Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Mithlas on <04-08-13/1357:07>
-
I'm aware of the rule in S4A 204 where direct combat spells increase drain by net hits. When I started running my current game I thought it was not an optional rule, but thought that it easily could become too extreme so I've been running it as "net hits add to force for determining drain", but I'm planning on dropping that optional rule entirely starting next session.
That being said, we're all familiar with the rule and its intentions about trying to keep some sort of parity between the effectiveness of the spell and the drain it requires. Elemental spells generally allow armor in addition to their protective modification for defense, and that's after allowing a dodge. Indirect spells may always require line of sight, but they also can't be dodged and work on almost everything. I've seen enough arguments about what can/should/might be to wonder what everybody thinks. Is there something about elemental spells that makes them worth the value of that +2 drain modifier with all of the drawbacks I've noticed, something that I've missed?
State your case and let's see what the consensus is.
-
It is a craptacular optional rule that should never have even made it into print. It does nothing to address the supposed problems it was meant to fix, but rather encourages people to cast those direct combat spells at higher force, where they can typically get greater damage for less drain. In short, it is made of fail.
-
I ignore it as well, as does every GM I've ever played with. There's basically no reason for it to exist and it doesn't actually do anything except punish you for having a better pool vs. somebody who just overcasts high-force spells. I feel like they're almost trying to trick people into using it by putting it in the main text instead of a sidebar like every other optional rule I can think of.
EDIT: I, personally, usually bring an elemental spell on my mages because I use Stunbolt as a primary offensive spell and it doesn't work on drones. They probably intended elemental spell drain to be balanced based on the secondary elemental effects (ignore metallic armor, catch things on fire, etc.) but I wouldn't say they actually are.
-
Really, Indirect spells should have higher Drain in that it would be harder to force through enough magical energy to create a physical effect in the material world (as Indirect spells do) than it would be to send some magical energy through the Astral world into the target's aura (as Direct spells do).
-
I'm currently playing in a play-by-post where the GM kind of sprang that rule on my out of the blue. Not only did he increase my drain by my net hits, but I didn't get the option to withhold net hits to reduce it. So I ended up taking 3 damage that I hadn't expected to have to deal with...
That sparked a conversation among my in-person group about this rule.
On the one hand, the drain to damage dealt ratio is WAY off when you compare direct spells to indirect. Direct spells allow for less possible resistance, and cause less drain, while direct spells give the target two chances to resist/reduce the damage but cause higher drain.
On the other hand, it is kind of unfair to increase the caster's drain because the target rolled poorly. That's like saying that an unarmed fighter needs to resist having his hand break when he gets a crit success on a punch.
The argument against the optional rule is that it encourages overcasting, but without it, nothing discourages it, so there is still a problem. Without the rule there is still no reason not to full overcast your rediculously low drain direct combat spells...
I'm still trying to figure out how to work it out, but I feel the optional rule is appropriate both for balance and the way magic supposedly works in the setting. It just needs a tweak so that it is balanced a bit better.
I have a few ideas for this, but I don't have time right now to type them out. I'll post again later with more thoughts.
-
Actually, without the optional rule, the spell that is over-cast will have higher Drain than the one that isn't (and be physical damage to boot). With the optional rule, the spell that is over-cast has lower Drain for equivalent damage dealt (it may be physical still, but I know I'd rather take 3P than 6S as an example)
-
Let's take a Stunbolt cast by a mage with Magic 5. We'll say they get 4 net hits on the spellcasting test. At Force 5, that does 9S damage, and deals 5S drain. At Force 10, you can drop all but one net hit (you need at least one to make it stick), and have 11S damage, and take 5P drain. And any damage you get from the drain can be healed with a first aid check, rather than sleeping for hours. This is why we say the rule is stupid.
Moreover, there is no reason to have the rule. It is like someone saying "I don't like the fact that Street Samurai can dice up my drones, so we'll make weapons deal half damage to drones." The entire 'reason' for the rule is that there is a thing that worked, and people whine about it instead of getting Willpower or a mage to do area counterspelling. Now, a better rule would be to make some kind of defense for direct combat spells besides Willpower or Body plus counterspelling, like how indirect spells first have to hit, then get resisted. I still don't see the need, to be honest, though. It isn't like there aren't a ton of ways to keep the mage from stunbolting you (starting with: don't be seen).
-
Incorrect Mirikon... per the rulebook... all the net hits count for making the spell stick.
It is completely optional as to whether any/some/all/or no net hit is used for damage. Again... use for making the spell stick and use for extra damage are completely separate.
I see the normal stuff in this thread as always people ignoring elemental secondary effects... or that indirects get around object resistance problems. The optional rule increases drain... one way or another it increases drain... either through increased force,multicasting, or using net hits for damage. It increases drain no matter how you slice it and in an indirect manner that doesn't punish other people.
People complain it encourages overcasting... I got news... I normally saw people overcast spells at force 7 or 9 anyhow then use net hits to get the knockout as 'free damage'....
It's inelegant... yes, but it accomplishes the goal of making direct spells more punishing to cast and without resorting to the nerf hammer.
The extra +2 drain is for the 'elemental effect'. You know you can do an indirect combat spell with -2 less drain without an elemental effect right! So all this does is gives elemental effects for free.... which is broken given how good many of them are.
-
Yeah, of course you will see spells that are over-cast even without that optional rule. The fact of the matter remains that if that rule is being used than it is completely STUPID not to over-cast.
To clarify, the person doing it is not stupid, but rather the decision not to over-cast would be. Smart people still make stupid decisions.
-
First off, you can heal Stun Drain with First Aid just as easily as Physical, so the fact that the drain is converted to Physical is an important factor, not one that makes overcasting better still.
