Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Curran)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 09:10:01 2002
Well, it might get me beaten up by my group (again),
but I guess I have another innane newbie question.

Here is the situation. Two groups of runners are
facing off across a warehouse. Both sides are using
box to gain varying degrees of cover (+2, +4, or +6).
Now a mage in one group notices that his opponents
have grouped together close enough to catch them all
with an area of effect spell (Manaball) and tries to
compute his TN. The rules state that the TN for
Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of those
within the AoE that the mage has LOS on. However, it
is possible for the mage to have different TNs do to
cover modifiers. Therefore, if all his opponents have
a Willpower of 4, and 4 points of cover, his TN will
be 8, however if one of the targets steps ofut of
cover does the mage's TN fall to 4? But if you argue
that the TN is chosen by taking the highest TN for any
target (ie 8 in this case), wouldn't that mean that if
within the spell's AoE an alley cat (Willpower 1) was
eating in trashcan with only it's tail sticking out (6
points of cover), that the TN to hit 3 trolls with
Willpower 2 each and no cover (standing next to the
cat in the trashcan) would be 7?

I know that the book are slightly inconsistent in
answering this issue, how would these situations be
ruled?

Mike Curran

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Will)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 10:30:01 2002
I´ve asked that question to myself lots of times, i end up deciding to do
the following.

Mr Mage rolls the dice, opening the sixes as far as he can.
For example (using 10 dice) he could roll

1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,7,9

So, we stare for some moment at those rolls and decide.

TN 2 -> 9 successes
TN 3 -> The Trolls are busted, 7 successes
TN 4 -> Mr Mage had 5 sucesses against this folk
TN 5 -> 3 successes
TN 6,7 ->3 successes
TN 8,9 -> 1 success
TN > 9 -> zero successes.

That how i´ve been doing, and my players kinda like it.


Will
PS: My motto in mail lists is SMEA - (Sorry,My English is Awful)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Curran" <burzmali@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:14 AM
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells


> Well, it might get me beaten up by my group (again),
> but I guess I have another innane newbie question.
>
> Here is the situation. Two groups of runners are
> facing off across a warehouse. Both sides are using
> box to gain varying degrees of cover (+2, +4, or +6).
> Now a mage in one group notices that his opponents
> have grouped together close enough to catch them all
> with an area of effect spell (Manaball) and tries to
> compute his TN. The rules state that the TN for
> Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of those
> within the AoE that the mage has LOS on. However, it
> is possible for the mage to have different TNs do to
> cover modifiers. Therefore, if all his opponents have
> a Willpower of 4, and 4 points of cover, his TN will
> be 8, however if one of the targets steps ofut of
> cover does the mage's TN fall to 4? But if you argue
> that the TN is chosen by taking the highest TN for any
> target (ie 8 in this case), wouldn't that mean that if
> within the spell's AoE an alley cat (Willpower 1) was
> eating in trashcan with only it's tail sticking out (6
> points of cover), that the TN to hit 3 trolls with
> Willpower 2 each and no cover (standing next to the
> cat in the trashcan) would be 7?
>
> I know that the book are slightly inconsistent in
> answering this issue, how would these situations be
> ruled?
>
> Mike Curran
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Blackberg)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 11:10:00 2002
> Here is the situation. Two groups of runners are
> facing off across a warehouse. Both sides are using
> box to gain varying degrees of cover (+2, +4, or +6).
> Now a mage in one group notices that his opponents
> have grouped together close enough to catch them all
> with an area of effect spell (Manaball) and tries to
> compute his TN. The rules state that the TN for
> Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of those
> within the AoE that the mage has LOS on. However, it
> is possible for the mage to have different TNs do to
> cover modifiers. Therefore, if all his opponents have
> a Willpower of 4, and 4 points of cover, his TN will
> be 8, however if one of the targets steps ofut of
> cover does the mage's TN fall to 4? But if you argue
> that the TN is chosen by taking the highest TN for any
> target (ie 8 in this case), wouldn't that mean that if
> within the spell's AoE an alley cat (Willpower 1) was
> eating in trashcan with only it's tail sticking out (6
> points of cover), that the TN to hit 3 trolls with
> Willpower 2 each and no cover (standing next to the
> cat in the trashcan) would be 7?

Actually, your reading of the rules is incorrect. You do not use a TN
equal to the highest willpower of your opponents. You roll your
spellcasting test, and compare the results of that roll individually
versus each possible target (and each possible target could have a
different target number based on willpower or cover or both). See page
182, second paragraph, of SR3 for details.

Robert

(no cool tagline, just a plain line__________________)
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Curran)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 11:20:01 2002
--- Robert Blackberg <cougar@***.rr.com> wrote:
> > Here is the situation. Two groups of runners are
> > facing off across a warehouse. Both sides are
> using
> > box to gain varying degrees of cover (+2, +4, or
> +6).
> > Now a mage in one group notices that his opponents
> > have grouped together close enough to catch them
> all
> > with an area of effect spell (Manaball) and tries
> to
> > compute his TN. The rules state that the TN for
> > Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of
> those
> > within the AoE that the mage has LOS on. However,
> it
> > is possible for the mage to have different TNs do
> to
> > cover modifiers. Therefore, if all his opponents
> have
> > a Willpower of 4, and 4 points of cover, his TN
> will
> > be 8, however if one of the targets steps ofut of
> > cover does the mage's TN fall to 4? But if you
> argue
> > that the TN is chosen by taking the highest TN for
> any
> > target (ie 8 in this case), wouldn't that mean
> that if
> > within the spell's AoE an alley cat (Willpower 1)
> was
> > eating in trashcan with only it's tail sticking
> out (6
> > points of cover), that the TN to hit 3 trolls with
> > Willpower 2 each and no cover (standing next to
> the
> > cat in the trashcan) would be 7?
>
> Actually, your reading of the rules is incorrect.
> You do not use a TN
> equal to the highest willpower of your opponents.
> You roll your
> spellcasting test, and compare the results of that
> roll individually
> versus each possible target (and each possible
> target could have a
> different target number based on willpower or cover
> or both). See page
> 182, second paragraph, of SR3 for details.
>
> Robert
>
> (no cool tagline, just a plain
> line__________________)
>
>
Ergo, that is the only rule of that nature in all of
Shadowrun? Sounds just a little odd.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 12:10:01 2002
> > Here is the situation. Two groups of runners are
> > facing off across a warehouse. Both sides are using
> > box to gain varying degrees of cover (+2, +4, or +6).
> > Now a mage in one group notices that his opponents
> > have grouped together close enough to catch them all
> > with an area of effect spell (Manaball) and tries to
> > compute his TN. The rules state that the TN for
> > Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of those
> > within the AoE that the mage has LOS on. However, it
> > is possible for the mage to have different TNs do to
> > cover modifiers. Therefore, if all his opponents have
> > a Willpower of 4, and 4 points of cover, his TN will
> > be 8, however if one of the targets steps ofut of
> > cover does the mage's TN fall to 4? But if you argue
> > that the TN is chosen by taking the highest TN for any
> > target (ie 8 in this case), wouldn't that mean that if
> > within the spell's AoE an alley cat (Willpower 1) was
> > eating in trashcan with only it's tail sticking out (6
> > points of cover), that the TN to hit 3 trolls with
> > Willpower 2 each and no cover (standing next to the
> > cat in the trashcan) would be 7?
>
> Actually, your reading of the rules is incorrect. You do not use a TN
> equal to the highest willpower of your opponents. You roll your
> spellcasting test, and compare the results of that roll individually
> versus each possible target (and each possible target could have a
> different target number based on willpower or cover or both). See page
> 182, second paragraph, of SR3 for details.
>
> Robert
>
> (no cool tagline, just a plain line__________________)

mmmmm. we come across stuff like this all the time, and after reading
the rules (can't quote, don't have them with me at the moment) Robert's
explenation is what we use. Mage/Shaman rolls spellcasting, and everyone
rolls to resist based on those successes. Takes some time since the mage
just can't shoult "I got ### successes, but is much more realistic,
since one target having a high willpower shouldn't save his/her friend 2
meters away.

As a GM I've never given cover bonuses/penalties. I guess I always
assumed if the mage can see even a bit of the target, that target's
"astral connection" for Manaball/Stunball/any-spell-affecting-mana is
fair game. Since even the slightest graze nails the target's astral
aura, why does cover apply? If anyone can show me the error of my ways,
please do so. I want to be able to have my baddies last past 6 seconds
into the encounter ;-)
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 13:45:09 2002
According to Michael Curran, on Tue, 08 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> The rules state that the TN for
> Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of those
> within the AoE that the mage has LOS on.

No, they don't; they say that a separate TN is calculated for each valid
target, but the dice are only rolled once and compared against each of those
TNs individually. This solves your cover problem, I would say.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 14:00:01 2002
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, LeBlanc, Lange wrote:

> As a GM I've never given cover bonuses/penalties. I guess I always
> assumed if the mage can see even a bit of the target, that target's
> "astral connection" for Manaball/Stunball/any-spell-affecting-mana is
> fair game. Since even the slightest graze nails the target's astral
> aura, why does cover apply? If anyone can show me the error of my ways,
> please do so. I want to be able to have my baddies last past 6 seconds
> into the encounter ;-)

The error of your ways is on p. 181 of SR3:

"Concealed target gain cover modifiers, which increase the
difficulty of spellcasting."

Your comment about the "slightest graze" does not jive with how
Magic works in SR. In order to get a spell to damage a target, the
magician needs to "synchronize" to the target's aura. You are assuming
that the aura is the same at any point on the target's body, which may not
be the case. The more of the target's aura that the caster can perceive,
the more successful he or she will be at matching it with damaging
energies. Think of it like sending a mail bomb: if you know the street
address but not the city, the likelyhood of damaging your target is slim.
If you know the street address and the city, but don't know the zip code,
you *may* hit your target. If you know all three (i.e. the mage's target
is in clear sight), KABOOM!
Dropping cover modifiers from mages makes them even more powerful
than they were to start with. They already virtually ignore range and
target movement, so not using cover is giving them *way* too easy a time
of it, something that the game designers realized (hence, cover counts
even against magic).

