
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).
It's a bit out of the way, but there you go. In this case though, it implies that Light/Glare doesn't affect spells ("Visibility" is its own section).
-
This was my initial problem, there is not only no clear yes/no answer they also create a whole slew of vague-ness.
Does the defender still get his defense bonuses for cover and running? again I say yes
By the current wording of the rules a mage has nearly infinite range and a level of precision that is beyond what any other character can achieve at that range. by these rules you could have a mage looking through the big observation deck binoculars on the empire state building and be casting lightning bolts at people 1000's of meters away with 0 modifiers. That seems wrong. the book does list a -3 penalty for using optics to cast spells, which of course only shows up in the gear description section of the CBR Pg 444 OPTICAL DEVICES
"These devices use optical technology (glass bending or
reflecting light), not electronics, to function. They have
many uses, one of the most dramatic of which is that
they enable a magician to obtain line of sight for spellcasting
from cover, something that can’t be accomplished
with electronic devices. Spellcasting targeted
through optics this way suffers a –3 dice pool modifier.
Optical devices can’t take vision enhancemen"
The act of spell casting, used for drain and damage determinations, feels like it should be separate from the act of throwing the spell at a target.
-
This was my initial problem, there is not only no clear yes/no answer they also create a whole slew of vague-ness.
Does the defender still get his defense bonuses for cover and running? again I say yes
Yes. Nothing about magic precludes bonuses or penalties to defense rolls, where defense rolls are allowed.
By the current wording of the rules a mage has nearly infinite range and a level of precision that is beyond what any other character can achieve at that range. by these rules you could have a mage looking through the big observation deck binoculars on the empire state building and be casting lightning bolts at people 1000's of meters away with 0 modifiers. That seems wrong. the book does list a -3 penalty for using optics to cast spells, which of course only shows up in the gear description section of the CBR Pg 444 OPTICAL DEVICES
It isn't wrong though. However, remember this is an urban setting and lines of visibility are limited.
The act of spell casting, used for drain and damage determinations, feels like it should be separate from the act of throwing the spell at a target.
I don't know what you mean here.
-
The last part about drain and targeting is my thoughts on the system in general. I understand that to streamline things they removed redundant dice rolls, thus baking into the casting roll the actual act of hitting the target with the spell. So if you don't apply penalties to this roll based on the circumstance (distance, target running, etc) then you have given magic a pretty size able perk, added to the massive AP mod and the massive range. If you do mod the roll for all of these circumstances then you are artificially softening the drain roll since the switch from Stun to Physical is based on total net hits, which reducing dice pools impacts, meaning you can create a massive damage spell but minimize the risk of the drain becoming physical.
It would a non issue if the casting roll to determine damage and drain was separate from the act of hitting the target.
Also the game is an urban setting but players are clever enough to find and use any rule to their advantage and will create scenarios to abuse it. I can clearly see the chance for a player to build a massive range mage sniper using optics that would be far better than anyone with a gun. Even direct spells can be abused this way potentially.
-
The last part about drain and targeting is my thoughts on the system in general. I understand that to streamline things they removed redundant dice rolls, thus baking into the casting roll the actual act of hitting the target with the spell. So if you don't apply penalties to this roll based on the circumstance (distance, target running, etc) then you have given magic a pretty size able perk, added to the massive AP mod and the massive range. If you do mod the roll for all of these circumstances then you are artificially softening the drain roll since the switch from Stun to Physical is based on total net hits, which reducing dice pools impacts, meaning you can create a massive damage spell but minimize the risk of the drain becoming physical.
It's trivial to throw around powerful spells without having them become physical drain with reagents.
It would a non issue if the casting roll to determine damage and drain was separate from the act of hitting the target.
Also the game is an urban setting but players are clever enough to find and use any rule to their advantage and will create scenarios to abuse it. I can clearly see the chance for a player to build a massive range mage sniper using optics that would be far better than anyone with a gun. Even direct spells can be abused this way potentially.
Again, this happens. And again, the world is built around it. Windows are mirrored so mages can't see inside, just as an example.
