Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Nilo Nolasco <nilo@*******.com>
Subject: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 13:13:19 -0600 (MDT)
I know this probably discussed previously on another thread BUT I
want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
resist than their "Power" counterparts.

Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4
successes - it stages OVER to L physical). Both are considered PHYSICAL
spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
(the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct
me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a
little miffed about it because his previous GM allowed it and I didn't.
Oh well, that's why I just LOVE being GM. Mind you I follow most of these
rules to the letter, except for a few tweaks here and there.

So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.

CARNAGE
Message no. 2
From: "Sascha Pabst" <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 22:06:40 +0200
At 21:13 Uhr 4.05.96, Nilo Nolasco wrote:
>want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
>for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
>that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
>etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage.
*sigh* example: SRII, p. 151:
"Mana Bolt
A powerful bolt of magic energy that causes Physical damage."
What more do you need?
The difference between Physical and Mana Spells is the target :
Mana Spells are resisted by Will, Physical ones by Body.

> Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
>spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
>with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4
>successes - it stages OVER to L physical).
Ouch: SRII, p. 111 4th paragr.: "[...] deadly damage is the highest damage
possible". So no "staging around at physical". If you had a medium stun
wound and receive another deadly, then you'd have 3 points (medium wound)
physical damage. A character who has no stun damage CANNOT get physical
damage from Stun Based attacks!

Both are considered PHYSICAL
>spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
>combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
>damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
>(the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct
>me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation).
Same error: SRII, p. 148: "[...] only spells that would affect the thing or
being physically will work." That's a difference to a spell being physical,
it just has to have physical effects.

> So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
>matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.
Do more then 4 years GMing make me an experienced GM? :-)

Sascha

--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |The one who does not|
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| learn from history |
| \___ __/ | | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | through it again. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 3
From: Valerie A Olson <volson@********.ca>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 16:07:49 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 4 May 1996, Nilo Nolasco wrote:

> want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
> for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
> that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
> etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
> combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
> obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
> resist than their "Power" counterparts.
>
> Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
> spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
> with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4
> successes - it stages OVER to L physical). Both are considered PHYSICAL
> spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
> combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
> damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
> (the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct
> me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a
> little miffed about it because his previous GM allowed it and I didn't.
> Oh well, that's why I just LOVE being GM. Mind you I follow most of these
> rules to the letter, except for a few tweaks here and there.
>
> So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
> matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.
>
> CARNAGE
>
>
According to the Grimmie,Pg 126 Mana blast, " a powerful blast of
magical energy that causes physical damage."

Ditto with mana cloud, it would appear that they do indeed do physical
dmge, at least in the "official" rules. Do what you like in your world.


Cheers,
The ROO-MAN.
Message no. 4
From: Mike Alex <mra0118@******.sdsmt.edu>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 14:08:33 -0600 (MDT)
>
> for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
> that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
> etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
> combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
> obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
> resist than their "Power" counterparts.
>
> combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
> damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
> (the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct
> me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a

"Only physical spells can affect inanimate objects... Physical
spells can affect living beings, but they affect the physical nature and
structure of the being. ...he or she resists physical spells with the
Body Attribute. Unless otherwise noted, physical spells do physical
damage." SRII pg 127 bottom of left column, top of right.

"(Mana Spells) They are the only spells that can affect purely
magical targets. Mana spells are reisted by the target's Willpower
Attribute. Unless otherwise noted, mana spells do physical damage."
SRII pg 127, upper right column

"A magician in astral space cannot cast a spell at another spell,
but he can cast one at any other astral being. Such a spell cannot be
interceptec, and only spells that would affect the thing or being
physically will work. A sleep spell cannot be used to damage a magical
item, but it would work against a magician in astral space. Mana spells
only affect the astral target. Physical spels ground out and may affect
others."
SRII pg 148, lower right column

"A mana spell thrown at a target with such a dual profile (foci
and astral perception/projection), physical and astral, will only affect
that target, even if it is an area affect spell. The spiritual component
is contained in the physical component, so the area-effect is dampened.
... A physical spell thrown by an astral caster at a dual-natured target
will ground out through the targets physical component. ... area-effects
of certain spells continue onward."
SRII pg 149-150 lower right to upper left.

