NEWS

Drain: Direct and Indirect Spells

  • 68 Replies
  • 16101 Views

Mithlas

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 919
« 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.

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #1 on: <04-08-13/1404:21> »
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.
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

Retrokinesis

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
« Reply #2 on: <04-08-13/1411:37> »
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.
« Last Edit: <04-08-13/1417:31> by Retrokinesis »
NPC speech
PC speech
Thoughts
Description
<<Matrix>>

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #3 on: <04-08-13/1415:32> »
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).
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #4 on: <04-08-13/1434:41> »
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.

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #5 on: <04-08-13/1440:33> »
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)
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #6 on: <04-08-13/1455:15> »
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).
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

Falconer

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
« Reply #7 on: <04-08-13/1509:45> »
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.



All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #8 on: <04-08-13/1530:02> »
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.
« Last Edit: <04-08-13/1533:46> by All4BigGuns »
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #9 on: <04-08-13/1613:04> »
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.

All4BigGuns

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 7531
« Reply #10 on: <04-08-13/1615:57> »
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.
(SR5) Homebrew Archetypes

Tangled Currents (Persistent): 33 Karma, 60,000 nuyen

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #11 on: <04-08-13/1629:19> »
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.

Mirikon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • "Everybody lies." --House
« Reply #12 on: <04-08-13/1637:36> »
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!
Greataxe - Apply directly to source of problem, repeat as needed.

My Characters

Retrokinesis

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
« Reply #13 on: <04-08-13/1655:36> »
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.
NPC speech
PC speech
Thoughts
Description
<<Matrix>>

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #14 on: <04-08-13/2307:30> »
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...