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 14:05:01 2002
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Michael Curran wrote:

> Ergo, that is the only rule of that nature in all of
> Shadowrun? Sounds just a little odd.

No, actually, it's not. Grenades work much the same way for
targets the same distance from the blast. Perception against multiple
hiding targets and our house rule on autofire are pretty much exactly the
same type of mechanic: roll once and compare the roll to the target
numbers for each recipient.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 14:05:04 2002
> The error of your ways is on p. 181 of SR3:
>
> "Concealed target gain cover modifiers, which increase the
> difficulty of spellcasting."
>
> Your comment about the "slightest graze" does not jive with how
> Magic works in SR. In order to get a spell to damage a target, the
> magician needs to "synchronize" to the target's aura. You
> are assuming
> that the aura is the same at any point on the target's body,
> which may not
> be the case. The more of the target's aura that the caster
> can perceive,
> the more successful he or she will be at matching it with damaging
> energies. Think of it like sending a mail bomb: if you know
> the street
> address but not the city, the likelyhood of damaging your
> target is slim.
> If you know the street address and the city, but don't know
> the zip code,
> you *may* hit your target. If you know all three (i.e. the
> mage's target
> is in clear sight), KABOOM!
> Dropping cover modifiers from mages makes them even
> more powerful
> than they were to start with. They already virtually ignore range and
> target movement, so not using cover is giving them *way* too
> easy a time
> of it, something that the game designers realized (hence, cover counts
> even against magic).
>
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)


sweet. Now I have a rule to quote when players get all wierd, not being
able to turn everyone to mush like before ;-) And the one mage of the
group was having WAY too easy a time when supporting the others with
spells. Thanks for the reference and clarifications...
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gak The Great)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 14:15:01 2002
Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, LeBlanc, Lange whispered:
<snip>
>
> As a GM I've never given cover bonuses/penalties. I guess I always
> assumed if the mage can see even a bit of the target, that target's
> "astral connection" for Manaball/Stunball/any-spell-affecting-mana is
> fair game. Since even the slightest graze nails the target's astral
> aura, why does cover apply? If anyone can show me the error of my ways,
> please do so. I want to be able to have my baddies last past 6 seconds
> into the encounter ;-)

Because the spellcaster can't see all the aura, and doesn't have as much
lever space for his spells or can't find (all) the weaknesses in the aura
where he can put his spells, cover modifiers are also applicable for
him/her/it. The rule is a fact, my explanation mere guessing.

-- GAK THE GREAT

"Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden,
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn."
Sauron aus "Herr der Ringe von J.R.R. Tolkien
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Curran)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:05:01 2002
--- Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Michael Curran, on Tue, 08 Jan 2002 the
> word on the street was...
>
> > The rules state that the TN for
> > Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of
> those
> > within the AoE that the mage has LOS on.
>
> No, they don't; they say that a separate TN is
> calculated for each valid
> target, but the dice are only rolled once and
> compared against each of those
> TNs individually. This solves your cover problem, I
> would say.
>

Well not entirely, as an adjunct to that question, you
would face the problem of a manaball "detonating"
behind someone. I can easily understand how a
manabolt would suffer cover modifiers, but why would a
manaball suffer a penalty if it completely envelopes
the targets? The only way that would work is if the
manaball was essentially a sphere of magically swiss
cheese, where everywhere the mage can't see being
empty, and the borders being shadows.

Mike Curran

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Benjamin John Hayes)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:15:01 2002
> As a GM I've never given cover bonuses/penalties. I guess I always
> assumed if the mage can see even a bit of the target, that target's
> "astral connection" for Manaball/Stunball/any-spell-affecting-mana
is
> fair game. Since even the slightest graze nails the target's astral
> aura, why does cover apply? If anyone can show me the error of my
ways,
> please do so. I want to be able to have my baddies last past 6
seconds
> into the encounter ;-)
>

Apart from the fact that it makes mage players way too powerful (and I
am one), IIRC I've read somewhere something about synchronisation of
auras and spellcasting. My theory is, that since you can't see the
whole of the target's aura, you can't sychronise with it as easily,
thus raising the difficulty.
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Benjamin John Hayes)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:30:01 2002
> Well not entirely, as an adjunct to that question, you
> would face the problem of a manaball "detonating"
> behind someone. I can easily understand how a
> manabolt would suffer cover modifiers, but why would a
> manaball suffer a penalty if it completely envelopes
> the targets? The only way that would work is if the
> manaball was essentially a sphere of magically swiss
> cheese, where everywhere the mage can't see being
> empty, and the borders being shadows.

That's bevause you're thinking of a manaball as an explosion type
effect where everything in the area is hit by the blast, which it
isn't. Too me, probably the best thing that approximates it is the fog
in Shadar Logoth in the WoT series. Think of it as tendrils of astral
energy that the magician directs after a fashion. Thus anything he can
see fully, and therefore synchronise auras with fully, will be easier
to guide the "tendrils" too.
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Aristotle)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:40:12 2002
--- Gurth <Gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Michael Curran, on Tue, 08 Jan 2002 the
> word on the street was...
>
> > The rules state that the TN for
> > Manaball is equal to the highest willpower of
> those
> > within the AoE that the mage has LOS on.
>
> No, they don't; they say that a separate TN is
> calculated for each valid
> target, but the dice are only rolled once and
> compared against each of those
> TNs individually. This solves your cover problem, I
> would say.
>

-------------Mike Curran------------------------------
Well not entirely, as an adjunct to that question, you
would face the problem of a manaball "detonating"
behind someone. I can easily understand how a
manabolt would suffer cover modifiers, but why would a
manaball suffer a penalty if it completely envelopes
the targets? The only way that would work is if the
manaball was essentially a sphere of magically swiss
cheese, where everywhere the mage can't see being
empty, and the borders being shadows.
------------------------------------------------------


I'll take a stab at this one. You could look at this one of two ways.

1.) You have to center an area affect manaball, so I have always assumed
that the spell affect radiates from that point. If that is the case then
cover would still be valid for the normal reasons.

2.) A caster must SEE a target to affect them with a combat spell. Even if
someone is totally within the area of affect, they suffer no damage if the
casting mage can not see them. So in this case cover counts as an
obstruction of view, which makes it valid.

Peace,
-- Aristotle.
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Will)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:45:01 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin John Hayes" <bjh10@***.edu.au>


> > Well not entirely, as an adjunct to that question, you
> > would face the problem of a manaball "detonating"
> > behind someone.
(snip)
>
> That's because you're thinking of a manaball as an explosion type
> effect where everything in the area is hit by the blast, which it
> isn't. Too me, probably the best thing that approximates it is the fog
> in Shadar Logoth in the WoT series. Think of it as tendrils of astral
> energy that the magician directs after a fashion. Thus anything he can
> see fully, and therefore synchronise auras with fully, will be easier
> to guide the "tendrils" too.

An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in the
middle
of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets. Am I
right ?

(SMEA)
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 15:50:01 2002
> An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in the
> middle
> of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets. Am I
> right ?
>

Area effects do pose friendly fire risks. You throw it into a melee battle
between your gang and another gang and you're smucking everyone the spell
can possibly smuck...it doesn't play favourites. You can't throw it at
friend and foe alike and have it only hit foes.
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 16:15:01 2002
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:45:43 -0300
"Will" <will@***.com.br> wrote:

> An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in the
> middle
> of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets. Am I
> right ?

I'd say no, unless you warn your friends somehow and they take
cover behind the scenery :). Then you would only damage the targets you
can see.

--
Bira <ra002585@**.unicamp.br>
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Benjamin John Hayes)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 16:30:01 2002
> > That's because you're thinking of a manaball as an explosion type
> > effect where everything in the area is hit by the blast, which it
> > isn't. Too me, probably the best thing that approximates it is the
fog
> > in Shadar Logoth in the WoT series. Think of it as tendrils of
astral
> > energy that the magician directs after a fashion. Thus anything he
can
> > see fully, and therefore synchronise auras with fully, will be
easier
> > to guide the "tendrils" too.
>
> An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in
the
> middle
> of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets.
Am I
> right ?
>
> (SMEA)

Not as far as I know. Indeed, in our group, the spell will hit the
casting mage if he is in it's area of effect (touch being better than
LOS). Makes you be careful chucking those areaeffect spells around
willy nilly (though, in my group, I have the lowest willpower, so if I
think I'd survive it, I can cast away freely).
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Will)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 16:30:06 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bira" <ra002585@**.unicamp.br>


> > An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in the
> > middle
> > of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets. Am I
> > right ?
>
> I'd say no, unless you warn your friends somehow and they take
> cover behind the scenery :). Then you would only damage the targets you
> can see.
>

So aura assensing and targeting now is an involuntary/subconscious action ?
I thought that would be only with non-Mana spells, where IMHO you target the
place, not the auras.

Will
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Tue Jan 8 20:40:01 2002
From: "Aristotle" <aristotle@**************.net>
<Snip>
> 2.) A caster must SEE a target to affect them with a combat spell. Even if
> someone is totally within the area of affect, they suffer no damage if the
> casting mage can not see them. So in this case cover counts as an
> obstruction of view, which makes it valid.

This is as corrects as can be, except that you should also remember the
following guidelines from The Grimoire (1st Edition) page 50:

"Spellcasting is a matter of intention and mental control. For example some
brash young sorcerors have attempted to ami an Area Spell through a pinhole to
limit the effect to a single target. And then they wondered why the spell
missfired under such circumstances. Might as well ask a painter wearing tinted
lenses why the color values in a pinting are false. How can a magician capture
the universe-embracing exaltation of spirit that is the key to magic when he is
playing such mind-games with himself?"