All above material Copyright FASA, 1992. Please don't sue me. :)

Okay, my interp on the above paragraphs is as follows. Two mages
in physical space, one (mage A) casts Hellblast, other (mage B) casts
Manablast. Mage B and all his friends use their Body to resist the
Hellblast. Mage A and all his friends use their Willpower to resist the
Manablast. Next round mages A and B decide to move the conflict to Astral
Space. Once again (now in Astral Space) A casts Hellblast and B casts
Manablast. Mage A resists the Manablast with his willpower, his buddies
back in physical space are safe. Mage B *and* his friends in physical
space resist the Hellblast with their Body score *ouch*.

*Whew* Hope this helps.

Mike Alex, mra0118@******.sdsmt.edu
"Resistance is futile, (if < 1 ohm)."

Quote of the week...
"Good, bad, I'm the one with the gun."
-- Ash, Army of Darkness
Message no. 5
From: Valerie A Olson <volson@********.ca>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 16:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 4 May 1996, Nilo Nolasco wrote:

> want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
> for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
> that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
> etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
> combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
> obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
> resist than their "Power" counterparts.
>
> Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
> spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
> with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4
> successes - it stages OVER to L physical). Both are considered PHYSICAL
> spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
> combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
> damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
> (the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct
> me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a
> little miffed about it because his previous GM allowed it and I didn't.
> Oh well, that's why I just LOVE being GM. Mind you I follow most of these
> rules to the letter, except for a few tweaks here and there.
>
> So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
> matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.
>
> CARNAGE
>
>
Just looked further , and the only difference between "power" spells
and "mana" spells, are what they target. Mana targets the mind,hence
resistance is with willpower,( Bogus for all the big bad Trolls) Power,
targets the Physical,Hence the Body resist, (bogus for all you mages) and
therein lies the difference. Hope I've been of some assistance,

Cheers,
The ROO-MAN.
Message no. 6
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:31:47 +0100 (BST)
|
|want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
|for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
|that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
|etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
|combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
|obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
|resist than their "Power" counterparts.

Sorry, but your friend is right.
The spells Power Dart/Arrow/Bolt/Cloud etc do physical damage resisted by
the body of the target.

The spells Mana Dart/Arrow/Bolt/Cloud etc do physical damage resisted by the
willpower of the target.

The spells that do STUN damage are STUN arrow/bolt/cloud etc.
There is no STUN DART, because the drain would be non-existant.
(STUN arrow has an L1 drain in ShR I and something like F/2L in ShR II?)

| Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
|spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
|with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4

Nope. That's Stun Bolt. Mana Bolt does physical damage.
Think of a mage casting a spell with a force over his magic rating.
It does physical damage instead of stun, even though no energy manifests
physically.

|successes - it stages OVER to L physical). Both are considered PHYSICAL
|spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
|combat. The "Stun" spells (such as Stunbolt and many others) JUST do stun
|damage, hence even less drain compared to their "Mana" counterparts. Mana
|(the category) type spells HAVE no effect in astral space (PLEASE correct

Nope. It's physical spells that have no astral effect, because they ground
into the physical plane. Mana spells exist exclusively on the astral plane,
so, of course, will work there.

|me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a

Sorry, but you are wrong.

|little miffed about it because his previous GM allowed it and I didn't.
|Oh well, that's why I just LOVE being GM. Mind you I follow most of these
|rules to the letter, except for a few tweaks here and there.

I'd think he had a right to be miffed.....

| So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
|matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.

Well.... I restrict starting characters to things soley in the main
rulebook, but substitute the Mana spells for the Stun spells.
They have to find someone to teach them the combat Mana spells in game.

(A little harsh, but, I like it....)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |It has been widely reported in the newspapers, that |
|Andrew Halliwell | a so called "puppet" of the queen mother, would |
|Principal subjects in:-| appear on this weeks program. To the press, the |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts |public, and the many members of parlaiment who have |
|-----------------------|so kindly rung in to complain,we would like to admit|
| that this is an outragious and contemptable untruth perpatrated by us, to |
| bring the program into line with current government policy guidelines |
| Spitting Image have never made such a puppet, and were on holiday at the |
|time it wasn't made.... Thank you. (Spitting Image, when it was still funny)|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 7
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 21:36:31 +0100 (BST)
|*sigh* example: SRII, p. 151:
|"Mana Bolt
| A powerful bolt of magic energy that causes Physical damage."
|What more do you need?
|The difference between Physical and Mana Spells is the target :
|Mana Spells are resisted by Will, Physical ones by Body.

