Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Chaemera on <11-07-10/1259:52>
-
Unless you use the optional rule that net hits applied to damage on direct spells increase the drain, what is the advantage to taking an equivalent indirect combat spell?
For example, Clout (indirect, physical spell, stun damage) vs Stunbolt (direct, mana spell, stun damage)
Drones never take stun damage, so Clout being a physical spell still doesn't help against them.
Clout is drain F/2, Stunbolt is F/2-1.
Clout is subject to ranged combat modifiers, is dodged and then resisted with Body + half Impact.
Stunbolt is not affected by ranged combat modifiers, and the hits are resisted with Willpower.
Counterspelling applies to both.
To me, it looks like a no-brainer, Stunbolt has lower drain, can be used on the astral, doesn't worry about any of the ranged combat issues and is resisted with a single stat.
So why would anyone choose Clout from a RAW perspective vice roleplaying?
-
Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level
with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing
basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value
of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.
#1: Clout is not affected by this, which could easily push the drain of stunbolt over the drain of clout.
Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat
spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are
caught within the spell’s area of effect.
#2: When using the AoE versions of the spells, Stunball has no chance to hit a target you cant see, even if you know it's there, Clout will hit targets even if you can't see them.
Granted, there are still a lot of benefits (as you listed) to using the direct spells, but these are a few reasons why someone would use the indirect version.
-
Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level
with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing
basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value
of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.
#1: Clout is not affected by this, which could easily push the drain of stunbolt over the drain of clout.
Hrm. . . my copy of SR4A has this as an optional rule (which is what I was talking about at the start of my post)
direct combat spells involve channelling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target on this fundamental level with raw
mana requires more focus and more power than producing other spell
effects. After the Spellcasting is resisted the caster choses whether or not
to apply any net hits to increase the damage value of the spell as normal
(the net hits used to increase the damage value may be declared after
the target's resistance test). As an optional rule, every net hit applied
also increases the drain DV of the spell by +1. For area effect spells the
highest net hits used applies to the Drain DV.
Emphasis mine to illustrate the difference between our books. Both of my copies of SR4A (I'm that much of a geek) call it an optional rule.
Note that unlike other spells, Indirect Combat
spells may affect other targets that the caster cannot see if they are
caught within the spell’s area of effect.
#2: When using the AoE versions of the spells, Stunball has no chance to hit a target you cant see, even if you know it's there, Clout will hit targets even if you can't see them.
Very true, hence why I specifically chose Clout vs Stunbolt for my example, I suppose I should have specified that I can see AoE indirect as preferable.
-
Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level
with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing
basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value
of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.
#1: Clout is not affected by this, which could easily push the drain of stunbolt over the drain of clout.
Man get an updated PDF, please.
That was turned to an optional rule after the shitstom we raised about it over at dumpshock(and other forums too, most likely)
And the OP:s question included a caveat of not using that optional rule.
To OP: There really isn't any reason to take a single target stun damge spell as indirect.
Where indirect spells shine is taking out technological targets (ie. drones, vehicles, enemies guns etc.), as they don't have to care about object resistance.
-
Thanks, Max. Pretty much answered my question.
-
I'm not sure, but I think indirect combat spells have a similar advantage against magic resistance. The Spell Resistance power grants "1 die per level of this power to all your Resistance Tests against spells," and the Magic Resistance PQ grants "additional [dice] for Spell Resistance Tests." Indirect combat spells don't have a Spell Resistance test.
You could reasonably argue that these abilities apply to the Reaction test instead, but the Object Resistance example suggests otherwise. And you could argue that the Spell Resistance adept power still helps with the Damage Resistance Test, but that's much less likely to make the spell miss entirely, which is good.
There are a few other little advantages like this that I forget off the top of my head. Basically, indirect combat spells are situational.
-
Ahh, well, mine doesn't have it as an optional rule, and if it were, i would still use it cause it makes perfect sense. Especially considering that - as you said - if you dont use that optional rule, then it makes spells like clout useless. So, why use an optional rule that specifically and knowingly breaks an entire category of spells?
And now that I know there is an updated pdf, i just might do that, but if i didn't know, there was no reason for me to assume that mine was out of date. ;)
-
Well, it's the Physical vs Mana debate between the two. Clout still proves useful when you're going up against someone behind a Mana Barrier (mana) since it will bypass that barrier. It's also useful when you're dealing with another Magician that may have a high Willpower, but low Body+Armor...
-
Well, it's the Physical vs Mana debate between the two. Clout still proves useful when you're going up against someone behind a Mana Barrier (mana) since it will bypass that barrier.
Not so much:
In the case of mana barriers, use the standard rules for casting through barriers, but if the spell's Force is insufficient to beat the mana barrier it "fizzles" at the point of contact with the barrier.
and
If a spell is cast at a target behind a mana barrier, the Force of the barrier is added to the target's normal resistance test.
