[2018 NOTE: I SHOULD JUST RETRACT THIS IDIOT ARTICLE, BUT IT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT I RENUMBER THE REST OF MY CORNER ENTRIES AND, WELL,
FUCK THAT.]
Recently I was working on a computer program which, if I ever
complete it, would contain just about every bit of information on every
weapon, critter, vehicle, piece of cyberware, and spell in every Shadowrun
book ever created. Obviously I'd never be able to make this program
available on the web, it would violate every copyright in the book, I'm
simply constructing it for my own use in the hopes that it will make me a
more efficient GM. It couldn't possibly make me any less efficient.
In any case, I was working on my program, typing in spells,
when I suddenly realized that a few of the rules regarding Mana and
Physical based combat spells and some of their elemental effects didn't
make a whole lot of sense. At least not to me. Perhaps I misinterpreted
them or perhaps they're misprints but something doesn't add up.
I was first clued in that something might be wrong while
looking over the basic spell list which identified one of the Mana spells,
Manaball I believe, as being physical. Ok, could have been a misprint.
Then I looked up the spell in the rule book and it stated that "this mana
version only effects living objects". Well, yeah. Mana effects mana. But
it seemed to imply that the OTHER mana spells could effect inorganic
objects. Plus I noticed, as I'm sure everybody has, that in the original
rule book the Mana Bolts, Mana Darts, etc. were listed as being Physical.
Did I miss the errata sheet that explained this?
Well, whether there's a good explanation or not doesn't really
matter. What matters is that it got me rethinking my whole vision of how
Mana and Physical combat spells damage a target differently. And we all
know what happens when I start rethinking things: I screw with the
existing rules. So lets get started.
Remember: I'll only be talking about COMBAT spells.
By the Grimoire's definition a Physical spell grinds into the
flesh and bone or, well, steel of the target, ripping it apart, while Mana
spells hit the target's aura which then transfers the damage to the
physical body. By the Rule book's words, non-living objects do not have an
aura (so already we have problems with the Magic Against Vehicles rules
which states that vehicles have an aura. But I'll get to that later.) In
any case, it seems that Physical spells bypass the aura completely and go
for the guts. This makes sense because if Physical spells have the ability
to work on inanimate objects that have no aura, they probably aren't
looking for one. Mana spells, however, have to have an aura to hit
because, well, it's the only thing they can hit.
So let me start with the implications of these ideas:
1.
Physical spells won't work against people whose entire bodies are covered
with something.
In order to hit something with a spell you have to be able to
see it. If you can't see your target, namely a part of the target's body,
you can't hit him with a Physical spell. But you can hit him with a Mana
spell. Why? Because you're firing it at HIM, not his body. You're hitting
a, well, IDEA of the person, not the person himself. Specifically, you're
hitting the target's aura. Since the aura and the body "exchange" damage,
the damage is transferred to the body itself. Likewise, when you damage
somebody with a physical spell it shows in the aura.
2.
If you're hit with a Mana based combat spell with elemental effects you
get to use your armor to resist the elemental effects. If this spell is
Physical, you don't.
I don't like this idea but the more I think about it the more
it makes sense. Since Mana spells go off when they hit the target's aura
the elemental effects go off at this time as well, before they actually
reach the target. Remember: The body takes damage because the damage is
transferred from the aura. The spell never makes contact with the body, it
essentially "ends" once it hits the aura. Since the aura extends past the
body this occurs a little bit, perhaps a few centimeters, away from the
body. So a Mana based spell with fire elemental effects would flare up
away from the body, but still close enough to ignight stuff. The important
thing is, your armor is between you and the effect.
With Physical spells, things get really, really, really,
really ugly. Since the spell doesn't go off until it hits the actual body,
the elemental effects don't go off until this point as well. The effects
could be devastating. Take, for instance, somebody wearing a full suit of
security armor, minus the helmet. The spell caster, who can see the
target's head, decides to cast a Fire Bolt. Now when this spell hits the
target is going to catch on fire....INSIDE HIS ARMOR. This gets even more
frightening when you consider a similar spell with blast or, god forbid,
ACID effects.
