On Direct Combat Spells and OR, A Houserule that (hopefully) will become Canon Options

[Neraph]

Good evening, Gentlemen.

I would like to start by saying that as I heard that SR4 was in the works, I got so excited that I started to design my own game (having only played 3E online through a MUD, I never saw a rulebook and didn't understand the mechanics). Well, in a week and a half I had designed a game tentatively named 'Fallen,' and as I was fleshing out the magic system and designing some races (I didn't like balancing bonuses with penalties, so I was creating elves, orcs, and trolls to be more powerful than humans, but needed a balancing factor. The concept of BP for me was born of that), I went to a bookstore to find that 4E had released. I browsed through that and immediately was both excited and happy, and began to mourn my project. My game was identical to SR4 (what of it I had written), down to damage codes for weapons, stat gaining, skills (mostly), and Edge. And that was designed solely by me in slightly less than two weeks. The only thing really different was mine was a fantasy-based game (I only heard about Earthdawn recently).

It has come to my attention that the OR tables and new drain mechanic for Direct Combat spells seem a little.... harsh, and most of this board tends to agree with me. I can see where the game designers were going with this, but on a road from Washington DC to New York, but they took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

Instead of what most people do (simply complain), I put my brain muscles (I know brains don't have muscles; bear with me) to the task of fixing this error, and to that end this is what I have come up with.

Direct Combat Spells:

In order to simulate the greater difficulty through which channeling pure mana in a destructive nature (Direct Combat Spells), increase all Drain Value of Direct Combat spells by +3.

Punch and Death Touchnow have a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+1.
Clout and Manabolt now have a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+3.
Blast and Manaball now have a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+5.

Shatter now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+2.
Powerbolt now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+4.
Powerball now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+6.

Knockout now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2).
Stunbolt now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+2.
Stunball now has a Drain Value of DV: (F/2)+4.

What this does is makes Direct Combat spells difficult (but not impossible) to cast, making Indirect Combat Spells much more attractive (that was the point of the current changes), and keeps the danger of Overcasting firmly in place (instead of more attractive, as the current changes do). It also goes with the nature of Errata, meaning making slight changes rather than rules overhauls.

Object Resistance:

Category--------------------------------------Threshold

Natural Objects--------------------------------------1
(Trees, Soil, Unprocessed Water)
Manufactured LowTech Objects and Materials----2
(Brick, Leather, Simple Plastics)
Manufactured HighTech Objects and Materials---3
(Advanced Plastics, Alloys, Electronic Equipment)
Highly Processed Objects---------------------------4+*
(Computers, Complex Toxic Wastes, Drones*, Vehicles*)

*Note that Vehicles and Drones are suggested to be 1-3 points higher, as the DM feels.

That is definately the feel the designers were after, without making many other spells either unviable or completely unreliable by extention of the current proposed tables.

TO THE DESIGNERS: Feel free to completely rob me of these Ideas if you (pleasepleaseplease) decided to like them. I love Shadowrun, and would gladly help out in (nearly) any way possible. I won't hold it against you if you take these Ideas, and I wouldn't even ask you to put my name in any books (if you decide to use the changes I propose).

EDIT: Edited for Superior Quality.

[Muspellsheimr]

You failed at the Drain. Although it has been brought up by a few people before, changing the Drain from F/2 to F is by far worse than what they have already done.

The goal is not to make Direct spells worthless - the goal is to make Indirect spells better. There are two things that would benefit this:
First, make the elemental effects better (I do this by making Duration based on the elemental effect - Acid continues to burn after the spell has hit)
Second, make Direct spells worse, slightly. This can possibly be accomplished with a fixed +1 to Drain. The better fix is to remove a sub-system, allowing both a Defense & Resistance test against Direct spells.

The end result of my suggested changes is that both are viable, and in a situation where both are applicable, the Indirect spell is better, but pays for it with 2 higher Drain. Because of that, it is not always going to be first choice, even when it is more powerful.

[Neraph]

I do not agree with you, sir.

I fail to see how changing the drain to the above makes Direct Combat Spells "worthless," and if they really wanted to make Indirect Combat Spells better, all they had to do was reduce the drain.

So we're stuck with raising the drain on Direct, or lowering it on Indirect.

And changing the Elemental effect would only benefit Acid spells, since all other elemental effects are instantaneous.

That aside, what did you think of the OR table?

[The Mack]

I fail to see how changing the drain to the above makes Direct Combat Spells "worthless," and if they really wanted to make Indirect Combat Spells better, all they had to do was reduce the drain.

