Question regarding combat spells Options

[nicktheviking]

Do successes increase the damage of combat spells, or do the hits only insure the power of the spell against being resisted?

[Tanegar]

Combat spells inflict (Force + hits) damage (stun or physical, plus any elemental effects, as noted in the spell's entry). Physical direct combat spells are resisted with Body + Counterspelling, while mana direct combat spells are resisted with Willpower + Counterspelling. In the case of indirect combat spells, the target makes a dodge test with Reaction + Counterspelling; if he achieves more successes than the magician's Magic + Spellcasting test, he dodges the spell. Otherwise each hit reduces the modified DV of the spell as normal for a ranged attack. The target then resists Body + half Impact armor.

See SR4A, p. 203, under the heading "Combat Spells."

[Dakka Dakka]

The damage is Force+Net Hits.

[HunterHerne]

And the total hits are restricted to the force of the spell (unless edge is spent to increase dice pool).

Under the spoiler is a house rule, and may not interest you, but is included for information sake.

[ Spoiler ]

In order to keep magic (and direct spells in particular) in check, somewhat, I use a different damage calculation, based on the Food Fight quickstart rules. Direct spells deal net hits damage regularily, and force+ net hits on the astral.

[Neurosis]

I use the optional rule where net hits are also added to drain for direct combat spells (giving the PCs the option to pull any number of their hits without knowing how many successes the defender rolled).

Yes, I know all of the ways you can get around this rule to keep direct combat spells broken (overcasting, multicasting, etcetera). Fortunately, my PCs don't! : )

[Dakka Dakka]

Actually the official opinion is that you can pull net hits on that stupid optional rule. You simply choose not to apply any for damage.

[HunterHerne]

Actually the official opinion is that you can pull net hits on that stupid optional rule. You simply choose not to apply any for damage.

Regardless, I think my solution is more likely to have an impact on rules abusers.

Edit: Sorry, not trying to make my solution superior. Each GM has their own choises and preferences. I personally chose this ruling for a different reason, this benefit was secondary.

[TheOOB]

Why does everyone insist on nerfing direct combat spells to the point where they are useless when guns are already the mathematically superior weapon in the vast majority of cases.

[HunterHerne]

Why does everyone insist on nerfing direct combat spells to the point where they are useless when guns are already the mathematically superior weapon in the vast majority of cases.

Because a gun can be taken away, or otherwise easily restricted.

I wasn't nerfing the spells in favour of mundane means, I was actually trying to make Indirect spells more appealing.

[Lanlaorn]

Slap magecuffs or that hood on the mage and his "gun" is taken away. Honestly though simply blindfolding them is just as effective if your only fear is combat spells.

[Udoshi]

Why does everyone insist on nerfing direct combat spells to the point where they are useless when guns are already the mathematically superior weapon in the vast majority of cases.

Honestly, the problem with direct spells is that you can't dodge them.
They're broken not just because the resistance test is also the dodge test, but also because you roll two dice pools against one defending pool.

I think they would be a lot better if they allowed a soak test,as well.

[Glyph]

Remember that normal ranged combat is also two dice pools (skill + Agility) versus one dice pool (Reaction). The only difference is that there is no equivalent of full defense for spells.

I almost wish they would revise the spell rules to bring them in line with the other combat rules. Because as balanced as they are in practice, people will always think they are "overpowered" because there is no dodge, just a resistance test.

If you do that, though, then you should remove the other factors that nerf them - remove the cap on net hits equal to the Force, and make spell defense cost an action whenever it is used, rather than simply being free extra defense dice for everyone.

[Mäx]

I use the optional rule where net hits are also added to drain for direct combat spells (giving the PCs the option to pull any number of their hits without knowing how many successes the defender rolled).

Whut, you don't need to pull your hits, you caan decide how many net hits to use for damage.

[Cain]

I've never noticed direct combat spells to be nerfed. In fact, stunball is stupidly overpowerful, as it can wipe out a room with a single action, and no risk of drain.

