NEWS

direct and indirect spells

  • 16 Replies
  • 7151 Views

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« on: <02-16-12/1626:05> »
I am not entirely sure where to put this thread, but I figured here would be a good place to start.  My question is this, how does a direct spell fare in use?  Because as far as I can see, it is almost always more beneficial to use a direct spell, with the exception of AOE usage where you cannot target everyone.  An indirect spell can be dodged, has to go through half armor extra (or full if they have the right upgrade), and they cost more.  My question is how useful are those secondary effects to warrant all those downsides.  I can kinda see it with fire, because that can blow up guns and grenades and the like, adding damage and disarming the enemy, but still, how is that handled?  I just want to know how indirect combat spells work in actual practice against direct combat spells. 

Orvich

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 210
« Reply #1 on: <02-16-12/1628:16> »
The answer is that direct spells are just better.

 I can see only a few situations and spells where an indirect spell will do you better (such as element grenade from WAR). Your gm may even be alright with you using elemental spells in a direct fashion, generating the fire directly in or on the target instead of conjuring it in your hands and throwing it at them and so on for the other elements. I don't remember there being some prohibition against it, but I might be wrong!

EDIT: Oh, yep. I found it, can't have direct elemental effects. The only elemental effects I've heard being really worth it are electricity and... electricity?
« Last Edit: <02-16-12/1630:00> by Orvich »

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #2 on: <02-16-12/1630:58> »
Thanks, I think that creating the fire as a direct spell would require making a new spell.  Also, while I kinda figured that direct was better (that was more or less obvious) I am wondering what situation an indirect spell would be preferable. 

Demerzel

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 96
« Reply #3 on: <02-16-12/1641:49> »
Against targets wth a high object resistance, but low to moderate body and armor. Like drones, as an example.

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #4 on: <02-16-12/1648:27> »
thanks for the info. 

tzizimine

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Yes, I misspelled tzitzimeme...
« Reply #5 on: <02-16-12/1651:47> »
Indirect combat spells are also useful for just attacking objects... like setting a building on fire...
"When in doubt, cause trouble. When in trouble, cause doubt."

My Cheat Sheet in pdf

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #6 on: <02-16-12/1653:37> »
but what about blowing guns up?  That sounds really useful. 

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #7 on: <02-16-12/1704:29> »
It all depends on what you're targeting. Manabolt is great to use on Trolls, since their Willpower is likely less than their Body or Armor. Powerbolt is great against mages, as they're likely to have less Body than others. Flamethrower is great against vehicles, and makes a decent backup in case you don't have one of the other two spells I mentioned, or their nonlethal equivalents. And dropping a fireball into melee can be an effective tactic, especially if the melee types on your team have flame resistant armor, and you help by adding your counterspelling dice to their defense.
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #8 on: <02-16-12/1710:18> »
Cool, so it is generally not meant to use flamethrower in combat if you have the other stuff.  But my question is whether I could use flamethrower to explode some dudes gun.  Like combat starts, and I hit his gun with flamethrower (or I use fireball and the guy is engulfed in fire) how do I figure out whether the gun blows up?  Or if the guy's clothing catches fire.  Also, I noticed that in SR4 (page 204) that it says direct combat spells take more mana, even though they have less drain value than physical spells. 
« Last Edit: <02-16-12/1715:06> by Dracain »

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #9 on: <02-16-12/1724:04> »
If you want to blow up someone's gun, Demolish Gun (SM, pg 165) is the way to go.

As for combat uses of indirect spells, as I said, it all depends on the target. Indirect spells work well on drones and vehicles. The -half impact armor bit means that you stand a better chance of damaging an armored vehicle with magic than with bullets. Also, with indirect area spells, you don't have to have line of sight to the individuals to hit them. You just have to have LOS to the target point. Which makes it good for, say, dealing with the squad of guys in that chopper circling around and strafing your position with a minigun. Fireball in the cabin, takes care of the gunner, any troops inside, the pilot, controls,... Well, I'll let you imagine the results.

Against individual metahumans, the other spells I mentioned are optimal, but by no means take that to say that indirect spells are a bad choice. In fact, anyone that likes to play games with chameleon suits or the like learns quickly that Fireball means a mage doesn't have to see you to hit you.

As for the effects of elemental spells, they deal special types of damage, and you can find details of their secondary effects on page 163, SR4A, and page 164, SM.

Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

Dracain

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
« Reply #10 on: <02-16-12/1736:02> »
Thanks for the tips.  I was just curious as to the logistics of it.  Though how much damage do you think a blowing up gun would do?  Not a demolished gun, but a gun hit with some sort of fire effect (say I used ignite on it, or flamethrower).  I am thinking it would do some level of damage.  Basically, if someone thinks shooting me is a good idea, I basically wanna turn their gun into a grenade in their hands.  that way if I hit at best they are dead, and at worst, they have no gun (not counting the whole "I missed" problem). 

Here is how I think it would work.  First it would be a called shot, I am thinking -2 for a really big gun, -3 for a rifle and -4 for the small stuff, than if it hit, we would move to the next step.  Either it would be a success check (probably against 3) and it would deal damage based around how much ammo it had in the gun, and how the ammo was stored (very low to little more than disabling the gun in a revolver with one shot in it, but to a fully loaded AK-94 it would be like having a grenade go off in your hands).  The other way would be an opposed test against the guns armor rating X 2 as it says in the book (SR4 204) success causes the same effect as in the first option, maybe doing a little more damage with net hits, but that wouldn't make much sense. 
« Last Edit: <02-16-12/1813:31> by Dracain »

Demerzel

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 96
« Reply #11 on: <02-16-12/1830:11> »
The elemental effect fire is nover guarenteed to produce secondary explosions. As a GM I like players using thinks like flamethrower as it gives me an out in the odd case they amy be overwhelmed. If you're up against the wall and your GM is looking for a way to give you a slight edge flamethrower will give a GM an opportunity to make the target all 'splody, where manaball can not really have a similar effect.

So there's another benefit of elemental effects it allows a good GM a potential hook for dramatic effect.

UmaroVI

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
« Reply #12 on: <02-16-12/1835:27> »
Here's how it breaks down, yo.

For living single targets you can see, Stunbolt is almost always the best spell to use, with 2 exceptions. Against people with higher Willpower than Body, which is not super common (even mages are likely to only have, at most, 2-3 more, and many not even that), Powerbolt or Manabolt are arguably better, but also do more drain. In general, you should just be stunbolting in this circumstance. Against people with active Pain Editors, Powerbolt and Manabolt are outright better.

For groups of living targets all of which you can see, the above still holds with "bolt" replaced by "ball."

Against nonliving targets, things get complex. Indirect P-damage elemental spells are better than Power* spells in the following circumstances (note that Stun- and Mana- spells are useless here, also note I'm ignoring Counterspelling because it affects both equally):
Power spells fizzle if (hits < OR) and on average do (F+dicepool/3-OR) damage. Elemental spells fizzle if (hits <= defense) and defense is Response (for autonomous drones and vehicles) or Command (for remote-controlled drones and vehicles), and then they get soaked by Body+Armor/2.

Thus the failure chance is higher for the indirect spell if (Response or Command) + 3 > 3*OR. However, you only care about this if the failure rate is significant - 2% chance of a fizzle vs. 1.7% chance of a fizzle is whee! territory.

The average damage on a non-fizzle for the indirect spell is higher if 3*OR > (Reaction or Command) + Body + Armor/2.

Okay, that's some numbers. What does it mean? A typical nonliving target is going to be a drone or vehicle with OR 5 and Response of about 4. It takes Response/Command 12 before the drone or vehicle will have the same failure rate for an indirect spell as a direct spell. This means you are almost always going to have a higher failure rate for Power* spells. However, this difference gets less and less significant as your dicepool rises. With 15 dice, the direct spell is a terrible move because it will fizzle about 40% of the time. With 20 dice, your failure rate is about 15%. With 25 dice, it's about 5%. In any case, it's always going to be higher than the failure rate for the indirect spell except in major edge cases like a technomancer command rigging with a huge Command pool, and edge cases like the materials (from WAR!) with extra OR exist for direct spells too.

What about average damage? The direct spell will have a damage advantage on non-fizzles of (4/3+Body/3+Armor/6)-4. If you assume a drone with 3 Body and 9 Armor, the direct spell will do a bit less damage on average. If you assume a vehicle with 10 body and 20 armor, the direct spell will do 4 more damage on average. Moreover, the latter case matters more because you also need the extra damage more on tougher targets.

