Magic House Rules, Enhancing Flavor, Removing Problems Options

[Nifft]

Here are some house rules which I'm considering using. I'll try to explain my reasoning for them; if the rules suck, or don't match the reasoning, please let me know. Thanks.

Default = SR4/20A.

- - -

Removed:

• Analyze Device - problem spell
• Shapechange - problem spell, just take Critter Shape
• Increase [mental attribute] - because Drain should be a problem
• Ignite - just take Flamethrower
• Hush
• Control Thoughts, Mob Mind - problem spell
• Mind Probe - problem spell

Moved:

• Silence -> to Manipulation
• Influence -> to Illusion
• Control Emotions, Mob Mood -> to Illusion

(Why: it seems to me that affecting minds is the job of Illusions, and Silence is an area denial spell like Mist, Shadow, or Ice Sheet.)

Added (from Street Magic):

• Borrow Sense, Animal Sense, Eyes of the Pack
• Diagnose
• Mindnet (+Extended)
• Enabler
• Healthy Glow - functions to remove or suppress bruises, abrasions, cuts, and other bodily evidence of recent combat
• Chaff/Flak
• Foreboding
• Calm Animal, Calm Pack -> as Illusion
• Alter Memory -> as Illusion
• Element Aura
• Fashion
• Makeover
• Mana Static
• Mist
• Sterilize

(Why: part of the reason I wanted to take nice things away from Manipulation was so I could give it other nice things. Street Magic has a bunch of sweet Manipulation spells.)

Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:

• When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
• When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
• When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
• If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.

(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

Critter Form:

• Your 'ware must fit your chosen form. If you have man-sized cyber-eyes, you can't turn into a seagull.
• Each spell turns you into a specific, recognizable individual.
• You can choose Human (or any base meta-type) when learning this spell. Humans have a 3 in all physical attributes; meta-types adjust accordingly (i.e. Troll Form base critter would have Bod 7, Agl 2, Rct 3, Str 7).
• Your new form's attributes are the lower of the critter's attributes or your own attributes, except as noted below.
• Net hits provide a bonus to one physical attribute chosen when you learn the spell (typically, the critter's highest physical attribute). Troll Form, for example, could provide a bonus to Body or Strength, but not Agility or Reaction.
• You are always limited by the augmented maximums of your own base form.

- - -

'Ware for spellcasters. You cannot target spells using cyberware enhancements, period. Bioware works fine. (Why: clears up a lot of corner-cases with occular drones / sonar / etc., and gives bio-eyes a reason to live.)

- - -

I think these changes handle all the problems I've seen crop up both in theory and in practice of playing Shadowrun 4e. If I've missed anything -- including problem spells in the core book, or not importing a super-awesome spell from a splat -- please let me know.

Also, I don't have any particular rules changes in mind for Adepts, as they haven't been much of a problem in my limited experience. The option of allowing +1 PP in place of a Metamagic seems fine.

Thoughts? Thanks, -- N

[WyldKnight]

I'm still reading it over but you know without the increase mental attribute spell logic traditions have an even bigger advantage on drain. A cerebral booster 3 isn't exactly impossible to find and that gives them at least 3 more dice on drain. Taking a hit to magic is usually worth the extra dice for every logic linked skill plus your drain.

[jaellot]

Mainly skimmed, but Ignite is probably one of my favorite spells. I don't recall the exact wording in SR4(A), but it's less flashy than Flamethrower. It doesn't fall under the Indirect Combat spell rules and what not. Simply get the number of hits for OR and so on, and sizzle is a-go!

Of course my love of this spell has alot to do with it was the first spell I ever cast, in SR, ever. Ever. I did it on some goon's gun with enough successes to light off all the ammo and take his hand off.

I can see why you would want to move the Control Emotion and Mob Mood to Illusion. I still think it would fit under Manipulation better, maybe if they were more along the line of making the people targeted see things that would cause a reaction you would like? Sounds like more work than making things simpler though.

I do dig the move of Silence, though. That does make more sense. I also like the description of Healthy Glow, about hiding left over signs of a fight..

[Neraph]

While I see the reasoning behind many of these changes I do not think that any of them are warranted. It all seems superfluous. For example, your changes to Indirect/Direct Combat Spells is completely unwarranted (and your Direct versions create many problems, IMHO) - if you want your players to favor Indirect over Direct, just tell them so. I, for one, would have no issue choosing one or two Indirect spells (and I normally do anyways). The elemental effects of Indirect spells give them versatility that the Directs don't have.

Your 'ware targeting rules are ridiculous. The ocular drone question is already answered in the FAQ (if people ever tried to read it they might be surprised that sometimes it actually works).

All in all your house rules just seem to be nerfs for mages while everyone else goes on about their day.

I've already proposed a fix to the (Critter) Form spell for metahumans - it's a separate spell, (Metahuman) Form, and it gives average stats of the target form with successes only determining how hard the spell is to Counterspell and the target's appearance is simply a metahuman version of their own. As in, it doesn't make it so easy to hit augmented max with stats and you can't use it to look like that elf - just yourself if you were an elf. This keeps the Shapechange/(Critter) Form spells still useful for attribute/utility and the Mask spells good for disguise.

