NEWS

Drain Costs of Indirect Elemental Spells and Direct Damage Spells

  • 73 Replies
  • 24991 Views

voydangel

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 537
  • SR GM since 1990. Damn I'm old.
« Reply #30 on: <05-25-12/0252:21> »
Completely off the cuff here - but what about either
1. Making all spell drain based on Force in stead of Force/2?
OR
2. just increase the drain of all direct combat spells by +4 (which would make stun bolt F/2 +3, if my memory serves)...

Anyone want to tackle the math on either of those options for balance/viability?
My tips for new GM's
Unless it is coming from an official source, RAI = "Rules As Imagined."
SR1+SR2+SR3++SR4++SR5+++h+b+++B+D382UBIE-RN---DSF-W+m+(o++)gm+MP

eighth circuit

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 232
« Reply #31 on: <05-25-12/0357:29> »
That's not a bad idea: maybe Force - 2 for manabolt, and add 1 for area effect, subtract 1 for stun? So a force 7 stunbolt, potentially a knockout, would have 4 drain, which will be completely resisted just under half the time, which seems fair.

Another, deadlier option: maybe twice the hits by the target on the resistance test? This makes direct combat spells against other mages or those protected by them extra-dangerous, and makes the drain unpredictable. On the upside, plenty of times against mundanes the drain will be minimal. Area-effect spells use the hits of the best resister.  One problem with this is that people would always cast at force equal to either magic or 2x magic, since force doesn't factor in to drain. Overcasting could be potentially deadly.

IKerensky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #32 on: <05-25-12/0650:29> »
I am currently re-readin 1st and 3rd edition so I am a bit mixed up in 4th edition game rules but :

- Dont Direct Spell target get cover bonus to their defense roll ? and visibility bonus too ?

IKerensky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #33 on: <05-25-12/0657:27> »
I once suggested in another forum that the drain for normal spell stay at F/2 but go up to F when overcasting, sound more logical to me.

JustADude

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
  • Madness? This! Is! A FORUM!
« Reply #34 on: <05-25-12/0703:49> »
I once suggested in another forum that the drain for normal spell stay at F/2 but go up to F when overcasting, sound more logical to me.

So not only does it become Physical but you suddenly get twice as much of it, pretty much guaranteeing you take a heaping helping of it?

Yeah, so balanced.
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein

"Being average just means that half of everyone you meet is better than you."
― Me

IKerensky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #35 on: <05-25-12/0710:33> »
Hey, it is called OVERcasting for a reason, and you will have people really resorting to it when already in a deep drek and not as the usual way to cast ;)

Dr. Meatgrinder

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 605
  • CDT Field Agent (#483)
« Reply #36 on: <05-25-12/0746:23> »
I am currently re-readin 1st and 3rd edition so I am a bit mixed up in 4th edition game rules but :

- Dont Direct Spell target get cover bonus to their defense roll ? and visibility bonus too ?

Visibility modifiers, yes.  But I don't see a rule indicating that a target would get any cover bonus against direct spells.

Here's the place to keep in mind which modifiers (such as visibility) are attack modifiers and which modifiers (like cover) are defense modifiers.  I'd guess most things that modify attack rolls would apply, but things that modify defense rolls would not apply, since the target doesn't actually get a defense test against direct spells--just a resistance test.
« Last Edit: <05-25-12/0748:46> by Fringe »
Guiding principle for game balance:  Players avoid underpowered stuff and flock to overpowered stuff.
Missions Freelancer (SRM 04-10 Romero & Juliette, SRM 05-01 Chasin' the Wind, SRM 06-06 Falling Angels, PM-02 A Holy Piece of Wetwork)

IKerensky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #37 on: <05-25-12/0758:53> »
I asked because in 1st edition the target got cover modifiers as it occult it from caster vision. It make sense for him to benefit from it in 4th edition too...

