How do most games treat drain for direct combat spells Options

[Seth]

SR4A page 204 states

"As an optional rule, every net hit applied also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.

I am mostly complementary about the Shadowrun rules, but this optional rule strikes me as poorly thought through. I have seen quite a few posts on dumpshock to this topic...mostly expressing dis-satisfaction with this rule, but I have not come away with a clear idea on how to deal with it.

I think that the reason that it exists is that the game designers felt that direct damage spells are too cost effective: for example mana bolt is F/2-1, so a force 9 spell is only 3 drain. Assuming a few nett successes this can easily knockout most opponents, and the caster will probably take 0..1 damage from it. Its very close to a "I win" spell.

The consequence of this rule however seems to me that it is strongly encourages overcasting, and punishes being good at spell casting / lucky. Each 2 points of overcasting cause one more drain...thus 2 DV for 1 drain. This rule means that 1 more DV equals one more drain, half as good as overcasting. It also means that the successes you roll with spell casting the the worse you are physically...thats kind of the opposite of most other die rolls, in which more is better. Here I can damage myself much more if I roll well.

So the question I am asking is: How do you handle the drain for direct combat spells in your games?

[Makki]

So the question I am asking is: How do you handle the drain for direct combat spells in your games?

old group: there are no direct combat spells
new group: not yet decided, probably the way you quoted

[InfidelZombie]

Generally what I would do and what I have done the rare times I've GM'ed is make the increase optional. Say they get 3 net hits at force 5 with Drain of 4 (3+1, or do you round down? I've had this argued; but in which case it's 2+1) And if they wished to add a net hit to the damage, it'd add +1 to the damage, but also +1 drain to the spell. That way they can tailor their spells strength for the situation, but still pay for the flexibility.

[Eddy Munster]

I have looked at it a few ways, but came up with this as a way to possibly penalize overcastting while not allowing regular casting to be penalized too much.

If the spell being cast is equal to or below their magic rating, then every 2 net successes is +1 DV.

If the spell being cast is over their magic rating, then every net success is +1 DV

Not a perfect solution, but it is one idea I am playing with at this time in my current game.

[Faelan]

I have zero problem with the rule as it stands. Direct Spells and Indirect Spells both need to be viable options. Without this rule Indirect Spells are essentially worthless, in fact they more often than not have a higher drain code, and are easier to defend against. In order to draw some distinction outside of Elemental Side Effects, the increased drain based on successes adds an element of danger to using such spells, which may affect how your players use it. The every group needs a mage to counterspell is a tired old paradigm, which while still the best option may not be the only option any longer.

[Ascalaphus]

old group: there are no direct combat spells

How did that work out?

[Karoline]

I have zero problem with the rule as it stands. Direct Spells and Indirect Spells both need to be viable options. Without this rule Indirect Spells are essentially worthless, in fact they more often than not have a higher drain code, and are easier to defend against. In order to draw some distinction outside of Elemental Side Effects, the increased drain based on successes adds an element of danger to using such spells, which may affect how your players use it. The every group needs a mage to counterspell is a tired old paradigm, which while still the best option may not be the only option any longer.

Even with this rule, indirect spells are still worthless. All you have to do is not use any net hits on your direct spells. You're still doing 22 damage from your multi-cast stunbolt with two 3 drain tests.

The best way to curb this would be to have Direct spells have F as their base drain instead of F/2 like others. This does what the optional rule in question attempts to do.

[Draco18s]

You're still doing 22 damage from your multi-cast stunbolt with two 3 drain tests.

Actually it'd be 5 drain (twice). F11 would be 4 drain, and then +1 for multicasting.

[pbangarth]

I may be bringing in a conversation that doesn't belong here, and if so, just tell me. I have two issues with the complaint about the power of direct spells and the proposed fix for them.

First, I believe that if an effect or power is studied (or maybe more pertinently, used) out of context, it can be perceived to be imbalanced, one way or the other. I think direct spells fall into this trap. The context I am talking about includes factors such as visibility modifiers, cover, background count, being shot at while you are concentrating, and many more. Magic is powerful, but I think some players and GMs alike fail to apply all of its limitations, and so it seems to many to be more powerful than I feel it should be. I do believe the weilder of magic is as much a 'glass cannon' as anything in the game. Sometimes we fail to apply the full fragility of that glass.

Second, if a fix is needed, I would rather see a reduction in the number of rules than an increase. So, the object-resitance-like effect that direct healing spells experience with low essence targets should be extended to all direct spells. A bad connection makes any telephone call difficult, not just the ones telling you you won the lottery. One effect of this rule mod would be to bring a fair bit more cyber into this cyberpunk game.

[Faelan]

Actually it'd be 5 drain (twice). F11 would be 4 drain, and then +1 for multicasting.

