Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:32:24 +0100
Caric said on 6:56/12 Jul 97...

> Wouldn't there have to be something there with an aura? Even if it's just
> a chair or a marble that the sammie tossed? Unless it's a DM I would say
> that there has to be some targetmore precis then just "over there."

Why does everyone treat SR magic as having spells and damaging
manipulations?

SR rulebooks don't, AFAIK, say anything about having to have a target on
which an area-effect spell must be centered, and I allow any spell,
including combat spells, to be aimed at a point in space.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Forget about the ones who "have it all."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:20:45 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-13 06:33:29 EDT, gurth@******.NL (Gurth) writes:

>
> SR rulebooks don't, AFAIK, say anything about having to have a target on
> which an area-effect spell must be centered, and I allow any spell,
> including combat spells, to be aimed at a point in space.
>
> -
Then I really hope you also allow for those people caught in the area effect
of such spells to have access to their armor for resisting the damage.
"Ground" is a target 3 or 4 in the book, sidewalk is a bit
higher...etcetera. That could stage up the damage really, bloodily, fast.
-Keith
Message no. 3
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:57:25 +0100
|> SR rulebooks don't, AFAIK, say anything about having to have a target on
|> which an area-effect spell must be centered, and I allow any spell,
|> including combat spells, to be aimed at a point in space.

|Then I really hope you also allow for those people caught in the area effect
|of such spells to have access to their armor for resisting the damage.

Why? If the effect spreads out in astral space and then grounds through all
the auras visible in the area???

| "Ground" is a target 3 or 4 in the book, sidewalk is a bit
|higher...etcetera. That could stage up the damage really, bloodily, fast.

"Ground" is a very vague concept.
If the FLOOR is made of artificial material, the T# for it is in the double
figures. If it's something like Tarmacaddam, the t# would still be high, as
would concrete.

Only if the ground is made of rock or earth with the t# be low....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:30:07 +0100
J. Keith Henry said on 12:20/13 Jul 97...

> > SR rulebooks don't, AFAIK, say anything about having to have a target on
> > which an area-effect spell must be centered, and I allow any spell,
> > including combat spells, to be aimed at a point in space.
> >
> Then I really hope you also allow for those people caught in the area effect
> of such spells to have access to their armor for resisting the damage.

Why should area-effect combat spells be resisted by armor if they can be
aimed at a point in space? DMs sure, they attack from the outside, but
combat spells attack from inside out. I'd like to see body armor that
protects against that...

Furthermore, I don't see what the big fuss is about -- there is no
difference to the resistance if an area-effect combat spell is aimed at a
person or a meter beside him/her.

> "Ground" is a target 3 or 4 in the book, sidewalk is a bit
> higher...etcetera. That could stage up the damage really, bloodily, fast.

Would you mind running that by me again? I have no clue what you're
talking about...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:42:03 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-13 16:00:30 EDT, u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK (Spike)
writes:

>
> |Then I really hope you also allow for those people caught in the area
> effect
> |of such spells to have access to their armor for resisting the damage.
>
> Why? If the effect spreads out in astral space and then grounds through
all
> the auras visible in the area???
>
Okay, I know I snipped what was after this, but it was another example of
material taken out of context.

A Manaball, or any Area of Effect Combat Magic, does NOT ground into all the
auras that are within the potential area of effect. It only grounds into a
single target, then blossoms inversely (outward in) into manifestation
afterwards. Thus, if you hit the guy with a Body of 4 with a Powerball, gain
6 successes, and there are three targets with higher body in that area, they
they are resisting the spell based upon the 6 successes, and not upon their
own attributes.

At least that is how it's been interpreted by the people here...(shrug).

-Keith
Message no. 6
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:32:45 -0700
> A Manaball, or any Area of Effect Combat Magic, does NOT ground into all the
> auras that are within the potential area of effect. It only grounds into a
> single target, then blossoms inversely (outward in) into manifestation
> afterwards. Thus, if you hit the guy with a Body of 4 with a Powerball, gain
> 6 successes, and there are three targets with higher body in that area, they
> they are resisting the spell based upon the 6 successes, and not upon their
> own attributes.

Erm. Bad things happen from this. Target the powerball at the Elf Mage
(body 1) and the Troll really sucks it in. Or worse, target it into the
microbe (body: fractional) and watch ever'body keel on over.