My group has used a bit of a compromise with this optional rule. I feel that the extra damage from net hits shouldn't just be "free damage", applying additional drain makes sense in that regard. As the rule states:
"Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing basic effects"
It makes sense for more damage to mean more drain. But having the option to simply reduce your net hits used, sort of takes away from the risk of handling the raw power of magic. We are trying out a system where you can't choose exactly how many net hits you use, the caster can choose to withhold their hits from the test (without knowing how many hits the opponent has), but otherwise they don't know how many net hits they will have. To prevent the "my target just botched his roll and now I'm looking at a ridiculous amount of drain" problem, I will tell the spellcaster if the target has gotten less than half their hits. This lets them feel safe that they won't accidentally blow their own brains out, but also prevents them from making resisting drain a trivial matter compared to the damage they deal (by overcasting and then not using the net hits).
One of the other options I have brought up was using the Target's hits on the opposed test as an additional resistance test in addition to the opposed test. Meaning that their hits on their Willpower Test (natural mental resistance) to resist the spell also reduce the base damage of the spell. In this case, I would allow the spellcaster to knit-pick their net hits. This is an alternative to the method our group currently uses, not in addition. This rule would make Direct spells slightly less damaging, but give the spellcaster the greater control over their results.
Example:
The Magician Blaster attacks the ganger Flick with a Force 6 Stunbolt. Blaster has a Magic of 6 and a Spellcasting of 4 (Specialization Combat Spells) for a Dice pool of 12. He does pretty well on his Spellcasting Test, getting 5 hits. Flick, the unfortunate soul, only has a Willpower of 4, but he gets incredibly lucky, getting 2 hits on his Willpower Test.
Under the Default rules, no optional drain: Blaster is resisting Drain of 2 Stun, while Flick takes 9 Stun (and is barely standing).
With the Optional rule: Blaster could use up to his 3 net hits, increasing his drain and the damage by an equal amount. Drain would be 2+x, Damage dealt is 6+x. (where x is net hits used [0-3])
With House Rule A (blind test): Blaster feels that he did very well (his Player is told that his hits doubled that of his target), and has an idea of how many hits he could afford to drop to reduce drain. The end result is almost exactly like with the Optional Rule (in this particular example). If Flick had done slightly better, Blaster would not have known exactly how well his opponent had done and would risk failing the spell if he were to reduce his hits by too much.
With House Rule B (double resistance): Blaster could still use up to his 3 net hits, but the base damage is reduced. Drain would be 2+x, Damage dealt is 4+x.
Example 2 (Overcasting)
A few months later Blaster casts his Stunbolt at Force 10 against an enemy spellcaster, Crash. Blaster gets 7 hits on his Spellcasting test, while Crash gets 5 hits on his Willpower + Counterspelling test.
Base Rule: Drain = 4P, Damage = 12 Stun (that's enough to knock out a man with Willpower 8! While Blaster is looking at taking at most a -1 on further tests if he does poorly on Drain Resistance)
With Optional Rule: Drain = 4+X, Damage = 10+X. Where X is net hits used up to 2. (Still likely to knock out the enemy if he uses the net hits, but at least more likely to not fully resist the drain)
House Rule A: Same as with the Optional Rule, but player is more than likely going to use the full hits, rather than risk not hitting with the spell.
House Rule B: Drain = 4+X, Damage = 5+X.
-
So, you feel that a Magician should be punished for being skilled in his abilities? That's exactly what increasing Drain by the net hits does.
-
So, you feel that a Magician should be punished for being skilled in his abilities? That's exactly what increasing Drain by the net hits does.
I tend to agree with you. But there is also the problem of Direct Spells vs. Indirect Spells. Without some sort of change, there is no reason to cast Indirect Spells, Direct Spells cause less drain for the same base damage and aren't resisted a second time.
-
So, you feel that a Magician should be punished for being skilled in his abilities? That's exactly what increasing Drain by the net hits does.
I tend to agree with you. But there is also the problem of Direct Spells vs. Indirect Spells. Without some sort of change, there is no reason to cast Indirect Spells, Direct Spells cause less drain for the same base damage and aren't resisted a second time.
There is no problem with Direct vs. Indirect Spells, Kiirnodel. There's just a problem with people not knowing that you have different tools for different jobs. Direct spells are great for living targets that you can see. Indirect spells are great for EVERYTHING ELSE. Squad of corpsec opened the door of the chopper to aim the minigun at you? Target a fireball inside the cabin. Fry everyone inside, including the pilot. Stunball would still leave anyone you couldn't see (such as the pilot) able to return fire. Seriously, you people need to play more D&D, and then you would learn this lesson. You don't target a Fighter's Fort save, a Rogue's Ref save, or a Cleric's Will save. You just don't. Grab one Direct and one Indirect spell, and you're good to go for whatever the situation may be. Troll tank? Manabolt. Another mage or high WILL target? Flamethrower. It isn't that difficult to understand!
-
So, you feel that a Magician should be punished for being skilled in his abilities? That's exactly what increasing Drain by the net hits does.
I tend to agree with you. But there is also the problem of Direct Spells vs. Indirect Spells. Without some sort of change, there is no reason to cast Indirect Spells, Direct Spells cause less drain for the same base damage and aren't resisted a second time.
There is no problem with Direct vs. Indirect Spells, Kiirnodel. There's just a problem with people not knowing that you have different tools for different jobs. Direct spells are great for living targets that you can see. Indirect spells are great for EVERYTHING ELSE. Squad of corpsec opened the door of the chopper to aim the minigun at you? Target a fireball inside the cabin. Fry everyone inside, including the pilot. Stunball would still leave anyone you couldn't see (such as the pilot) able to return fire. Seriously, you people need to play more D&D, and then you would learn this lesson. You don't target a Fighter's Fort save, a Rogue's Ref save, or a Cleric's Will save. You just don't. Grab one Direct and one Indirect spell, and you're good to go for whatever the situation may be. Troll tank? Manabolt. Another mage or high WILL target? Flamethrower. It isn't that difficult to understand!
Very, very true. The only "problem" is when someone takes 1 combat spell, usually Stunbolt/ball, and gets mad when it doesn't solve all of their problems. To continue the D&D analogy, I had a wizard in a group once that prepared only utility spells and Disintegrate. He even took all the crazy spell-specific feats like Disintegration Finesse and Arcane Thesis to pump it up as much as possibly. It was super effective... until he ran into something with high Fortitude saves who wasn't also undead. Since he didn't have any crowd control or mind affecting spells, he was basically worthless.