Beat me to the punch. I have another question however how exactly are we achieving F11 without overcasting, unless we are assuming an Initiate Grade of 5 in which case he should probably be pounding goons into a fine paste.

[Faelan]

I may be bringing in a conversation that doesn't belong here, and if so, just tell me. I have two issues with the complaint about the power of direct spells and the proposed fix for them.

First, I believe that if an effect or power is studied (or maybe more pertinently, used) out of context, it can be perceived to be imbalanced, one way or the other. I think direct spells fall into this trap. The context I am talking about includes factors such as visibility modifiers, cover, background count, being shot at while you are concentrating, and many more. Magic is powerful, but I think some players and GMs alike fail to apply all of its limitations, and so it seems to many to be more powerful than I feel it should be. I do believe the wielder of magic is as much a 'glass cannon' as anything in the game. Sometimes we fail to apply the full fragility of that glass.

Second, if a fix is needed, I would rather see a reduction in the number of rules than an increase. So, the object-resitance-like effect that direct healing spells experience with low essence targets should be extended to all direct spells. A bad connection makes any telephone call difficult, not just the ones telling you you won the lottery. One effect of this rule mod would be to bring a fair bit more cyber into this cyberpunk game.

While generally speaking most threads like this assume an ideal vacuum, it does not invalidate a determination of balance since it assumes all spells are being cast in this ideal vacuum. In fact due to the way Direct Spells are targeted it could easily be said that the lower the dice pool the more effective an option they are. In other words any other spell with similar penalties still has to overcome a defense which is roughly double that which the Direct Spell needs to overcome. This is mitigated of course if we are using it against another Mage in which case Shielding is likely, however there will still be in general a 4-6 dice difference. So perhaps a Force=Drain solution might be best, especially in light of multi-casting.

As to the essence targeting, it just hits me the wrong way because it essentially creates a favored group. The cyber guy gets to buy a better body, and buy penalties to magic. The mage is already a giant karma and nuyen dump, lets add to that by allowing people who go ape on cyber to gain a real level of magic immunity possibly from the word go. The Mage would have to be an Initiate Grade 5 just to get back to the start, add in all the stuff that is not used in the lab so to speak, and he becomes a wet rag.

[pbangarth]

I presented the essence option for those who feel magic is overpowered. I don't feel that way, but am willing to entertain other views, and give suggestions.

[Glyph]

Like many poorly thought-out rules, the increased Drain for direct combat spells fixes the wrong problems. It gimps the category of spells that are, frankly a combat mage's bread and butter spells - a mage casting in combat needs some reliable spells with Drain that is relatively easy to soak. It forces mages to min-max simply to be effective at all, it punishes success, and it doesn't address the real potential problems - multicasting and overcasting.

If you feel magic needs some fine-tuning in your games, here are some house rules that I would suggest, that reign mages in a bit without gimping their major go-to category of offensive spells or forcing them to turn into munchkins merely to survive:

Overcasting:
Simple change. For the Force up to Magic, Drain is calculated as normal. But for every point of Force over that, add a full point of Drain.

Multicasting:
Simple change. Things like visual modifiers, stationary targets, or background counts - conditional modifiers - apply to all dice pools. Everything else - specializations, mentor spirits, and foci - get added to the pool before you split it.

Mundane spell defense:
I would add the mundane equivalent of full defense - they get to roll double their resisting stat, if they expend an initiative pass to do nothing but resist the spell. It gives mundanes an extra option, without gimping spellcasting too much.

[Makki]

How did that work out?

great. I was the only mage, and my only combat spell was an indirect AoE with element air. the +5 drain one which I rarely used, of course. Enemies got shot or beaten, and spirits got banished, which is more fun anyway.
nobody ever missed stunbolt, neither GM nor players.

[Faelan]

I presented the essence option for those who feel magic is overpowered. I don't feel that way, but am willing to entertain other views, and give suggestions.

I understand, it just seemed like a nuke on a roach type of response (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) to the direct spell issue. I think the full Force cost actually does do what the net hit increase in drain was supposed to do, without adding to the mechanical difficulty of resolving the spell. It makes direct damage spells something you use sparingly because there will almost always be a price to pay. Of course I think the extra drain for net hits also does this to a degree. It really depends on the individual table it is being played out on.

[Warlordtheft]

My comment is that this in and of itself is in a vaccum. No changes are needed. Sure, he can cast a force 9 manabolt for 3P drain, but if he does suffer damage he won't be able to heal it with magic. He could also flubhis roll (glitching here could be fatal if the GM rules that he also suffers the effect of the spell).

But what is the difference between that and the gun bunny getting 20 dice with an AR, SMG or pistol. The opposition may or may not have cover modifiers-but at that point the dodge is pretty much irrelevant.