[Nifft]

I'm still reading it over but you know without the increase mental attribute spell logic traditions have an even bigger advantage on drain. A cerebral booster 3 isn't exactly impossible to find and that gives them at least 3 more dice on drain. Taking a hit to magic is usually worth the extra dice for every logic linked skill plus your drain.

Yeah, but there's no metatype that gets a bonus to Logic, and having a high Charisma seems more generally useful for non-hackers (and much more useful for summoners).

Basically: you're right, but I think Charisma remains a very strong choice, so I don't mind the lack of gear symmetry.

Regarding Ignite: it's a cool spell, but it overshadows a similar combat spell, and Manipulation remains awesome enough without it.

I can see why you would want to move the Control Emotion and Mob Mood to Illusion. I still think it would fit under Manipulation better, maybe if they were more along the line of making the people targeted see things that would cause a reaction you would like? Sounds like more work than making things simpler though.

I do dig the move of Silence, though. That does make more sense. I also like the description of Healthy Glow, about hiding left over signs of a fight..

Spells like Invisibility are already pure mental manipulation, including a very limited form of memory editing.

One big goal with the spell moves is to pare down Manipulation, so that other spell categories are less inferior.

Glad my reasoning makes some sense! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

While I see the reasoning behind many of these changes I do not think that any of them are warranted. It all seems superfluous. For example, your changes to Indirect/Direct Combat Spells is completely unwarranted (and your Direct versions create many problems, IMHO)
...
Your 'ware targeting rules are ridiculous. The ocular drone question is already answered in the FAQ (if people ever tried to read it they might be surprised that sometimes it actually works).

All in all your house rules just seem to be nerfs for mages while everyone else goes on about their day.

Unfortunately, the FAQ is a source of contention, not a source of answers.

Can you articulate some specifics? For example: what problems do you think are created by my Direct rules? What ridiculous problems are created by telling a mage to buy Cats Eyes instead of slotting Low-Light into Cybereyes?

if you want your players to favor Indirect over Direct, just tell them so. I, for one, would have no issue choosing one or two Indirect spells (and I normally do anyways). The elemental effects of Indirect spells give them versatility that the Directs don't have.

I don't like asking my players to make bad choices. I'd much rather change the system such that the more interesting choices are good.

Cheers, -- N

[WyldKnight]

Pixies get a bonus to logic and charisma is only 1 point higher whereas logic can easily get 3. There isn't anyway to boost charisma or intuition without that spell. While there is SURGE and genetics that's not always an option. Not just hackers (you barely need logic with hackers) but medic mages, the arcana skill, and all technical skills. Is it a huge gripe? Not really, I've never really liked mages because they don't suit my adaptable play style. But Logic traditions already have the advantage of being able to cheaply boost their drain stat (gaining bonuses to those skills in the process) whereas the others can't boost it at all.

I'm not saying the other two traditions aren't as good as logic, they all have their specialties, but without being able to boost their main stat it does weaken them.

Great reasons to take indirect spells is drones. You're manabolt means crap if you can't beat the drones threshold.

[Adarael]

Lemmie roll through these and tell you what I think of each of these:

Removed spells: no problems here. I don't think most of these are problematic in and of themselves, but if you do, by all means, toss them out.

Moved spells: silence should still be Illusion, IMO, because it's not *actually* silence. The others can roll into Illusion no problem.

Indirect combat spells reduced range: eh. Functionally, it would be better to grab a touch spell version, since a drain reduction of -1 for 10 yards is pretty crappy, especially considering closing 10 yards is nothing in SR4.

Direct Combat Spells: I don't like these changes at all. Allow me to enumerate:
1) Requiring a tactical and ritual link automatically makes Direct combat spells pretty much dead worthless in ordinary combat, since you'll almost never have a ritual link unless you're assassinating someone. It also makes Symbolic Linking pretty much requisite if you DO want to use them, since fresh bio samples are the only way around this.
2) Targeting objects with spells is already weigted toward indirect spells being more effective, due to secondary elemental effects.
3) If I only need a tactical link for astral-only entities, why the hell would I ever have a spell other than stunbolt/ball? It's already a superior choice anyway. I can see arguments for other spells, but really... it's made even more advantageous.
4) This is basically saying that if you want to use Direct Combat spells, you'd better be ready for some massive XP sinks. There's no reason to require someone use the lower of the two other than saying "Direct spells suck." Seriously, this is not an optimal solution.

Critter form: I've never had players shapeshift, but these rules seem overly limiting and overly complex. The way I'm reading it, a human who critter shapes into a Bear, he can't use his cyberware, his stats are penalized - cuz they're the lower of his, or the default animals, he's almost certainly getting no benefit for the change - and the stat bonus is laughable. It is, essentially, a worthless spell. If I am a human with maxed physical stats, and I decide I want to change into, say, a dog... I lose all my cyberware, my stats are reduced unless I roll well, in which case they are equal, and ... I'm a dog. Basically what this tells me is that nobody will take this spell, so it'll be easier to just say "critter shape and shapechange don't exist in my game." This is especially true since you have to learn the spells *again* every time you want "troll shape" to be a different troll. Fuck it, gimmie physical mask any day.