At least in D&D a wizard can change her prepared spells every day. A Shadowrun magician can't so you better be sure you have at least 1 tool for every situation.
-
Let's compare apples to apples. Clout vs. Stunbolt.
Both are ranged, single target, Stun damage spells.
Clout is an Indirect, Stunbolt is Direct.
By that definition, Clout is thus dodged by Reaction (like a ranged attack), and then also resisted by Body + half Impact.
Stunbolt is resisted by Willpower, done. Oh, and look! costs 1 less drain!
Explain to me how that is balanced...
-
Clout is a Phyiscal spell, and thus has +1 Drain. IT can also be used to hit something with physical force, while Stunbolt cannot.
-
"physical force" that can't damage anything other than a person. It is Stun damage so it can't break glass, can't damage inanimate objects. The spell does less damage for more drain.
-
You really think that someone has to have Killing Hands, Bone Lacing, or Hardliner gloves just to break glass or damage inanimate objects?
-
You really think that someone has to have Killing Hands, Bone Lacing, or Hardliner gloves just to break glass or damage inanimate objects?
Don't know about him, since I don't know him, but that's exactly the kind of bull-crap that a Rules Lawyer would claim.
-
You really think that someone has to have Killing Hands, Bone Lacing, or Hardliner gloves just to break glass or damage inanimate objects?
Don't know about him, since I don't know him, but that's exactly the kind of bull-crap that a Rules Lawyer would claim.
That it's physically impossible to so much as scratch glass with your bare hands but put some gloves on and it's easy?
-
Actually, I just checked the Barrier rules - there's no immunity to stun in there. A Force 10 Clout cast by a character with Spellcasting(Combat) 6(8) + Magic 5 + Mentor Spirit 2 + Power Focus 4 does an expected 16.33, which is enough that you could expect to destroy (or punch a hole in) a brick or plascrete wall.
-
Actually, I just checked the Barrier rules - there's no immunity to stun in there. A Force 10 Clout cast by a character with Spellcasting(Combat) 6(8) + Magic 5 + Mentor Spirit 2 + Power Focus 4 does an expected 16.33, which is enough that you could expect to destroy (or punch a hole in) a brick or plascrete wall.
There goes the straw-man with using Clout to defend the optional rule. Up In Flames.
-
... Now I want to design a spell worthy of the name Up In Flames. :P
-
... Now I want to design a spell worthy of the name Up In Flames. :P
Actually, it's worth pointing out that the Damaging Barriers table doesn't note damage as Physical or Stun.
-
Why are we even thinking they would be immune to stun damage at all? Just because the vehicles entry specifies that vehicles and drones are immune to stun damage?
-
I think Kiirnodel was conflating the two, yes.
-
Sorry you're right, that still wasn't comparing the same sort of spells. One was Physical and the other was Mana. Make a Physical version of Stunbolt (not Mana). Or a Physical damage version of Clout... The two spells have exactly the same stats, same Drain, same targets available, because apparently objects aren't immune to Stun, just immune to damage that doesn't exceed their armor value (thanks for pointing that out!). Only difference is one is Direct, the other is Indirect.
We'll use the Physical damage spell as our example though.
Direct Physical spells are resisted by Body (+ Counterspelling).
Indirect spells are resisted by Reaction (+ Counterspelling), + Body + half Impact.
Same Drain, pretty much guaranteed less damage with that Indirect Spell.
My complaint is exactly this. Direct Spells are "resisted" by Attribute + Counterspelling. That is basically a lie, it isn't a resistance, just a dodge. If you don't fully dodge the spell, you haven't resisted anything. You take the full damage.
-
It's the exact opposite of that. There is no dodging a direct spell. The Willpower+Counterspelling roll is a resistance spell, not avoidance.
-
Right, Direct spells skip one of the steps, and it doesn't cost any drain or anything. Hence why the Optional rule makes sense. Not saying it's fully balanced, just that it makes sense.
-
Mhmm, and a direct spell can't hit things you can't see. There are no special effects for direct combat spells. It won't set a room ablaze or force a vehicle to make a control check or any other elemental effect. They serve different purposes. This is why you don't just buy 1 combat spell and say to yourself "That's all I need."
-
Well, someone doesn't know how to read. Remember where I said 'different tools for different jobs'? Guess who has a better chance of shrugging off a Stunbolt, a Troll or a Mage. Now guess who has a better chance of shrugging off a Clout spell, a Troll or a Mage. You don't target the fighter's fort save, and you don't target the mage's will save. How hard is this for you to understand?
Plus, once you get past the point where you want to pussy-foot around, you have the comparison between Manabolt and Powerbolt. Try manabolting a drone. Tell me how well that worked out for you. Not so great, yeah? Now try powerbolting it. Wow, that actually had an effect!
-
Wow, read what I said. Compare two spells that have the same damage type, same valid targets. The only difference is whether they are Direct or Indirect. Physical Damage, Physical Spell. Basically create an Indirect version of PowerBolt, call it Bullet.
Why would one use this Indirect spell? Against certain targets it might have a slightly higher chance of going through, but it is guaranteed to do less damage on average.
Direct vs. Indirect Resistance
Body (+Counterspelling) vs. Reaction (+Counterspelling) + Body + half Impact
"Average Mage" -> Call it Spellcasting Pool of 12, average hits of 4
"Average Troll" -> Body 7, Reaction 3, (no Counterspelling), Impact Armor 11
Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage
Bullet F5 = 1 avg. hit to avoid -> 3 net hits, base damage 8 -> 4 avg. hits to reduce damage -> 4 damage
And that's against an enemy that has the highest chance to out-right resist the Powerbolt...
My argument isn't against the idea that different spells are used for different purposes, only the argument that Indirect Spells are inherently weaker, but still cost the same amount of drain (for otherwise identical spells).