I can't remember if it has ever been printed anywhere else, but otherwise is a
damn good reson to get hold of the old books :-)

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen
--
SRGC v0.22 SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ B--- UB++ IE+ RN LST W++ dk sa++ ma+
sh++ ad++++ ri mc rk-- m- (e-- o t-- d-) gm+ M- P-
--
Main Rule of Usenet: Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to
their level, then beat you with experience.
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 05:40:01 2002
According to Michael Curran, on Tue, 08 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Well not entirely, as an adjunct to that question, you
> would face the problem of a manaball "detonating"
> behind someone. I can easily understand how a
> manabolt would suffer cover modifiers, but why would a
> manaball suffer a penalty if it completely envelopes
> the targets? The only way that would work is if the
> manaball was essentially a sphere of magically swiss
> cheese, where everywhere the mage can't see being
> empty, and the borders being shadows.

And that is exactly the way a Manaball works -- or any area-effect combat
spell, for that matter. If you want to use a spell to hit something you can't
see, you will need to use a manipulation spell, because combat spells will
only hurt targets that are in your line of sight. (Which, just to be clear,
is defined as, "Would you be able to see them if you had 360-degree vision?")

A good example is this: a mage is in a room, and there's an opponent in the
open door; a second opponent is standing right beside him, but behind the
wall. Casting a Manaball in this situation, centered on the visible target,
will leave the other one completely unharmed. Casting a Fireball, OTOH, will
catch them both.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 05:40:04 2002
According to Will, on Tue, 08 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> An that means, IIRC, Mr Mage can throw a 6 meter radius ManaBall in the
> middle
> of some big combat mess and avoid inocent and/or friendly targets. Am I
> right ?

You are wrong :) A street sam with a smartlinked firearm could do that --
watch Top Secret for a good idea of what this would look like, in the scene
where Chocolate Mousse starts shooting at the German soldiers -- but a
spell affects _all_ targets in its area of effect. Including the caster.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 05:40:09 2002
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on Wed, 09 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> "Spellcasting is a matter of intention and mental control. For example
> some brash young sorcerors have attempted to ami an Area Spell through a
> pinhole to limit the effect to a single target. And then they wondered
> why the spell missfired under such circumstances. Might as well ask a
> painter wearing tinted lenses why the color values in a pinting are
> false. How can a magician capture the universe-embracing exaltation of
> spirit that is the key to magic when he is playing such mind-games with
> himself?"

Here's an idea: as a shadowrunner magician, always carry a toilet roll center
with you. You should be able to use it to block out unwanted targets but get an
unobscured view of a single target you need to cast an area-effect spell at :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 06:55:04 2002
Will writes:

> So aura assensing and targeting now is an involuntary/subconscious action ?
> I thought that would be only with non-Mana spells, where IMHO you target
> the place, not the auras.

In so far as an area of effect combat spell will affect all valid targets in
its area of effect that the caster has LOS too, yes.

OTOH, would it be possible to design an area of effect combat spell with the
restricted target modifier of "enemies". Hey, if you take the spell design
rules literally, this would work. You'd get the -1 Drain TN modifier, _and_
you wouldn't manaball your friends! What a deal!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 07:25:01 2002
> OTOH, would it be possible to design an area of effect combat spell with
the
> restricted target modifier of "enemies". Hey, if you take the spell design
> rules literally, this would work. You'd get the -1 Drain TN modifier,
_and_
> you wouldn't manaball your friends! What a deal!
>

I don't think most GMs would allow a player to modify manabolt/ball spells
to target enemies only. You have slay and slaughter for that :)
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 08:10:01 2002
<SNIP>
> I'll take a stab at this one. You could look at this one of two ways.
>
> 1.) You have to center an area affect manaball, so I have
> always assumed
> that the spell affect radiates from that point. If that is
> the case then
> cover would still be valid for the normal reasons.
>
> 2.) A caster must SEE a target to affect them with a combat
> spell. Even if
> someone is totally within the area of affect, they suffer no
> damage if the
> casting mage can not see them. So in this case cover counts as an
> obstruction of view, which makes it valid.
>
> Peace,
> -- Aristotle.

Seems this thread is going farther than I originally thought it would
;-) but it does give me lots of varying points of view. I do want to
mention though that although up 'till now I hadn't been using cover
modifiers (an oversight on my part) a number of situations came up where
a Manaball/Stunball was thrown at a group, and one or more targets were
out of sight. And like Aristotle here says, the rules are clear in that
a target must be seen to be affected. My players have never argued that
point, which is why they try to get the mage the best possible position
when they can.

Now for Powerball. Wonderful spell our mage likes to use to cause lots
of mayhem. Blast away at vehicles and such. But since we've always used
the interpretation that you can't affect a target you can't see, unseen
targets can only suffer collateral damage (usually determined
arbitrarily by myself) from whatever item(s) Powerball damages/destroys.
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 08:20:01 2002
LeBlanc, Lange writes:

> Now for Powerball. Wonderful spell our mage likes to use to cause lots
> of mayhem. Blast away at vehicles and such. But since we've always used
> the interpretation that you can't affect a target you can't see, unseen
> targets can only suffer collateral damage (usually determined
> arbitrarily by myself) from whatever item(s) Powerball damages/destroys.

Something about Powerball spells that often gets forgotten (me included) is
that they affect _everything_ that's visible to the caster in their area of
effect. People, dogs, devil rats, guns, vehicles, walls, doors, the
pavement, lamp posts, mail boxes, undetonated grenades, detonated grenade
shards, bullets currently in flight, you get the idea.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Curran)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 09:05:04 2002
--- Damion Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> wrote:
> Something about Powerball spells that often gets
> forgotten (me included) is
> that they affect _everything_ that's visible to the
> caster in their area of
> effect. People, dogs, devil rats, guns, vehicles,
> walls, doors, the
> pavement, lamp posts, mail boxes, undetonated
> grenades, detonated grenade
> shards, bullets currently in flight, you get the
> idea.
>

Not to nitpick, but would that not also include air?
And I am pretty sure that air would have to be
classified as a natural substance (barring odd smog
ridden circumstances). Therefore, even a L powerlevel
powerball could easily stage to a D causing what?
explosive decompression, perhaps? I am sudenly
getting a headache seeing my players quickly ending a
chase by creating a 6m deep and wide divet in the
highway.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 09:20:01 2002
Michael Curran writes:

> Not to nitpick, but would that not also include air?
> And I am pretty sure that air would have to be
> classified as a natural substance (barring odd smog
> ridden circumstances). Therefore, even a L powerlevel
> powerball could easily stage to a D causing what?
> explosive decompression, perhaps?

Hmm, interesting point ;-).

> I am sudenly getting a headache seeing my players
> quickly ending a chase by creating a 6m deep and wide
> divet in the highway.

This brings up a query that I have regarding how large an area of effect
spell needs to be to affect a large target. So, for instance, the aura of a
building is one aura. Thus, if I power_bolt_ a building, the entire building
gets affected? So what about if I power_ball_ out front and the lower wall
of the front of the ground floor is in the area of effect?

Taking the example to a, perahps, less complicated target, lets think about
blue whales. They're big. Much bigger than te area of effect of a standard
Powerball. If their tail is in the area of effect, are they affected?

If the answer is no, then we've little to worry about for pavement,
building, or air targets, either. A spellcaster would need to cast a spell
with a very large area of effect indeed in order to affect "the atmosphere".

OTOH, if the answer is yes, then we might have an even bigger problem than
we first thought. A spell affects the entirity of the entity. Thus, if a
Powerball affects a roadway, it affects the whole road, not just the 6m
radius area ... doesn't it? "Bye-bye Interstate 5"

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 09:55:01 2002
> If the answer is no, then we've little to worry about for pavement,
> building, or air targets, either. A spellcaster would need to cast a spell
> with a very large area of effect indeed in order to affect "the
atmosphere".
>

BAsically powerball hits the area of effect. However I don't have my
sourcebook in front of me I can't be sure if it has an elemental flame
property. If it does then yes, concievably anything ignitable within the AoE
will burst into flames/explode. If however the powerball is just concussive
force it's unlikely it will make things explode unles something strikes a
spark or what not.

As for totalling a road: Powerball unless cast at like force 20 would not
destroy an entire road. Also if it was force twenty you'd pretty much take
out a good radius around the point of ground zero. So unless you're in a
plane...mage sort of would nuke himself :)

Wreck on the other hand could quite actually destroy entire road ways.
Though exactly what person would waste karma/sp on a Wreck (Road) spell and
thus destroy any connected asphalt road cast upon I don't know. Maybe for a
joke campaign I could see it, but in a getaway you sort of destroy the road
under you as well causing your car to be almost useless :)
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 11:10:01 2002
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Gurth wrote:

> You are wrong :) A street sam with a smartlinked firearm could do that --
> watch Top Secret for a good idea of what this would look like, in the scene
> where Chocolate Mousse starts shooting at the German soldiers...

"Nice shootin' my MAN!"

Marc
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 11:20:01 2002
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Damion Milliken wrote:

> This brings up a query that I have regarding how large an area of effect
> spell needs to be to affect a large target. So, for instance, the aura of a
> building is one aura. Thus, if I power_bolt_ a building, the entire building
> gets affected? So what about if I power_ball_ out front and the lower wall
> of the front of the ground floor is in the area of effect?

Not so. I think that for inanimate objects, they do not
necessarily have a single, unifying, cohesive aura (the exception perhaps
being small vehicles). Hence, letting a powerbolt fly at a building, you
might blow up a window, a chunk of concrete, or whatever. Hitting it with
a power*BALL*, on the other hand, will affect a number of smaller
component pieces, say every window for 6 meters, desks and chairs visible
within the building that are also in range, the concrete facing
surrounding the center of the blast, etc.

> Taking the example to a, perahps, less complicated target, lets think about
> blue whales. They're big. Much bigger than te area of effect of a standard
> Powerball. If their tail is in the area of effect, are they affected?

Ah, but you're mixing metaphors. A blue whale is a living
creature. As such, it doesn't have different "parts." If its tail is in
the area of effect, it is affected. Not so for inanimate objects. Hence,
you can blow the blue whale up, but only take out 6m of pavement

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Number Ten)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 12:15:05 2002
--- "LeBlanc, Lange" <Lange@***.ca> wrote:

> Since even the slightest graze nails the target's astral
> aura, why does cover apply?

Perhaps the mage needs to see a decent "chunk" of the target's aura in
order to properly "attune" his spell to the target, and cover gets in the
way of that?