Yep.
|Ouch: SRII, p. 111 4th paragr.: "[...] deadly damage is the highest damage
|possible". So no "staging around at physical". If you had a medium stun
|wound and receive another deadly, then you'd have 3 points (medium wound)
|physical damage. A character who has no stun damage CANNOT get physical
|damage from Stun Based attacks!

There is a possibility that he's using ShR I rules, now that I think about
it. In those, it is possible to stage things beyond deadly stun into the
physical monitor.

Are you using ShR I? If so, then Yippeeeee! I've found someone else who
still uses them....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |It has been widely reported in the newspapers, that |
|Andrew Halliwell | a so called "puppet" of the queen mother, would |
|Principal subjects in:-| appear on this weeks program. To the press, the |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts |public, and the many members of parlaiment who have |
|-----------------------|so kindly rung in to complain,we would like to admit|
| that this is an outragious and contemptable untruth perpatrated by us, to |
| bring the program into line with current government policy guidelines |
| Spitting Image have never made such a puppet, and were on holiday at the |
|time it wasn't made.... Thank you. (Spitting Image, when it was still funny)|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:16:10 +0100
A Halliwell said on 21:31/ 4 May 96...

> The spells that do STUN damage are STUN arrow/bolt/cloud etc.
> There is no STUN DART, because the drain would be non-existant.
> (STUN arrow has an L1 drain in ShR I and something like F/2L in ShR II?)

[(F/2)-1]L... Cast it at Force 6 and still take 2L drain :) It would be a
very powerful spell, if you've got a decent magic pool...

(For all the munchkins wanting to try this out, learn it with an
expendable fetish and exclusivity at force 6. That gives you an effective
force 10, both for the number of dice you roll and for the TN to resist
it, while you still only take 2L drain. Now add a Stun Dart specific spell
focus rating 6, and you could end up with a starting character who rolls
22 dice for casting this spell.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's superficial progress, they call it liberation.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:16:10 +0100
Nilo Nolasco said on 13:13/ 4 May 96...

> want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
> for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
> that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
> etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
> combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
> obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
> resist than their "Power" counterparts.

How will I break this to you...? How about "You were wrong all those
years"? :) Mana combat spells do physical damage allright, except if you
specifically design them to do Stun damage (-1 Drain Target). Mana spells
are not much easier to resist than others, because they are resisted with
Willpower, while the others are resisted with Body. It's just a matter of
taking the right spell for the right job -- you don't want to try and take
out a troll with a Powerbolt, for example.

It's all very clear if you look at page 151 of SRII, really -- Mana Bolt:
"A powerful bolt of magical energy that causes Physical damage."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's superficial progress, they call it liberation.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: Matti Aistrich <aistrich@********.hkkk.fi>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:13:03 +0300 (EET DST)
On Sat, 4 May 1996, Nilo Nolasco wrote:

> me if I'm wrong, I might be but that's my interpretation). So he's a
> little miffed about it because his previous GM allowed it and I didn't.
> Oh well, that's why I just LOVE being GM. Mind you I follow most of these
> rules to the letter, except for a few tweaks here and there.
>
He's a little miffed because he's right and you're wrong... :-)
Especially if he's using a character from the previous GM's game, which
would mean that it is made according to the real rules instead of your
implementation.

---------------------------------------------
: Perfect is : Matti M. Aistrich :
: only just : :
: good enough! : aistrich@********.hkkk.fi :
---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB d+(++) s-:+ a- C+ W+ w PS+ PE++ Y+ t---
X- R++ tv+ b+ D++ G e++>+++ h-- y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 18:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
> | So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
> |matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.

> Well.... I restrict starting characters to things soley in the main
> rulebook, but substitute the Mana spells for the Stun spells.
> They have to find someone to teach them the combat Mana spells in game.
>
> (A little harsh, but, I like it....)