Ware: I disagree with this choice, when the answers to "can sonar and ocular drones target spells" are pretty well established. Bioware eyes already have a reason to live: reduced detection in cyberscans. By confining your players to bio-eyes, they have access to far less vision options than non-mages, AND they have to pay more essence to get them, since they don't get any eye-replacement package/capacity deals. This is doubly true because any external equivalent to cyber-enhancement also can't be used to target spells.

All told, these aren't game-enders, but I would not be a happy camper if I were one of your players, since a lot of concepts are gonna be hobbled by these. If the players are onboard with these changes, I can see them being just fine in terms of actual playability, but make sure nobody gets blindsided out of the gate. The main results I can see from this are that all mages will be a combo of the following:
1) self-buffers, because combat spells won't be as drain efficient as buffs+spirits to sustain spells + guns;
2) Unarmed Combat experts or Mystic Adepts, because Touch spells are pretty damn attractive compared to other attack spells;
3) Crowd-control experts, since attack spells took a nose dive in effectiveness compared to Control Actions or whatnot.

[Seth]

Removed:
Analyze Device - problem spell
Shapechange - problem spell, just take Critter Shape
Increase [mental attribute] - because Drain should be a problem
Ignite - just take Flamethrower
Hush
Control Thoughts, Mob Mind - problem spell

Mostly agree... surprised you didn't remove mind probe which is more problematic than all of these. I would keep ignite as its a fun spell.

Moved:
Silence -> to Manipulation
Influence -> to Illusion
Control Emotions, Mob Mood -> to Illusion
(Why: it seems to me that affecting minds is the job of Illusions, and Silence is an area denial spell like Mist, Shadow, or Ice Sheet.)

I don't really like the way shadowrun splits spells: there is very little of importance in them, so sure. (A house rule I have used is that each type of magic has its own spell casting skill...that has worked very well)

Added (from Street Magic):
Borrow Sense, Animal Sense, Eyes of the Pack
Diagnose
Mindnet (+Extended)
Enabler
Healthy Glow - functions to remove or suppress bruises, abrasions, cuts, and other bodily evidence of recent combat
Chaff/Flak
Foreboding
Calm Animal, Calm Pack -> as Illusion
Alter Memory -> as Illusion
Element Aura
Fashion
Makeover
Mana Static
Mist
Sterilize
(Why: part of the reason I wanted to take nice things away from Manipulation was so I could give it other nice things. Street Magic has a bunch of sweet Manipulation spells.)

Most of the spells in street magic are good. You missed nice ones like spirit zapper and the restricted combat spells.

Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Good idea.

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:
When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.
(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

The direct combat spells: especially stun bolt and stun ball are just broken. And the attempt to fix them by adding drain equal to the nett successes is even more broken. This is a huge nerf (which they need). I have tried similar things in other games (the disadvantage "needs material link"). Best way to get a material link is of course to make them bleed then touch the blood (bladed weapons work well here). I don't think this has nerfed them correctly. I would try just making the base damage of the direct combat spell equal to the magic of the caster. This is only a nerf if they regularly overcast.

Critter Form:
Your 'ware must fit your chosen form. If you have man-sized cyber-eyes, you can't turn into a seagull.
Each spell turns you into a specific, recognizable individual.
You can choose Human (or any base meta-type) when learning this spell. Humans have a 3 in all physical attributes; meta-types adjust accordingly (i.e. Troll Form base critter would have Bod 7, Agl 2, Rct 3, Str 7).
Your new form's attributes are the lower of the critter's attributes or your own attributes, except as noted below.
Net hits provide a bonus to one physical attribute chosen when you learn the spell (typically, the critter's highest physical attribute). Troll Form, for example, could provide a bonus to Body or Strength, but not Agility or Reaction.
You are always limited by the augmented maximums of your own base form.

Plenty of restrictions here. I take it you have had problems with this spell. I found the following three restrictions enough:

• "limited to within 2 body of the mage" rule
• Max attributes equal to normal limits (i.e.normal attribute max, so humans limited to 9)
• Your clothing doesn't change, so its awkward. And you are not wearing armour. You can buy barding, but not very stuff

Wards are really cheap (a few hours every couple of months for a mage...) THis means that players are constantly sneaking through wards. Sneaking through wards means turning your spells off, recasting them on the other side (or spending hours astral tracking). This makes it awkward for the nude mage with home made barding that he has to keep taking off and putting on.

'Ware for spellcasters. You cannot target spells using cyberware enhancements, period. Bioware works fine. (Why: clears up a lot of corner-cases with occular drones / sonar / etc., and gives bio-eyes a reason to live.)

I don't understand why you have a problem with this. The rules are clear that radar / sonar doesn't work. Bio-eyes are much more essence friendly. But remember that shadowrun is where magic meets man and machine. That means you want the burnt out mage with the cybereyes and hydraulic jack legs as much as the dandelion eating lute playing mage.

Other issues:

• Consider very hard how concealment works...consider banning it as an uber power
• I mentioned it above...but don't forget to ban mind probe
• Seriously consider banning the casting of multiple spells

I think your changes are ok. I think every GM is responsible for making their own personal changes to the game that they are running. (The RAW fanatics may disagree). Go to it!