P.S. Sniper, wether mage or not, is not a great fit for Shadowrun.
-
It's very rarely the case that Drain becomes Physical anyways; you need to cast something at a higher Force than your Magic (or use Edge to break the limit) and then roll very well. Most mages I've seen do not roll 7+ hits on average. To do that you'd probably need to be using some very powerful foci, or else just stacking miscellaneous buffs. Most I usually see is 16, which can occasionally roll above 6, but again, not enough that "getting penalties to the dice pool, thus making them not take Physical as often" is even a consideration. If you feel like mages are OP, this isn't the area that needs balancing.
And yeah, max range is actually not as useful as it sounds. Most runs don't take place in wide open areas or on the street, but inside buildings. Cars come with tinted windows as standard features, and yeah, most building windows have something similar (mirrored or tinted) because, well, the people of the Sixth World know that magic is very dangerous.
-
The fluff has always stated that as long as a mage can see through natural vision a part of his target then he can connect to that target’s aura and dump mana to various effects into the targets body.
Also resisting indirect spells is still a resistance test, it isn’t a defense roll to dodge the effect. That means grazing hits doesn’t come into effect either. Hell, even Combat Sense for adepts doesn’t work.
-
Are you sure about that? That does not sound accurate or sensible... That might be technically how it is, but there's no way it's intended. If you weren't able and weren't trying to dodge the effect, it wouldn't use your REA + INT, it would be different like every other type of spell in the game. I'm absolutely confident that the pool used to defend against Indirect spells is a defense test in all regards and can benefit from all the bonuses you'd get from dodging any physical projectile (which is what an indirect spell is).
-
Well that depends on how you interpret this phrase
“”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 shoot- ing a gun (in this case with bullets made of acid, or re, or something equally unpleasant to be hit by).“
Combat Sense only applies its bonuses to melee and ranged attacks which indirect spells aren’t.
It’s the same debat whether a control rig implant offers the same benefits of a Datajack implant because it is described as having a jack just like a datajack implant.
-
I mean, that feels really pedantic and semantic. There'd be no reason to include the line "kind of like shooting a gun" if you weren't physically dodging the spell; the mechanics (it being REA + INT) back this up. The sentence is there to illustrate that this is definitely a projectile that you are physically avoiding ("or something equally unpleasant to be hit by"). There's logic behind what attributes form the defense pool, they aren't picked at random. It would be pretty blatant rules lawyering to try and claim indirect spells have that benefit (a benefit they don't need) and that bonuses like Combat Sense and cover don't apply. If you think this is really a legitimate problem, I'll tell the errata team, but I can't imagine there being a different consensus.
As for the Control Rig, it gives a DNI, a port, and cable. That's what a datajack does. There's no reason to assume it would include the wireless bonus; if it did, the Control Rig would have a section for its wireless bonus. There's no other augmentations that literally include the entire function and all the benefits (wireless bonus) included, which is quite a big reason to assume this isn't the one exception. I'll give you that the "have a private conversation via cord" is more ambiguous, but that's supposed to just be what happens if two people with DNI plug into eachother.
Neither of these things are really a common debate. But I suppose someone who wanted to be that guy could argue about it. That said, anyone can argue about something endlessly.
-
It does need a ruling or at least a rewrite if it brings up questions and debates due to being ambiguous. Instead of saying kind of like a ranged attack, it should say following the rules and modifiers of a Ranged attack.
-
The way I have seen it worked at many tables is thus:
Direct spells require line of sight, thus as long as the caster can see the target, he spell effect happens.
Indirect spells (like fireball, throwthower): require line of sight to the target*, if he can see the spot, he can cast.
Basically, because most indirect spell effects create "something" that does the damage, they can be "dodged" as appropriate. And spells such as Fireball can hit multiple targets if placed well (such as tossing a fireball into the center of a small room).
Direct spells, require you to actually see the target to establish a link, and transmit the mana directly to the target (Stunning, wounding, taking over their mind, etc). This means a foe hidng around a corner of a wall wouldn't be affected by a AOE direct spell...