JustADude

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
  • Madness? This! Is! A FORUM!
« Reply #38 on: <05-25-12/0805:17> »
Hey, it is called OVERcasting for a reason, and you will have people really resorting to it when already in a deep drek and not as the usual way to cast ;)

Yeah, there's a reason for it, but apparently not the one you seem to think. It's called "overcasting" because you're "casting" at Force "over" your Magic attribute. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not some huge, scary, special super-mega-dangerous-secret-forbidden-technique thing, like you seem to want it to be. It's just pushing yourself to your limit. People push themselves to their limits all the time in the real world and, yeah, they risk broken bones and worse, but they're not a guarantee... and your rule makes it a guarantee.

Oh, and FYI, there's already a mechanic in place for dealing with it. It's called "Taking Physical damage from drain instead of Stun damage". Adding in your house rule means overcasting becomes nothing more than a useless, broken stub. Nobody would use it, ever. Especially if they're already in "deep drek", because it becomes straight-up @#*^ing suicide to overcast using that rule when you're probably already racking up the Wound Penalties. Double-especially not the already-high-drain "crunch-time" spells people save for emergencies anyway.

At Magic 6, overcasting Flamethrower ((F÷2) + 3) at Force 7 would jump you from 6S to 10P, which is a very likely one-shot kill if the Mage has already taken Physical damage. Yeah, screw that. I'll take my chances with the gun-toting Orks; their bullets will hurt less. And gods-forbid you're playing a character that's gotten some Karma under their belt, Initiated, and has a Magic over 6. Magic 8 casting at Force 9 jumps from 7S to 12P.

But when the frag is anyone going to ever Overcast by just one rank? You Overcast at Magic*2 or you don't bother trifling with it at all. Overcasting stunbolt... (F÷2)-1, throw it all day and never get a headache, poster-spell for "low drain" combat spells stunbolt... at Force 12 deals 11P DV. Slinging it at 16 is 15P... pretty much a guaranteed death-sentence unless the dice-gods love you. Now, tack on an extra 3P-5P for using a spell that's likely to make a dent in the kind of hell you're talking about wanting to have them backed into before they Overcast... yeah... that's not "balancing", that's just an incentive to cast normal and take your chances with the bullets.
« Last Edit: <05-25-12/0810:35> by JustADude »
“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”
― Albert Einstein

"Being average just means that half of everyone you meet is better than you."
― Me

IKerensky

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #39 on: <05-25-12/0900:13> »
Oups, I totally forgot to tell that the overcast drain STAY S and doesnt go to P.

So the chances to get physically fragged are strong but not automatic, and the chances to take a meaningfull amount of S when overcasting are seriously increased. Because you are pushing it ABOVE your normal limits.

The problems I felt wasn't just that people ressort to small overcast too much, it was also that overcast doesnt take the same monitor damage so when you already had S damage it was better to overcast, bring the damage to P and stay conscious than casting without overcasting and risk losing it.

emeketos

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #40 on: <05-25-12/0949:38> »
please if you haven't played a mage read the rules thoroughly before posting.

in SR4 the damage a spell can do is controlled by drain not force. I know this sounds backwards but its very true.

First look at what the mages drain characteristics are Will+Charisma is the most common. Most mages when they create their character are going to put as much into this as possible. So and elf would generally have a will of 5 and charisma of 6 for a shaman giving 11 dice in drain resistance. If you want to stay in the fight for a long time without knocking your self out you will look at spells in this way.

on 11 dice my average roll is going to be 3.66 so I am going to tailor my spells not to exceed this unless I know the fight is going to be over soon or my shadowrun team is going to get a TPK.
which means I will cast
DV (f/2) -1 at F9 (stunbolt)
DV (f/2) at F7 (Stunball, Wreck, Clout,manabolt)
DV (f/2) + 1 at F5 (Stunball, powerbolt)
DV (f/2) + 2 at F3 (Blast, Manaball, Demolish)
DV (f/2) + 3 at F1 (Lightning, flame thrower,Acid stream etc)
DV (f/2) + 5 at F-5 (Fireball, Lightning ball, toxic wave) in order to take no drain for these I would need a force of negative 5 so at force 1 expect 3 points of stun damage. now a force of 1 isn't going to do shit to anyone. Expecially considering they can dodge, apply armor+body etc which mana (direct) spells do not have to deal with. You need to expect to have to cast it at a higher force level than the mana equivelents to do the same damage.