[Mäx]

Indirect Combat Spells - You can create a version of these with a range limitation of 10 yards to reduce the drain by -1. (Why: I want to encourage the use of Indirect combat spells. I'm not sure this is sufficient.)

Direct Combat Spells - This fascinating branch of magic is actually a hybrid of ritual and tactical spellcasting. These special rules apply:

• When attacking a foe with both a body and a spirit, you need both a "tactical" link (line-of-sight) and a "ritual" link (fresh blood, hair, favorite emotitoy) to target an enemy at range. For Touch spells, the Unarmed roll counts as establishing both links.
• When targeting something with only a body (like a Drone), you only need a "tactical" link, but you must deal with object resistance.
• When targeting something with only a spirit (like a Spirit, or a projecting Mage), you only need a "tactical" link.
• If the spell requires a "ritual" link, you must roll the lower of Spellcasting or Ritual Spellcasting.

(Why: I want to make Direct combat spells more tactically interesting, and I don't want them to remain strictly better than Indirect combat spells. Now they're more potent as plot elements and fight-enders than as boring staples used every single fight.)

Just slip around the indirecr/direct combat spell darin modifiers and tada problem solved, direct spells are still bettter, but they also have higher drain then indirect spells, meaning it's not always the best idea to use direct spells.

[Omenowl]

My issue is with shapechange removal. The point of having shapechange is to turn into a variety of creatures instead of having to learn several different spells. As the player is limited in a size change it does not go from elephant to mouse. Now if you want to modify the spell so it is +3 rather than +2 that would make more sense.

I would simply increase the thresholds for cyberware and bioware by the essence lost for shapechange. Lose 3 essence and your threshold becomes 4 rather than 1.


As for the cybereyes I would simply rule regardless of augmentations if the target can be perceived astrally they can be targetted. If they can't be perceived astrally they cannot be targetted. Removes a lot of the wonky issues of ghouls, sonar, occular drones, etc.


One change I decided to prevent a focus on charisma for drain is conjuring resists with charisma+willpower and spell drain resists with either logic or intuition depending on the tradition. This way it discourages the elf spellcaster who ignore logic and intuition because their tradition focuses on charisma.

[Mäx]

As for the cybereyes I would simply rule regardless of augmentations if the target can be perceived astrally they can be targetted. If they can't be perceived astrally they cannot be targetted. Removes a lot of the wonky issues of ghouls, sonar, occular drones, etc.

What wonky is there about spell targeting, you can target spell with your eyes, cyber-eyes work too, sonar doen't work nor does ultrasound, ocular-drone works as long as it's docked into your eye.
What's sp hard about that.

[Omenowl]

I disagree as ghouls can cast spells on ranged targets when blind, but somehow our mage has issues with smoke grenades. Hence the part about astral targeting.

[sabs]

Ghouls are st00pid... mmmkay?
Any rules argument that starts with "but Ghouls can... " should be automatically disqualified (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I disagree as ghouls can cast spells on ranged targets when blind, but somehow our mage has issues with smoke grenades. Hence the part about astral targeting.

Smoke still creates an astral haze that is hard to see though.
(just as a wall creates a visual obstacle. You can just WALK thought it when projecting, allowing you to see the other side)

[Nifft]

Pixies get a bonus to logic and charisma is only 1 point higher whereas logic can easily get 3. There isn't anyway to boost charisma or intuition without that spell. While there is SURGE and genetics that's not always an option. Not just hackers (you barely need logic with hackers) but medic mages, the arcana skill, and all technical skills. Is it a huge gripe? Not really, I've never really liked mages because they don't suit my adaptable play style. But Logic traditions already have the advantage of being able to cheaply boost their drain stat (gaining bonuses to those skills in the process) whereas the others can't boost it at all.

I'm not saying the other two traditions aren't as good as logic, they all have their specialties, but without being able to boost their main stat it does weaken them.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't see any better way.

Logic:
- Medkits
- Technical skills
- (Arcana: not present in core, or in my game)

Charisma:
- Spirit binding
- Influence skill group
- Intimidate

Charisma looks pretty darn strong to me.

Moved spells: silence should still be Illusion, IMO, because it's not *actually* silence. The others can roll into Illusion no problem.

Silence is actually silence. Perhaps you're thinking of Hush? That one I removed because it's confusing to explain and adjudicate.

Indirect combat spells reduced range: eh. Functionally, it would be better to grab a touch spell version, since a drain reduction of -1 for 10 yards is pretty crappy, especially considering closing 10 yards is nothing in SR4.

There aren't touch versions of the Indirect spells. Maybe I should use -2 drain for the 10 yard versions since they're practically touch anyway? I dunno.

Direct Combat Spells: I don't like these changes at all. Allow me to enumerate:
1) Requiring a tactical and ritual link automatically makes Direct combat spells pretty much dead worthless in ordinary combat, since you'll almost never have a ritual link unless you're assassinating someone. It also makes Symbolic Linking pretty much requisite if you DO want to use them, since fresh bio samples are the only way around this.
2) Targeting objects with spells is already weigted toward indirect spells being more effective, due to secondary elemental effects.
3) If I only need a tactical link for astral-only entities, why the hell would I ever have a spell other than stunbolt/ball? It's already a superior choice anyway. I can see arguments for other spells, but really... it's made even more advantageous.
4) This is basically saying that if you want to use Direct Combat spells, you'd better be ready for some massive XP sinks. There's no reason to require someone use the lower of the two other than saying "Direct spells suck." Seriously, this is not an optimal solution.

