Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Resisting Direct Combat Spells

Posted by: Grinder Mar 18 2007, 12:21 PM

When Maggie the Mage throws a Manabolt on Sam the Sammie, how often can he roll Willpower?

a) Once to resist the spell and get some hits to lower the net hits Maggie got at casting the spell

b) Twice: first Willpower to resist the spell and a second time with Body to soak the damage?

c) Other number

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 18 2007, 12:38 PM

The answer is : A

You only get one chance to resist a spell. If you get more hits than the mage, then you take no damage, if not you getting hurt.

There are a few spells that don't exactly follow that rule, but say so explicitly in the spell description.

Posted by: Demerzel Mar 18 2007, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (Mistwalker)

There are a few spells that don't exactly follow that rule, but say so explicitly in the spell description.

I'm not sure they'd say so in the description. They would just be labeled indirect combat spells.

Posted by: pestulens Mar 18 2007, 05:52 PM

BBB p 196

QUOTE

Direct Combat spels affect the target from the inside, so armor dose not help with resistance.

Implying that you do make a damage resistance test. As always this is willpower vs stun damage or body vs physical damage (not willpower + body)
So in the original case that is one willpower role to resist a mana spell and body to resist physical damage. had it been a powerbolt it would be body to resist a physical spell and body to resist physical damage.

Posted by: Demerzel Mar 18 2007, 07:04 PM

I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the rules pestulens.

QUOTE (pestulens)

As always this is willpower vs stun damage or body vs physical damage

This is not at all how it works. The type of damage does not enter into it, the type of spell matters. Willpower vs. Mana based effects Body vs. Physical efects. So you resist manabolt with willpower and powerbolt with body, though both do physical damage.

See p 175 on how to determine spell effects. Then note how indirect combat spells give an alternate resolution for the success test.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 18 2007, 07:04 PM

The initial test is your resistance test. This is very clearly stated in the book (which walks through the entire spellcasting process), and has been hashed out on the boards before.

It's hardly unbalancing, either. Successes (not net successes) are capped at spell Force, and are then reduced by the target's resistance roll. If the mage doesn't get at least one net hit, the spell has no affect whatsoever.

Posted by: Grinder Mar 18 2007, 09:15 PM

True, but the caster usually has a larger dicepool to get hits: Spellcasting + Magic versus either Willpower or Body - I haven't encountered anyone using Counterspelling regularly. So I think it's unbalanced towards the caster.

Casting a Force 5 Manabolt and getting 5 successes makes up for an instant kill. Joe Average can resist with Willpower 3. Great. If he makes 3 hits, he's not dead, just severely wounded.

Posted by: pestulens Mar 18 2007, 09:40 PM

QUOTE (Glyph)

I don't see where it seas you don't make a damage resistance test like you would from any other form of damage. however It dose seam to treat the resistance test for indirect spells as somewat unick so I accept your interpretation as likely.
This dose make direct spells more powerful than I had previously believed but with indirects now affecting people you can't see I geas that isn't really unbalancing.
The only thing I would worry about as a balance ishue is firearms and there you have drain vs damage resistance as a tradeoff

QUOTE

I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the rules pestulens.
QUOTE (pestulens)
As always this is willpower vs stun damage or body vs physical damage

This is not at all how it works. The type of damage does not enter into it, the type of spell matters. Willpower vs. Mana based effects Body vs. Physical efects. So you resist manabolt with willpower and powerbolt with body, though both do physical damage.

See p 175 on how to determine spell effects. Then note how indirect combat spells give an alternate resolution for the success test.

I was talking about the damage resistance test witch I now accept you don't get, not the spell resistance test for witch you are coerect.

Posted by: pestulens Mar 18 2007, 09:51 PM

QUOTE (Grinder)

5 hits is pretty impressive, thats 15 dice on average.
I assume you didn't spend edge on your "Geek Joe average" test.

Posted by: Guye Noir Mar 18 2007, 10:23 PM

Ok, just for clarification, here’s a hypothetical scenario of a mage casting a direct combat spell based on how I understand it from this thread. Tell me if I’m wrong.

I’ll define the players first: Mage with Magic 6 and Spellcasting 5; and the Target, with Willpower 3 and no Counterspelling.

Mage decides to cast Manabolt at force 6. He rolls Magic + Spellcasting. Total hits are limited by the force of the spell, in this case 6.

Because the spell in question is a mana spell, Target resists with Willpower.