I think it's been explained that you take the dice rolled by the mage
and compare it individually to each target (er, subject.. each affected
person, let's leace it at that).

Mage rolls 3, 3, 6, 11:

Guy with (Att) 3 resists v. 4 successes
Troll with (Att) 8 resists v. 1 success.

I've always pictured manaballs as having an Akira effect: This (x,y,z)
area No Longer Exists.

> At least that is how it's been interpreted by the people here...(shrug).

> -Keith
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:49:42 +0100
J. Keith Henry said on 17:42/14 Jul 97...

> A Manaball, or any Area of Effect Combat Magic, does NOT ground into all the
> auras that are within the potential area of effect. It only grounds into a
> single target, then blossoms inversely (outward in) into manifestation
> afterwards. Thus, if you hit the guy with a Body of 4 with a Powerball, gain
> 6 successes, and there are three targets with higher body in that area, they
> they are resisting the spell based upon the 6 successes, and not upon their
> own attributes.

If you read SRII carefully, you'll see that the magician rolls the dice,
and compares them to the TNs for the individual targets in the area (page
130). All targets therefore resist the spell at the number of successes
achieved against _that_ target, not against the target the spell was aimed
at. To spells being cast from astral space, I say this rule applies as
well, because I can't remember anything that contradicts it.

> At least that is how it's been interpreted by the people here...(shrug).

Not by me...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:20:11 +0100
|> At least that is how it's been interpreted by the people here...(shrug).
|
|Not by me...

Or me...
(Hey, it makes a difference from "Me too"....)
;)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 9
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:40:48 -0400
In a message dated 97-07-14 06:31:23 EDT, gurth@******.NL (Gurth) writes:

> protects against that...
>
> Furthermore, I don't see what the big fuss is about -- there is no
> difference to the resistance if an area-effect combat spell is aimed at a
> person or a meter beside him/her.

Actually, there is a BIG difference. If it is at the person/spot next to
someone else, then two damage ranges are dealt with. First one is the person
the spell is actually ground into, s/he/it has no armor bonuses, because it
is his/her/its aura that is being ground into. The second area is the "blast
zone" of the combat spell. Think of it like a dam being opened. The hole
where the water is going through is directly affected by the power, while the
surrounding region is caught in the "secondary wash". Thus, the question of
armor counting for those caught in the blast versus those that are the target
point of the blast.

Area of Effect spells of the physical nature do not necessarily ground into
each target differently, though I realize that is likely the most frequently
played variation. BUT, the option I am giving suddenly re-establishes the
options of elemental effects such as Fire and Blast and what differences they
make in Combat Magic. In Manipulation Magic, the differences are more
obvious.

>
> > "Ground" is a target 3 or 4 in the book, sidewalk is a bit
> > higher...etcetera. That could stage up the damage really, bloodily,
fast.
>
> Would you mind running that by me again? I have no clue what you're
> talking about...

See the above...
-Keith
Message no. 10
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:04:33 +0100
|Actually, there is a BIG difference. If it is at the person/spot next to
|someone else, then two damage ranges are dealt with. First one is the person
|the spell is actually ground into, s/he/it has no armor bonuses, because it
|is his/her/its aura that is being ground into. The second area is the "blast
|zone" of the combat spell. Think of it like a dam being opened. The hole
|where the water is going through is directly affected by the power, while the
|surrounding region is caught in the "secondary wash". Thus, the question of
|armor counting for those caught in the blast versus those that are the target
|point of the blast.

That os NOT how it works. We've been through this before.
Even our resident unofficial Shadowrun Guru says it works in the following
way, so why don't you just drop it, and admit that it's a house rule!

Noone gets armour versus ANY combat spell, be it area effect, Mana or
Physical.

The spell affects EVERYONE in the area at the same time.

You roll your dice, and compare those dice with EACH INDIVIDUAL TARGET.

The spell does NOT ground out though one individual, and then affect
everyone else based on the number of successes that got through.

If that were the case, all the munchkins would have a field day.

<example>

Munchi: I'll lob this apple at them!

GM: Why?

Munchi: Well, then I can cast a fireball at the apple, and everyone'll get
scorched!

</example>

|Area of Effect spells of the physical nature do not necessarily ground into
|each target differently, though I realize that is likely the most frequently
|played variation. BUT, the option I am giving suddenly re-establishes the
|options of elemental effects such as Fire and Blast and what differences they
|make in Combat Magic.