(1) is working as intended. IMHO the Direct combat spells should be situational, and masses of mooks isn't their situation.
(2) Sure.
(3) Under the core rules, why the hell would you ever have a spell other than Stunbolt/ball? You're complaining that the core spell is too strong, and you're complaining that I'm nerfing it.
(4) Yeah, this one may be going too far. But I'm tired of every dabbler always picking up Stunbolt. What else could be done?

Critter form: I've never had players shapeshift, but these rules seem overly limiting and overly complex. The way I'm reading it, a human who critter shapes into a Bear, he can't use his cyberware, his stats are penalized - cuz they're the lower of his, or the default animals, he's almost certainly getting no benefit for the change - and the stat bonus is laughable. It is, essentially, a worthless spell. If I am a human with maxed physical stats, and I decide I want to change into, say, a dog... I lose all my cyberware, my stats are reduced unless I roll well, in which case they are equal, and ... I'm a dog. Basically what this tells me is that nobody will take this spell, so it'll be easier to just say "critter shape and shapechange don't exist in my game." This is especially true since you have to learn the spells *again* every time you want "troll shape" to be a different troll. Fuck it, gimmie physical mask any day.

Yep, if you want to disguise yourself, you want Mask or Physical Mask. That nerf is working exactly as intended.

Who says he can't use his cyberware? All I'm requiring is that it fit in his new body. So if you have Wired Reflexes, you are limited to forms with a spinal chord. If you have cybereyes, you can't turn into a rat or a seagull, but wolves and tigers are fine.

Critter Form remains an excellent utility spell: it grants mobility, animal senses, usually a melee weapon or three, and it may work as a disguise. What I've done is take away its use as a one-stop "Now I'm A Tank!" spell.

Bioware eyes already have a reason to live: reduced detection in cyberscans.

Cybereyes are legal. Why would you care if they show up on a cyberscan?

The main results I can see from this are that all mages will be a combo of the following:
1) self-buffers, because combat spells won't be as drain efficient as buffs+spirits to sustain spells + guns;
2) Unarmed Combat experts or Mystic Adepts, because Touch spells are pretty damn attractive compared to other attack spells;
3) Crowd-control experts, since attack spells took a nose dive in effectiveness compared to Control Actions or whatnot.

You really think the Indirect spells are so bad that you can't make a combat mage with them?

What could be done to fix that?

Cheers, -- N

[Nifft]

Mostly agree... surprised you didn't remove mind probe which is more problematic than all of these. I would keep ignite as its a fun spell.

Thanks, I did totally forget about Mind Probe.

I don't really like the way shadowrun splits spells: there is very little of importance in them, so sure. (A house rule I have used is that each type of magic has its own spell casting skill...that has worked very well)

Interesting, but more of a nerf than I think I'm looking for.

Most of the spells in street magic are good. You missed nice ones like spirit zapper and the restricted combat spells.

Okay, I'll check those out. I don't like the restricted combat spells ("Corrode Vehicle", "Crush Weapon") because the borderline between restricted categories seems blurry. Where's the line between "drone" and "unmanned remote-operated vehicle"? Is a car a different target depending on the location of the driver? I don't like those questions, as they slow down my game.

The direct combat spells: especially stun bolt and stun ball are just broken. And the attempt to fix them by adding drain equal to the nett successes is even more broken. This is a huge nerf (which they need). I have tried similar things in other games (the disadvantage "needs material link"). Best way to get a material link is of course to make them bleed then touch the blood (bladed weapons work well here). I don't think this has nerfed them correctly. I would try just making the base damage of the direct combat spell equal to the magic of the caster. This is only a nerf if they regularly overcast.

Wow, it sounds like you tried pretty much exactly what I'm thinking of, and for the same reasons. I'm very interested in your experience.

My idea was that mages can use Direct spells via teamwork ("go stab that guy and throw me the knife!"), or via infiltration runs specifically to get ritual components, or to lay some smackdown on things that mages traditionally handle (spirits, projecting wage-mages).

Plenty of restrictions here. I take it you have had problems with this spell. I found the following three restrictions enough:

• "limited to within 2 body of the mage" rule
• Max attributes equal to normal limits (i.e.normal attribute max, so humans limited to 9)
• Your clothing doesn't change, so its awkward. And you are not wearing armour. You can buy barding, but not very stuff

Wards are really cheap (a few hours every couple of months for a mage...) THis means that players are constantly sneaking through wards. Sneaking through wards means turning your spells off, recasting them on the other side (or spending hours astral tracking). This makes it awkward for the nude mage with home made barding that he has to keep taking off and putting on.

Hmm. Maybe just letting the mage keep his own physical stats would be sufficient. Basically I want to make shape-changing a useful utility spell rather than a one-stop substitute for buying physical attributes.