((The way our last camaign started was this: we stared in 2050. We could
only have stuff that existed in 2050. We couldn't buy Bioware, as it
didn't come out 'till later. No fields of fire eq., cybertech, etc...
the same went for the Grimmy. However, my GM did allow some stuff out of
the other sourcebooks, with a heck of a justification. If we gave him a
reason why we needed/wanted something, AND it fit in with the character
conception, he might allow this to happen. The only case of that we ran
into was one of the chars was a 14 yr old, uhh... information
specialist... he had an prototype encephalon... his dad was a mid-level
corp-type exec-kind of person, and wanted the best for his son, so he
filtched it... (the char still paid for ti out of his resources...),
there was more, but this is too long as it is... point is, don't make
broad general diallowances w/o talking to your players...


---Tom---
Message no. 12
From: Ray Macey <r.macey@*******.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:42:09 +1000 (EST)
On Sat, 4 May 1996, Nilo Nolasco wrote:

> want to know if I interpreted the rules right. I have been GMing SR
> for quite a few years and one of my player's tried to convince me
> that "Mana" combat spells (such as Manabolt, Manadart, Manablast,
> etc) caused PHYSICAL(!) damage. I told him no because there are OTHER
> combat spells which do that (ie. Powerbolt, Powerdart, etc) and it would
> obviously unbalance the game for "Mana" combat spells are FAR easier to
> resist than their "Power" counterparts.

Your player is right. The Mana spells do do physical damage. I can't see
any unbalance in this as it is often the only way a mage can kill a
street-sam troll, as he is going to have a body in the double-digits. How
do you zap something like that with a power-spell?

> Okay, the way I interpreted these combat spells is that "Power"
> spells WILL do physical damage while "Mana" spells CAN do physical damage
> with enough succeses (ie. Manabolt starts at S stun damage and with say, 4
> successes - it stages OVER to L physical).

Power spells will do physical damage and so will the mana spells (that
is, according to the way the rules are written). The mana spell works the
same way except that it targets willpower instead of body.

> Both are considered PHYSICAL
> spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
> combat.

The mana spells that do physical damage are actually MANA spells. The
fit into the mana category, not the physical.

> So what do other EXPERIENCED GMs have done concerning this
> matter? Suggestions, hints, corrections are welcome.
>
> CARNAGE


Ray.
Message no. 13
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 18:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
> > Both are considered PHYSICAL
> > spells (the category) which in my campiagn is only relevant in astral
> > combat.
>
> The mana spells that do physical damage are actually MANA spells. The
> fit into the mana category, not the physical.

OK... I think I may be able to help this whole power/mana-bolt thing... I
ran into the same confusion when I first started to deal with magic...

Mana-X only affect living targets, Power-X can affect anything... i.e.,
you can destroy a door or blow a drone up with powerbolt. Power-X
actually hurts the physical, while Mana-X is 'only in the head', causing
hemorraging (sp?) in the brain, etc...

hope that helped...


---Tom---
Message no. 14
From: Peter David Boddy <pdboddy@****.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Wed, 8 May 96 5:37:19 EDT
Ray Macey writes:
>
>
>
>
> Power spells will do physical damage and so will the mana spells (that
> is, according to the way the rules are written). The mana spell works the
> same way except that it targets willpower instead of body.
>
> The mana spells that do physical damage are actually MANA spells. The
> fit into the mana category, not the physical.
>
> Ray.
>

And remember, manabolts (and its other combat cousins, blast, ball, etc.),
only affect living things (at least thats how I read the rules). And they
might work against a barrier spell. But if you have to blow out a wall,
or a door, you will have to use powerbolt (or other power spells), or a
grenade:)

Pete

Pete aka Spitfire
Test your might...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter David Boddy
Carleton University
Email address: pdboddy@****.carleton.ca
Email address: bx955@*******.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 15
From: "Mark Steedman" <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:09:31 GMT
Peter David Boddy writes
>
> And remember, manabolts (and its other combat cousins, blast, ball, etc.),
> only affect living things (at least thats how I read the rules). And they
> might work against a barrier spell. But if you have to blow out a wall,
> or a door, you will have to use powerbolt (or other power spells), or a
> grenade:)
>
A force 6 power bolt is typically the best way to get rid of enemy
choppers, vans etc, target 8 to hit but it gets no armour. The
problems start when someone shields the thing, at that point call out
the sam with the AVM! just use magic as long as possible as though
you cannot beat missile they get a touch expensive never mind try
getting one past a metal detector so sec guard 'yes sir thats only a
missile launcher over my shoulder, um i didn't know this was a cop
convention.... um , agh bang, brap, chatter, chatter, chrash' oh dear.