I know that there isn't a "resistance test" as such for indirect combat spells, but that's addressed by the first quote. I included this to point out that a mana spell can interact with a physical spell, and vice versa, in the meat realm. Mana just doesn't affect objects and physical doesn't work on the astral. They can interact with each other all day long if the spell description says they do.
As final clarification on how mana spells work:
Mana spells only affect the mind or spirit of a target, or magical energies. Because they do not have to affect physical objects, mana spells generally cause less Drain. Mana spells cannot affect non-living objects. A mana Illusion spell can fool corp guards within line of sight but has no effect if they are watching via closed-circuit camera from a remote location. Mana spells work against cyber-modified living beings because the cyberware was paid for with Essence and so is considered to be integral to the being's organic system.
A "physical" spell is still a magical energy, which is affected by mana spells.
-
Huh... I guess I had it wrong. I had thought Mana Barriers affected Mana spells and Physical Barriers affected Physical spells. But Mana Barriers affect all spells and Physical Barriers affect no spells.
-
Yeah, it's kinda crazy like that. One of the mages in my group loves his physical barrier. Until he remembers that the gun adept and weapon specialist can't shoot through it very well.
-
Whoa... Now I really feel like an idiot. I thought it might have been something from previous edition that made me think that way, but I just checked my books (1st, 2nd & 3rd) and it's always been like that. Either I've misunderstood it from the beginning, or it's the rust from playing a spellslinger...
-
Can anyone provide me a link to the discussion that explains why that optional rule became optional? I'd like to see the math that explains why it's such a "bad rule".
-
The main problem is that you don't need any net hits to knock somebody out with an overcast Stunbolt, and the drain is mild enough that the overcasting isn't a problem either. Therefore, the rule doesn't encourage people to rein in their direct spells, it just encourages them to overcast Stunbolt.
-
It would be crippling to a mage - resisting a point of damage for every one you inflict is simply impractical. It also goes against how combat spells have been used in all of the previous editions, and this one - as the low-Drain, no-fuss main combat option for a mage.
Indirect combat spells got hit with the nerf bat in SR4A too, though. Previously, counterspelling was added to the damage soak test, rather than directly countering a mage's successes, so indirect spells were the better option when you were expecting heavy spell defense on your target.
-
It would be crippling to a mage - resisting a point of damage for every one you inflict is simply impractical. It also goes against how combat spells have been used in all of the previous editions, and this one - as the low-Drain, no-fuss main combat option for a mage.
Indirect combat spells got hit with the nerf bat in SR4A too, though. Previously, counterspelling was added to the damage soak test, rather than directly countering a mage's successes, so indirect spells were the better option when you were expecting heavy spell defense on your target.
So I wonder why people raised a ruckus over the changes to direct combat spells, but not indirects...
-
It would be crippling to a mage - resisting a point of damage for every one you inflict is simply impractical. It also goes against how combat spells have been used in all of the previous editions, and this one - as the low-Drain, no-fuss main combat option for a mage.
Indirect combat spells got hit with the nerf bat in SR4A too, though. Previously, counterspelling was added to the damage soak test, rather than directly countering a mage's successes, so indirect spells were the better option when you were expecting heavy spell defense on your target.
So I wonder why people raised a ruckus over the changes to direct combat spells, but not indirects...
My best guess? Because, though a "nerf", it is logical and consistent that the Counterspelling be added in the test where the actual Spellcasting occurs. Yes, keeping it with "resisting" also makes sense, from the perspective that counterspelling helps "resist" the effects of a spell. But, in my mind, it makes more sense, and is more consistent to say that Counterspelling is the act of countering spellcasting, in which case, it should directly oppose a spellcasting role.
However, I wasn't there for the pro-con arguments, so I don't know why a fuss wasn't raised (or, if raised, wasn't successful) regarding the application of counterspelling of indirect spells.
-
Or how about if some one is knocked out and no traces are found as to why (Direct) they may look for Magic and find your Signature .... While a direct spell would give probable cause, He feinted from a blood clout in his brain.
Once they know its magic and have a signature well you can bet some one is going to be on the look out for you eventually.
The benefit for using Indirect spells is the subtly and stealth involved with them. Granted throwing out Force 7 Fireballs is going to stand out like a sore thumb but that has the benefit of Elemental Damage.
-
I was going to say, subtlety, thy name is not indirect combat spells. Those are the flashy ones by definition. Except, perhaps clout.
"Why's this guy unconscious?"
"Well, Jim, judging by the bruise, troll. Also, he's dead, Jim."
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
-
I was going to say, subtlety, thy name is not indirect combat spells. Those are the flashy ones by definition. Except, perhaps clout.
"Why's this guy unconscious?"
"Well, Jim, judging by the bruise, troll. Also, he's dead, Jim."
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Actually that's a really good point. Clout would look like a troll punched someone (or something similar), so the cops on scene would probably never bother or think to call the magic detective squad in to have a look around. hmmm