>If anyone can show me the error of my ways,
> please do so. I want to be able to have my baddies last past 6 seconds
> into the encounter ;-)

As far as I am concerned, the fact that your baddies last no more than 6
seconds -is- the "error of your ways". I would advise you go out to the
Shadowrun Archive site and read Marc Renouf's "Small Unit Tactics" and
"Small Unit Tactics part 2" articles in the "military" section. That
may
well help your baddies out -- I know it certainly did mine!

--Number 10.

====number_10_ox@**********.com IM Nick: number10ox

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 13:40:01 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Wed, 09 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> This brings up a query that I have regarding how large an area of effect
> spell needs to be to affect a large target. So, for instance, the aura of
> a building is one aura. Thus, if I power_bolt_ a building, the entire
> building gets affected?

I posed a similar problem to the list a year or so ago, when one of my players
had wanted to Powerbolt an interior door and I'd ruled that he couldn't,
because if a car is a single target then so is a house. Steve Kenson's reply
was that he'd consider individual parts of a house as separate targets, and
certainly for playability reasons I think that's the better solution. I'd say
Powerbolt would only affect a single point on the wall; if this is the right
point (say, a supporting column) it might cause a collapse of part of the
building, but that's it.

What it comes down to, again, is magical relativity or WYTIWYG. Just like the
other week, when I said I'd let a Barrier spell move along with a truck if
it's cast inside it, I think that casting spells at large targets depends on
people's ideas about that target: a house is a big entity, but most people see
it as made up of separate components (front wall, balcony, front door, etc.)
so those can be targeted individually. OTOH, to take your other example, a
blue whale is seen as a single creature -- not as a collection of skin, fins,
a tail, and so on -- so it can be attacked as a whole with a single spell.

> So what about if I power_ball_ out front and the
> lower wall of the front of the ground floor is in the area of effect?

I'd rule that it makes a hole in the wall, with a radius equal to that of the
Powerball.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Benjamin John Hayes)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 15:35:01 2002
> OTOH, would it be possible to design an area of effect combat spell
with the
> restricted target modifier of "enemies". Hey, if you take the spell
design
> rules literally, this would work. You'd get the -1 Drain TN
modifier, _and_
> you wouldn't manaball your friends! What a deal!

Yes, but as is always gleefully reminded to me whenever I cast a
detect enemies spell, what exactly does an enemy make?

If you were wanting to stunball a whole heap of sec guards who didn't
know you were even there for instance, you wouldn't be able to do it.
And does a security guard even think of you as an enemy, or someone he
has to shoot to keep his job?
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Curran)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 15:35:05 2002
--- Jonathan <jhogan@**********.nf.net> wrote:
>
> As for totalling a road: Powerball unless cast at
> like force 20 would not
> destroy an entire road. Also if it was force twenty
> you'd pretty much take
> out a good radius around the point of ground zero.
> So unless you're in a
> plane...mage sort of would nuke himself :)
>

Well it could be argued that since powerball is a
physical spell and only works only in the mage's LOS
from a hermetic mage's point of view the spell would
be a 4 dimesional ripple through a sphere. The point
of origin of the ripple would be the point on the
sphere closest to the mage, and the other "pole" of
the sphere is where the sphere would dissipate. This
being the case, anything inside the sphere would be
"impacted" by the ripple only on the side facing the
mage, preventing the mage from causing an explosive
vacuum, and from tearing massive, perfectly spherical,
holes in surfaces. The ojbect along the spells path
would "absorb" the energy from the ripple leaving a
hole behind them where the spell would have no effect
(the LOS of the mage). In game terms the energy
absorbed would translate to damage, and structures hit
would need to resist only the surface attack the falls
within the radius of the spell. Cover modifiers would
apply if you were not fully impacted by the ripple,
i.e. if you are only half in the AoE due to size or
cover, you would get a +4 cover modifier.

Just my thoughts

Mike Curran

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Wed Jan 9 16:15:01 2002
If not being able to affect targets that you can't see in a
spell's area-of-effect boths you, just count them as having complete cover
(a +8 modifier). That way you can work things like a blst (everything is
affected), yet still keep the "magic" mechanics of needing to synchronize
auras. In other words, if you get lucky (by rolling the target's
Willpower + 8), your blast is synchronized closely enough to damage a
target you can't see.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 38
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Cover modifiers and Spells
Date: Thu Jan 10 05:40:01 2002
According to Benjamin John Hayes, on Wed, 09 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Yes, but as is always gleefully reminded to me whenever I cast a
> detect enemies spell, what exactly does an enemy make?

Probably the best definition when it comes to SR magic is "Anyone with hostile
intentions toward you." Sure, that means the Detect Enemies spell's name is wrong,
but it's better than Detect People With Hostile Intentions Towards You :)

> If you were wanting to stunball a whole heap of sec guards who didn't
> know you were even there for instance, you wouldn't be able to do it.

Yep. So you'd have to learn two spells: one with a restricted target, and one that
affects everyone in its AoE.

> And does a security guard even think of you as an enemy, or someone he
> has to shoot to keep his job?

I'd say that counts as an enemy to Detect Enemies -- the guard _is_ trying to harm
you, after all.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
At the Olympics during the Bronze Age, all winners came third.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 39
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane VR)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Mon Jan 14 16:55:00 2002
Damion Milliken wrote:
>Taking the example to a, perahps, less complicated target, lets think
> >about
>blue whales. They're big. Much bigger than te area of effect of a >standard
>Powerball. If their tail is in the area of effect, are they affected?

>OTOH, if the answer is yes, then we might have an even bigger problem >than
>we first thought. A spell affects the entirity of the entity. Thus, if a
>Powerball affects a roadway, it affects the whole road, not just the 6m
>radius area ... doesn't it? "Bye-bye Interstate 5"

I don't follow this. Why does the spell suddenly get enormously bigger just
because the target is? If you hit a blue whale's tail, the whole whale is
affected because you just annihilated its tail. The same would happen if you
shot the tail with bullets. But if you dig up part of a roadway, the rest of
the roadway is not affected.

If the whole road was the target, then the amount of road the mage can
target (6m radius) compared to the size of the entire road would mean that
the road had so much 'cover' it would be pretty near impossible to cast the
spell.

Jane



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 40
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 05:40:04 2002
According to Jane VR, on Mon, 14 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> I don't follow this. Why does the spell suddenly get enormously bigger
> just because the target is? If you hit a blue whale's tail, the whole
> whale is affected because you just annihilated its tail. The same would
> happen if you shot the tail with bullets. But if you dig up part of a
> roadway, the rest of the roadway is not affected.

The problem is that magic affects single auras: a metahuman has one aura,
so you can't use Powerbolt to only clip someone's ear -- you either hit the
whole person full-on, or you don't cast the spell at all. This works fine
for relatively small targets, like metahumans or the average critter, but
if the target gets really big, it means you still affect the whole target
at once. Thus, if there's 100 km of road, and if the road has a single
aura, when you cast a spell on one end of it, you would also affect the
other end. Or if you cast a powerful enough spell at the front door of the
Renraku Arcology, you would also blow out the windows all the way at the
top, a kilometer above you...

> If the whole road was the target, then the amount of road the mage can
> target (6m radius) compared to the size of the entire road would mean
> that the road had so much 'cover' it would be pretty near impossible to
> cast the spell.

Not if you can see enough of it. A road may be a bad example here, because
you can rarely see all of it unless you're looking down from an aircraft,
but imagine a large building, like a skyscraper. You can see nearly the
whole building if you stand in the right place, so it wouldn't have any
cover. Now you can cast a Powerbolt spell at D damage, and all you need to
do is roll well enough (though the TN would be insanely high) on one die
for the building to collapse entirely. I'm sure Al Quaida would love to
recruit you :)

The problem we're facing here is that MITS gives an example from which it
derives that each building has a single aura, which means that it can be
affected as a whole by a single spell, but that this at the same time makes
magic far too powerful. The obvious solution is to say that individual
parts of buildings have their own auras, but this makes the ritual sorcery
example from MITS a bit difficult...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 41
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Maxfield)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 09:00:01 2002
Records show that at 21:42 on Tuesday 15/01/02, Gurth noted:
>The problem we're facing here is that MITS gives an example from which it
>derives that each building has a single aura, which means that it can be
>affected as a whole by a single spell, but that this at the same time makes
>magic far too powerful. The obvious solution is to say that individual
>parts of buildings have their own auras, but this makes the ritual sorcery
>example from MITS a bit difficult...

For considering spells against large structures, it may be useful to
consider the rules for spells versus vehicles. Even though many vehicles
(e.g. large road transports) are larger than most magician's standard area
of effect (if that is relevant), the entire vehicle as a whole is always
effected by the spell (e.g. power bolt). So, any object, no matter how
large, as long as it is considered a single "thing", should be affected in
its entirety by spells, even single target spells.

However, what may be of use are the rules for spells versus ships out of
Rigger 3. Even though ships may be as large as the taller skyscrapers they
may still be targeted, as a whole, by a single spell. What moderates this
are the rules describing how a ship's Hull rating and Bulwark rating add to
the target number and step down the damage level (to zero for large ships)
of the spell. For some time now I've been thinking about creating
land-based equivalences for Hull and Bulwark ratings and using these for
determining the effects of spells versus buildings and other large
structures. Most large structures, same as for frigates and larger ships,
would be immune to combat and elemental manipulation spells under this system.

On the other hand, up close to a building I don't see the building; the
building is no longer an object but rather is an environment - I see a
wall, a door, a window, etc. In this situation, I follow Steve Kenson's
advice and allow windows, doors, walls, etc. to be individually targeted by
spells.

Chris
Message no. 42
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 10:00:02 2002
At 11:42 AM 1/15/2002 +0100, Gurth wrote:

>The problem we're facing here is that MITS gives an example from which it
>derives that each building has a single aura, which means that it can be
>affected as a whole by a single spell, but that this at the same time makes
>magic far too powerful. The obvious solution is to say that individual
>parts of buildings have their own auras, but this makes the ritual sorcery
>example from MITS a bit difficult...