There are also three more catches. The first is that AE direct spells don't work on things you can't see. If you want to attack around a corner, or attack people hiding behind cover, you can center an Indirect spell somewhere you can see, and hit them - but you can't do that with direct spells.

The second catch is elemental-specific defenses like Nonconductivity. This only affects common elements, though, so can be gotten around by picking exotic elements like Light or Blast.

The third is the elemental effects. For the most part, these are things that are nifty like setting things on fire, and are reasons to pick one element over another, but not really reasons to pick an elemental spell in the first place. I know, I know, lighting things on fire is cool, but so is disintegrating them. The major exceptions are Metal, which makes you cut yourself if you take it because it blows trolls for pocket change, and Sound, which does S damage, ignores armor, and Nauseates anyone who takes more boxes than they have Willpower. Nauseate is 3 combat turns of not doing anything which removes people from the fight pretty effectively. This puts Sound attacks in kind of a different category than other elemental effects.

Okay, that was a lot of information. What conclusions can you draw?

TL;DR starts here

First, Punch, Clout, and Blast all suck. Don't use them.

Second, Powerbolt and Powerball are bad spells for anyone who doesn't have large pools with Combat spells. If you are a making a magician who's not very focused on combat spells, steer clear.

Mana* spells are very circumstantial spells. If you knew them, you would want to use them on living targets with either more Will than Body if you are willing to take extra drain for slightly better success rate, or on living targets with Pain Editors. Those are both pretty narrow niches, and they are only marginally better than Power* spells in those niches. Almost everyone should take Power* spells instead and spend the saved points buying more variety in their spells or more drain resist instead.

For heavily combat-focused magicians, Powerbolt is generally uniformly better than a single-target P-damage elemental spell.

For heavily combat-focused magicians, both Powerball and AE elemental P-damage spells have situational advantages and disadvantages. Buying either or both are reasonable choices.

That leave Sound spells. Single target sound spells cost 3 more drain than Stunbolt, and you are generally better off just overcasting the Stunbolt. However, there's 2 important advantages to Soundwave over Stunball - hitting targets you can't see, and that you can choose to cast Soundwave at Force = Magic and still have a solid chance of taking out everyone you hit, which you can't do with Stunball. Because Soundwave does more drain, you'll take the same damage as casting Force=Magic+6 Stunball, which would also flatten everyone but would do P drain.  Thus, again, Stunball, Soundwave, or both are reasonable purchases.

My general recommendation for mages:

Everyone should know Stunbolt unless you just do not care about combat at all.

After that, buy some selection of the following, depending on how many of your spells you want to be Combat spells.
Stunball or Soundwave
[Powerbolt if Combat focused] [Any exotic P-damage Elemental single-target spell if not]
[Powerball or any exotic P-damage Elemental AE if Combat focused] [Any exotic P-damage Elemental AE if not combat focused]

After that, whichever of Stunball or Soundwave you didn't get, and whichever of Powerball or the AE Elemental you didn't get if Combat focused (which you hopefully are if you're buying this many combat spells).

After that, Manabolt.
Lastly, Manaball.



Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #13 on: <02-16-12/1850:51> »
I'll disagree slightly with Umaro here. My spell list for my combat mage, Iceblade, includes Manabolt, Icebolt, Astral Armor, Increase Reflexes, Combat Sense, Heal, Ice Slick, Orgy, and Physical Mask. Of those, only Physical Mask has no combat application. I have Manabolt for creatures with high body and Icebolt for vehicles and creatures with light armor. I use Astral Armor, Increase Reflexes, and Combat Sense to buff myself, typically with Increase Reflexes sustained through a focus. Heal is good for patching you up after a fight. Ice Slick and Orgy give you good measures of battlefield control. There is more to a combat focused mage than raw damage output.
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

UmaroVI

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
« Reply #14 on: <02-16-12/1919:23> »
When I said "Combat focused" I meant "focused on Combat spells," rather than "focused on spells for combat" because the relevant issue is that Power* spells are less good for mages with smaller dice pools on Combat-school spells. I do agree that there are plenty of spells outside the Combat school that are useful for combat. Physical Mask is actually one of them - you can make a very effective mage who buffs themself and carries around heavy weapons, then Physical Masks as a dude who isn't carrying a gauss rifle.