Well, some posters think the reason Indirect Spells were not changed directly is because that would affect the street magic spell design rules.

[Neraph]

Original Post has been changed, brining (IMHO) a much better errata suggestion to the table.

[The Mack]

Original Post has been changed, brining (IMHO) a much better errata suggestion to the table.

Why would that be a better change?

You're now most certainly nerfing direct combat spells even harder than the 4A does.


Here's why.

All of your spells have their drain increased by +3

4A direct combat spells have no drain increase.



In 4A if you applied 3 net hits, increasing the DV of your spell by 3, your drain is now increased by +3.


For the drain increase in your version, you get nothing. Just more drain. I.e. a Force 5 manabolt does 5P with 5 drain.

For the same increase in drain (+3), in 4A you'd get more damage. I.e. a Force 5 manabolt does 8P thanks to 3 net successes. It does 5 drain.
The same drain as yours, except your added drain comes with no benefit.

[Draco18s]

The same drain as yours, except your added drain comes with no benefit.

Except that his spells you can add an unlimited number of net hits to damage with the same drain.

[The Mack]

Except that his spells you can add an unlimited number of net hits to damage with the same drain.

Well you do need to add 3 just to break even, but that's a good point.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I don't have a problem with just more drain on some spells, though this seems a bit excessive. Out of the ideas I've seen my preference for drain changes was -3 to drain but full force. This kept the drain about the same as current drain out to force 6, but once you past force 6 it increased rapidly. Despite there comments to the contrary a big issue with magic is the overcasting. That is what drain changes should focus on, reducing overcasting. (I also think saying first aid does not work on drain would be a good change)

[Neraph]

The reason I proposed said change was to remove an additional rule/subrule system. When you start adding rules, you start going the way of "4.5". If you just, say, change something that already exists, then all you've done is create errata, and that's what they're saying they wanted to do. Reprint the book with some errata. What they're doing is reprinting the book with some new rules. Rules which, if implemented, are going to need changes to all the other books. Hence why a lot of people say this is looking like 4.5.

If my Direct Combat drain errata is used, all you do is errata the numbers slightly higher, while keeping the same versatility in casting (not needing to cherry-pick Force and overcast like it's nothing), and overcasting remains a Bad Idea.

[AllTheNothing]

The reason I proposed said change was to remove an additional rule/subrule system. When you start adding rules, you start going the way of "4.5". If you just, say, change something that already exists, then all you've done is create errata, and that's what they're saying they wanted to do. Reprint the book with some errata. What they're doing is reprinting the book with some new rules. Rules which, if implemented, are going to need changes to all the other books. Hence why a lot of people say this is looking like 4.5.

If my Direct Combat drain errata is used, all you do is errata the numbers slightly higher, while keeping the same versatility in casting (not needing to cherry-pick Force and overcast like it's nothing), and overcasting remains a Bad Idea.

Well if the system goes toward a better version I will welcome the 4.5 ed, it doesn't need to be a whoole new ed with a new BBB, it can be just a book with different systems for different areas of the game, altrernate rule, if you like it use it, if you don't there's always the original BBB rules; there's nothing that say that the rules must be a monolitical block, let's call it an hypotetical "Rule Companion" ("Unconventional Shadows"?).
Anyway HERE is a link to an idea of mine for this 4.5 ed that nobody seems to want, it's just the part relative to the combat spells but it could be extended to make a whoole new spellcasting system.

[Neraph]

Well if the system goes toward a better version I will welcome the 4.5 ed, it doesn't need to be a whoole new ed with a new BBB, it can be just a book with different systems for different areas of the game, altrernate rule, if you like it use it, if you don't there's always the original BBB rules; there's nothing that say that the rules must be a monolitical block, let's call it an hypotetical "Rule Companion" ("Unconventional Shadows"?).
Anyway HERE is a link to an idea of mine for this 4.5 ed that nobody seems to want, it's just the part relative to the combat spells but it could be extended to make a whoole new spellcasting system.

Your rules are very interesting, but I believe the additional rules would simply bog down gameplay a little more (not neccessarily a lot, but more than neccessary). I always believed that SR was a game about fluidity and being able to approximate rather than working by-the-rules-textbook. My proposed change would be a small thing to help mitigate the "power" of Direct Combat Spells, thereby making Indirect much more appealing, without adding subrules or changing the very fabric of the rules.

And, in fact, I thought the bit about dropping drain from physical damage spells and indirect was a very interesting point. That alone may work better than my proposed change. However, my change stayed with how the current SR4A rules seem to be going (Direct Combat Spells are dangerous and hard to control).