If the Mage’s Magic + Spellcasting check is higher than the Target’s Willpower check, the net hits are added to the base DV (6) and the target takes that amount of damage. No additional damage resist check.

If the Target gets equal or more hits than the mage (unlikely in this scenario), then the spell is resisted and the target takes no damage at all.

How about this one: Same players as before, only this time the mage casts an indirect spell (Clout) and the target has reaction 4, Body 4, and an armored jacket.

Mage casts at force 6 and rolls Magic + Spellcasting. Once again, the mage cannot get more than 6 hits.

This time the target first rolls Reaction.

If the Target gets equal or more hits than the mage, he dodges the spell and takes no damage.

If, however, the mage gets more hits than the target, then the net hits are added to the base damage.

Now the target gets what is essentially another resistance test. Body + half impact armor vs the modified damage value. Hits on this test reduce the damage taken.

If both of these scenerios are correct, then the target of a direct combat spell gets only one chance to resist, while the target of an indirect spell gets two.

Which begs the question: why would a mage ever use indirect combat spells?

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 18 2007, 10:35 PM

because you can hit targets you can't see

Posted by: Guye Noir Mar 18 2007, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (Mistwalker @ Mar 18 2007, 05:35 PM)

because you can hit targets you can't see

Really, where does it say that?

Also, there's the added elemental effects of most indirect spells, so I guess that's something too.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Mar 18 2007, 11:02 PM

Thats in the basics of direct spells, somewhere at the start of the magic chapter methinks (haven't looked at book in awhile, heh).

Basic fact that you have to be able to somehow perceive your target with genuine LOS in order to use direct magi on them. Now in cases of darkness, using your awakened sight will qualfity because the concept of darkness doesn't exist there (and people glow like fireflies, etc).

Posted by: Guye Noir Mar 18 2007, 11:08 PM

QUOTE (Cold-Dragon)

I know you have to see your target to cast a spell. What I'm asking is; where does it say you don't have to see your target to cast an indirect spell?

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Mar 18 2007, 11:14 PM

Ohh, that one. Sorry, read direct, not indirect.

That's under the part on projectile spells, where you simply create a medium and fling it in a direction. Since you don't need to see to create the medium, and flinging it doesn't involve looking in the direction of flinging, you don't need to see what you're flinging it at.

To put it more plainly: the spell only makes the hurling ball of fire, bolt of lightning, sludge of a 100 dragons bowels, etc. It does not target your 'target'.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 18 2007, 11:20 PM

FAQ 1.1

QUOTE

When casting an Indirect Combat spell, do you need to see the target? Or can you cast at a target completely behind cover since they use ranged combat rules?

You do need the see the primary target of the spell. However, as noted in the errata, Indirect Combat spells will affect other targets that are unseen by the caster as long as they are caught within the spell's area of effect.

Note that the same ruling for grenades applies to Indirect Combat spells cast "at the ground" -- if the attempt is to catch targets in the spell's effect radius, treat it as an Opposed Test, no matter where the spell is actually aimed.

Haven't bothered to find the errata quote.

Posted by: Guye Noir Mar 18 2007, 11:24 PM

ahhh, ok. That makes sense. No wonder I couldn't find it in the BBB. Thanks for the help.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 18 2007, 11:26 PM

No problem

You might want to keep the FAQ and latest errata handy, they tend to make life so much easier.

Posted by: Grinder Mar 19 2007, 12:13 AM

QUOTE (pestulens)

QUOTE (Grinder @ Mar 18 2007, 04:15 PM)

5 hits is pretty impressive, thats 15 dice on average.
I assume you didn't spend edge on your "Geek Joe average" test.

Forget about Edge, yes. But both could have used it and it's a too random factor to throw it into the mix too.

Posted by: Demerzel Mar 19 2007, 12:45 AM

QUOTE (pestulens)

As always this is willpower vs stun damage or body vs physical damage

QUOTE (pestulens)

I was talking about the damage resistance test witch I now accept you don't get, not the spell resistance test for witch you are coerect.

I restate that you have a fundamental misconception about the rules. There is no general condition that stun damage is resisted by willpower and physical damage is resisted by body.

Unless otherwise noted all damage physical or stun is resisted with body. See p 153 for clarification, the section headed Damage Resistance Tests.

QUOTE (pestulens)

5 hits is pretty impressive, thats 15 dice on average.
I assume you didn't spend edge on your "Geek Joe average" test.