It fixes one broken rule and breaks another one even more, I'm afraid.....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 11
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 17:14:02 -0700
Spike wrote:
<snip>
> That os NOT how it works. We've been through this before.
> Even our resident unofficial Shadowrun Guru says it works in the following
> way, so why don't you just drop it, and admit that it's a house rule!
>
> Noone gets armour versus ANY combat spell, be it area effect, Mana or
> Physical.
>
> The spell affects EVERYONE in the area at the same time.

I do believe that it has to be targeted at one person and whether or not
the spell effects them determines if it effects others. (wait for my
explaination bellow before you shout your disagreement)

> You roll your dice, and compare those dice with EACH INDIVIDUAL TARGET.

Yes you do, but ONLY if the original target was effected. The main
target takes no damage then the spell does no tground through them and
hit the other. No armor would help to resist, because the spell is
still going off on the astral.

> The spell does NOT ground out though one individual, and then affect
> everyone else based on the number of successes that got through.

It does ground through one individual, but it does not matter by how
many successes (as long as there is one net. If the spell gamages the
target then the numbers originally rolled are compared to the rest of
the people in the area of effect.

> If that were the case, all the munchkins would have a field day.

Agreed, but the idea that you just pick a point in space makes the LOS
requirement silly to me. If you can just make the spell come out of mid
air and go off, why does it matter if you can see them or not? Thew
spell would still go off.

> |Area of Effect spells of the physical nature do not necessarily ground into
> |each target differently, though I realize that is likely the most frequently
> |played variation. BUT, the option I am giving suddenly re-establishes the
> |options of elemental effects such as Fire and Blast and what differences they
> |make in Combat Magic.

The spellcaster will have to compare success with all individuals, but
the spell still has to successfully hit the main target for that to
happen.

Caric
Message no. 12
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 20:16:37 -0700
---"J. Keith Henry" wrote:
>
> A Manaball, or any Area of Effect Combat Magic, does NOT ground into
all the
> auras that are within the potential area of effect. It only grounds
into a
> single target, then blossoms inversely (outward in) into
manifestation
> afterwards. Thus, if you hit the guy with a Body of 4 with a
Powerball, gain
> 6 successes, and there are three targets with higher body in that
area, they
> they are resisting the spell based upon the 6 successes, and not
upon their
> own attributes.
>
> At least that is how it's been interpreted by the people
here...(shrug).

That's not the way I interpret the rule. Seems pretty B&W to me.

BBB, page 130:

"To make a Spell Success Test for an area-effect spell, roll the dice
only once, then compare the results of that roll against the varying
target numbers for each of the valid targets within the area of
effect. The caster's successes are counted seperately for each target
within the radius effect of the spell."

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:55:23 +0100
Spike said on 0:04/16 Jul 97...

> That os NOT how it works. We've been through this before.
> Even our resident unofficial Shadowrun Guru says it works in the following
> way

Might I point out that that doesn't mean anything...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:55:23 +0100
Caric said on 17:14/15 Jul 97...

> I do believe that it has to be targeted at one person and whether or not
> the spell effects them determines if it effects others. (wait for my
> explaination bellow before you shout your disagreement)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that a very LOUD explanation? :)

> It does ground through one individual, but it does not matter by how
> many successes (as long as there is one net. If the spell gamages the
> target then the numbers originally rolled are compared to the rest of
> the people in the area of effect.

That's not what SRII says. It doesn't make mention of "If the original
target is affected, compare the roll to ..." It just says to check every
valid target.

> Agreed, but the idea that you just pick a point in space makes the LOS
> requirement silly to me. If you can just make the spell come out of mid
> air and go off, why does it matter if you can see them or not? Thew
> spell would still go off.

If you can't see them, they won't be hit even if you roll a hundred
successes. The exception here are manipulation spells, but since they
travel toward the target through the physical AND astral planes, they
wouldn't be subject to your "grounding out" idea anyway, I think.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:55:23 +0100
J. Keith Henry said on 18:40/15 Jul 97...

> > Furthermore, I don't see what the big fuss is about -- there is no
> > difference to the resistance if an area-effect combat spell is aimed at a
> > person or a meter beside him/her.
>
> Actually, there is a BIG difference. If it is at the person/spot next to
> someone else, then two damage ranges are dealt with. First one is the person
> the spell is actually ground into, s/he/it has no armor bonuses, because it
> is his/her/its aura that is being ground into. The second area is the "blast
> zone" of the combat spell. Think of it like a dam being opened. The hole
> where the water is going through is directly affected by the power, while the
> surrounding region is caught in the "secondary wash". Thus, the question
of
> armor counting for those caught in the blast versus those that are the target
> point of the blast.