-
The point of indirect spells are to damage things indirectly. Guys taking cover behind a wall, can I direct spell them? Nope. Can I use an indirect grenade-ish spell to make an explosion on the other side of the door opening, which would hit those hiding guys? Yep. Can I start a fire in there that would burn people? Yep.
Will indirect hold up when compared to the exact situation where direct spells are in their niche? Not usually, but that's not what it was made for.
-
And with single-target Indirect spells, the idea is likely to hit them with the special element. Of course that does mean indirect non-elemental single-target spells are just plain silly.
-
I love how we're using the barrier rules to defend things. The fact that your taser can blast holes in concrete really drives home the sanity of the barrier rules.
Honestly, as balance goes, Direct vs. Indirect is really not that bad compared to other balance problems in SR. Single-target non-elemental indirect spells do blow, but in fairness there's only one such spell line actually printed and there's plenty of crap spells in other schools too. Other indirect spells do at least have niches of usefulness, and by SR standards that's pretty good balance.
-
Other indirect spells do at least have niches of usefulness, and by SR standards that's pretty good balance.
Very true. Of course, as with when I started this conversation, I can't help but wonder if there's a better balance point - maybe altering the drain codes a little, instead of slapping on additional drain due to (net) hits. Sure, some of those elemental spells have effects worth an extra die (except ones like sand...), but I would think it would be easier to shape a little mana between you and your target and let fly than to directly shove raw mana into another metahuman's aura that would naturally resist your attempt.
There are a lot of ways it could be done, I just can't come up with what specifically would be best fit for most situations. Just that I don't think it's handled all that great right not - it's not a terrible situation, just a rough edge that really should be smoothed down.
-
The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Keeping things simple like they are is a good thing. With the way SR is set up, this method of determining drain value is probably the best I can think of without making things needlessly complex.
-
True, and so that's why I was thinking that the drain system should remain essentially as-is, just raise the modifier for direct damage spells slightly and lower it for elemental. Since indirect doesn't have a noted modifier, it would stay at 0. As one option. Most others I can think of would be similar lines that use the exact same system.
-
No, I'd leave it as it is. Indirect spells don't have a higher drain than direct ones because they're indirect, but because they are Physical spells instead of Mana ones, and Physical spells have the higher drain because, in part, they can affect things Mana spells can't. Likewise, elemental effects get the +2 because the majority of them can seriously ruin your day with the -half AP and secondary effects. Increased utility = increased drain.
-
By RAW:
Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body. At our table, we do not use this rule for balance reasons, but if you take the exact wording of aiming direct spells, then this is what you get.
You can of course use assensing to see your targets aura (which pervades the clothing by a few centimeters) and then cast your direct spell at him with no vision penalty. Still, this will use up an action to activate assensing and is a bad idea in combat situations since you cannot cast a spell in the same initiative pass.
Indirect spells are not that handicapped. Just shoot them at your targets and watch'em go.
-
Let's compare apples to apples. Clout vs. Stunbolt.
Both are ranged, single target, Stun damage spells.
Clout is an Indirect, Stunbolt is Direct.
By that definition, Clout is thus dodged by Reaction (like a ranged attack), and then also resisted by Body + half Impact.
Stunbolt is resisted by Willpower, done. Oh, and look! costs 1 less drain!
Explain to me how that is balanced...
It isn't. Clout sucks.
Now, elemental effects, that can be really good. For example, Fire. Quote from SR4 on Fire damage below.
Fire Damage: Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only protects against it with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating to the armor value.
Objects hit by a Fire damage attack are at risk of catching fire. Make a damage resistance test using the item’s Armor x 2 (see Barriers p. 166), or just Armor if they are vulnerable to the effect (flammable material vs. fire, for example). The gamemaster should use her discretion as to which objects in the area are worth rolling a test for; most effects can simply be improvised. The gamemaster also decides which items have caught on fire and will continue to burn—as a rule of thumb, any item with a (modified) Armor rating less than the Fire DV has caught fire.
If an object is on fire, note the original Fire DV inflicted—this is the Fire damage rating. At
the end of each subsequent Combat Turn, the gamemaster decides whether the fire has grown, shrunk, or stayed the same, depending on the item’s flammability, efforts to put the fire out, environmental conditions, etc.; adjust the Fire damage rating accordingly. If the rating is reduced to 0, the flames are put out. In any other case, make another damage resistance test against DV equal to the adjusted Fire damage rating. Continue in this way until the fire diminishes (nothing burns forever—but the fire may also spread to nearby items).
The exact secondary effects of Fire damage on items are determined by the gamemaster. Wood and paper are likely to be consumed; common plastics and fabrics melt; while fire-resistant fabrics and metals scorch but otherwise remain unharmed by normal flames. Damaged electronics may short-circuit and cease to function while weapons lose their integrity and are likely to misfire or fracture. Ammunition and explosives may explode.
Net effect? IIRC, plascrete has an Barrier Armor rating of 8, or maybe 12. This means a Force 6 Fireball from a possible starting SR mage could, after AP -half, have 6 base DV vs. 6 modified Armor, and thus set all plascrete in the AOE ON FIRE! Sure, a Force 6 Fireball is 8 Drain, but you can destroy BUILDINGS with that! And then it maybe spreads to others!
For taking down the opposition, nothing beats Direct spells. But Indirect spells WITH elemental effects do more than just hit the target, so remind the GM of that whenever you use one!
-
Let's compare apples to apples. Clout vs. Stunbolt.
Both are ranged, single target, Stun damage spells.
Clout is an Indirect, Stunbolt is Direct.
By that definition, Clout is thus dodged by Reaction (like a ranged attack), and then also resisted by Body + half Impact.
Stunbolt is resisted by Willpower, done. Oh, and look! costs 1 less drain!
Explain to me how that is balanced...
It isn't. Clout sucks.
Now, elemental effects, that can be really good. For example, Fire. Quote from SR4 on Fire damage below.
Fire Damage: Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only protects against it with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating to the armor value.