[The Mack]

Well you do need to add 3 just to break even, but that's a good point.

I wanted to come back to this point, and explain why I don't like the way this system works.


So while yes, you can add endless net hits to increase DV without penalty, you have to add at least 3 hits just to break even.

What this does, is penalize the starting mage. Who already has things a bit rough, in terms of staying power, from drain.

Increasing drain this way means starting mages have more drain to deal with, with generally spellcasting pools that might at best allow them to break even.

So eventually, it might be beneficial, but your mage is going to need a lot of dice to consistently get more than 3 net hits.

[Neraph]

I wanted to come back to this point, and explain why I don't like the way this system works.


So while yes, you can add endless net hits to increase DV without penalty, you have to add at least 3 hits just to break even.

What this does, is penalize the starting mage. Who already has things a bit rough, in terms of staying power, from drain.

Increasing drain this way means starting mages have more drain to deal with, with generally spellcasting pools that might at best allow them to break even.

So eventually, it might be beneficial, but your mage is going to need a lot of dice to consistently get more than 3 net hits.

So... Less QQ from Direct Combat Spells and more PewPew from Indirect... Which was the point of the current SR4A changes anyways. It honestly amazes me how so many people can't even think of Indirect Combat Spells, so when they see the 'nerf' (read: balancing) of Direct Combat spells they believe all mages universally have become neutered.

My changes do not 'penalize the starting mage.' It instead makes Indirect Combat spells much much more attractive, while still giving Direct Combat Spells their place (Break in Case of Emergency!).

[The Mack]

So... Less QQ from Direct Combat Spells and more PewPew from Indirect... Which was the point of the current SR4A changes anyways. It honestly amazes me how so many people can't even think of Indirect Combat Spells, so when they see the 'nerf' (read: balancing) of Direct Combat spells they believe all mages universally have become neutered.

My changes do not 'penalize the starting mage.' It instead makes Indirect Combat spells much much more attractive, while still giving Direct Combat Spells their place (Break in Case of Emergency!).

Except your method of making Indirect Combat spells more attractive is the same one of the Designers. And it's also the method I disagree with.

Indirect Combat spells are a poor choice, not just because of how direct combat spells function, but because of their own mechanics.


So I'll say what I've said in other threads.

If you want to improve Indirect Combat spells, then Improve Indirect Combat spells directly.


And your changes do penalize the starting mage. Now they have a choice between massive drain for direct combat spells, or massive drain from indirect combat spells.

Not to mention that your drain rules break with tradition and fluff, in that creating physical, elemental effects are more draining and difficult than spells which channel mana.

Your powerball for instance has a higher drain code than acid stream or ball lightning.

I see that as an unnecessary nerf, as well as inconsistent with the current background on how magic works.

[JonathanC]

You failed at the Drain. Although it has been brought up by a few people before, changing the Drain from F/2 to F is by far worse than what they have already done.

The goal is not to make Direct spells worthless - the goal is to make Indirect spells better. There are two things that would benefit this:
First, make the elemental effects better (I do this by making Duration based on the elemental effect - Acid continues to burn after the spell has hit)
Second, make Direct spells worse, slightly. This can possibly be accomplished with a fixed +1 to Drain. The better fix is to remove a sub-system, allowing both a Defense & Resistance test against Direct spells.

The end result of my suggested changes is that both are viable, and in a situation where both are applicable, the Indirect spell is better, but pays for it with 2 higher Drain. Because of that, it is not always going to be first choice, even when it is more powerful.

The last thing we need is to make magic even STRONGER. There's really no reason besides 'flavor' to play a mundane as it is. Make indirect spells "better" in addition to direct spells already being awesome and we might as well all just start playing Mage: The Awakening and get it over with.

[ElFenrir]

I prefer the idea of just leaving the Direct spells as it is in 4e original, and allowing a resistance test of Willpower+Stat(Intuition, maybe? Not sure here.) Counterspelling would still come in handy, here. But for a character with a 3 Willpower and 4 Intuition(tie going to defender-they shake off the spell just like a defender from a gun would). If the spell hits, they could resist with Willpower as before to try to stage down the damage(as someone would roll Body to stage down the bullet.) I really don't see anything wrong with this fix. Direct spells are still nasty to a non-caster; 7 dice to try to shake it off and then, say, 3 to stage down still likely means pain, especially versus a Force 6 Manabolt cast with 11 dice, but it's not a guaranteed insta-kill at that point. It also gets mages making sure they want decent Magic scores and Spellcasting, much like someone who is shooting a gun or swinging a sword, since they can actually be defended against.