Good idea, except I've always understood that that doesn't happen to
with spells. They're not grenades that detonate at a certain point and
then move outward; the effects of a spell appear in the whole area at the
same moment.

I just checked SRII (page 130) and the Grimoire (page 111) and
unfortunately neither gives an indication which of the ttwo
interpretations is right. In fact especially the text in the Grimoire is
ambiguous enough to be open to both interpretations :(

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:55:23 +0100
Loki said on 20:16/15 Jul 97...

> That's not the way I interpret the rule. Seems pretty B&W to me.
>
> BBB, page 130:
>
[snip quote]

Loki, it doesn't help much to just quote a rule without saying something
about how _you_ think it should be explained... That's basically what
this is about -- which interpretation is "right."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:00:12 +0100
|BBB, page 130:
|
|"To make a Spell Success Test for an area-effect spell, roll the dice
|only once, then compare the results of that roll against the varying
|target numbers for each of the valid targets within the area of
|effect. The caster's successes are counted seperately for each target
|within the radius effect of the spell."

Thanks Loki.

I rest my case....
(It's been a bit busy lately...)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 18
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:24:47 +0100
|
|Spike said on 0:04/16 Jul 97...
|
|> That os NOT how it works. We've been through this before.
|> Even our resident unofficial Shadowrun Guru says it works in the following
|> way
|
|Might I point out that that doesn't mean anything...

Oh, come on Gurth....
You *ARE* the unofficial shadowrun guru and all round know-it-all here
y'know....

:)

There's no need to be bashful.....

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 19
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:48:26 -0700
Gurth wrote:
>
> Caric said on 17:14/15 Jul 97...
>
> > I do believe that it has to be targeted at one person and whether or not
> > the spell effects them determines if it effects others. (wait for my
> > explaination bellow before you shout your disagreement)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Is that a very LOUD explanation? :)

<Homer>
Doh!!!!!
</Homer>

:)

> > It does ground through one individual, but it does not matter by how
> > many successes (as long as there is one net. If the spell gamages the
> > target then the numbers originally rolled are compared to the rest of
> > the people in the area of effect.
>
> That's not what SRII says. It doesn't make mention of "If the original
> target is affected, compare the roll to ..." It just says to check every
> valid target.
>
> > Agreed, but the idea that you just pick a point in space makes the LOS
> > requirement silly to me. If you can just make the spell come out of mid
> > air and go off, why does it matter if you can see them or not? Thew
> > spell would still go off.
>
> If you can't see them, they won't be hit even if you roll a hundred
> successes. The exception here are manipulation spells, but since they
> travel toward the target through the physical AND astral planes, they
> wouldn't be subject to your "grounding out" idea anyway, I think.

Correct, the DM's wouldn't work the same way, hmmm i'll have to look
through the grmthingy and BBB again, apparently we've just been doing it
incorrectly (from an official standpoint) ah well. The only way to make
the LOS requirement make any sense is to do the spellcasting test the
way you describe, so I still need to check, but I have a creeping
sensation that you have got it right.

Caric
Message no. 20
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:52:30 -0700
Gurth wrote:

> Good idea, except I've always understood that that doesn't happen to
> with spells. They're not grenades that detonate at a certain point and
> then move outward; the effects of a spell appear in the whole area at the
> same moment.
>
> I just checked SRII (page 130) and the Grimoire (page 111) and
> unfortunately neither gives an indication which of the ttwo
> interpretations is right. In fact especially the text in the Grimoire is
> ambiguous enough to be open to both interpretations :(

How did it explain it in first edition? Spike? Loki? I agree that the
rules as stated don't explain it well, but as i said in an earlier
posting, the way that you have been describing it is the only way that
makes sense when you factor in the LOS requirement Gurth. If the spell
hits the target and then explodes out of his aura, then why does it
matter if the magician can see the other targets or not?

Caric-the-trying-to-prove-himself-wrong-shaman
Message no. 21
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:45:54 +0100
|How did it explain it in first edition? Spike? Loki?