Not really, 5 or more hits will occur with a mere 11 dice 28.9% of the time.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 19 2007, 12:54 AM

QUOTE (Guye Noir)

Which begs the question: why would a mage ever use indirect combat spells?

1) They often have elemental effects in addition to doing damage.

2) Their area of affect can hit targets that the mage cannot get line of sight on.

3) They have to be staged completely down - a target who has one net success more than the mage after his final Body test will still take 4 points of damage from a Force: 5 spell.

They are not as generally useful as direct combat spells, but it is still a good idea to have at least one indirect combat spell handy for rare occasions where it is the better choice.

Posted by: Naysayer Mar 19 2007, 01:25 AM

Also, a fireball is just SO MUCH cooler than a plain manabolt.
Of course, the drain is a real hooker, which has made the damn thing so unattractive ever since day (or edition) 1.
Pity.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Mar 19 2007, 02:01 AM

Well if we threw around fireballs all day, we'd go play DnD.

This at least makes mimicking 'movie magic' impractical, and thus avoids a fad. Now if you've prepared yourself with foci to offset issues like drain and such, that's another story.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 19 2007, 04:42 AM

Also something else about Indirect Combat Spells, the FAQ leaves it open to the possiblity of doing a Called-Shot with them, which in turn opens up all sorts of fun ideas...

However, before this turns into a "oh-my-god magic must be NERFED" thread there is something to remember, casting a spell is a Complex Action, and in the time that Jane Mage can fry a goon's brain with a Direct Combat Spell, possibly taking damage doing so, Joe Sammy can fire off two bursts with his Ares Alpha loaded with either APDS or Ex-Ex rounds depending on his target and unless he rolls a crit glitch there is no way that his attack can possibly do him bodily harm.

Posted by: The Jopp Mar 19 2007, 05:40 AM

The real nasty kicker with magic in forth edition is the changes they made when it came to the spells FORCE.

No longer does the mage have to cast at a specific force, limit is now X2 force and physical drain - THAT is what makes it somewhat overpowered.

Mage A throws a stunbolt at F8 with his magic of 4 against Runner B.

Mage A now have X2 his normal spells force against the runners measly willpower 4...

THAT part ticks me off the most. How often do you actually have characters outside of mages with willpower above 3-4?

Technically speaking they have upped mages power from magic 6 to 12 at the high end and not given anything for the defender.

ok, if most runners/enemies had a magic of 2-3 and threw spells in that force range it would be no problem but mostly it is 4-8 range in power.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 19 2007, 05:49 AM

The forec of the spell has nothing to do with resisting the spell

Spell resistance has to do with spellcasting+magic vs attribute(+counterspelling).

Force does come into play if the spell is not completely resisted, as it is the base damage for the spell.

Posted by: TheOOB Mar 19 2007, 06:10 AM

Hmm, with direct combat spells I allow first the opposed test of Spellcasting+Magic agienst Willpower/Body + Counterspelling to determine if the spell hits and if so the DV, and then a Body test to reduce the damage. It's not exactally how it works in the rules, but it gives the defender a bit of a chance and makes direct combat spells a bit less overwhelming.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 19 2007, 06:26 AM

Well call me strange, but I'd consider taking Physical Drain which can not be magically healed as a bit of a balancing factor for the added power, sure a Mage can overcast and throw what basically amounts to Magical Tac-Nukes, but once he's done then its a hell of alot harder to "reload" him then it is a Rocket Launcher or Cannon, which in most cases will do roughtly as much damage.

As for not giving anything on the defense side, although it admittedly won't help mundanes without magical support, if I remember correctly Counterspelling did get a huge boost in power as well, and using it as Spell Defense is something that even an otherwise pitiful Magic 1 wannabe can do just as well as your arch-wizard with a of Magic 6+.

As an example, if your fairly typical 'uber mage' with Magic 6 and Logic/Willpower 5 throws his Force 12 Manaball tac-nukes he is looking at a Drain Value of 8. The odds of him resisting are thus:

CODE

The probability of 10 successes is 0.00169350878084303
The probability of 9 successes is 0.0338701756168606
The probability of 8 successes is 0.304831580551745
The probability of 7 successes is 1.62576842960931
The probability of 6 successes is 5.69018950363257
The probability of 5 successes is 13.6564548087182
The probability of 4 successes is 22.7607580145303
The probability of 3 successes is 26.0122948737489
The probability of 2 successes is 19.5092211553117
The probability of 1 success is 8.6707649579163
The probability of no successes is 1.73415299158329

So in all likely-hood without Edge (And face it, with Edge everyone rocks whether mundane or not.) he can most likely throw between 2-3 before he is tapped out and in serious need of a medic (And remember that as he takes Drain, he is losing dice from all of his pools, including Drain Resistance.), while a Panther Cannon holds 15 rounds and a Mitsubishi Yakusoku MRL holds 8.