I would handle it in the same way that I handle damage to a building from
physical attack.

Physical damage to buildings is based on a 1m area. If someone wants to do
damage to a section that is larger than 1m x 1m, the resistance to the
attack goes up (I can't remember exactly how I do this, because it's been a
while). If someone wants to attack a three dimensional volume, the
target's resistance climbs even faster.

I would do the same if someone targeted a building spell. The spell rules
assume a target that is roughly man sized. For a building calculate the
volume of the aura, and add an additional die to the building's resistance
equal to the volume in square meters minus one (volume - 1).

Mages in my game don't toss spells at skyscrapers ;)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 43
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:30:01 2002
According to Graht, on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> I would do the same if someone targeted a building spell. The spell
> rules assume a target that is roughly man sized. For a building
> calculate the volume of the aura, and add an additional die to the
> building's resistance equal to the volume in square meters minus one
> (volume - 1).

Cubic meters, surely :) (Which, BTW, would make buildings a bit too tough
for my taste; the house I live in has a volume of, at a quick guess, 250
m^3, so that's 249 extra dice to resist the spell with. Or, if you use
ground floor area rather than volume, in the order of 40 extra dice. A lot,
at any rate, and a bit too much for my taste :)

> Mages in my game don't toss spells at skyscrapers ;)

I wouldn't expect them to, no :)

The way I've generally handled this situation, though, certainly after the
last thread about it, is as I've already described: area spells affect only
their AoE, and other spells only hit a small point on the building in much
the same way a bullet would. Thus, we once blew a 12-meter diameter hole in
the glass wall of an office block's lobby, but didn't bring the whole
building down with that spell.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 44
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:40:01 2002
At 07:28 PM 1/15/2002 +0100, Gurth wrote:
>According to Graht, on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...
>
> > I would do the same if someone targeted a building spell. The spell
> > rules assume a target that is roughly man sized. For a building
> > calculate the volume of the aura, and add an additional die to the
> > building's resistance equal to the volume in square meters minus one
> > (volume - 1).
>
>Cubic meters, surely :) (Which, BTW, would make buildings a bit too tough
>for my taste; the house I live in has a volume of, at a quick guess, 250
>m^3, so that's 249 extra dice to resist the spell with. Or, if you use
>ground floor area rather than volume, in the order of 40 extra dice. A lot,
>at any rate, and a bit too much for my taste :)

Okay, maybe 250 dice would be a bit much :)

> > Mages in my game don't toss spells at skyscrapers ;)
>
>I wouldn't expect them to, no :)
>
>The way I've generally handled this situation, though, certainly after the
>last thread about it, is as I've already described: area spells affect only
>their AoE, and other spells only hit a small point on the building in much
>the same way a bullet would. Thus, we once blew a 12-meter diameter hole in
>the glass wall of an office block's lobby, but didn't bring the whole
>building down with that spell.

<nod>

I thought of this after I sent my previous post. But I couldn't remember
the rules for blowing holes in things to apply them to spells vs large
objects/buildings.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 45
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 13:45:01 2002
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>
<Snip>
> Not if you can see enough of it. A road may be a bad example here, because
> you can rarely see all of it unless you're looking down from an aircraft,
> but imagine a large building, like a skyscraper. You can see nearly the
> whole building if you stand in the right place, so it wouldn't have any
> cover.

<NITPICKING>
You will only be able to see 50% of the building, unless it's made of something
transparent.
</NITPICKING>

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen
--
SRGC v0.22 SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ B--- UB++ IE+ RN LST W++ dk sa++ ma+
sh++ ad++++ ri mc rk-- m- (e-- o t-- d-) gm+ M- P-
--
Main Rule of Usenet: Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to
their level, then beat you with experience.
Message no. 46
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Benjamin John Hayes)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:20:01 2002
If you really wanted to do this sort of thing properly, you'd have to
give the building some sort of structure rating, based not only on the
strength of the materials used, but on redundancy of supports, and how
it performs in a plastic state.

You'd then give attacks to the building a stucture damage rationg
based on the strength of the attack, and how much of an area the
attack would damage. This could be made to work for explosions and
grenades as well as powerball type attacks, as long as the fall of
power over the area of the grenades was taken into account in the
system. All in all though, I reckon that'd probably be far too
complicated a process to carry out properly, and so wouldn't be worth
bothering with. I'ts (yet another) situation where common sense has to
be applied in lieu of game rules.
Message no. 47
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Wed Jan 16 05:20:01 2002
According to Graht, on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> I thought of this after I sent my previous post. But I couldn't remember
> the rules for blowing holes in things to apply them to spells vs large
> objects/buildings.

They're in SR3 under the section about breaking through barriers. I would
suggest reading this together with the rules interpretation Damion, Vincent
and myself wrote up a couple of years ago, as we found the barrier rules a
bit hard to understand at a glance... It should be somewhere in the SR
Archive, but don't ask me where -- I have a copy on my HD :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 48
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Wed Jan 16 05:20:03 2002
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> <NITPICKING>
> You will only be able to see 50% of the building, unless it's made of
> something transparent.
> </NITPICKING>

So you also give all attacks against human targets a +4 cover modifier?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 49
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Wed Jan 16 16:00:01 2002
From: "Gurth" <Gurth@******.nl>
>According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 the word on the street
was...
>
> > <NITPICKING>
> > You will only be able to see 50% of the building, unless it's made of
> > something transparent.
> > </NITPICKING>
>
> So you also give all attacks against human targets a +4 cover modifier?

Sure... but only when I'm being evil towards the players, and never for the NPCs
:-)

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen
--
SRGC v0.22 SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ B--- UB++ IE+ RN LST W++ dk sa++ ma+
sh++ ad++++ ri mc rk-- m- (e-- o t-- d-) gm+ M- P-
--
Main Rule of Usenet: Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to
their level, then beat you with experience.
Message no. 50
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane VR)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Wed Jan 16 19:20:00 2002
>From: Gurth <Gurth@******.nl>

>Not if you can see enough of it. A road may be a bad example here, because
>you can rarely see all of it unless you're looking down from an aircraft,
>but imagine a large building, like a skyscraper. You can see nearly the
>whole building if you stand in the right place, so it wouldn't have any
>cover. Now you can cast a Powerbolt spell at D damage, and all you need to
>do is roll well enough (though the TN would be insanely high) on one die
>for the building to collapse entirely. I'm sure Al Quaida would love to
>recruit you :)
>

Ok, how about the spell affects the entire building, but keeps the same area
of effect, with the damage spread out equally over the whole building, or
road (I can picture this much better with a road, but it should work the
same for a building). It might destroy a thin layer of concrete over the
whole building, or make lots of little holes, or dents. And if you actually
wanted to just blow up the front door, you would have to make a called shot
(Ok, maybe not that last bit).

Jane




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 51
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Wed Jan 16 19:30:00 2002
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:22:25 +0000
"Jane VR" <kadjari@*******.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> Ok, how about the spell affects the entire building, but
> keeps the same area of effect, with the damage spread
> out equally over the whole building, or road (I can
> picture this much better with a road, but it should work
> the same for a building). It might destroy a thin layer
> of concrete over the whole building, or make lots of
> little holes, or dents. And if you actually wanted to
> just blow up the front door, you would have to make a
> called shot (Ok, maybe not that last bit).
>
> Jane

It seems to me that if you are taking the time to do a
ritual, you can make the target as wide or specific as you
want, you're certainly putting enough time into the spell
to get the results you had in mind. Targetting a road with
a normal fireball will give you a hole, and maybe some
flaming asphalt. In any case, given the very abstract
nature of all shadowrun rules, the intuitive resuld should
govern.
--Anders
Message no. 52
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 05:00:03 2002
According to Jane VR, on Thu, 17 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Ok, how about the spell affects the entire building, but keeps the same
> area of effect, with the damage spread out equally over the whole
> building, or road (I can picture this much better with a road, but it
> should work the same for a building). It might destroy a thin layer of
> concrete over the whole building, or make lots of little holes, or dents.

That would be a good solution, were it not that IMHO it makes magic too
weak against inanimate objects :)

> And if you actually wanted to just blow up the front door, you would
> have to make a called shot (Ok, maybe not that last bit).

I think that , like Anders said, this sort of thing should be handled
intuitively. Trying to set up rules that will always work for detailed
situations like this is probably only going to lead to discovering that you
always need to make exceptions to those rules...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 53
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 05:35:01 2002
Chummers,


> I think that , like Anders said, this sort of thing should be handled
> intuitively. Trying to set up rules that will always work for detailed
> situations like this is probably only going to lead to discovering that you
> always need to make exceptions to those rules...

I always thought the rules were quite clear, at least in spirit.

If you can see it, regardless of distance, you can cast against it. With
regards to partial cover, a concealed target would gain cover modifiers for
the purposes of a perception test to determine whether you can see the
target. Case and point, sniper hidden in a window 800 meters away might be
all but invisible (+6 Very small object, +2 Partially hidden, Full darkness +8
for a target number of 20 (And the sniper got 2 stealth success!)), but if by
some miracle you see them, they're yours. Again, if the door in question is
obscured by heavy smoke from a grenade, then the perception mod is +6, if you
can see it you can cast against it.

Since the mana doesn't in practice travel from the tip of your focus to the
target, physical cover is moot.

Xian.
Message no. 54
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 10:15:01 2002
Christian Casavant writes:

> I always thought the rules were quite clear, at least in spirit.

Er, well, for human sized living targets they are, yes. When one starts to
deviate from this to, say, inanimate building sized targets, things become a
little less clear ;-).

> If you can see it, regardless of distance, you can cast against it. With
> regards to partial cover, a concealed target would gain cover modifiers for
> the purposes of a perception test to determine whether you can see the
> target. Case and point, sniper hidden in a window 800 meters away might be
> all but invisible (+6 Very small object, +2 Partially hidden, Full darkness
> +8 for a target number of 20 (And the sniper got 2 stealth success!)), but
> if by some miracle you see them, they're yours. Again, if the door in
> question is obscured by heavy smoke from a grenade, then the perception mod
> is +6, if you can see it you can cast against it.

