The new drain mechanic encourages overcasting!, whoops! Options

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Since drain is determined first by F/2, and now by +1/net hit...raising the force by 2 gets twice the result a spellcasting success does, for the same amount of drain.
And even better, resistance is relatively unimportant, as long as you get at least one more hit than the target.

So if you want to do 10 stun damage to someone, you can:

cast a force 5 stunbolt and hope for 5 successes and resist F/2-1+1/net hit = 7S drain,
or
cast a force 9 stunbolt, use one net hit, and resist 5P drain. Same damage, 2 less drain to resist.


Somehow, I don't think this is what they were going for.

[Muspellsheimr]

This has been brought up numerous times. Synner (or Adam - I forget which one) have clearly said that they are unconcerned about this, as they do not believe Overcasting is a big deal & were not trying to fix it.

Which, put simply, is bullshit.

[knasser]

Since drain is determined first by F/2, and now by +1/net hit...raising the force by 2 gets twice the result a spellcasting success does, for the same amount of drain.
And even better, resistance is relatively unimportant, as long as you get at least one more hit than the target.

So if you want to do 10 stun damage to someone, you can:

cast a force 5 stunbolt and hope for 5 successes and resist F/2-1+1/net hit = 7S drain,
or
cast a force 9 stunbolt, use one net hit, and resist 5P drain. Same damage, 2 less drain to resist.


Somehow, I don't think this is what they were going for.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) You are correct. It's one of the things I don't like about the new mechanic. I'm just amused because every other thread in here since this was released is currently a giant flamewar on the subject. Synner has stated that he has no problem with it encouraging overcasting and that this is actually intentional. I can't see why that would possibly be desirable, however!

Note in your example however, that you'd have to be very lucky to get those five hits in the first instance because hits, not net hits, are capped by the Force of the spell so your target would have to get 0 successes to allow you to get five net hits.

K.

[Browncoatone]

Well, do remember that 7S is approaching a migraine headache while 5P is like half dead from internal injuries (did you just say my liver is smoking?) so it's not like overcasting doesn't come with a price. Personally I think the rule needs to be replaced but I'm still working on a rule mod that doesn't mess-up something else in the process.

[Mikado]

Reminds me what I told my GM. My character has a magic of 4.
F4 stunbolt is 1s drain, using 2 net hits gives 6 damage for 3s drain.
F8 stunbolt is 3p drain, using no net hits gives 8 damage for 3p drain.

With 8 dice for drain tests I can soak 2 2/3 drain on average. On average 1 out of every 3 spells I will suffer 1 drain.

It is the same with "Ball" spells.
F4 stunball is 3s drain, using 2 net hits gives 6 damage for 5s drain.
F8 stunball is 5p drain, using no net hits gives 8 damage for 5p drain.
Yes, 5 drain is harder to resist but come on now... what really changed...

It gets worse when you start dual casting, using the first example I can spit out two F7 stunbolts for the same drain as two F3's. Yes it is physical but the drain amount is the same.

[ornot]

There is a solution.

Don't permit mages to choose how many hits they take. I've not read the SR4A, but from what I've seen it can be taken two ways.
1. A Mage rolls, and the target rolls to resist. Mage chooses how many hits to apply with the benefit of knowing the target's result already. Mage has great deal of control over drain they suffer.
2. A mage rolls and chooses how many hits to apply. Then the target rolls to resist. If the mage takes too few hits, no effect. If the target is unlucky, the mage might take a hefty drain. Drain is unpredictable.

I choose interpretation 2.

force 5 stunbolt w/ 5 net hits = 7s drain
force 9 stunbolt w/ 5 net hits = 9p drain.

If your mage gets "lucky" he might be stuck with even more drain, since he can actually achieve up to 9 hits with a force 9 spell.

[The Mack]

There is a solution.

Don't permit mages to choose how many hits they take. I've not read the SR4A, but from what I've seen it can be taken two ways.
1. A Mage rolls, and the target rolls to resist. Mage chooses how many hits to apply with the benefit of knowing the target's result already. Mage has great deal of control over drain they suffer.
2. A mage rolls and chooses how many hits to apply. Then the target rolls to resist. If the mage takes too few hits, no effect. If the target is unlucky, the mage might take a hefty drain. Drain is unpredictable.

I choose interpretation 2.

force 5 stunbolt w/ 5 net hits = 7s drain
force 9 stunbolt w/ 5 net hits = 9p drain.

If your mage gets "lucky" he might be stuck with even more drain, since he can actually achieve up to 9 hits with a force 9 spell.

So mages then get double hosed?

More drain for being successful is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time. But you're actually suggesting making it worse?

Wow.