Casting it with a Force of 6-8 with a Drain Value of 5-6 is more doable true, but then we start talking about grenade launchers for Manaball, and assualt rifles for Manabolt. The fact that a Mage is never disarmed is countered by the fact that everytime he 'pulls the trigger' he leaves an astral sign saying "I did it!"

*Edit*

TheOOB by doing that then why would people use Direct Combat spells over Indirect given the fact that a well placed Fireball will roast everyone in the room whether you can see them or not plus according to the FAQ its open to the possiblity to tack on another 4 DV with a called shot?

Posted by: The Jopp Mar 19 2007, 07:41 AM

Oh, i agree that the high-drain spells have a lot of physical drain when overcasting but it is impossible for almost anyone to survive a F12 ”bolt” of any kind. usually a defender looks at 3-4D6 against most of the time X3 that amount in attacking dice.

The stunbolt for example is a very good example of a “too easy to use” spell as you only take 5P in drain at F12. 5P with 10-12 D6 plus possible foci. And most people have only 10 boxes of stun – THEN you factor in net successes to see how much MORE damage you take…

For some reason I think overcasting is too easy.

Posted by: Jack Kain Mar 19 2007, 08:33 AM

How about this not only is the drain physical damage, You take a penalty to your drain resist test equal to the amount of overcasting your doing.

IE: If you cast a force 12 manabolt, (your magic being 6) you take a -6 penalty to your drain resist test.
If your drain resist roll drops below zero you are unable to cast the spell.

Other ideas. (pick one or combine)
1: The magic resist quality only effects harmful spells not all spells.

2:Increase the drain on direct combat spells and by 2.
Decrease the drain on all indirect combat spells by 2.

3: The limit on overcasting is your magicx1.5(round up) not x2. Thus if your magic is 5 your max force of spell is 8.

4: A point of edge must be spent to overcast at all, While overcasting you may not spend edge on the spell casting roll or drain resist.

Posted by: ornot Mar 19 2007, 12:13 PM

I think F12 is meant to be pretty damn potent. So it is not unreasonable for it to drop pretty much all mundanes. Frankly if your mage is tossing off F12 stunbolts routinely, even at only 5P drain he's going to hurt himself in the long run. Plus the signature for those spells lasts hours, unless the mage takes precious time to cleanse the area.

Posted by: MaxHunter Mar 19 2007, 12:45 PM

In my game actually direct combat spells are at a +1 drain value.

Rationale: so that people like indirect combat spells better, to make frying Joe's head a little more costly, because manabolts are lame.

IMO The samurai with the ares alpha and exex is just as much a killer, but the difference is that there is not much a mundane can do to soup up willpower. (no full dodge, no cyberware, nada de nada) Mundanes can improve reaction and Body in many different ways...

Cheers,

Max

Posted by: Ravor Mar 19 2007, 03:32 PM

True, a Force 12 spell is basically a magical Tac-nuke and whoever is unlucky enough to be on the receiving end is very unlikely to survive short of pulling a 'Hand of God'. Of course, I could say the same about a well aimed Panther Cannon shot, a Missile strike, a RC compensated Full narrow burst from an APDS or Ex-Ex loaded Ares Alpha, running over someone with a large truck at high speeds, or planting a large ammount of explosives into the guy's bedroom so its not like Mages are the only ones able to one-shot people when they pull out their biggest and baddest ability or tactic so I don't really see a problem with it as in the situations I mentioned, the same goon is just as dead and I don't see people clammering that mundanes are too powerful and need to be NERFed because of them.

Perhaps a simpler way to phrase it is to slightly alter fistandantilus3.0's sig:

"Force 12 Manaball," by the way, is a Shadowrun code word meaning "this isn't a combat, it's a combat in which you are expected to die.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Mar 19 2007, 03:54 PM

...I'd hate to be the mage that had to soak the drain though.