I don't understand why you have a problem with this. The rules are clear that radar / sonar doesn't work. Bio-eyes are much more essence friendly. But remember that shadowrun is where magic meets man and machine. That means you want the burnt out mage with the cybereyes and hydraulic jack legs as much as the dandelion eating lute playing mage.

Yeah, I'm struggling with this one. The thing is, it bugs me that it's so optimal for every character to rip his eyes out and get cyber. I'd like it if at least one archetype had an incentive to keep his own eyes.

Hell, even with my limitation, a combat mage could still easily benefit from a TacNet projected on his AR goggles using Indirect area spells.

Other issues:

• Consider very hard how concealment works...consider banning it as an uber power
• I mentioned it above...but don't forget to ban mind probe
• Seriously consider banning the casting of multiple spells

Is there any way to nerf Concealment without banning it?
Mind Probe: done, thanks.
Multicasting... yeah. Gotta run some numbers and see how hard it can be abused.

Thanks very much for the advice, and for sharing your experience!

Cheers, -- N

[Adarael]

Silence is actually silence. Perhaps you're thinking of Hush? That one I removed because it's confusing to explain and adjudicate.

You're probably right. I didn't have a book to reference, so I musta misremembered.

There aren't touch versions of the Indirect spells. Maybe I should use -2 drain for the 10 yard versions since they're practically touch anyway? I dunno.

There aren't? I was sure Street Magic had some. Like Flame Aura variants or something, but I'm probably thinking of 3rd edition spells anyhoo. I'd recommend making a -2 for the 10 yard and roll them into "basically touch", to avoid having to explain why Acid Touch doesn't burn the caster's hands off too.

(3) Under the core rules, why the hell would you ever have a spell other than Stunbolt/ball? You're complaining that the core spell is too strong, and you're complaining that I'm nerfing it.
(4) Yeah, this one may be going too far. But I'm tired of every dabbler always picking up Stunbolt. What else could be done?

As for Stunbolt/Stunball? I dunno, it's a great spell. Power spells are good for breaking *stuff*, though, especially when your targets have fire retardant coatings, chemseals, etc. Again, situational. But in terms of against dudes, Stunbolt is the order of the day. What I'd suggest is more of an in-game fix, in terms of stun spells. I played a mage for 10 or so years whose main gun was Stunbolt, so believe me when I say I know how far you can push it. Intelligent opposition will be prepared for these kinds of tricks, especially corporate security, other runners, or people who are aware of the Stunbolt paradox.

It only costs a tiny amount of money to outfit the opposition with a biomonitor + stim chems in an autoinjector. As soon as X boxes of stun are filled, it amps them up and the stunbolt hasn't done anything except make them mad. And the look on other people's faces when you pass out and then jump up with an AR blazing on full auto is priceless.

Alternately, rule Stunbolt and Stunball do the same drain as Mana Bolt and Mana Ball. Then it's simply player choice as to which they choose to use. You can make an easy argument that there shouldn't be a cheaper drain on a spell simply because it "only" causes stun - damage is damage, as far as magic is concerned.

you want to disguise yourself, you want Mask or Physical Mask. That nerf is working exactly as intended.

I'd just remove the spell's ability to allow people to take a metahuman shape, or erase it entirely. It'll be less of a red herring for people, then.

Who says he can't use his cyberware? All I'm requiring is that it fit in his new body. So if you have Wired Reflexes, you are limited to forms with a spinal chord. If you have cybereyes, you can't turn into a rat or a seagull, but wolves and tigers are fine.

Ohhhhh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant if there was merely a size mismatch, like "Your human cybereyes are too small for this elephant, hahaha! They fall out!"

Cybereyes are legal. Why would you care if they show up on a cyberscan?

Eh. Without getting into it too deeply: I don't feel bioware mods on eyes are in a bad space. I've used them, my players have used them, and I think they're doing okay. Difference of opinion, I guess.

You really think the Indirect spells are so bad that you can't make a combat mage with them?

I think it's a suboptimal choice if you're looking to be effective in combat as opposed to awesome in combat - which is an important distinction to make. The reason is that without fail, all indirect combat spells except *maybe* Clout are pretty obvious. They work *really* well, but you end up with three main problems: they're noisy or flashy or smelly or all of the above; they've got a pretty high drain, and are hard to fling about with impunity; the single-target spells are pretty effective but slow, being a complex action to cast, while the AOE spells are really just hand grenades in terms of how they're used. They definitely have their place in your system - don't think I don't think so. But if *I* were making a mage using your rules, I'd take an AOE combat spell, one or two single-target spells for high-value drones and whatnot, and I'd make the rest of my spells situational buffs. And that's simply because with a smartlink and an assault rifle, I could be more effective against 90% of the opposition than with my spells. The 10 yard rule spells work to ameliorate some of this, it's true, but I'd still need something longer range.

Either that, or I'd re-make Pretty Ping, the Mystic Adept with a dance-based Centering style who had all custom, personal AOE spells, because I could get the drain down fairly low that way. And dancing dudes to death is always fun.