Objects hit by a Fire damage attack are at risk of catching fire. Make a damage resistance test using the item’s Armor x 2 (see Barriers p. 166), or just Armor if they are vulnerable to the effect (flammable material vs. fire, for example). The gamemaster should use her discretion as to which objects in the area are worth rolling a test for; most effects can simply be improvised. The gamemaster also decides which items have caught on fire and will continue to burn—as a rule of thumb, any item with a (modified) Armor rating less than the Fire DV has caught fire.
If an object is on fire, note the original Fire DV inflicted—this is the Fire damage rating. At
the end of each subsequent Combat Turn, the gamemaster decides whether the fire has grown, shrunk, or stayed the same, depending on the item’s flammability, efforts to put the fire out, environmental conditions, etc.; adjust the Fire damage rating accordingly. If the rating is reduced to 0, the flames are put out. In any other case, make another damage resistance test against DV equal to the adjusted Fire damage rating. Continue in this way until the fire diminishes (nothing burns forever—but the fire may also spread to nearby items).
The exact secondary effects of Fire damage on items are determined by the gamemaster. Wood and paper are likely to be consumed; common plastics and fabrics melt; while fire-resistant fabrics and metals scorch but otherwise remain unharmed by normal flames. Damaged electronics may short-circuit and cease to function while weapons lose their integrity and are likely to misfire or fracture. Ammunition and explosives may explode.
Net effect? IIRC, plascrete has an Barrier Armor rating of 8, or maybe 12. This means a Force 6 Fireball from a possible starting SR mage could, after AP -half, have 6 base DV vs. 6 modified Armor, and thus set all plascrete in the AOE ON FIRE! Sure, a Force 6 Fireball is 8 Drain, but you can destroy BUILDINGS with that! And then it maybe spreads to others!
For taking down the opposition, nothing beats Direct spells. But Indirect spells WITH elemental effects do more than just hit the target, so remind the GM of that whenever you use one!
Take it with a grain of salt however I'll just mention that I've survived multiple castings of F12 Lightning Balls. I've done it multiple times usually not in a row almost killed myself when I did it in a row. No initation just my skill and edge. xD
generally I think 3-6 DV to myself but to the opposition probably anywhere from 18DV to 30 DV (depending on the roll and if that roll was edged) If that was a Fireball.... I wonder what kinds of things it could have melted.... O.O'
-
By RAW:
Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body. At our table, we do not use this rule for balance reasons, but if you take the exact wording of aiming direct spells, then this is what you get.
Note that full body armor does not (emphasis mine) "conceal" the person withing and prevent them from being targeted.
-
Mason... another good example of that is hitting a drone with a flamethrower spell... and watching it's ammo magazines or fuel tank explode.
Similarly people insist on doing the comparison vs living targets... where object resistance doesn't apply.
As soon as you toss in high object resistance (and my personal view is object resistances aren't high enough in game). People keep going with OR 5... when the book actually says "OR 5+". Now suddenly that direct spell is a very dicey matter... which proceeded with people going on when I pointed out that it would work just over half the time (barely...) so they insisted on making the comparison that it would always work! (rather than only work have the time and do half the damage on average).
But once you start tossing OR into the mix... those elemental spells become rather good at the upper end.
-
Fringe already pulled out one quote, but here's something from the core book:
Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body.
Incorrect.
...it channels mana through the target to create a specified effect (thus Direct Combat spells bypass armor, because they affect the target from within).
Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Everything in the book says that if you're an obvious target (ie full armor suit) then you can be targeted, be it by guns or spells. If you want protection from line of sight, you need to be inside a vehicle (a proper one, not the Iron Will, which is ambiguous in whether it protects from LOS attacks because it doesn't actually say it's enclosed). Even indirect combat spells can target the person - indirect just doesn't bypass armor.
-
Take it with a grain of salt however I'll just mention that I've survived multiple castings of F12 Lightning Balls. I've done it multiple times usually not in a row almost killed myself when I did it in a row. No initation just my skill and edge. xD
generally I think 3-6 DV to myself but to the opposition probably anywhere from 18DV to 30 DV (depending on the roll and if that roll was edged) If that was a Fireball.... I wonder what kinds of things it could have melted.... O.O'
Yeah but a force 12 powerball would have done more damage for less drain. Basically if one spell is more useful probably 80+% of the time the other spell having its niche really isn't a great excuse for it being a high drain value unless that niche is a lot more important than indirect spells niche. And some of the niches people come up with like the elemental effects are vastly overblown. Oh look I ignited his ammo woo hoo, um yeah I just killed him with the manabolt I didn't wound him and then get happy now that his gun blew up and I wounded him some more. If it wasn't so easy to one shot everything with direct spells elemental effects night be a bit more impressive, they would even be more impressive if the guidelines for use existed. GM discretion is nifty but its hard to talk about balance when arguments are based on it.
-
Indirect doesn't have higher drain than direct. Elemental causes higher drain, not indirect. Physical is higher drain than mana. Stun damage reduces drain. You're free to create spells that fit situations, if that's your problem. Make an indirect-physical-physical-area spell without the elemental effect. It's just some sort of non-elemental explosion or whatever. Tada, no elemental drain, no elemental bonus.
-
I'm not gonna lie, Direct spells have too much of an advantage over Indirect. I think there should be a Drain modifier just for a spell being Direct. Pf course, I also believe that Direct spells should be able to have an elemental effect too. I miss Hellblast....I cause things to explode from the inside out with FIRE! BOOM!
In my own games, I house rule that Direct spells have +2 Drain, and elements can be added to them. It represents that Direct is simply a superior method of attack fairly well by my standards. It also discourages Powerballs, since it now Drains as much as Fireball and without an elemental side effect. People use it, but Overcasting happens less. I also now see Direct spells being designed with elemental effects, which makes them vicious as all get out, but the mage drops after a couple castings of them.
It helps that I don't let First Aid heal Drain. Only Medicine skill and natural healing can do that in my game. And since Medicine is a long term care heal....
-
I disagree. You throw a fastball in a slugger's wheelhouse, of course they're going to hit it out of the park. That's what using direct spells on living targets is. You're looking at the absolute best situation for that kind of spell. To continue the analogy, it is when you come up against anything that isn't a living target that direct spells falter, missing that curve that just kissed the outside corner of the plate. A power hitter just can't do anything with that kind of pitch.