By gun or spell, death is cheap in SR.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I may be bringing in a conversation that doesn't belong here, and if so, just tell me. I have two issues with the complaint about the power of direct spells and the proposed fix for them.

First, I believe that if an effect or power is studied (or maybe more pertinently, used) out of context, it can be perceived to be imbalanced, one way or the other. I think direct spells fall into this trap. The context I am talking about includes factors such as visibility modifiers, cover, background count, being shot at while you are concentrating, and many more. Magic is powerful, but I think some players and GMs alike fail to apply all of its limitations, and so it seems to many to be more powerful than I feel it should be. I do believe the weilder of magic is as much a 'glass cannon' as anything in the game. Sometimes we fail to apply the full fragility of that glass.

This...

Our table uses the rules straight out of the book, no optional Drain... we have had no issues whatsoever (Yes, Yerameyahu, I know, but it is stil true). If you use the modifiers inherent in combat that directly apply to spell casting (Visibility, cover, etc.), these spells are not any better than a comparable Gunbunny...

[Mäx]

IF you have a problem with how good Direct damage spells are, just swap the drain modifiers of direct and indirect spell, ie. add +2 to all drain codes of direct spells and take away 2 from all drain codes of indirect spells.
Problem solved and now indirect spells are a viable option too.

[Seth]

But what is the difference between that and the gun bunny getting 20 dice with an AR, SMG or pistol. The opposition may or may not have cover modifiers-but at that point the dodge is pretty much irrelevant.

Fair point: death is easy in Shadowrun. My issue was mostly that the game designers had tried to fix a problem and actually not affected it at all. As a spell caster you just pick a force (overcasting like mad) with a drain code that you are happy with and so long as you get one success you have success.

Second, if a fix is needed, I would rather see a reduction in the number of rules than an increase. So, the object-resitance-like effect that direct healing spells experience with low essence targets should be extended to all direct spells. A bad connection makes any telephone call difficult, not just the ones telling you you won the lottery. One effect of this rule mod would be to bring a fair bit more cyber into this cyberpunk game.

When I have GMed shadowrun (mostly in Shadowrun 1 days) I always use a minor variation on this house rule, and would recommend it to others. I think it helps address the balance between cybered characters and magic characters.

[Karoline]

Actually it'd be 5 drain (twice). F11 would be 4 drain, and then +1 for multicasting.

Ah, was thinking it was -2 and forgot the +1 from multicasting. So you can do F9 spells and still be doing 18. Or heck, F7 and doing 14 is still going to be enough to fill up anyone's stun track.

@Faelan who said anything about not overcasting? Overcasting just changes drain from S to P, which isn't important if you soak it all anyway (Perhaps the biggest problem with overcasting).

@TJ you just always have the magic group of angels don't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) But you're right, applying visibility modifiers is important, but often not that large. I didn't think cover applied to magic though, may have missed that.

@Max That might be a bit too far, switching them. Just removing 2 from indirect or adding 2 to direct seems like it might be a good starting point.

[Yerameyahu]

As in the other thread, there are (few to no) visibility mods that realistically hurt a mage if he simply switches to Astral.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

@TJ you just always have the magic group of angels don't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) But you're right, applying visibility modifiers is important, but often not that large. I didn't think cover applied to magic though, may have missed that.

I would not call them Angels exactly, and I am often the least angelic of the Bunch, but the rules are not as ambiguous to us (apparently) as they are to others. We also do not have anyone who sets out to break the game directly for the fun of it (which may be why I have few issues with the actual rules). If anyone can be accused of that, it would be me, and It is not intentional on my part. If I create a character that ends up causing issues/breaking the game in some fashion, I usually change the Character or create another one.

You have to admit, almost all game breaking things that are discussed here on Dumpshock are Edge Cases (and often extreme edge cases at that), and do not normally come up in games unless actively pursued (Pornomancer anyone?)... Just because you CAN do something in game does not mean that it actually COMES UP in game... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

As in the other thread, there are (few to no) visibility mods that realistically hurt a mage if he simply switches to Astral.

However, when a mage is using Astral Perception, it it is often easier to block LOS, even inadvertantly (Glass Window Panes anyone?), and therefore totally eliminate the chance of the spell being cast in the first place... Of course, you do have the issue of knowing when the mage is actually using Astral Perception, which may be difficult...

[Karoline]

Since when can you use astral perception to target something on the physical plane? Astral perception lets you view things on the astral plane, and you can't target (mundane) targets from the astral.

[Yerameyahu]

Since forever, Karoline! Just kidding: since SR4, at least. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can use it for magic *and* anything else (guns). Yes, it's a travesty; we know. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)