Now, I can't point you to a direct rule, but that is the way I have seen it played out.
-
Honestly i think I used to play an indirect spell like a gunshot back when I had a group last time although the CRB isn’t clear in the matter.
Given the damage potential of indirect spells having them being treated like mundane ranged attacks for defense purposes, but it could be argued either way RAW I would say.
-
The way I had it explained to me, was that with indirect spells, you are creating a discharge that extends from you to the target, be that a gout of flame, an arc of electricity, or a stream of acid. In the case of AOE (fireball, acid wave, Etc), it still starts at you, then streaks to the target and explodes.
This has tactical implications to it. Take a narrow hallway with an invisible/hidden attacker. With the indirect rules outlined above, the mage could target the fall wall, and fill the hallway with fire, possibly hitting the hidden attacker... much like someone could spray the hallway with machinegun or shotgun fire and hit the attacker.
-
Direct spells autohit, but require you to see the target. Even if you throw a Manaball into a room small enough that everyone inside is in the radius, if you don't have line of sight on everyone (you can use astral perception, but you'll be eating that -2 penalty), anyone you don't see (like the guy hiding behind the door) is completely unaffected.
Indirect spells require a to hit roll, which means they're subject to visibility modifiers, cover, and the like. However, you don't need to be able to see individuals to affect them with indirect spells. You just have to see the target area. For single-target spells that doesn't mean much, but for AoE, that means you drop a fireball in the small room from above, and everyone gets roasted.
Direct spells also only work on living creatures, while indirect can affect objects.
-
I’m going to be “that guy” on this one and ask you to point out where it says it is a to hit roll subject to all those modifiers, Mirikon.
The Indirect description simply says it is an opposed test, though the defender uses the same attributes as versus a mundane attack.
How did SR4 describe it? Anyone able to quote?
-
There are a couple things in play here. First, the rules on Spellcasting actually state that Visibility modifiers applies to all spells that are targeted visually.
Spellcasting by visual targeting is subject to normal visibility modifiers.
And the rules for Good/Partial Cover also specifically note that the bonus to the defense test applies to Spellcasting. Although, oddly enough, Good Cover says "Spellcasting" while Partial cover specifically only calls out "Indirect Combat Spells" which could have other implications.
None of the other defense modifiers make this call out though. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't likewise apply... For example, the bonus for Running (+2 bonus on their Defense test) seems like it could still apply. The roll to avoid the spell is still a Defense roll after all...
-
Thank you.
I knew there was a reason for why I treated it as a ranged attack from the beginning.
The cover defense entries are found on p. 190 CRB
-
And the rules for Good/Partial Cover also specifically note that the bonus to the defense test applies to Spellcasting. Although, oddly enough, Good Cover says "Spellcasting" while Partial cover specifically only calls out "Indirect Combat Spells" which could have other implications.
Well, good cover would be an elf ducking behind a car and popping up over the hood to take a shot. Partial cover would be a troll caught in the open with nothing but a telephone pole to use for cover, but it is still something else between him and incoming lead, so...
-
And the rules for Good/Partial Cover also specifically note that the bonus to the defense test applies to Spellcasting. Although, oddly enough, Good Cover says "Spellcasting" while Partial cover specifically only calls out "Indirect Combat Spells" which could have other implications.
Well, good cover would be an elf ducking behind a car and popping up over the hood to take a shot. Partial cover would be a troll caught in the open with nothing but a telephone pole to use for cover, but it is still something else between him and incoming lead, so...
Right... but is the implication that Good Cover gives the +4 when defending against all spells? Does someone resisting a Manabolt get +4 dice because of taking Good Cover? What about Control Thoughts? Invisibility? There are some weird implications if we apply it unilaterally...
-
It should only be indirect spells and possibly damaging manipulation spells in my humble opinion
-
In world good cover could block enough of a person's aura from being seen to give them an edge in defending against magic, while partial cover does not.
More likely it is just poorly written. Can anyone from the errata team chime in?