In contrast, indirect spells are like the batter who might not get the home run, but can be counted on to get on base more times than not. Single, double, triple, even a bunt now and then. They can fight off the fastball in on their hands, and bring the curve ball on the corner into play. In other words, they are able to make things happen, even when a situation isn't the most favorable for them.
To use a different analogy, I'll go back to D&D. High level spellcasters are some of the most powerful people in the game, it is true, and appear brokenly so if you put, say, a prepared wizard against a fighter in a one-on-one arena match where the wizard has no other fights that day. You're playing directly into the wizard's strengths, there. But put those two in a dungeon crawl together, and the balance shifts, as the fighter takes on the better part of the work, since the wizard must conserve his spells to fight the Boss with. Likewise, Direct and Indirect spells have such a relationship. Put a direct spell against an indirect spell in the direct spell's most favorable situation, and of course it will come out on top. But the indirect spell has far greater utility than the direct spell, and can affect all those things the direct spell cannot touch. This is the point that people keep forgetting, mindlessly harping on the fact that a direct spell is better against a living foe than an indirect, while failing to see that there are weaknesses that direct spells have that indirect spells do not.
Mason, your post reads as follows: "I think Direct spells are more powerful than Indirect, but I also believe that Direct spells should be powered up with things they can't already do."
-
Take it with a grain of salt however I'll just mention that I've survived multiple castings of F12 Lightning Balls. I've done it multiple times usually not in a row almost killed myself when I did it in a row. No initation just my skill and edge. xD
generally I think 3-6 DV to myself but to the opposition probably anywhere from 18DV to 30 DV (depending on the roll and if that roll was edged) If that was a Fireball.... I wonder what kinds of things it could have melted.... O.O'
Yeah but a force 12 powerball would have done more damage for less drain. Basically if one spell is more useful probably 80+% of the time the other spell having its niche really isn't a great excuse for it being a high drain value unless that niche is a lot more important than indirect spells niche. And some of the niches people come up with like the elemental effects are vastly overblown. Oh look I ignited his ammo woo hoo, um yeah I just killed him with the manabolt I didn't wound him and then get happy now that his gun blew up and I wounded him some more. If it wasn't so easy to one shot everything with direct spells elemental effects night be a bit more impressive, they would even be more impressive if the guidelines for use existed. GM discretion is nifty but its hard to talk about balance when arguments are based on it.
I'll paint the situation a little more clearly. The DM was determined to stop my character with a road block with a rediculous amount of enemies. On a roadblock wall in the middle of the barrens I counted over six people on the wall. It also sounded like there were more behind the wall so not being able to see behind the wall I cannot hit those guys with a powerball so I opted a Lightning ball for a base 12F damage and since the DM(I like the guy just not his DMing style sometimes) seemed to want to stack the deck in his favor with numbers I wanted to eliminate the 1 to seeming 6 or more odds.
This would hopefully A hit every enemy (including ones I can't see), B cause everyone hit to take -2 to everything they do for the next 12 Combat turns, and C Possibly incure the "Don't Tase Me Bro" roll that could also put some of them out of the count.
My otherspell in this situation was Stun Ball. Would have been a hell of a lot less drain but again wouldn't have had quite the same effect. And I know all about DM descression....
Needless to say you should never 'overcharge' an experimental prototype mech machine that shoots a gun that vaporizes walls and people. Otherwise you get so much heat that you need to pay shadowrunners to kill you on recording to confirm the kill all while misleading them that your not 'Black Demon' the international terrorist that blew up 3 city blocks. xD Damn F12 lightning spells! (ah that DM is so pick mohawk xD)
-
I disagree. You throw a fastball in a slugger's wheelhouse, of course they're going to hit it out of the park. That's what using direct spells on living targets is. You're looking at the absolute best situation for that kind of spell. To continue the analogy, it is when you come up against anything that isn't a living target that direct spells falter, missing that curve that just kissed the outside corner of the plate. A power hitter just can't do anything with that kind of pitch.
In contrast, indirect spells are like the batter who might not get the home run, but can be counted on to get on base more times than not. Single, double, triple, even a bunt now and then. They can fight off the fastball in on their hands, and bring the curve ball on the corner into play. In other words, they are able to make things happen, even when a situation isn't the most favorable for them.
To use a different analogy, I'll go back to D&D. High level spellcasters are some of the most powerful people in the game, it is true, and appear brokenly so if you put, say, a prepared wizard against a fighter in a one-on-one arena match where the wizard has no other fights that day. You're playing directly into the wizard's strengths, there. But put those two in a dungeon crawl together, and the balance shifts, as the fighter takes on the better part of the work, since the wizard must conserve his spells to fight the Boss with. Likewise, Direct and Indirect spells have such a relationship. Put a direct spell against an indirect spell in the direct spell's most favorable situation, and of course it will come out on top. But the indirect spell has far greater utility than the direct spell, and can affect all those things the direct spell cannot touch. This is the point that people keep forgetting, mindlessly harping on the fact that a direct spell is better against a living foe than an indirect, while failing to see that there are weaknesses that direct spells have that indirect spells do not.
Mason, your post reads as follows: "I think Direct spells are more powerful than Indirect, but I also believe that Direct spells should be powered up with things they can't already do."
You seem to be neglecting to realize that Direct spells work just fine on non living targets. The physical version of the spells, Powerbolt and Powerball, hit everything you see in the physical world. Due to that, Direct is simply far more powerful.
My post should have read as "Direct spells are more powerful, and because of that they should cause more Drain for the benefit of being stronger. Furthermore, the spell creation system should allow spells which are established Shadowrun canon to be created and used, such as Hellblast. There is precedent for Direct spells having elemental effects. The choice between Indirect and Direct then simply becomes a choice between effect and the Drain caused by that effect."
Also, Direct can be completely resisted. Indirect effects would create the elemental effect and hit the environment whether the target dodged/soaked or not. Direct requires the spell to have affected a target for the elemental to work at all.