...could easily become a case of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 19 2007, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (Ravor)

"Force 12 Manaball," by the way, is a Shadowrun code word meaning "this isn't a combat, it's a combat in which you are expected to die.

Posted by: lorechaser Mar 19 2007, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (ornot)

Also, F12 means he has magic 6, which means he is at the upper end of the power scale. And he spent 90 bp to be able to do it. And he has no 'ware.

That's a reasonable trade off, to me.

When the sammy gunmonkey rolling 22 dice fires off his full auto HMG at a single target, I expect they tend to drop most times as well.

Posted by: Jack Kain Mar 19 2007, 06:21 PM

It all comes up to what do you get for defense?

Direct Combatspell, willpower or body + edge + counter spelling if available.
(Its a safe bet the target would use edge in such a deadly situation.

indirect combat spells
Reaction, Body, half-Armor with the possibility of elemental protection mods,
counter spelling and edge are also possible.

When alls said and done the direct combat spells are the hardest to defense.

Perhaps to discourage the overcasting having Lieutenant Grunts with magic a bit more common. Having one of the grunts turn out to be a magician with 4 dice in counter spelling and specialization against combat spells.
You can also bet the grunt team should spend there edge at that point to defend against a mana/stunball

If that happens to the magician a few times you can bet every time he spots a group of enemies he'll wonder. *Am I going to have my high force spell screwed over by a counter spelling specialized grunt?, should I assense and see if one of them is magical or should I delay? or just go for it now*

You don't even need to go that far, if you know the first group of grunts will be flat-lined by a F10 stunball have the second group HEAR it and burst through the door guns blazing.

I've found through my DMing of D&D if you have the players cheep shot blow up in there face even once. They'll think strongly about trying it again or not.

Posted by: laughingowl Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM

Its come up in other threads but my solution.

Direct combat spells:

Base damage equals the lesser of Force or Magic.

If Force > magic, each net hit increases base damage by one up to force.

So

magic 5 mage casts for 10 manabolt:

Base damage (initial) = 5 (magic)

If he gets one net success:
Base damage = 5 (initial) + 1 (net hits) (capped at force)
Damage taken = 6 (modified base) + net hits.

Above mage gets 9 sucesses.

Base damage = 5 (magic) (unchaged from above)

Modified base damage = 5 (initial) + 5 (net hits with modified base capped at force).

Damage taken = 19 (modified base) + net hits

Basically making it so that overcasting direct combat spells is not an automatic increase in base damage, but rather a potential increase in damage.

Overcasting is quite painful for somebody getting hit with it; however, it is not a insta-kill unless the skill of the magic is also enough to grant several net sucesses.

peace

Posted by: ornot Mar 20 2007, 12:47 AM

That is making things excessively complicated. I honestly don't see what's wrong with the system as is. If the mage takes the risk to overcast to that extent why shouldn't they get more bang for their buck?

I don't think the system needs changing, although it might be worth houseruling the drain values. The drain for indirect spells seems a little high compared to direct spells. I can't really speak for their effect in game as any mages I've had seem to have the same concerns and load up on lower drain direct spells for their offensive powers.

Posted by: Cold-Dragon Mar 20 2007, 02:38 AM

I can think of an insidious method of counter-bolting...it's part role play, part mechanics, and part 'make somebody swear at you for doing something so simple'.

And no, it's not use the GM technique of 'you can't do it now' or modifying drain or bringing own hell.

But the last one is similar....

Care to guess?

Posted by: pestulens Mar 20 2007, 02:49 AM

direct and indirect spells have the same drain value. Now many direct spells are mana spells witch get -1DV and most indirect spells are elemental effect witch get +2DV
their isn't a lot of reason to learn an indirect spell that isn't area but a fireball and lightningbolt are both pretty useful. (Remember to take them as limited spells thowe, not mutch of a boost but every little bit helps with DVs that high)

Posted by: laughingowl Mar 20 2007, 02:53 AM

QUOTE (ornot)

Excessively complicated?

No additional die rolls, a simple change of:

Base damage = Force

to

Base damage = Magic+Net Hits (capped at Force)

Thats complicated?

As to more bang for their buck they get the potential for more bang for their buck just like with every other spell. They do not automatically get more bang for their buck.

Why is Powerbolt force 12 (one sucess) twice the power (well186% the power) of Powerbolt force 6 (one net sucess), while Mage Hand Force 6 (one sucess) and Mage Hand force 12 (one sucess) is exactly the same (Well the force 12 is harder to dispell, but the 'effect' is identical).