-
Hmm, after a second thought, I think the logic is just that they do block visibility. Which is kind of the idea of the bonus that cover gives; after all, being behind a steel parapet is the same bonus as being behind one made of cardboard in a school. It's easier for the defender because you can't see their whole body. This is why the book specifies that someone totally behind cover also benefits from the blindfire penalty, because the cover stops you from seeing them. If you pay close attention to the wording for cover, you'll notice what bonus you get is based entirely on how much of your body is obscured from the attacker, reinforcing that it's about visibility.
Because spells need Line of Sight and are affected by anything that affects vision, cover is a vision effect, and so applies to all spells under the basic idea of "it's harder to hit what is harder to see".
If you want to assume the way it's written is intentional, it's possible that the writer felt partial cover was too insignificant to count as visual interference, and so only applied it to the physical projectile spells (indirect combat spells).
-
While I agree that the standard modifiers apply to indirect combat spells, since they are handled as ranged combat tests ( SR4 20TH page 203-4 ), SR4 is less vague about this fortunately, direct combat spells are resistance tests not defense tests as are in fact almost all other spells are resistance tests not defense tests. In essence that means that anything that adds dice to your defense test only applies to defense against indirect spells as they are the only ones you defend against. All other spells can only be resisted and thus the only source that can add dice to the test is the spell defense skill ( confusing that they don't stay consistent with the terminology and SR5 is by far the worst edition in that regard that I know of ) as well as the magical guard critter power.
It makes total sense to impose negative modifiers for visibility on the spellcasting test on spells that require Los to hit another target like direct combat spells and for example mental manipulation spells, but that's it. As Mirikon said, if they can see you, those spells auto hit, there is no defense test just a resistance test against the effect the magician is trying to achieve, so of course being in cover will not suddenly make you better at seeing through illusions like invisibility, the very thought is absurd and would lead to some truly absurd situations in the game.
This is also the reason why the spell defense skill is a must have for all team player magicians as it is the best defensive aid against hostile magic.
-
I can see your logic. I still believe that cover is a visual modifier, and so should apply to anything that concealment and darkness would apply to. You're right-- It doesn't make a lot of sense that being partially behind a wall would make it easier to resist believing an illusion. But neither does it make a lot of sense that if an area is dark, it's harder for you to cast Stealth.
But it does, because all spells require Line of Sight, and as the book says, "Spellcasting by visual targeting is subject to normal visibility modifiers." (page 281, Step 2: Choose The Target). Someone can argue that seeing any part of someone's aura is as good as seeing all of it, but that's conjecture-- How casting a spell works in-universe is not so defined, as far as I know. After all, if it were that binary, what would the Spellcasting roll or the Resistance roll represent? The same way that you can fail to cast a spell, and that someone can resist it completely, I think how much aura you are able to aim your magic at affects the overall outcome of the spell. Maybe when you have LOS to less of their aura, you aren't able to get as much of your mojo into them, which is represented by penalties to your roll or bonuses to theirs. The dice are abstractions after all.
-
Yes that's why I said that visibility modifiers should apply to the spellcasting roll as negative dice and not to the person resisting the spell as positive modifiers to the resistance roll and that includes bonus dice for being in cover. The only time cover would give you bonus to your roll would be against indirect combat as that is an actual ranged attack.
As far as it being harder to cast stealth in darkness you're right in so far as the writers should have put self/Los in for spells like that in stead of just Los because you should always be able to target yourself, but if you wanna cast it on your buddy a few meters away from you it makes sense to use visibility modifiers.
-
There's no real difference between "bonus to defender" and "penalty to attacker" though outside of edge cases, which is why Reach can be either one. If "it's a bonus to the defender" is the reason why you think cover shouldn't be applicable by darkness should, despite them both being different ways to say "your ability to see your entire target is hampered", then I think you're approaching things from the wrong angle.