[Browncoatone]

Though I can see your point Ornot, I just can't swallow the "you rolled too well lad! Take extra damage!" mentality. It's like telling a street sam "Hey, your cyberspur attack was really good. You killed your target and then stabbed yourself. Take Strength +3 Physical damage."

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

If your mage gets "lucky" he might be stuck with even more drain, since he can actually achieve up to 9 hits with a force 9 spell.

Or worse, if he threw in edge. Which would rapidly stop all direct combat-casting whatsoever.

It's one thing to take a reasonable risk, it's something else to play Russian Roulette with a random number of bullets. Using that rule is right up there with banning mages.

If I wanted to play without magic, I'd pick up Cyberpunk.

[Raizer]

First, it is my opinion that the reason for the changes to drain is because in essence combat spells are not resisted. The abilitty to do near instant death for near minimal cost (through magic) was deemed a problem. Its not like the face (for comparisons sake) can do a negotiations roll, get 3 hits over you and suddenly you drop dead.

It is also not about overcasting either because the argument for overcasting is that you can just cast at higher force and do more damage. Honestly, in my years of GM'ing players do this anyway. Why? Because when they are fighting a tough opponent (including/especially magical ones like spirits) they would rather risk some drain/damage and instant remove their target rather than doing small chunks of damage.

Now, I can understand many people having trepidations over this change in magic casting, but when you look at this type of spell and realize that most combat involves 4 'stats' (Reaction, possibly Dodge, Body, and Armor (somtimes half armor but that costs +2 drain!). And that some of these numbers (namely Armor) is usally 2x as much as a typical stat, you realize that a Combat Spell is extremely overpowering. WHile this switch isn't ideal for alot of people...it could be worse...

It could have been decided that all combat spells do 1 damage + net hits but no increase in drain. Done in this way it would be self limiting due to Force controlling your hits. This would have created nearly the same level of balance that the current rules in SR4A seems to be using.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

First, it is my opinion that the reason for the changes to drain is because in essence combat spells are not resisted. The abilitty to do near instant death for near minimal cost (through magic) was deemed a problem. Its not like the face (for comparisons sake) can do a negotiations roll, get 3 hits over you and suddenly you drop dead.

Seen the Pornomancer? Yeah, it's not 3 hits over you, but by the RAW, you're pretty much fooked.

It is also not about overcasting either because the argument for overcasting is that you can just cast at higher force and do more damage. Honestly, in my years of GM'ing players do this anyway. Why? Because when they are fighting a tough opponent (including/especially magical ones like spirits) they would rather risk some drain/damage and instant remove their target rather than doing small chunks of damage.

The problem I've got is that raising the force of the spell functionally lowers the drain!

[ornot]

Or worse, if he threw in edge. Which would rapidly stop all direct combat-casting whatsoever.

It's one thing to take a reasonable risk, it's something else to play Russian Roulette with a random number of bullets. Using that rule is right up there with banning mages.

If I wanted to play without magic, I'd pick up Cyberpunk.

You were just complaining about the new rule making overcasting more desirable. Now it's too dangerous. Make up your mind!

I like magic being a double edged sword. It's not like there aren't precedents; Hackers use hotsim, although it puts them at greater risk of injury.

[Draco18s]

His point is that normal casting is wild and dangerous, but overcasting is reliable and safe, which makes no sense.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Bingo!

[Cain]

It is also not about overcasting either because the argument for overcasting is that you can just cast at higher force and do more damage. Honestly, in my years of GM'ing players do this anyway. Why? Because when they are fighting a tough opponent (including/especially magical ones like spirits) they would rather risk some drain/damage and instant remove their target rather than doing small chunks of damage.

The problem was that before, you traded Force for Drain. Now, you don't. In fact, overcasting comes with less risk of drain, and Synner seems to think this is a good thing.

It could have been decided that all combat spells do 1 damage + net hits but no increase in drain. Done in this way it would be self limiting due to Force controlling your hits. This would have created nearly the same level of balance that the current rules in SR4A seems to be using.

There's a lot of house rules being proposed, but the most common is a flat increase in Drain to direct combat spells. That would have solved both regular casting and overcasting without creating a new mechanic. Someone else put it best: they fixed the wrong problem.

[Draco18s]

Someone else put it best: they fixed the wrong problem.

That's my sig, but I likely stole it from someone else.

What made ICS better over DCS was the increase to OR.