So, let me get this straight. In your game, the sequence would be like so:

(a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
light (+2).
(b) PC magician makes a Perception Test with a TN of 6 to see the sniper,
and succeeds.
(c) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 4.

I tend to think that this should, by my interpretation of the rules, instead
be:

(a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
light (+2).
(b) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 10.

If you check the rules, I think that this is how things work. Of course, the
use of the Stealth skill will likely modify things a little.

> Since the mana doesn't in practice travel from the tip of your focus to the
> target, physical cover is moot.

Except that it makes it difficult to see your target, and thus difficult to
synchronise auras with them in order to pump spell energy into them.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 55
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:40:00 2002
Damion,


> Er, well, for human sized living targets they are, yes. When one starts to
> deviate from this to, say, inanimate building sized targets, things become a
> little less clear ;-).

Less clear how? Targetting them is no less clear. Damaging them, perhaps.
Page 178, Section Range, states clearly if you can see it, regardless of
distance, the target can be affected.

I have my rulebook now, I can cite rules.

Note the use of the word target. It doesn't state whether the target is animate
or not.


> So, let me get this straight. In your game, the sequence would be like so:
>
> (a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
> light (+2).
> (b) PC magician makes a Perception Test with a TN of 6 to see the sniper,
> and succeeds.

Target number not 6. Base is 4 + partial cover + bad light = 10.


> (c) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 4.
>
> I tend to think that this should, by my interpretation of the rules, instead
> be:
>
> (a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
> light (+2).
> (b) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 10.
>
> If you check the rules, I think that this is how things work. Of course, the
> use of the Stealth skill will likely modify things a little.

Page 181, Section Spell Targetting states, "Concealed targets gain cover
modifiers, which increase the difficulty in spell casting. If the line of sight
is in question, the gamemaster may call for a Perception Test to determine if
the caster can see a particular target."

Ultimately if you're gamemastering you can alter the rules in your world as you
see fit. If your players don't mind the rule, then I certainly don't! So, you
can apply the ranged combat cover modifiers to spellcasting if you like, but I
don't think that was the intention of the spirit of the rules.

Xian.
Message no. 56
From: shadowrn@*********.com (lance dillon)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:50:01 2002
(Background):
Was here a long while ago, left for a bit, and just resubscribed. This list has a
lot less traffic now, though. I wonder what happened...


Anyway...

The way I read it was that mana spells didn't have the targetting rules; it only
goes against willpower. Physical spells use targetting modifiers. However, it's
been a while since I've look at it. Perhaps I'm misremembering?

-lsd

Christian Casavant wrote:

> Damion,
>
> > Er, well, for human sized living targets they are, yes. When one starts to
> > deviate from this to, say, inanimate building sized targets, things become a
> > little less clear ;-).
>
> Less clear how? Targetting them is no less clear. Damaging them, perhaps.
> Page 178, Section Range, states clearly if you can see it, regardless of
> distance, the target can be affected.
>
> I have my rulebook now, I can cite rules.
>
> Note the use of the word target. It doesn't state whether the target is animate
> or not.
>
> > So, let me get this straight. In your game, the sequence would be like so:
> >
> > (a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
> > light (+2).
> > (b) PC magician makes a Perception Test with a TN of 6 to see the sniper,
> > and succeeds.
>
> Target number not 6. Base is 4 + partial cover + bad light = 10.
>
> > (c) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 4.
> >
> > I tend to think that this should, by my interpretation of the rules, instead
> > be:
> >
> > (a) NPC sniper with Willpower 4 hides behind partial cover (+4), in bad
> > light (+2).
> > (b) PC magician Manabolts the sniper with a TN of 10.
> >
> > If you check the rules, I think that this is how things work. Of course, the
> > use of the Stealth skill will likely modify things a little.
>
> Page 181, Section Spell Targetting states, "Concealed targets gain cover
> modifiers, which increase the difficulty in spell casting. If the line of sight
> is in question, the gamemaster may call for a Perception Test to determine if
> the caster can see a particular target."
>
> Ultimately if you're gamemastering you can alter the rules in your world as you
> see fit. If your players don't mind the rule, then I certainly don't! So, you
> can apply the ranged combat cover modifiers to spellcasting if you like, but I
> don't think that was the intention of the spirit of the rules.
>
> Xian.
Message no. 57
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:05:04 2002
The thing I love most about gaming is the number of different interpretations you can
have from reading the rules!

Any of you guys ever played Empires in Arms? Possibly one of the most complicated
games I've ever played (apart from perhaps Space Opera, but maybe its because I was
just too young.) In fact, EiA makes Star Fleet Battles look like checkers!
Acutally, I'm exaggerating about SFB, it's pretty complicated but nowhere near as
ambiguous as EiA, just shorter. We used to argue for *hours* about the
interpretations of the rules. It was brilliant. I'm only sorry none of our arguments
ever broke down into fisticuffs. Considering one of our group was a lawyer, it's
even more disappointing. It would have been nice to pop him right in the jaw
sometimes!

I too recently came back to Shadowrun. I haven't really played since 1st ed. I
perused through the 2ed rules, but this is the first time I'm playing or GM-ing 3rd
ed. I really missed it, and I'm glad my group of gamers was keen on giving it a try.

This also ties into the Lifestyle's thread a bit as well. I had to teach them about
multiple lifestyles and the risk of blowing them if they had to abandon ship, as it
were. They caught on pretty fast though, and it amuses me to see how bloody paranoid
they are. I swear to you, if they had the priorities to spare, they could have spent
over 1 million nuyen secruing their middle lifestyles!

I love this game!

Xian
Message no. 58
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 14:20:01 2002
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:49:05 +0000 Christian Casavant
<christian@********.org> writes:
<SNIP>
> Page 181, Section Spell Targetting states, "Concealed targets gain
> cover
> modifiers, which increase the difficulty in spell casting. If the
> line of sight
> is in question, the gamemaster may call for a Perception Test to
> determine if
> the caster can see a particular target."
>
> Ultimately if you're gamemastering you can alter the rules in your
> world as you
> see fit. If your players don't mind the rule, then I certainly
> don't! So, you
> can apply the ranged combat cover modifiers to spellcasting if you
> like, but I
> don't think that was the intention of the spirit of the rules.

Well, from the sound of the first sentence you quoted "Concealed targets
gain cover modifier, which increase the difficulty of spell casting", it
was the intention.

My interpretation based on this thread is that progression should be:
(a) A sniper with a willpower 4 in partial light behind partial cover
rolls a high of 9 for his Stealth (Open Test)
(b) If there is a question of whether mage can see the sniper, the mage
rolls a perception test with stealth as a complimentary skill. The Target
Number is 9 (stealth result) + 4 (partial cover) + 2 (partial light) = 15
... Let's assume the mage succeeds. (May require 2 successes or more, see
BBB page 232)
(c) The mage then rolls for the Manabolt against a target number of 4
(sniper's willpower) + 4 (partial cover) = 8

Moral: Cover is always a good idea. :)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Message no. 59
From: shadowrn@*********.com (James Zealey)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Thu Jan 17 17:05:02 2002
-----------Start of original message---------
Page 181, Section Spell Targetting states, "Concealed targets gain cover
modifiers, which increase the difficulty in spell casting.  If the line of sight
is in question, the gamemaster may call for a Perception Test to determine if
the caster can see a particular target."
Ultimately if you're gamemastering you can alter the rules in your world as you
see fit.  If your players don't mind the rule, then I certainly don't!  So, you
can apply the ranged combat cover modifiers to spellcasting if you like, but I
don't think that was the intention of the spirit of the rules.
Xian.
-------Conclusion of original message----------

Christian - I'm hoping that English is your second language. The rule you just quoted said
explicitly that concealed targets get cover modifiers. I'm really failing to understand
how you read it otherwise. I believe that similar rules for darkness etc. exist. It's fine
to play by your own rules, just be aware that that is what you're doing.


"Your gun has 'replica'
written down the side, mine
has 'Ares HVAR'..."

____________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE Web and POP E-mail Service in 14 languages at http://www.zzn.com.
Message no. 60
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Thu Jan 17 17:45:01 2002
---------- "James Zealey" <incubus@*********.zzn.com> writes:
Christian - I'm hoping that English is your second language. The rule you just quoted said
explicitly that concealed targets get cover modifiers. I'm really failing to understand
how you read it otherwise. I believe that similar rules for darkness etc. exist. It's fine
to play by your own rules, just be aware that that is what you're doing.
---End original message ---

First, be polite. Your message came off rather insulting and rude, though I hope that
wasn't your intention. The key for an online forum such as this to thrive is to build a
friendly sense of community.

Second, It is possible that Christian, interpretted the requirement of making a perception
test prior to being allowed to make a spellcasting test as the foretold increase in
difficulty for spellcasting against targets with cover.

Bleh. Juno online doesn't add >'s before the message ... grumble grumble

D. Ghost



________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Message no. 61
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Thu Jan 17 20:20:04 2002
>
> First, be polite. Your message came off rather insulting and rude, though I hope that
wasn't your intention. The key for an online forum such as this to thrive is to build a
friendly sense of community.

Apologies to everyone involved. That was most certainly *not* my intention!! I'm joined
this mailing list to have friendly discussions (or possibly arguments!) about the
Shadowrun universe with other like minded individuals. I love the universe and am
slightly passionate about it...

When I wrote the last message, I was having a discussion with my bank about a number of
immigration issues, ie. the Home Office has my passport and won't return it within the
promised timeframe. Bastards! It's highly likely my frustration poked through.


> Second, It is possible that Christian, interpretted the requirement of making a
perception test prior to being allowed to make a spellcasting test as the foretold
increase in difficulty for spellcasting against targets with cover.