The above change really only weakens large scale overcating. (if you are overcasting by more then you expect to get net hits).

Anyways the poster early was complaining about it being possibly overpowered, the above is one I have found allows overcasting, leave it effective (IMO) however, does lower the risk:reward ration abit when doing heavy overcasting to something I find a little more palatable.

Don't like it, dont think its needed fine, though I hardly find it comlicated (much less excessively complicated).

Peace

Posted by: TheOOB Mar 20 2007, 03:51 AM

QUOTE (Ravor)

TheOOB by doing that then why would people use Direct Combat spells over Indirect given the fact that a well placed Fireball will roast everyone in the room whether you can see them or not plus according to the FAQ its open to the possiblity to tack on another 4 DV with a called shot?

Direct combat spells are still cheeper and they still ignore armor. Sure a flamethrower spell can ignite someone for several turns and burn them to death, but at the cost of 3 extra drain(over a manabolt) and damage mitagation from armor (especially if said armor is fire resistant).

Even allowing an opposed test and a damage reduction test direct combat spells are still more efficient 80% of the time, they just are a bit more balanced.

Posted by: Glyph Mar 20 2007, 06:34 AM

QUOTE (The Jopp)

How is that supposed to be more powerful than SR3? In SR3, you could cast a Force: 6 stunbolt and be rolling vs. TN 2 to soak the Drain, while the target would be resisting a TN of 6. You could easily drop most mundanes without risking physical damage that could not be healed by magic.

Someone risking overcasting against a mundane grunt who spends no Edge and has no counterspelling should drop him.

Posted by: knasser Mar 20 2007, 06:41 PM

I really think that a lot of people have not adjusted to the shift in values between 3rd and 4th edition. If you look at the conversion rules between the editions, you find that the mage with Magic 6 in 4th edition, would be an initiate with Magic 9 in 3rd edition. Magic 6 is that good! Anyone who gets a Force 12 chucked at them can be expected to die.

But compare it to the samurai who fires two grenades in the same time it takes the mage throws his manabolt and with no risk of injuring himself doing so.

In mage vs. sammie discussions, people tend to go around in circles because the truth is that both can obliterate the other. This is true of most characters and it's why Shadowrun involves so much stealth, treachery and guile. He who fires first fires last (usually).

A character type is unbalanced against others, not if it could beat the other type in a fight, but if it can duplicate the other's role in the team more effectively, thus making the other type redundant. A mage can do impressive things, but can't match a samurai for consistency and sustained ability. Likewise, a Samurai is impressive but can't do some of the things that a mage can do.

My thoughts, anyway.

-K.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 20 2007, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

tangent: And yet, an adept who converts their old magic of 6 to the new value of 4 suddenly can't afford his improved reflexes 3 anymore.
Core 8 attributes and all skill were multiplied by 2/3 in the edition switch.
Certain special attributes like essence and (apparently) adepts' magic ratings weren't changed. (since the costs of adepts powers almost universally stayed the same)
So which camp does that leave a spellslinger's magic rating in? Ask the conversion guide and it goes to 2/3, ask the adept and he calls you a bad name and leaves.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Mar 20 2007, 09:37 PM

QUOTE (laughingowl)

No additional die rolls, a simple change of:

Base damage = Force

to

Base damage = Magic+Net Hits (capped at Force)

?

So your solution to overcasting being "too powerful" is to force mages to overcast?

A mage in that game would be well advised to ignore any combat spells whatsoever, and pick up a gun.

Posted by: lorechaser Mar 20 2007, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable)

QUOTE (laughingowl @ Mar 20 2007, 02:53 AM)

No additional die rolls, a simple change of:

Base damage = Force

to

Base damage = Magic+Net Hits (capped at Force)

?

So your solution to overcasting being "too powerful" is to force mages to overcast?

A mage in that game would be well advised to ignore any combat spells whatsoever, and pick up a gun.

If you're not overcasting, it's the same - you use the force of the spell.

It's only when overcasting that this applies.

And basically, rather than give you an auto damage, it gives you base damage of max magic, plus net hits, up to the force - it means that when overcasting you may end up casting a high force spell that has less base damage.

That's the only time it would change.

Posted by: laughingowl Mar 20 2007, 11:13 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable)

QUOTE (laughingowl @ Mar 20 2007, 02:53 AM)

No additional die rolls, a simple change of:

Base damage = Force

to

Base damage = Magic+Net Hits (capped at Force)

?