[Malachi]

There are a couple easy ways to make the mechanic work:
1) Instead of +1 Drain per +1 Net Hit make it +1 Drain per 2 Net Hits. This means that increase the Force and using less Net Hits is the same as using less Force but more Net Hits. Drain = (Force + Net Hits) / 2
2) Instead of using the Magicians Net Hits, increase the drain by 1 for each hit the Target gets on their Willpower or Body roll to oppose the spell. This would make it very similar to Summoning Drain. This second option also has the nice touch of not punishing the Magician for success.

[The Mack]

What made ICS better over DCS was the increase to OR.

While simultaneously gimping half of all Illusion and Physical spells in the process. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

I wonder if we need to beg for a direct improvement to Indirect Combat Spells.

There are a couple easy ways to make the mechanic work:
1) Instead of +1 Drain per +1 Net Hit make it +1 Drain per 2 Net Hits. This means that increase the Force and using less Net Hits is the same as using less Force but more Net Hits. Drain = (Force + Net Hits) / 2
2) Instead of using the Magicians Net Hits, increase the drain by 1 for each hit the Target gets on their Willpower or Body roll to oppose the spell. This would make it very similar to Summoning Drain. This second option also has the nice touch of not punishing the Magician for success.

While those ideas have merit, I still dislike adding new mechanics when it's not needed.

I like #2 the best, but how do you see that working with AoE Direct Combat Spells?

Also how does another mage's Counterspelling hits factor in?

Eventually you get to a point where you add so much drain that it just becomes a non-option. I dislike that on principle.

[Draco18s]

While simultaneously gimping half of all Illusion and Physical spells in the process. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

True. Seems to me as if there needs to be two OR numbers: physical OR (resistant to change of form) and "mental" OR: how much of a brick it needs to be to be fooled by illusions.

[The Mack]

True. Seems to me as if there needs to be two OR numbers: physical OR (resistant to change of form) and "mental" OR: how much of a brick it needs to be to be fooled by illusions.

Honestly I don't see that fixing the problem.

For one thing, it then adds two OR tables.

For another, while it might work to make combat spells all but useless against technology (which I don't see a need for), and might also help Illusion spells out, it still leaves all of the physical manipulations totally gimped.

The reason I dislike that, is because this gimping seems to be the result of indirect combat spells being a poor option and not because OR 4 is candy canes for any magician to overcome.

So like the sig says 'fixing the wrong problems'.



The problem is indirect combat spells are a weak option. This should have been fixed FIRST.

Instead they way they went about it was this.

Desired Result: We want Boy B to be handsome.

Problem: Boy A is incredibly handsome. Boy B is ugly.

Solution: Smash boy A's face in with a sock full of pennies.

End Result: Boy B now looks better than he did, when standing next to boy A.

Lingering Problem: Boy B is still ugly.

[knasser]

I have a fix that not everyone may like, but it works and it is simple and it is very, very straightforward.

Drop all Physical Direct Combat spells. The mana based ones can't affect machines so OR is no longer an issue. Thematically it works fine because it leaves physical damage in the realm of creating actual physical effects. You can then, if you wish, also keep the original ORs.

It's an Alexander the Great approach to a Gordian Knot. it doesn't solve the problem, it eliminates it. Thoughts?

Khadim.

[Dakka Dakka]

This does not help at all with the new drain mechanic. It only hacks the gordian knot of the new OR. Mana Direct Combat spells are still nerfed by the new drain, and a mage is still best served if he overcasts with no extra damage.

[Muspellsheimr]

I still think the best fix is to simply remove the sub-systems. Allow both a Defense & Resistance Test against Direct spells. Yes, they are no longer "special" (aka different), but that is part of the point. Streamline the rules, & achieve balance (or very near to it) at the same time.

This particular fix does not affect the new OR table, but I solved that one by simply knocking the examples down one step - natural objects (Trees, Soil, Water) are OR 0; Low Tech Objects (Brick, Simple Plastics) are OR 1; High Tech Objects (Electronics, Alloys) are OR 2; Highly Processed Objects (Drones, Computers) are OR 4; Highly Processed Advanced Tech Objects (Complex Synthetic Toxins, Nanotechnology) are OR 6.

[knasser]

This does not help at all with the new drain mechanic. It only hacks the gordian knot of the new OR. Mana Direct Combat spells are still nerfed by the new drain, and a mage is still best served if he overcasts with no extra damage.

True - it only solves one of the problems. Personally I'm just ignoring the new drain mechanic and adding +1 to the drain for Direct Combat spells. I never had that much of a problem with them so it's not a concern.

[Angier]

They were always best served by overcasting DCS. Even if the drain was about 1 or 2 points higher, it was always better to overcast them to ensure that one net hit was enough to knock the target out (or outright kill it if needed) than having to cast the spell twice or more times thus having to resist the lower drain over and over again (thus trying your luck with drain resist rolls more than needed).