I'll have to look that one up.
(I never have my books near me when I'm on the computer.... Too far to
bother walking... (25 minute 'round trip).)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 22
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:29:11 -0700
---Gurth wrote:
>
> Loki said on 20:16/15 Jul 97...
>
> > That's not the way I interpret the rule. Seems pretty B&W to me.
> >
> > BBB, page 130:
> >
> [snip quote]
>
> Loki, it doesn't help much to just quote a rule without saying
something
> about how _you_ think it should be explained... That's basically what
> this is about -- which interpretation is "right."

That's what my post was for. The rules stated that you "compare the
results of that roll against the varying target numbers for each of
the valid targets within the area of effect. The caster's successes
are counted separately for each target within the radius of effect."
Ergo, if the casting mage rolled 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8 with Power
Bolt. This means he has 8 successes off the elven decker (primary
target) with the body of 3. However, that does mean he gets the same 8
successes against the mercs with body 6 (as Keith had been
suggesting)...on them he only has 2 successes.

That better? :o)

===
@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

"You're being held up by a stim patch, Loki's almost a pile of ashes
thanks to that fire elemental, and we've got the Baron running around
screaming assassins...assassins...oh eek, assassins!"
--> Caric to Ook during the Harlequin Campaign
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 23
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:14:38 +0100
Caric said on 9:52/16 Jul 97...

> How did it explain it in first edition?

Probably worse ;)

> Spike? Loki?

Hey, I started playing SR with first edition too you know! :)

One of the biggest problems with SR1 is the way in which all spellcasting
rules have been thrown together. There's still a piece of paper in my
falling apart SR1 book with a step-by-step spellcasting guide... Ah, here
it is, page 81: "When casting an area-effect spell, the magician rolls
his dice for his Success Test only once, but Target Numbers may vary for
each character within the effect radius. Count the successes separately
for each target within the radius." It then continues with an example of
Neddy casting a Fireball against three targets, one in the open, one
behind a low wall, and one who just dove through a window. The second
targets gets a +2 for the wall, and the third a +4 for the window.

<whiskey commercial voice>Nothing's changed, really...</whiskey commercial
voice>

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 24
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:14:38 +0100
Spike said on 11:24/16 Jul 97...

> |Might I point out that that doesn't mean anything...
>
> Oh, come on Gurth....
> You *ARE* the unofficial shadowrun guru and all round know-it-all here
> y'know....
>
> :)

BTW, Damion is back, and there's a reason he's got more or less the same
line in his .sig as I do...

> There's no need to be bashful.....

I'm not bashful, I'm just pointing out the fact that I don't claim to make
any officially-(i.e. FASA-)endorsed rules interpretations, before somebody
gets a fit over that.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:39:43 +0100
Loki said on 20:29/16 Jul 97...

> Ergo, if the casting mage rolled 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8 with Power
> Bolt. This means he has 8 successes off the elven decker (primary
> target) with the body of 3. However, that does mean he gets the same 8
> successes against the mercs with body 6 (as Keith had been
> suggesting)...on them he only has 2 successes.
>
> That better? :o)

A bit, but it looks like you're contradicting yourself now, by first
saying the caster has 8 successes against the merc, and then saying he has
only 2 :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Don't you ever wonder if you ARE wasting your life?"
"Only when I'm awake."
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 26
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:16:31 -0700
Gurth wrote:
>
> Caric said on 9:52/16 Jul 97...
>
> > How did it explain it in first edition?
>
> Probably worse ;)
>
> > Spike? Loki?
>
> Hey, I started playing SR with first edition too you know! :)

I know, so did I, but I didn't know if you had the Big Blue Book or not
Spike and Loki I know have it so there. :P

> One of the biggest problems with SR1 is the way in which all spellcasting
> rules have been thrown together. There's still a piece of paper in my
> falling apart SR1 book with a step-by-step spellcasting guide... Ah, here
> it is, page 81: "When casting an area-effect spell, the magician rolls
> his dice for his Success Test only once, but Target Numbers may vary for
> each character within the effect radius. Count the successes separately
> for each target within the radius." It then continues with an example of
> Neddy casting a Fireball against three targets, one in the open, one
> behind a low wall, and one who just dove through a window. The second
> targets gets a +2 for the wall, and the third a +4 for the window.
>
> <whiskey commercial voice>Nothing's changed, really...</whiskey commercial
> voice>

Well that's SR for ya...vague as always. <sigh>

Caric

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell types (was Re: Centering vs Penalties), 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!