Is spell drain for combat spells something that needs to be revised?

Fireball. +5 drain. That's alot, especially for a spell that can be negated with conventional means (flame retardant, half impact, all that)

Meanwhile, you've got the stun-family that costs as little as -1 drain, and is far harder to resist.

Direct spells don't do more than Force damage, unless you accept +1 Drain for each net hit on the spellcasting roll used to increase the damage dealt. Also, your Indirect Stun spells like Punch, Clout, and Blast are opposed tests against a target's Reaction (+ Counterspelling) with a resistance of Body + Half Impact armor, just like the Elemental spells.

IIRC somewhere there's additional penalties for being the target of an AOE spell like Fireball.

The +1 Drain for each net hit is optional, not mandatory (last paragraph on Direct spells pg 204 SR4A). The other thing to remember is Indirect spells all have an elemental effect in addition to the regular damage. This kind of counter balances the high drain when you can light your target on fire. In addition, with the AOE spells like Fireball, you can hit targets you can't see, so long as the main target is in you LOS.
AOE attacks have a -2 Dodge penalty (pg 160 SR4A, Attacker Using AOE Weapon).

Have you...just...like, not seen any of the many, many, other threads on this topic? I'm kind of flabbergasted that someone would think this specific complaint hadn't come up before.

I do agree that the elemental effect should be worth something, I'm just not sold that it should be worth *that* much. I'm a bit rusty on spells, but isn't stunbolt or manabolt resisted by body and counterspelling alone? and a -1dv? Against the (usually) smaller stun track?

Have you tried using the search function lately?

Yeah, I know it's optional. Thought my wording above was clear enough on that.

And thanks for the AOE reminder, Mantis.

Crit, while I feel your frustration, I really really do, not helpful bro.

Although Redjack swears it works and wrote up a pretty useful guide to the Search function, I'm not really a fan of it either.

Here, is this more helpful? I just did a title search for "direct combat."

If you're looking to see the thoughts of other forumites on the matter, here you go.

You'll notice that I didn't do it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You're a better man that I sir.

I wasn't out to be a dick, it's just that I've never had much trouble with the search function, so I guess I expect other people to have the same one-in-a-million-mojo, or whatever, that makes it tick. No offense intended, AN. As you can see, it's a topic with plenty of posts (and flames) already.

If you are going for straight damage, mana bolt/ball is the way to go.

In case of (element) ball spells, we are talking extreme measures, and area effect. Burn the evidence with fire, disable with electricity, slow down with ice. And notice that element-proven gear is rare.

No offense taken, And I award you with the greatest thing on the internet ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WpcmJ28Yg...player_embedded

One of the greatest things I've seen on youtube.

On the subject of drain, don't forget that 1) you are talking about an AOE, so I'd use single targets as a baseline, and 2) there are quite a number of ways to manage drain. I've made mages before who aren't rolling super-dice on spellcasting, but can soak drain like no other, so they cast spells somewhat weaker, but more often. Improved Attribute (spell) on a sustaining focus would increase dice for drain resistance. Fetishes are something I take for anything +5 on drain. Centering and centering foci are also wonderful things. And, if memory serves (no book in front of me) spirits can also assist resisting drain, though I forget on what capacity (bound, summoned, etc. I want to say bound)

The House-Rule I work with is that all Direct Combat Spells get +4 Drain and all Indirect Combat Spells get -2 Drain. Seems to even things out again.

I'm thinking about removing counterspelling from indirect combat spells altogehter. That should make them more attractive.

Not really, since they can still be resisted with something a lot more affordable than Counterspelling. Patching the Draincodes should do the trick nicely without any other tampering with rules. Besides, even with Counterspelling Stunbolt is going to be the go-to spell unless its Drain code is altered.

Even with nil drain you still have the problem that the spells can be dodged by REA+Counterspelling+Dodge on Full Defense (-2 for area spells).
Yes and no. If you increase the drain on damaging spells, the result will probably be that mages will just buy a big gun and sustain enhance aim and Increase AGI (and possibly learn a weapon skill).

Right, but you're increasing the Drain on some spells and reducing it on others. That lower Drain code makes those elemental secondary effects look even more attractive, and a spellcaster's Spellcasting pool should be larger, on average, than someone else's Full Defense + Counterspell. Even if you miss you made them give up their next turn.

I don't know why everyone seems to think that direct and indirect combat spells need to be "balanced" in regards to each other.

Direct combat spells are zapping mana right into a target. A mage needs to have low-Drain go-to spells like that, and any nerfs to them cut right into a mage's viability as a PC. If you need to nerf anything, look at the real potentially unbalancing things, like overcasting, multicasting, mental manipulations, and high-Force spirits.

Indirect combat spells are flashy niche spells. They should have a lot more Drain. They are a very inefficient use of mana. They take a massive amount of energy to bring an actual energy/matter effect into the world - fire, lightning, acid, etc. They are occasionally useful - attacking vehicles, hitting targets that are not in visual range, and secondary effects such as cooking off ammo. But they have never been in any kind of parity, Drain-wise, with direct combat spells.

Because having 1 'best' combat spell is fucking stupid, especially in a roleplaying situation, and the lack of balance that exist currently is what directly creates having a 'best' combat spell.

There isn't one "best" combat spell - there is one best category of combat spells. And they are the best at the most common application of taking out enemies. Indirect spells are better at attacking unseen enemies or vehicles, and have useful secondary effects. They also take a lot more energy to cast, so they are best used more sparingly. Direct combat spells are like heavy pistols, while indirect combat spells are like grenades - better in some situations, but with less overall utility. Besides, there are more combat-oriented spells than simply the combat category. You can use illusion spells to incapacitate or deceive enemies, or mental manipulations to control them, or other manipulations such as ice sheet or ignite. If every option is equally optimal in all circumstances, then the variety becomes meaningless - it's one spell, with different fluff descriptions.

Nope.

Also, I was under the impression that direct combat spells had horridly high drain.

That can easily outdistance the drain on a direct combat spell.

That rule was so incredibly lame and stupid that they quickly backpedaled and made it an optional rule - for SR4 and all previous editions of Shadowrun, direct combat spells were low-Drain. Although indirect combat spells were not always designated as such - in SR3, they were considered damaging manipulation spells. Which is actually a more accurate designation - but the manipulation spell category was really starting to get bloated, so I can see why they moved them over to combat spells.