every 2 points above the listing will cause 1 point of drain damage and if the Force is above your magic stat this damage becomes physical. The chart assumes average rolls fractions were round down. if you want to do the math your self use the following formula  ([Drain stats combined] / 3) + [DV + stat]) * 2 Round up to the nearest odd number.

so a manabolt of force 5 (no extra sucesses) against a will of 4 is on average going to do 4 points of damage.
a flame thrower of force 5 (no extra successes) against a body of 4 (and 10 points of impact armor) is going to do 2 points of damage [ 1/2 impact (5) + 4 body = 9 / 3 = 3 ]
this means you need a flame thrower of force 7 to be equivalent damage to a manabolt of f5 if the target has fireproof armor you will need much more. (every 3 points of fireproof will raise the force needed by 1)
[**** also note the mage could apply any extra sucesses to cancel out willpower (or body)  hits for mana/direct spells ***]
[**** assumption the target will try and maximize his armor without causing encumbrance *****]

this means a mage will have to cast a F7 flamethrower to match a F5 manabolt the mage casting the F5 manabolt is going to take no drain unless he rolls really really poorly. the same mage casting the F7 flamethrower is going to take 3 points of PHYSICAL damage.

But  elemental spells have those nifty extra effects! yes but realistically they will only hit 50% this is dependent on many variables
for Fire its dependent on your armor value roughly if your fire damage > armor value he is on fire! the above example of 3 points of damage would NOT cause fire.
electrical damage net mage successes vs body+will (3?)  (plus 1/2 impact armor) any any additional modifiers (flying, grounded, in water, non conductive armor mod) drones are body + armor.
other elements have similar ways to determine if they will cause secondary effects.


[** I may have messed up the secondary effects triggering its not exactly 100% clear to me **]



« Last Edit: <05-25-12/1009:59> by emeketos »

Crash_00

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #41 on: <05-25-12/1056:53> »
Quote
That Force 5 spell can only get 5 hits total (barring the use of Edge), so it actually fails against an OR 5 target.  Net hits = Hits - Threshold (p. 63, SR4A), and the Spellcasting+Magic Test requires at least one net hit to succeed (p. 183, SR4A, first paragraph under Step 5).  Since the Hits scored cannot exceed the Force (p. 183, SR4A, second-to-last paragraph), you'd have to cast the spell with a Force greater than the OR to even be able to succeed, and the OR is the Threshold for the Test, so the net hits are going to be correspondingly fewer.  If I cast a Force 6 direct spell against an OR 5 target, I can score up to 1 net hit (6 total hits, 5 of which go against the Threshold), for a total of 7 damage.
Non-living targets are specifically treated as a success test. "Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test
with a threshold based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table)." Threshold = hits needed for success test. This is a specific rule. Specific rules trump non-specific rules. Yes you need one net hit for resisted spellcasting just like any other attack.
Quote
Counterspelling has no effect on a non-living, non-magic target, because Counterspelling dice are added to the resistance test (p. 185, 2nd paragraph under Spell Defense), and "A spell cast on a non-living, non-magic target is not resisted" (p. 183).  Additionally, "thresholds are never applied to Opposed Tests" (p. 63, last sentence); you can have an Opposed Test or a Success Test against a Threshold, never a combination.
Please provide a single quote stating that counterspelling is useless for defending non-living targets. Counterspelling is jamming the spell as it's being cast, not the covering a living target with some sort of aura bubble. 

The rules are horribly written I'll grant you, but as written, a single target spell on a drone would have no counterspell added (it rolls no resistance so getting extra dice to resistance is useless). If it's an AoE, the counterspelling dice are rolled once and applied to all targets protected in the area equally.   :o

Quote
Yeah, there's a reason for it, but apparently not the one you seem to think. It's called "overcasting" because you're "casting" at Force "over" your Magic attribute. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not some huge, scary, special super-mega-dangerous-secret-forbidden-technique thing, like you seem to want it to be. It's just pushing yourself to your limit. People push themselves to their limits all the time in the real world and, yeah, they risk broken bones and worse, but they're not a guarantee... and your rule makes it a guarantee.
It's pushing yourself over your limit and tearing you apart.