So your solution to overcasting being "too powerful" is to force mages to overcast?

A mage in that game would be well advised to ignore any combat spells whatsoever, and pick up a gun.

As lorecchaser explains below.

Non-overcasting the effect is EXACTLY the same as RAW, so don't know why a mage should leave the game.

When overcasting the extra force/damage is not automatic but rather based on successes.

Don't like it don't bother using it... but if you are going to post your opinions of it I would suggest atleast reading it.

Posted by: ornot Mar 21 2007, 12:11 AM

Your second explanation made a lot more sense than the first one. Sorry.

I think I get it now. It's not such a major change as it seemed before, although explaining the maths is still a little confusing. As in, "add twice the net hits to the magic rating, but only if net hits are less than the difference between the declared force and the magic rating. Otherwise, just use the declared force and add hits once."

Fortunately I don't have a problem with players routinely having their characters "overcast and damn the consequences". They're all a little too afraid of dying.

Posted by: laughingowl Mar 21 2007, 06:23 AM

QUOTE (ornot)

Your second explanation made a lot more sense than the first one. Sorry.

...

Fortunately I don't have a problem with players routinely having their characters "overcast and damn the consequences". They're all a little too afraid of dying.

Yeah do realize trying to explain the 'process' it is slightly confusing, even if it is simple in application.

As to dying from overcasting bahhhh..

Force 12 Stunbolt Drain 5

Sure you have to soak 5 physical damage....

But get one net sucess and anything with a Will < 11 is out of the fight.

No chance of directly dying, and huge boost in 'stopping power'

Posted by: ornot Mar 21 2007, 10:28 AM

They're not afraid of dying from overcasting. They're just afraid of dying at all. Consequently they don't risk physical damage from overcasting unless it's important. Which it isn't when all you want to do is take out some namelss grunt.

Posted by: The Jopp Mar 21 2007, 12:10 PM

One way to cut down on overcasting both from the ”enemy” and te charaters might be that one should not look at overcasting like a power tool. Anyone preparing to overcast is looking at the possibility of head explosions, blood bursting through the skin, acute nosebleed, intense pain and other nasty sideeffects from the casting process.

Unlike us players the mage one plays might not have this academical statistic view of overcastting.

How about a Willpower roll against a threshold equal to overcastting over the magic rating? Someone overcasting with stunbolt at force 8 and having a magic of 6 would roll Will against threshold of 2.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 21 2007, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (The Jopp @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 AM)

How about a Willpower roll against a threshold equal to overcastting over the magic rating? Someone overcasting with stunbolt at force 8 and having a magic of 6 would roll Will against threshold of 2.

That's a really cool idea.
Especially when players are getting cavalier about inflicting 5P on themselves.

edit: Although, perhaps overcasting a fireball and overcasting a stuntouch should have different thresholds. Threshold based on base damage?

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Mar 21 2007, 03:08 PM

...one control already in place is that No damage from Drain, Stun or Physical can be healed by magic. I had PC mages take up to 8 boxes of physical damage overcasting of over summoning. That's pretty rough during the middle of a run. I have also extended this ruling to include First Aid tests as well, since there is no "clear cut" wound (pun intended) to bandage or treat. Only rest and the body's natural healing processes will remove such damage.

Posted by: Superbum Mar 21 2007, 06:20 PM

I have a houserule where every 2 points you overcast raises your drain by 1. So if the magician has Magic 6 and casts a F12 spell, his drain for said spell is increased by 3 (not to mention his drain is now physical).

Posted by: Aaron Mar 21 2007, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

QUOTE (The Jopp @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 AM)

No need to invent new rules. Simply turn to page 130 in your hymnal and apply the Composure Roll rule to overcasting. As GM, you get to set the threshold (basing it on the amount of overcastiness or the drain sounds okay to me), and off you go.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Mar 21 2007, 06:32 PM

QUOTE (Aaron)

Oooh, very nice. So streamlined.
Good catch.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Mar 21 2007, 07:04 PM

Sorry about that misreading - for some reason I was reading that as max damage = force...oh, I see:

QUOTE

Base damage = Magic+Net Hits (capped at Force)

BASE damage...I was swiching the Hits (capped at force) with the damage reference.

Bah, that's what I get for posting at the end of a long day of talking to tax professionals.