-
Direct spells against a non-living target are far more chancy than Indirect spells against the same target. For example, getting the minimum of 5 hits to affect that Steel Lynx with a Powerbolt is going to happen less often than that same drone getting smacked by a Lightning Bolt. Also, while that Powerball is hitting everything you can see in its area of effect, that Ball Lightning can hit those you can't see as well as those you can. That is what people are glossing over and ignoring.
-
^Which is why I choose lightning ball over stun ball despite the larger drain. I mean I could have knocked the 6 guys on the wall out and chanced the people behind the wall trying to see them before they see me.
-
^Which is why I choose lightning ball over stun ball despite the larger drain. I mean I could have knocked the 6 guys on the wall out and chanced the people behind the wall trying to see them before they see me.
Yes in that situation lightningball might have been a better choice. For most people the risk of getting shot is probably about the same as the risk of taking way too much drain 11 DV is not easy to soak. Thing is most of the time direct spells are more useful, most non-living objects are fairly easy to hit with direct spells. Indirect spells become the anti-drone and target the unseen spell which while nifty really isn't awesome enough to justify the increased drain you will have since without an elemental effect they are pretty damn pathetic.
-
Mason, there's also precedence for Grounding and Spell Locks. You want to talk about the past, there's Shadowrun 2050. But just like those things, Hellblast is gone, and likely is never coming back, partly because it would be too powerful.
As A4BG and Zilfer said, you forget the critical part of that spiel the 'that you can see' part. Funny thing about indirect spells? They can be cast at things you can't see, or can't see with you natural senses. If I, say, have a pair of ultrasound goggles, which picks up the guy under the invisibility spell, Indirect spells give me an option I don't have with Direct spells.
Yes in that situation lightningball might have been a better choice. For most people the risk of getting shot is probably about the same as the risk of taking way too much drain 11 DV is not easy to soak. Thing is most of the time direct spells are more useful, most non-living objects are fairly easy to hit with direct spells. Indirect spells become the anti-drone and target the unseen spell which while nifty really isn't awesome enough to justify the increased drain you will have since without an elemental effect they are pretty damn pathetic.
Different tools for different jobs. Direct spells are less effective against non-living targets, because they have to beat Object Resistance before even thinking about taking effect. Indirect spells take effect so long as you don't crit glitch the spellcasting test.
What you, and others, forget is that some targets are easier to kill with an indirect spell than with a direct one. To go back to the Mage and Troll example, it is foolish to try and stunbolt a mage. Between their high Will and counterspelling, they're better able to resist such spells. Use a flamethrower spell instead. For the Troll, with the higher body (and better armor), they're better able to shrug off the flamethrower. Stunbolt them instead. Use the right tool for the right job, and you don't have to rely on double-edged swords like overcasting as much.
-
Different tools for different jobs. Direct spells are less effective against non-living targets, because they have to beat Object Resistance before even thinking about taking effect. Indirect spells take effect so long as you don't crit glitch the spellcasting test.
What you, and others, forget is that some targets are easier to kill with an indirect spell than with a direct one. To go back to the Mage and Troll example, it is foolish to try and stunbolt a mage. Between their high Will and counterspelling, they're better able to resist such spells. Use a flamethrower spell instead. For the Troll, with the higher body (and better armor), they're better able to shrug off the flamethrower. Stunbolt them instead. Use the right tool for the right job, and you don't have to rely on double-edged swords like overcasting as much.
Yes we all get the different tool for different job thing. The problem is one tool is used more often as its job comes up more often and the other tool is for less common jobs. The less common tool should not be a higher drain. Its like lets say there was a heavy pistol that did 7P had a 45 shot clip, could fire in sa/bf/fa had 6 points of RC and fired at sniper rifle ranges but it couldn't be silenced or suppressed, then you have another heavy pistol does 5p, 10 shot clip but has a built in silencer which was super good and reduced the perception to hear it by 8 dice. Sure if you needed to keep it quiet gun 2 is the better tool for the job but wouldn't it seem weird if it had a higher avaialbiltiy and cost than gun one?
-
The problem really is that people are falling into the trap of thinking that in order for two things to be "balanced" versus each other that they have to be absolutely 100% equal in all regards. This is not true.
-
That's a funny line of thought. By the same theory, Physical Barrier should be (F/2)-8 DV. I've never used the spell, while I have used stunbolt. Therefore, by what you said, that means that PB's drain should be based on how useful it is in every situation instead of the merits of the spell itself. This would revolutionize the game, I think. Useful spell? Penalty. Crappy/Niche spell? Overcast it like a mofo, you'll never be drained.
-
The problem really is that people are falling into the trap of thinking that in order for two things to be "balanced" versus each other that they have to be absolutely 100% equal in all regards. This is not true.
Indeed. There are "core" spells, the keys to a character's general tactics, and "utility" spells, the things that make them flexible. Here's the thing: You might think core spells are more powerful/valuable because they're used more often, but why don't you go ahead and play a character who has nothing but core spells. See how far you get. You have to have a mix of the two.
-
The problem really is that people are falling into the trap of thinking that in order for two things to be "balanced" versus each other that they have to be absolutely 100% equal in all regards. This is not true.
Indeed. There are "core" spells, the keys to a character's general tactics, and "utility" spells, the things that make them flexible. Here's the thing: You might think core spells are more powerful/valuable because they're used more often, but why don't you go ahead and play a character who has nothing but core spells. See how far you get. You have to have a mix of the two.
Indeed. Even on a combat mage, I don't find myself taking more than two (MAYBE three) combat spells at chargen. Mainly because the way to be a truly effective combat mage is not through direct damage (street sams and combat-focused adepts will almost always have you beat), but in battlefield control and debuff/manipulation spells. Orgy, Mob Mind, and Ice Slick, for instance, are three BEAUTIFUL spells for a combat mage, even better than Manabolt/Stunbolt, IMHO, since you can use them to set up the main damage dealers.
-
If you've got the Drain pool to get away with it, multi-casting high Force combat spells is gonna do a lot of damage. Which is part of why my combat druid has Increase Intuition.