I think the main issue here is that you only have an SR4 point of view to look at it with, but overcasting in past editions was something you didn't just willy nilly do like you can in SR4. In SR3 for example, overcasting a no modifier spell at force 12(would result in a drain TN of 6, meaning you need to roll six's for hits. That said, if you were casting at deadly to drop the target, you'd need 10 6's on your drain test to take no damage. 1 in 6 chance of a 6 means that's what, like a sixty dice pool to be able to be able to come out unscathed.

Compare that to SR4 where you can cast a force 12 no modifier spell and only need six hits (like an 18 dice pool quite easilly attained) on drain resistance to take no damage, overcasting went from only for the OMG I'm Going to die if I don't situations to, it's tuesday, it feels like tuesday, I overcast on Tuesday.

Which leads us back into the crux of the issue, which is that Taking P instead of S isn't a drawback when drain is so low no one takes drain damage anyway, and in SR4 no one really does very often. You go from I'm going to hurt you and risk getting a headached, to I'm going to melt your face and risk getting...a nosebleed.

Things have very much gone from an almost eye for eye in way of drain to eye for papercut.

This isn't just an overcasting issue though. Casting one shot spells really should be capable of putting a mage in a bad spot and really, this only happens with inexperienced players in SR4. It hops right up into one of the core issues with the system in that  many players will constantly run around using every power creep (which is abundant)to up their character, but if a GM has the rest of the universe play along the same way, players will need a playing deck of character sheets for each session. So it's all a big illusion of making the world seem to play along the same way.



Blue_Lion

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 565
« Reply #42 on: <05-25-12/1132:28> »
I am currently re-readin 1st and 3rd edition so I am a bit mixed up in 4th edition game rules but :

- Dont Direct Spell target get cover bonus to their defense roll ? and visibility bonus too ?

Visibility modifiers, yes.  But I don't see a rule indicating that a target would get any cover bonus against direct spells.

Here's the place to keep in mind which modifiers (such as visibility) are attack modifiers and which modifiers (like cover) are defense modifiers.  I'd guess most things that modify attack rolls would apply, but things that modify defense rolls would not apply, since the target doesn't actually get a defense test against direct spells--just a resistance test.
Well 100% concealment or cover is imune even if it is just a sheet of cloth that keeps the mage from seeing you.

Crash_00

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #43 on: <05-25-12/1203:56> »
That is one of the main reasons I hate the fact that fully covering armor doesn't block line of sight for direct spells. At what point does a covering cease to become cover and become "worn" so that it doesn't count? A lean to would provide concealment if you can't see in. What happens when it falls down over the person in it? What if person then stands up still covered? If I roll my mage (meaning the group mage of course) in a rug and forcibly carry him around where he can only see out the end (of course not letting him see me because that's powerbolt central), is he concealed from other angles for spells, or is he counted as wearing the rug?

As for the cover question, cover adds to the resistance test for spells in SR4 as well. Casters also take vision penalties like normal.

emeketos

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 58
« Reply #44 on: <05-25-12/1213:11> »
my experience in SR was I played version 1&2 skipped 3 (got out of RP for quite a while) then back in SR4

I am not a big fan of the flat target numbers and the removal of the "pools" it took alot of the uniqueness out of SR the target numbers for spells and everything else I believe is a bad mistake honestly. in the past casting a F6 spell meant something the higher target numbers meant the damage is less likely to be avoided. Right now the Mana spells are overly powerful particularly the stun line. There is no reason to cast any other spell at this point than stun to kill spells. It shifted the balance of spells away from what it was in SR1&2. I liked the idea in days pass where I had to think about how many dice to I comit to this attack and how many dice do I save for defense. It was a key part of shadowrun. Now I play because I enjoy the world & history not so much the game system anymore. Might as well makes it Shadowrun(FATE) at this point.

 

Register