It is possible, however, everytime I re-read the rules, I become more entrenched in my
supposition. For example, an aspected mage who cannot assense cannot cast while (s)he is
blindfolded. The target could be right in front of you even touching you, but you
wouldn't be able to cast since you cannot see the target. In contrast, a full mage in
the same situation would assense and since he can see through cover, he would simply cast
a physical spell at the physical target while perceiving in the astral plane. (NB. The
+2 increase in target number while assensing only applies to "performing a completely
mundane, non-magical task..." (Page. 172, Astral Interation, SR3) so you're not
even penalized for casting on the physical while perceiving in the astral)

Further, since mana doesn't travel in the physical plane, it doesn't really make much
sense to me that it should be subject to the same physical laws. After all, it is magical
in nature and can defy classical laws of physics.




The key point I wanted to make in the last message was regardless of the differing
opinions, if the group have no objections to a house rule then the GM should implement it
at their discretion.


I really do love these discussions.

Xian
Message no. 62
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Christian Casavant)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 20:25:01 2002
D.,


> (b) If there is a question of whether mage can see the sniper, the mage
> rolls a perception test with stealth as a complimentary skill. The Target
> Number is 9 (stealth result) + 4 (partial cover) + 2 (partial light) = 15
> ... Let's assume the mage succeeds. (May require 2 successes or more, see
> BBB page 232)

Is the base number of 9, the stealth result, one of the rules in the book,
or is it a house rule? I've often toyed with the idea of implementing
something like this, but to date I've just used a standard net success test
base target 4 plus perception modifiers. (So at night, stealth would pretty
well always win against perception since you don't care how dark it is to
hide!)



> Moral: Cover is always a good idea. :)

Hehe! Amen!!! I taught my new group this in a introduction "Friday Night
Firefight!" I took unenhanced against 4 runners, and minced them by using
cover and showing them the value of the 3-shot burst!

The 3rd ed. dodge rules are interesting too. That's changed a bit since 1st
ed. that's for sure!

Take care,

Xian
Message no. 63
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Thu Jan 17 23:15:01 2002
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:32:35 +0000 Christian Casavant
<christian@********.org> writes:
<SNIP>
> Is the base number of 9, the stealth result, one of the rules in the
> book,
> or is it a house rule? I've often toyed with the idea of
> implementing
> something like this, but to date I've just used a standard net
> success test
> base target 4 plus perception modifiers. (So at night, stealth would
> pretty
> well always win against perception since you don't care how dark it
> is to
> hide!)
<SNIP>

The base target number as the stealth result rule is on page 95 and the
Stealth as a complimentary rules follow on the next page. :) I believe
the stealth result, if the hiding character wants to use it replaces the
base perception target number of 4 even if the stealth result is lower.
:)

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Message no. 64
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Thu Jan 17 23:15:04 2002
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:28:08 +0000 Christian Casavant
<christian@********.org> writes:

> > First, be polite. Your message came off rather insulting and rude,
> > though I hope that wasn't your intention. The key for an online
> > forum such as this to thrive is to build a friendly sense of
> > community.

> Apologies to everyone involved. That was most certainly *not* my
> intention!! I'm joined this mailing list to have friendly
> discussions (or possibly arguments!) about the Shadowrun universe
> with other like minded individuals. I love the universe and am
> slightly passionate about it...

Uhm, that was directed at someone who replied to you. I thought you were
quite polite. :)

> When I wrote the last message, I was having a discussion with my
> bank about a number of immigration issues, ie. the Home Office has
> my passport and won't return it within the promised timeframe.
> Bastards! It's highly likely my frustration poked through.

Bummer. Good luck getting that sorted out. I've never had to deal with it
myself, but can see how it would be a hassle. Where are you immigrating
to and from?

<SNIP>
> Further, since mana doesn't travel in the physical plane, it doesn't
> really make much sense to me that it should be subject to the same
> physical laws. After all, it is magical in nature and can defy
> classical laws of physics.
<snip>

Heh. I was going to start up an old thread about how SR physics would
cover magic, but you said classical physics ... damn ... have to wait for
next time. ;)

> I really do love these discussions.

Me too. I wish I had more time for it... Cheers!

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Message no. 65
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:30:01 2002
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Christian Casavant wrote:

> Is the base number of 9, the stealth result, one of the rules in the book,
> or is it a house rule?

SR3 is the first edition where they have explicitly stated how
Stealth is to be used. In essence, the stealthing character makes an Open
Test. The result of that Open Test (after modifiers have been applied) is
the base target number (to which Perception Modifiers will be applied)
for spotting the sneaking character.

> I've often toyed with the idea of implementing
> something like this, but to date I've just used a standard net success test
> base target 4 plus perception modifiers. (So at night, stealth would pretty
> well always win against perception since you don't care how dark it is to
> hide!)

This is the way I used to run it in SR2, though I applied more
modifiers, both to the sneaking character and to the Perceiving character.

I still do, but these modifiers now apply to the SR3 Open
Stealth Test. For instance, I applied melee visibility modifiers to the
sneaking character. It's easier to see something close to you when it's
dark, but sneaking around in the dark means you're more likely to trip
over or crash into something you didn't see and thus give away your
position. If a character is using Stealth to hide or escape and another
character is actively following or looking for him, I apply the sneaking
character's Physical wound modifier as a bonus to the perceiving
character's roll (as you may be able to follow a trail of blood, etc).
But this changes depending on what you're trying to do. If you're
just hiding, you don't have any visibility modifiers at night, as you're
presumed to be just sitting still. But sneaking up on someone is an
entirely different matter, as it requires you to be moving around, bumping
into things, or whatever.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 66
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Fri Jan 18 13:40:01 2002
>From: Christian Casavant <christian@********.org>

>.........>snip<......For example, an aspected mage who cannot assense
> >cannot cast while (s)he is blindfolded....he cannot see the target. >In
>contrast, a full >mage in the same situation would assense and >since he
>can see through cover.........>snip<...

I do not think so. A blindfold, as well as said cover, would be astrally
inert; and therefore opaque to an assesnsing mage, aspected or otherwise.
See the Lone Star sourcebook for more on neutralizing spell casters...is
nice... ;>

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Message no. 67
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Fri Jan 18 16:20:01 2002
> >From: Christian Casavant <christian@********.org>
>
> >.........>snip<......For example, an aspected mage who cannot assense
> > >cannot cast while (s)he is blindfolded....he cannot see the target.
>In
> >contrast, a full >mage in the same situation would assense and >since he
> >can see through cover.........>snip<...
>
> I do not think so. A blindfold, as well as said cover, would be astrally
> inert; and therefore opaque to an assesnsing mage, aspected or otherwise.
> See the Lone Star sourcebook for more on neutralizing spell casters...is
> nice... ;>


But then how come in the SC under the blind flaw it says mages can use
assessing to "see" in the real world. That could mean that they could spell
cast, but at a +2 modifier...right? To me, that would point that in SR3
then a blindfold would not be that effective in stopping a mage....

Am I reading this wrong?

Meph
Message no. 68
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Fri Jan 18 17:10:01 2002
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:18:11 -0800
"Meph" <meph@*********.net> wrote:

>
> But then how come in the SC under the blind flaw it says mages can use
> assessing to "see" in the real world. That could mean that they could
spell
> cast, but at a +2 modifier...right? To me, that would point that in SR3
> then a blindfold would not be that effective in stopping a mage....
>
> Am I reading this wrong?

An assensing mage does not see with his physical eyes, and it's
because of this he can still see even if he's blind. However, a
blindfold would still block his sight, since it's opaque on the astral.

--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowlandbr.hpg.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
Message no. 69
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Fri Jan 18 20:45:06 2002
> An assensing mage does not see with his physical eyes, and it's
> because of this he can still see even if he's blind. However, a
> blindfold would still block his sight, since it's opaque on the astral.
>


Ohh, you're right! It says that physical objects are still opaque in the
astral. So the blindfold would block assessing....but when the mage's eyes
are blinded then, like a flash-bang or something, would he still be able to
assess? And would smoke be opaque? How about darkness?

Meph
Message no. 70
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Sat Jan 19 09:15:00 2002
According to Meph, on Sat, 19 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Ohh, you're right! It says that physical objects are still opaque in
> the astral. So the blindfold would block assessing....but when the
> mage's eyes are blinded then, like a flash-bang or something, would he
> still be able to assess?

Yes, because assensing does not require eyes. It's a sixth sense, which is
most easily described in terms of sight. (Though a flash-bang would still
affect the magician, because it's not just the flash that causes
disorientation, but the bang as well.)

> And would smoke be opaque?

Yes.

> How about darkness?

Darkness is not opaque; it's the absense of light. Since assensing does not
depend on light, it woudln't be blocked by darkness. "Darkness" on the
astral plane is created by the absense of life, not of light.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 71
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Sat Jan 19 16:10:04 2002
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:45:12 -0800
"Meph" <meph@*********.net> wrote:

> > An assensing mage does not see with his physical eyes, and it's
> > because of this he can still see even if he's blind. However, a
> > blindfold would still block his sight, since it's opaque on the astral.
> >
>
>
> Ohh, you're right! It says that physical objects are still opaque in the
> astral. So the blindfold would block assessing....but when the mage's eyes
> are blinded then, like a flash-bang or something, would he still be able to
> assess? And would smoke be opaque? How about darkness?
>
> Meph

IIRC, the penalty for glare is the same as for doing physical
stuff while assensing (+2). But if for some reason the glare penalty
becomes larger, I suppose the mage could do this. But will he risk
spendind a Simple Action switching his senses when those folks that
threw the grenade are shooting at him? :)

As for smoke - yes, it would be opaque. Darkness doesn't really
exist on the astral, tough. Living beings, even if they're not astrally
active, shine with a light of their own. Astrally active beings are even
brighter. Since there will be at least one astrally active being around
when a magician assenses (the magician himself!), there are no dark
places in the Astral :).

Of course, you could describe Background Count (which also
clouds your astral perceptions) as a sort of "astral darkness",
depending on what originated it.