As for Overcasting? Well, at least here it doesn't seem better as it does with the 4a changes. An Overcast spell will hurt someone pretty bad, but a mundane can still make that called shot to increase their DV by +4 at the cost of 4 dice. They can do that without the risk to their own body, on top of it. They might miss the shot or strike with less dice, but the mage is still going to be eating Physical drain even if the other person manages to resist it. It might even make overcasting riskier in the sense of the ''Spell Dodge'' test might succeed and they get to eat 6P drain while the other guy stands there brushing off his jacket.

As for making Indirect spells a bit better, I'd go for increasing the time on the secondary effects. That seems like it would be useful.

[Neraph]

As for making Indirect spells a bit better, I'd go for increasing the time on the secondary effects. That seems like it would be useful.

That would only benefit Acid spells. All other secondary effects happen instantaneously. Unless you're saying that when I shoot you with a Lightning Bolt, the round after you get hit you have to make the Shock Test again (which I can kinda see, but is silly).

[Draco18s]

You could...I don't know....increase the duration of the effects of a failed shock test.
Failing that being a duration you could increase any numeric values thereof.

[ElFenrir]

That would only benefit Acid spells. All other secondary effects happen instantaneously. Unless you're saying that when I shoot you with a Lightning Bolt, the round after you get hit you have to make the Shock Test again (which I can kinda see, but is silly).

Lighting someone on fire seems like it might last a bit, if they aren't extinguished anyway.

I agree like, Blast or something wouldn't have a point. Electric only if it's viable...if they are say, standing in water and holding onto a fence, I might rule that it keeps going. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neraph]

Honestly, upon reviewing the rules as they stand (pre-SR4A), I fail to see why such a change is necessary. This thread was primarily an effort to use a (in my opinion) superior ruling rather than adding another sub-system into the game.

[Muspellsheimr]

I prefer the idea of just leaving the Direct spells as it is in 4e original, and allowing a resistance test of Willpower+Stat(Intuition, maybe? Not sure here.)

What I use, & suggest, is
Defense: Intuition + Counterspelling
Resistance: Willpower + Astral Armor (Mana) or Body + Astral Armor (Physical)

The last thing we need is to make magic even STRONGER. There's really no reason besides 'flavor' to play a mundane as it is. Make indirect spells "better" in addition to direct spells already being awesome and we might as well all just start playing Mage: The Awakening and get it over with.

Except mundane characters are just as viable & useful as Awakened. Direct combat spells are generally more powerful than firearms only because they do not allow a Resistance test. Indirect spells are universally worse than mundane methods as written.

Most of everything else they are capable of can be matched or exceeded by mundane means, and there are a few things that are mundane-only. Whatever versatility mages have, they pay for it hard, in BP & Drain.

That would only benefit Acid spells. All other secondary effects happen instantaneously. Unless you're saying that when I shoot you with a Lightning Bolt, the round after you get hit you have to make the Shock Test again (which I can kinda see, but is silly).

Lightning Bolt already has a duration effect, and for some reason, it seems to be an exception to the Instantaneous spell duration. Acid would benefit, but is not game-breaking. Fire also benefits, but is lacking on the mechanical effect due to poor 'thinking it through' on the developers side.

[JonathanC]

Except mundane characters are just as viable & useful as Awakened. Direct combat spells are generally more powerful than firearms only because they do not allow a Resistance test. Indirect spells are universally worse than mundane methods as written.

Most of everything else they are capable of can be matched or exceeded by mundane means, and there are a few things that are mundane-only. Whatever versatility mages have, they pay for it hard, in BP & Drain.

There is absolutely nothing that a mundane can do BETTER than an Awakened person. And technically you *do* get a sort of resistance test with direct combat spells; you just can't dodge them. And since you're resisting a Manabolt or Stunbolt with your will alone, and no armor, you're just plain screwed unless you have your own mage. There is NO mundane equivalent to this; even the best attacks give at least half impact armor.

I know it's a popular fiction on this board that magic is just fine and nothing needs fixing, but the fact is that this game has slowly morphed into something that is magic first, tech second, and absolute mundanes are completely useless.

[Draco18s]

There is absolutely nothing that a mundane can do BETTER than an Awakened person.

Infiltration. Argument countered.

[JonathanC]

Infiltration. Argument countered.

You honestly think a mudane is going to infiltrate better than an Adept? Have you ever PLAYED Shadowrun?!