-
Fun fact: my older printing of the German version of Street Magic had indirect spells defended with reaction only and the damage reduced by body + half impact + counterspelling.
This always was what we considered to be the correct (and most logical) ruling and it actually made indirect spells kind of useful against targets who couldn't dodge, especially if they had a counterspelling magician on their side.
And they usually did, at least whenever I was playing my Mystic Adept. Those enemy Magicians would also usually have Absorption (and therefore Shielding) as well, which eventually led to me spamming high powered indirect spells on my last run, because they were the only thing that I figured had any chance of actually getting through and dealing some damage.
Now I had a friend look into his more recent reprint of Street Magic, and apparently they corrected it to be reaction + counterspelling for defense and body + half impact for damage again. A shame, really, because it took away one of the very few use cases of indirect spells. Gonna talk about reverting to the old Street Magic ruling with my GMs, which will also be the ruling I use whenever I GM a game.
-
I don't see a big difference between those. Either way, you have Direct resisted by Body/Willpower + Counterspelling versus indirect resisted by Reaction + Body/Willpower + Counterspelling, plus half impact armor and whatever relevant protective modifiers are built into the armor, the only difference is the grouping of when those rolls are made.
-
The difference is that the reaction only makes it easier to hit someone with an indirect spell. Afterward, counterspelling helps reduce the direct damage, although it'd have no effect on the elemental effect.
-
Exactly, you hit them more easily, potentially getting more net hits which will in turn add to the damage of the spell. It's actually quite a game changer and made combating other Spellcasters more interesting, because you had some tough decisions to make. Do I just try to throw a Stunbolt, running the risk of pretty much just wasting my action because it will likely dissolve into thin air? Or do I go for a Lightning Bolt, for a better hit-chance and an elemental effect, albeit at a lower damage value and higher drain?
-
Interesting thread: I have played my first magician for a few months now, and she has recently learned her first elemental spell. After careful thinking, I chose Acid Stream for her: she has used it so far to destroy obstacles, vehicles, bodies and all kinds of evidence. I chose the spell because I thought fire or lightning might set things on fire, and that´s a bit too high profile for my taste: acid does the job just fine.... and has a little Exorcist-style touch which suits the character fine :)
Otherwise she has used Stunbolts, Powerbolts and Stunballs to drop enemies because of their low drain: next combat spell for her will probably be Toxic Wave for same reasons I chose Acid Stream.
I think the basic drain rules work just fine: a wise magician learns different kinds of spells for different situations, it would be foolish not to.
-
Wow, read what I said. Compare two spells that have the same damage type, same valid targets. The only difference is whether they are Direct or Indirect. Physical Damage, Physical Spell. Basically create an Indirect version of PowerBolt, call it Bullet.
Why would one use this Indirect spell? Against certain targets it might have a slightly higher chance of going through, but it is guaranteed to do less damage on average.
Direct vs. Indirect Resistance
Body (+Counterspelling) vs. Reaction (+Counterspelling) + Body + half Impact
"Average Mage" -> Call it Spellcasting Pool of 12, average hits of 4
"Average Troll" -> Body 7, Reaction 3, (no Counterspelling), Impact Armor 11
Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage
Bullet F5 = 1 avg. hit to avoid -> 3 net hits, base damage 8 -> 4 avg. hits to reduce damage -> 4 damage
And that's against an enemy that has the highest chance to out-right resist the Powerbolt...
My argument isn't against the idea that different spells are used for different purposes, only the argument that Indirect Spells are inherently weaker, but still cost the same amount of drain (for otherwise identical spells).
Hold on. Unless I'm incorrect, direct spells don't add the spell's force to damage, so they're -always- gonna deal significantly less damage. At least until soak.
Corebook, Pg. 283, Direct Combat Spells:
"When your direct combat spell is successfully cast, it inflicts a number of boxes of damage equal to your net hits on the opposed test."
This means that in your example, Kiirnodel:
Powerbolt F5 = (12 spellcasting dice vs. 2-4 willpower) = 3NH = 3DV. That's terrible.
Bullet F5 = (12 spellcasting dice vs. 6-9 Rea+Int) = 1-2 NH = 6-7DV. They may soak that, but AP is ridiculously awesome at Force (-5 in this case). They'd have to have 17 arm+body in order to make it equal final damage to indirect.
-
You are replying to an 8 year old thread.... ;)
Direct Combat Spells are only opposed by one attribute (Body or Willpower). Typically making them easier to land than Indirect Combat Spells (which are avoided by a combination of Reaction + Intuition).
Direct Combat Spells originate from within the target which mean that once the spell connect there will be no soaking at all. Armor is not part of the equation. Indirect Combat spells, however, will also be soaked once they connect. And in this edition you can get 30+ soak right out of the gate...
Direct Combat Spells come as Mana variants which mean you can use them on the Astral Plane against wholly astral entities. Indirect Combat spells can only target the physical plane.
It is also not immediately obvious who the responsible magician is or where the Direct Combat spell was cast from. While Indirect Combat Spells are immediately obvious and will lead a trail of elemental effects from the responsible magician all the way to the intended target.
The advantage of using an Indirect Combat Spell is that Force is added to the base Damage Value. But since Force is not part of the DV of Direct Combat spells you can instead cast them at a rather low Force and set the limit with Reagents or break the limit with Edge.
Another advantage with Indirect Combat Spells is that you don't have to actually "see" your target (you can Blind Fire). But since you don't need a direct line of fire from your body with Direct Combat Spells you can instead target via reflections, via endoscopes or mage goggles without exposing yourself at all.
edit; fixed a few typos.
-
You are replying to an 8 year old thread.... ;)
Haha yeah so wouldn’t it be hilariously infuriating if I played my fav ed. of my fav game wrong this whole time?
Yes, I understand the intricacies of Direct vs. Indirect but my confusion is thus:
Kiirnodel inferred that Force is added to base DV on Direct spells
“Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage”
And despite the many replies, nobody has ever corrected them. Which, since it is a huge factor in he difference, would have warranted immediate attention, IMO.