Like... I *could* roll my spells to kill that ork security guard over there. Let me walk through two scenarios. In the first, I'm generally just throwing a lightning bolt, casually, at the dude:
Magic 5, Spellcasting/Ritual Spellcasting 5, Combat Spells +2: 12 dice, likely 4 successes. Assume the spell has been cast at Force 5.
He dodges with his Reaction of 4 (6 with Muscle Toner). He gets 2 succcesses. This leaves me with 2.
He soaks with his body of 6, plus half impact armor of 4. He likely gets 3 successes. He may or may not be stunned. This assumes he's got no non-conductivity in his armor, which wouldn't be the case in my game due to how cheap stick n shock is, but it seems normal for other gamers not to have it.
I resist drain. Willpower 5 + Logic 5, vs what, 6 Stun? I don't remember the exact drain code, but I seem to recall it's +1. I take 3 stun, and am now at -1 because I probably get 3 successes.
So, for my complex action, he takes 4P damage, and may or may not be stunned.

In this example, I want him dead. I decide to use Acid Spray, because screw you, ork.
Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5 + Combat Spells 2: 4 successes, spell is cast at Force 10, because screw you, ork.
Ork dodges, gets 2 successes. Leaves me with 2.
He soaks as before, 3 successes. He is melting. He takes 8P damage. Oh god, it burns.
I resist drain. I get 3 successes. I take 8S drain. I am at -2 to all actions. Sucks.

Or... Let's say I've thrown up an Enhance Agility spell, and I've got a bound spirit sustaining it. A bit of prep work, but hey, we're runners. I have 3 hits on it, because that's reasonable. Now I want to shoot the ork because haha, perforations. Let's say I toss out a short burst at him.
I roll Agility 3(6) + Firearms 4 + Smartlink 2. 4 successes.
Ork dodges. As before, 2 successes. I have 2.
I'm using an Ares Alpha with Explosive rounds. This means I do 7P -1AP. Ork is wearing 8/6 armored jacket; my AP reduces this to 7/5 so I'm doing physical. The 3 round burst ups my damage to 9P -1.
Ork soaks. He gets 4 successes. Sick. This reduces the damage to 7, with my succcesses.

So in this last example, I've done more damage than my average spell and only slightly less than my big spell, it costs me no drain, it can be sound suppressed, and - this is the important one - it's only used a simple action. I still have another 3 round burst or single shot I can pop off. In your system, I'd be much better off making mages who are tactician/buff/sensory improvement junkies than combat spell slingers. And that's not a problem, per se, just a quirk. In fact, I think that's pretty damn cool, just stylistically. But recognize this is one of the quirks of the changes.

Like I said, I don't think your changes break the game. Far from it. I DO think they fundamentally change the way it's played, though.

[Slide7X]

I suggest you watch out for the spell Detect also. It's one of those [Object] spells.

Those spell, at least for me, seem to cause a lot of trouble. I can think of one argument in particular about a mage using Detect Explosives.

Does that spell detect only intentionally explosive objects/devices? If so, does not that mean that the spell itself has to make that distinction between a grenade and a pressurized gas bottle?

I can't check at the moment, but is magic in SR not partly defined by the restriction it can't make decisions on it own? I remember reading that in the spell design section I think, just can't remember which edition. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

So, anyway, I don't allow (most?) of the [Object] spells like Detect and the Corrode or Ram spell trees.

Of couse, I been trying to iron out the kinks in house rules that separate mana and physical spell more clearly.
Mainly by changes the allow mana based spells only to affect targets with auras. I don't link Shatter/Powerbolt/Powerball being the default 'Crush, Kill n' Destroy' trio.

[tagz]

Personally I think a few minor tweaks to the Drain Modifiers would be all it takes to make indirect more effective.

Change Elemental effect in Combat and Manipulation categories to +1 from +2. Seems like a simple fix to me, as they are required to be Physical Spells anyhow which comes with a build in +1.

Additionally, you might consider bumping up Mental Manipulation a bit. +0 seems pretty low considering how useful a single Mental Manipulation spell can be. Suggest taking it up to +1 and see how it plays out.

And finally, there is no drain modifier listed for Direct or Indirect spells themselves. You could just give a +1 to all Direct Combat spells.

A small amount of drain can really add up over the course of a run. Consider a mage that casts stunbolt 5 times over a run. By adding just +1 to the drain code that's an extra 5 drain that would need to be resisted, about half a typical mage's stun/physical track. Throw in the risk of taking damage from other sources and all but the best built Drain Pools will think twice.



There are also a lot of reasons beyond simple mechanics for people to use combat spells besides stunbolt as well. Stunning leaves witnesses. Stunning leaves people alive that may get fired/demoted/etc because of their failure... stunning leaves enemies. Not killing can make one look weak to certain groups. Killing may be a part of the instructions.

Stunning and then afterwords killing should be seen by the world, and by the characters, as completely different then killing in the middle of a fight. One is in the moment, the other is a cold blooded, premeditated decision.... an execution. And in a world with lots of video cameras, bio-monitors, astral signatures... that info gets out. I'd say a team that double taps guards regularly should get some Notoriety from it.

[Slide7X]

In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.

Besides, my problem with Indirect vs. Direct is that Direct spells, only using RAW, are broken powerful.
That leads to a two tiered system of their use.