Ok, enough with the implications. Now for a little Q&A;:
Wouldn't firing a Firebolt at that guy in the security armor just set his
head on fire?
I don't think so. Even though the spellcaster can only see his
target's head, he's still casting the spell at the target's body. The
body, as a whole, counts as the target, not just the head.
Well, then, what defines a "valid target" for other stuff?
I've pondered this a lot and have decided to define a valid
target as a, get ready for this, "Object that can be considered, in its
entirety, as a whole or survivable independent factor of a whole."
Woah. I bet everybody's wondering what I'm talking about. I'm
not too sure I even know what I'm talking about but here's a few somewhat
schizophrenic examples illustrating the idea:
A mage is casting Urban Renewal on the buildings lining an
alleyway. The spellcaster DOES NOT simply say to himself "I'm casting the
spell at these here buildings" because the spellcaster can not
simultaneously take into consideration ALL of the buildings' aspects. What
he can do is look the buildings over, take into consideration as many
aspects as he can, and fire off the spell. He's not really casting it at
"buildings", he's casting it at the walls, windows, doors, stairs, and so
on that he can realistically simultaneously take into consideration as
being the building. Although his ideas add up to "building" he still isn't
targeting the entire thing, only what he is able to perceive as the
building. The spell does the rest through area effect damage. "Building"
is too large a concept to be attacked as a whole.
A mage is casting Wrecker on a Americar. He looks the car
over, taking into account as many features as possible which wouldn't be
hard because, lets face it, there's not much to an Americar. With a firm
picture of the Americar in his mind, he casts the spell, damaging the
vehicle as a whole.
Another mage is thinking of casting a spell against a
different Americar, but he only wants damage the front fender. The front
fender can exist just fine without the car and the car can exist just fine
without the fender. He looks to the fender, and casts Power Bolt on it. No
problem. Could he have used Wrecker? No, because he wasn't thinking of the
vehicle (the spell's restricted target), he was thinking of the fender.
The guy with Urban Renewal just wants to bust out a window on
a building. He can't use Urban Renewal (restricted target) because he
isn't attacking his perception of the building, he's attacking a window.
He does, however, have Ram which will work just fine against a window.
Could he cast Ram against an entire wall or an entire building since it
can be considered as being "one object"? Shit, that's a tough one. I'd say
yes but the target number of the spell would be enormous. Since Ram isn't
an area effect spell, which would allow you to treat each window and door
as a separate target, you'd have to take into consideration every little
door and window and add them up into one gigantic Object Resistance
target.
A mage wants to cast a Fire Bolt only at the target's head. He
can't because the body is an integral machine which cannot be broken down
into smaller elements. Essence binds it together. What if the mage wanted
to cast the Fire Bolt against the target's cyber eye? I still probably
wouldn't let him because when the target obtained that cyber eye he paid
essence for it which made it part of his integral body.
What does all this mean for the Object Resistance Table?
Fluidity. I don't think a Dodge Scoot and a Panzer should rate
anywhere near each other on the Object Resistance scale. The Panzer would
probably have an off the scale rating as would an entire building being
targeted with a Ram spell. Does this mean Wrecker would be virtually
useless against a Panzer? Most definitely. If the spell could talk it
would say: "You want me to do WHAT?", a question the spell caster would
not be able to answer because he doesn't know the first thing about a
Panzer. What if the spellcaster DESIGNED the Panzer? No problem. To him
the Panzer wouldn't appear all that complex. But, at the same time, some
Shaman from the sticks who has never even seen a Panzer before could blow
out a window as easily as the next person using a normal combat spell.
Windows aren't that hard to comprehend. But isn't a living creature
complex? Yes, but the spell caster would probably be a living creature as
well and would have a decent understanding as to what life is.
Well, I'm out of cigarettes and it is now four in the morning.
Time to call it quits for tonight. I'll probably follow up this article
next week with more elaboration. Stay tuned. |