The reason cover provides a bonus to defenders is probably for AoE attacks, as you're more likely to hit a group where only some of them are behind cover (or the amount of cover varies) than you are to be firing into an area that is pockets of pitch-black and almost pitch-black to hit multiple targets-- Such an area would probably be ruled as either complete darkness or dim light over the entire zone. This way the attacker can roll once and the hits can be compared to each defender's hits. This is the same logic used to determine whether any modifier to attacks should be an attacker penalty or a defender bonus; if it's a condition that's applied to each target individually (like cover) it's a bonus to their defense. If it's a condition that's applied to only the attacker or to the entire area (like darkness) then it's an attacker penalty.
-
Got alot more discussion on this than was expected.
I say that anything impacting the caster's roll is a no go, after all they just need to see the target to know where to throw the spell. the Defender then gets chance to avoid it the same as a gunshot so any bonuses they earn are their to use. Also part of my issue was that in the Runnign rules it says that a running target inflicts a -2 penalty to the shooter but this appears no where else and is not on the attack mod table later in the book. I can only assume this line is written in error and that running just provides a defense test bonus to the target.
Ultimately I think with Drain being tied to the same roll as hitting your target you can't be adjusting the mages pool at all, except for the previously mentioned vision mods. its the best you can get unless you want to house rule it an separate out the too rolls.
-
In world good cover could block enough of a person's aura from being seen to give them an edge in defending against magic, while partial cover does not.
More likely it is just poorly written. Can anyone from the errata team chime in?
Partial cover hides 25-49% of your body. Good cover hides 50-99% of your body. Total cover is when you're completely concealed and you go directly to 'shooting through barriers' rules, which only apply to spells if it is a Physical spell with AoE to see if the wall stands up to the fireball.
So Good cover provides a good bit of defense against spells that require LOS to hit or take effect, which is pretty much any non-physical, non-AoE spell. Physical AoEs would bypass the cover if the AoE's area covered it, so yeah, spellcasting in general works. Partial cover, however, is really only a hindrance to spells requiring an attack roll (which are almost all indirect combat spells, and the ones that aren't are melee touch attacks, which wouldn't really be bothered by partial cover anyways. Just my take on it.
-
I say that anything impacting the caster's roll is a no go, after all they just need to see the target to know where to throw the spell. the Defender then gets chance to avoid it the same as a gunshot so any bonuses they earn are their to use. Also part of my issue was that in the Runnign rules it says that a running target inflicts a -2 penalty to the shooter but this appears no where else and is not on the attack mod table later in the book. I can only assume this line is written in error and that running just provides a defense test bonus to the target.
Huh, you're absolutely right. The Movement rules do list a -2 to attack a target that is running (and a -4 for targetting a sprinter). That definitely seems out of place considering the fact that running gives you that +2 defense bonus.
If I had to guess, it seems like it was something that was being considered as an alternate for the defense bonus, but it never was fully integrated. That would be why it isn't on the list of attack modifiers...
Definitely something for the errata team to take a look at.
-
I would assume that it has to do with the fact that hitting a moving target is demonstrably harder than hitting one that is not moving, so someone running or outright sprinting is going to be more difficult to hit. But a net shift of 6 dice is just what a little street rat needs to avoid incoming fire while they slip away after stealing something, or when you need to sprint from cover to cover, or other such situations. One of the little things that helps people keep from getting dead (and helps GMs save certain NPCs without fudging rolls) when the lethality of SR rears its head.
-
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. By the way, if anyone finds something that clearly needs errata (like directly conflicting rules) and nobody from the errata team has posted in the thread, feel free to PM me or one of the others on the team. Anybody with "Troubleshooter" under their name is on the errata team.
Without discussing it, my input would be that running should be a defense bonus, keeping in track with my logic earlier. It's a condition applied to the defender, so it should modify the defender's pool. Though that brings up the question of whether sprinting should offer +4 defense (since apparently it would have given -4 to the attack). It likely does; the only way it wouldn't is if the team thinks that being able to get more than a hit on average to your defense just by running (which anyone can do) is too good. But, I doubt that.
As of now though, that means that with a +2 to defense and a -4 on their attack, sprinting into gunfire is a really great way to not get shot! The average corpsec must really struggle to hit a moving target.