A PC mage doing a one-shot on an NPC (or two or three, or everyone she casts at..) is all cool with the players.
But, if the GM one-shots a PC (even if it only drops hims, instead of killing him) most tables scream "Cheesey!"
It's easier in SR4 to soak a called shot sniper attack by a professional, then a powerbolt by your average wagemage.

If you try to use RAW stuff, like smoke grenades, to block LOS or impose visibility mods, the mages complain that they are "useless"
and not getting to "do what their suppose to do" or "roll enough dice". I think this is D&D fantasy ideas stinking up my near-future dystopia.

I didn't have to must trouble dealing with the issue in 2nd and 3rd, by 4th...
the "magic is broken" power creep is just crazy.

(See WAR!, gaia-sphere has "cosmic veto" over the use of nuclear weapons my ass (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)
if they are moving towards an ED everyone is magic paradigm I'm not going to follow
there is a reason I haven't played ED in 15 years.)

P.S.: I do thing that SR4A with some house rules (for sanity in most cases) is perfectly playable.

[Aku]

Shouldn't detect explosives light up every single round someone is carrying?

[Draco18s]

Shouldn't detect explosives light up every single round someone is carrying?

Yes it would. Along with other flammables like gasoline.

[Mäx]

In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.

+3 to drain is makes a huge difference, thats 9 more drain dice needed.
And if the change is raising the drain of direct combat spells and lowering the drain of indirect combat spells, it will absolutely affect the balance between those 2 spell classes.

(See WAR!, gaia-sphere has "cosmic veto" over the use of nuclear weapons my ass (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)
if they are moving towards an ED everyone is magic paradigm I'm not going to follow
there is a reason I haven't played ED in 15 years.)

You do know that the nuclear weapon think has been part of canon lore from the beginning.

[Nifft]

In my experience the "Increase the Drain makes things better" solution doesn't work.

Combat Mages are almost always tweaked for Drain Resistance tests to start with.
Simply increasing the drain, even by +3, doesn't even cause them to notice most of the time.

Did you try this? What kind of dice pool was your group's mage rolling?

Besides, my problem with Indirect vs. Direct is that Direct spells, only using RAW, are broken powerful.

That's been my experience as a GM and as the player of a Magician.

A PC mage doing a one-shot on an NPC (or two or three, or everyone she casts at..) is all cool with the players.
But, if the GM one-shots a PC (even if it only drops hims, instead of killing him) most tables scream "Cheesey!"
It's easier in SR4 to soak a called shot sniper attack by a professional, then a powerbolt by your average wagemage.

Yep. A lot of what I want to do is so I can intelligently optimize NPCs without risking "unfair" PC deaths.

Critter Form is how it is so NPCs can get some use out of it without becoming perfect shape-shifters who are impossible to find. I want the Naga security expert to have a fixed face in his human disguise. I want a gang of rat-magi to be an interesting and unusual challenge (rather than a routine tactical choice), and they should be screwed if you manage to corner them (rather than "OH CRAP NOW THEY'RE ALL BEARS").

Direct combat spells are how they are so my wage-magi can't just drop PCs without them having a clue that he's attacking. For the same reason, I don't generally put the PCs in places where sniping is a good idea for either side. When sniping ranges are available, I make it clear that it's on the table.

I totally don't mind if the party mage feels a little weak in combat. He's got Spirits (which are awesome), he's got battlefield control, and he can whip out his lightning bolt in situations where even tasers are problematic. Some specialized builds can still PWN combat (notably Touch spell users, since I left Touch combat spells alone and (negative) health spells like Decrease Attribute) -- and that's fine. Melee is riskier than firearms.

Thanks, -- N

[Slide7X]

[quote name='Nifft' date='Jan 1 2011, 03:59 PM' post='1025328']
Did you try this? What kind of dice pool was your group's mage rolling?

SR4A: Willpower 8 + Charisma 5 (or 6?) + Centering 3 + Saving Edge 5 mainly for casting tests and drain tests.
Dwarf with Exception Attribute, you guessed it ... Willpower.

Plus, the mage's player seems to routinely beat the average of 1 success per 3 dice into the 1 per 2 territory (while I watch ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif) ).

I should say that the campaign was started and run for a couple of years by another GM, I took over after he left.

That said, while I was a player, he cast a Designed version of Urban Renewal and destroyed a dilapidated shopping mall..
Total drain 1 Stun! (That spell I did indeed veto when I took over...cause wow, just no.)

@Mäx (how do you get that "a" without Copy/Pasting?)
I'm aware of It in the fluff/writer fiat sense to explain why, at the beginning of the Awakening,
reactionary crack pots didn't nuke the crap out of everything they where afraid of.

Also, of it not seeming to apply to Winternight's universe altering doom's day cult stuff. (I liked that story too.)

But, I don't remember the anti-nuke thing being "rules defined" anywhere.
Of course I don't remember all my 2nd and 3rd rules (those books should be around here, in this mess, somewhere).

@Draco18s
Indeed, much to many player's dismay. But, my point is (and the major reason I remove that spell) how does the spell know
what is explosive and what is not? Especially, when cast by a mage who knows nothing about explosives, chemistry or physics.
Magic cannot make decisions on it own, I thought.