--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowlandbr.hpg.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
Message no. 72
From: shadowrn@*********.com (James Zealey)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Sun Jan 20 17:55:01 2002
> > > First, be polite. Your message came off rather insulting and rude,
> > > though I hope that wasn't your intention. The key for an online
> > > forum such as this to thrive is to build a friendly sense of
> > > community.
> > Apologies to everyone involved.  That was most certainly *not* my
> > intention!!  I'm joined this mailing list to have friendly
> > discussions (or possibly arguments!) about the Shadowrun universe
> > with other like minded individuals.  I love the universe and am
> > slightly passionate about it...
> Uhm, that was directed at someone who replied
> to you. I thought you were quite polite. :)

Specifically it was directed at me. Given your response to dghosts post, I guess you
weren't too offended, but I see how it could be misinterpreted. I really meant to find out
whether english was your second language, as I personally couldn't see the problem with
the section of the rules quoted. I guess if you take those two sentences to be a single
thought though, then there may be a problem. I'm sorry for sounding like an ass. No, wait,
I'm sorry if I insulted you... I deserved to sound like an ass :)

>It is possible, however, everytime I re-read the rules, I become more
>entrenched in my supposition.  For example, an aspected mage who cannot
>assense cannot cast while (s)he is blindfolded.  The target could be right
>in front of you even touching you, but you wouldn't be able to cast since
>you cannot see the target.  

Actually you can - touch allows you to make the appropriate astral connection required for
the spell. It's in there somewhere - page ref. anyone? Makes a mage bloody dangerous, even
if you've got him restrained and blindfolded.

>In contrast, a full mage in
>the same situation would assense and since he can see through cover, he
>would simply cast a physical spell at the physical target while perceiving
>in the astral plane.  (NB.  The +2 increase in target number while
>assensing only applies to "performing a completely mundane, non-magical
>task..." (Page. 172, Astral Interation, SR3) so you're not
>even penalized for casting on the physical while perceiving in the astral)

He can't cast through the blindfold - a blindfold is opaque on the astral plane (I believe
the only real modifiers to vision on the astral are the ability to assense, the fact that
you can't see colours, and the lack of LIGHT vision modifiers. Modifiers from smoke for
instance still apply. Not being able to see through solid objects does too.).
He may be able to project through the blindfold and cast then, although then he may or may
not hit the problem where he can't cast because he's purely astral and his target is
purely physical.
Oh, and I think that SR3 aspected adepts now get astral sight (correct me if I'm wrong).

As for why cover mods apply? Here's my take.
Magic requires you to have a clear idea of what it is you are going to do, and who or what
you are doing it to. This is reflected in the ritual magic rules which require you to have
a close personal item of the subject, or an integral part of them, or have direct line of
sight. You know the ritual is directed at "the person with a close connection to this
item" or "that guy over there".
Regular magic is a spur of the moment "that guy over there".
The mage doesn't have time to make that fact solid in his mind, so if something is in the
way, he may end up doubting the guy he wants to hit with a spell is actually there (wait,
maybe it's just a hat on a stick! Maybe that's one guys leg and anothers arm! etc.) Maybe
not in so many words, but it's difficult to really congeal the thought of "that guy
over there" if you're not looking at the entire person. Given time (like a ritual)
the mage could ignore cover modifiers as he makes himself more certain of the target (This
may warrant allowing a mage to "aim" a spell to reduce such modifiers).
I hope I explained that well...

Ok, on to other aspects of this.

> There is an example in the book about an
> assensing mage casting a spell at an Invisible
> physical target, using his astral sight to
> target it. Unless
> the Invivibility spell makes him astrally
> active?
> Jane

It is perfectly acceptable to cast a spell at a target you can only percieve on the astral
plane. The physical/astral divide only applies to whether you're present there. A dual
mage is both physically and astrally present, so he can cast spells at anyone or anything
he can percieve using both astral and mundane senses. A mage can use astral sight to
ignore darkness modifiers for instance. Invisibility appears not to work on the astral
plane (although if you read the header text for illusion spells, it seems to infer
otherwise).


"Your gun has 'replica'
written down the side, mine
has 'Ares HVAR'..."

____________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE Web and POP E-mail Service in 14 languages at http://www.zzn.com.
Message no. 73
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells.
Date: Mon Jan 21 05:30:01 2002
lance dillon writes:

> (Background):
> Was here a long while ago, left for a bit, and just resubscribed. This
> list has a lot less traffic now, though. I wonder what happened...

People left, as usual. And the Dumpshock Forums were created. New people
joined the Forum discussions, rather than the list. There aren't many new
folks who join the list, nowadays.

> The way I read it was that mana spells didn't have the targetting rules;
> it only goes against willpower. Physical spells use targetting modifiers.
> However, it's been a while since I've look at it. Perhaps I'm
> misremembering?

I'm pretty sure that Mana spells have Willpower (sometimes Intelligence) as
the TN, while Physical spells have Body (Sometimes Intelligence or
Quickness) as the TN. Both sorts of spells are affected by ranged combat TN
modifiers such as darkness, cover, movement, and so on. There are exceptions
for Elemental Manipulation spells, of course.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 74
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Mon Jan 21 05:45:01 2002
James Zealey writes:

> Invisibility appears not to work on the astral plane (although if you read
> the header text for illusion spells, it seems to infer otherwise).

It might work on the astral plane, if it was cast from and to astrally
present beings. Ie, if both the caster and target are physical, then the
spell makes the target invisible on the physical plane. OTOH, if the target
was astral, and so was the caster (in order to be able to cast it on them
;-)), then the spell would provide invisibility from astral observation, but
not physical. This is similar to the +3 Initiative Dice affecting astrally
projecting magicians argument - the only reason the +3 Initiative Dice trick
doesn't work is because the rules specifically prohibit Initiative Dice
modifiers for astrally projecting magicians. There is no such limit for
other Sustained Mana spells, like Invisibility, though.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 75
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gak The Great)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Mon Jan 21 15:20:03 2002
Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, James Zealey whispered:
<snip>
> Oh, and I think that SR3 aspected adepts now get astral sight (correct me
if I'm wrong).

Consider youself corrected ;) Only full magicians can project and get astral
perception for free, and only physads can get astral perception by paying
two points of magic. Aspected mages[?] ("Aspektzauberer" in German, no
longer "Adepten", so I dunno what it'S called in SR3 eng.) don't possess any
kind of astral sense they can actively use, and cannot buy anything in that
direction later on.
>
> As for why cover mods apply? Here's my take.
> Magic requires you to have a clear idea of what it is you are going to do,
and who or what you > are doing it to. This is reflected in the ritual magic
rules which require you to have a close
> personal item of the subject, or an integral part of them, or have direct
line of sight. You know > the ritual is directed at "the person with a close
connection to this item" or "that guy over
> there".
> Regular magic is a spur of the moment "that guy over there".
> The mage doesn't have time to make that fact solid in his mind, so if
something is in the way, he > may end up doubting the guy he wants to hit
with a spell is actually there (wait, maybe it's just > a hat on a stick!
Maybe that's one guys leg and anothers arm! etc.) Maybe not in so many
> words, but it's difficult to really congeal the thought of "that guy over
there" if you're not
> looking at the entire person. Given time (like a ritual) the mage could
ignore cover modifiers as > he makes himself more certain of the target
(This may warrant allowing a mage to "aim" a spell > to reduce such
modifiers).
> I hope I explained that well...

My version (which is almost identical to the offficial ruling, IIRC) is that
when casting a spell, the mage has to look at the aura of his target, and
then look for weak spots or some kind of lever so he can change the targets
aura (simply pump in raw excess mana for a manabolt, or fix the essence to
heal the target) or weave in some kind of spell (I could imagine that
levitate works that way, like, the spell itself is pushed back by earths
gaiasphere, so by regulating this pushing force, you can eliminate gravity,
only thast now numerous inconsistencies with SR-rules occur :(. If the
target of the mage is partly covered, the mage cannot see the whole of the
aura, and my miss some weak spots, therefore making it harder to toss the
spell.

-- GAK THE GREAT

"Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden,
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn."
Sauron aus "Herr der Ringe von J.R.R. Tolkien
Message no. 76
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Mon Jan 21 15:45:01 2002
From: "Gak The Great" <andypfister@***.net>
> Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, James Zealey whispered:
> <snip>
> > Oh, and I think that SR3 aspected adepts now get astral sight (correct me
> if I'm wrong).
>
> Consider youself corrected ;) Only full magicians can project and get astral
> perception for free, and only physads can get astral perception by paying
> two points of magic. Aspected mages[?] ("Aspektzauberer" in German, no
> longer "Adepten", so I dunno what it'S called in SR3 eng.) don't possess
any
> kind of astral sense they can actively use, and cannot buy anything in that
> direction later on.

SR3 page 160: Aspected Magicians:

"Aspected magicians are capable of astral perception, but not astral
projection."

Lars
--
Lars Wagner Hansen, Jagtvej 11, 4180 Sorø
l-hansen@*****.tele.dk http://home4.inet.tele.dk/l-hansen
--
SRGC v0.22 SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ B--- UB++ IE+ RN LST W++ dk sa++ ma+
sh++ ad++++ ri mc rk-- m- (e-- o t-- d-) gm+ M- P-
--
Main Rule of Usenet: Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to
their level, then beat you with experience.
Message no. 77
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gak The Great)
Subject: cover modifiers and spells
Date: Tue Jan 22 09:10:01 2002
Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Lars Wagner Hansen whispered:
> From: "Gak The Great" <andypfister@***.net>
> > Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, James Zealey whispered:
> > <snip>
> > > Oh, and I think that SR3 aspected adepts now get astral sight (correct
me
> > if I'm wrong).
> >
> > Consider youself corrected ;) Only full magicians can project and get
astral
> > perception for free, and only physads can get astral perception by
paying
> > two points of magic. Aspected mages[?] ("Aspektzauberer" in German, no
> > longer "Adepten", so I dunno what it'S called in SR3 eng.) don't
possess
any
> > kind of astral sense they can actively use, and cannot buy anything in
that
> > direction later on.
>
> SR3 page 160: Aspected Magicians:
>
> "Aspected magicians are capable of astral perception, but not astral
> projection."

Whoops! My bad. I think I'll just consider myself corrected :)

-- GAK THE GREAT

"Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden,
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn."
Sauron aus "Herr der Ringe von J.R.R. Tolkien

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cover modifiers and 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!