Mark
Message no. 16
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Combat Spells
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:10:43 -0700
Brett Borger wrote:
|
| Okay, I'm enjoying having a group of knowledgable people to bounce questions
| off of.
|
| I saw someone post a few days back something to the effect of:
|
| "If they roll more successes in the Spell Resistance test than you made, a
| combat spell won't go off, but a manipulation spell will"
|
| I remember this from SRI, but I thought it changed in SRII, that the target
| had to reduce the damage to zero to have no effects....
|
| Verdict?

Correct. Everytime I have an NPC cast a combat spell at the mage PC in my
game I gotta look that one up. A combat spell has to overcome the target's
resistance to be succesfully cast. Whereas a manipulation spell is
succesfully cast, and then sent on its merry way.

| BTW, this is really nice...I've spent 7 years with all these questions...now
| I have someplace to ask them! Be sure to check out the Twice fifty and one
| (actually, only 30)

Yep, this list is great. I'll check out your web page, I promise :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 17
From: Lance Dillon <riffraff@********.RR.COM>
Subject: combat spells
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:23:54 -0400
one thing i just realized a month or so ago (as i havent played in a
year or more, and just getting back into it, rereading the rules, and
saw this)...

we used to 'buy' all our spells with high forces, so we could be assured
of affecting the opponent (im talking the combat spells here)....then,
in rereading the rules the other day, realized that the combat pool
cannot be used against combat spells...

that makes the combat spells a lot more powerful...i can lower all my
spells to like 2 or 3, and get more of them......

just thought that was interesting....ive been playing wrong the whole
time...


--
Lance Dillon
Network Administrator
Nielsen Media Research
--
The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.
Message no. 18
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: combat spells
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:28:33 +0100
And verily, did Lance Dillon hastily scribble thusly...
|
|one thing i just realized a month or so ago (as i havent played in a
|year or more, and just getting back into it, rereading the rules, and
|saw this)...
|
|we used to 'buy' all our spells with high forces, so we could be assured
|of affecting the opponent (im talking the combat spells here)....then,
|in rereading the rules the other day, realized that the combat pool
|cannot be used against combat spells...

Of course not. They attack from the inside out, meaning that only Magic pool
can protect you. No armour, no dodging because it's attacking your aura
directly.

|that makes the combat spells a lot more powerful...i can lower all my
|spells to like 2 or 3, and get more of them......

Nope. Remember, you still need successes, and any magic pool put into the
defence of the victim can work towards totally negating the effect.
Physical damaging manipulations and Combat spells both have their place.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Remember, casting a powerbolt at a troll is all but useless because the
target number you need is equal to the trolls body.

With a Damaging Manipulation the target number is always 4.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 19
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: combat spells
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 21:29:46 -0700
> From: Lance Dillon <riffraff@********.RR.COM>

> one thing i just realized a month or so ago (as i havent played in a
> year or more, and just getting back into it, rereading the rules, and
> saw this)...
>
> we used to 'buy' all our spells with high forces, so we could be assured
> of affecting the opponent (im talking the combat spells here)....then,
> in rereading the rules the other day, realized that the combat pool
> cannot be used against combat spells...

Very true...only magic pool can help in resisting.

> that makes the combat spells a lot more powerful...i can lower all my
> spells to like 2 or 3, and get more of them......

I think you might not find that true once you start doing it. In SR2 the
target only needs to get more successs than the caster, at a target number
equal to the force of the spell. Try throwing a force 3 powerbolt at a
troll and see what happens. :)

Now I realize that we all learned not to through physical spells at trolls
long ago, but you get the point.

> just thought that was interesting....ive been playing wrong the whole
> time...

Happens to the best of us. ;)

Caric

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combat Spells, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!