Yes, I'm aware of the optional rule. No, I don't think fixing one broken rule with another broken rule is a good idea.

[Irion]

Why does everyone insist on nerfing direct combat spells to the point where they are useless when guns are already the mathematically superior weapon in the vast majority of cases.

Depends on your table.
If you are always walking around with assault cannons and the like, yes.
If you can call yourself lucky, if you managed to sneak in a holdout pistol, no.
In between it tends to depend on several other factors too.

One thing I dislike, when it comes to magic is, that there is no way to prevent casting in an area. (Only thing would be the mana static...)

[hobgoblin]

Remember that normal ranged combat is also two dice pools (skill + Agility) versus one dice pool (Reaction). The only difference is that there is no equivalent of full defense for spells.

Followed up damage resistance. The thing about direct combat spells are that they only have the (damage) resistance step, there is no "dodge" step.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Followed up damage resistance. The thing about direct combat spells are that they only have the (damage) resistance step, there is no "dodge" step.

Actually, there is only the dodge step, except that you do get two pools (crippled, but..) for those - IF you have a competent mage standing behind you.

Now, to bring direct combat spells in line with other combat:

Use WP to strike off net hits.
Then use WP+counterspelling [+ possibly essence loss] to reduce damage.

That would at least make stunbolts less binary.

Full def would be using something + WP (or simply WP+WP) to reduce net hits, and use an action.

And then reduce the drain on indirect spells, so that it becomes practical to actually use them. And fix that damned Heal spell to do something again.

[Dakka Dakka]

Followed up damage resistance. The thing about direct combat spells are that they only have the (damage) resistance step, there is no "dodge" step.

Well at least the first two attacks of a mundane aggressor usually skip that step as well due to surprise.

And then reduce the drain on indirect spells, so that it becomes practical to actually use them.

The problem is that it is a staple of SR magic that physical manifestations are more difficult (read draining) than pure mana effects.

And fix that damned Heal spell to do something again.

What's wrong with the heal spell?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And then reduce the drain on indirect spells, so that it becomes practical to actually use them. And fix that damned Heal spell to do something again.

While I agree that the Drain on Indirect Spells is sometimes atrocious, the Heal Spell works extremely well already. What, exactly, is your problem with Heal?

[Irion]

@Dakka Dakka
I guess a lot of people are not shure how it really works.

[Aerospider]

@Dakka Dakka
I guess a lot of people are not shure how it really works.

The drain is horribly ambiguous. What does it mean by 'Damage Value'? The number of boxes that have been suffered or the number of boxes that get healed? Or is it the amount of damage left afterwards? Is only physical damage considered? Was it intentional the the choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 and nothing else by virtue of not being linked to drain?

[Irion]

Did not exclude myself from this group... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Yes, this are the major points.
I also heard the interpretation, that the healing spell heals Force points of damage+ hits used for healing.
So the damage in the drain code is equal to the Force.
Bringing it in line with the damage spells. (It is horrible overpowerd I guess, but it is in Line with how the other spells work...)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The drain is horribly ambiguous. What does it mean by 'Damage Value'? The number of boxes that have been suffered or the number of boxes that get healed? Or is it the amount of damage left afterwards? Is only physical damage considered? Was it intentional the the choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 and nothing else by virtue of not being linked to drain?

Damage Value is the Damage that the Target has received, up to that point.
This makes the Drain fairly hefty, but it should be.
You can only use Heal to heal Physical Damage, so Stun is never figured into the equation for Drain, nor is it healed.
Force is how MUCH actual damage can be Healed, wherever you set that from 1 up to 2x Force.
Drain is based upon how much Energy it takes to actually heal the Target (Thus Drain = DV -2), not the Force of the Spell Being Cast, which determines how MUCH is actually healed (as odd as that may sound)

Pretty Straight Forward Actually.

[HunterHerne]

The drain is horribly ambiguous. What does it mean by 'Damage Value'? The number of boxes that have been suffered or the number of boxes that get healed? Or is it the amount of damage left afterwards? Is only physical damage considered? Was it intentional the the choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 and nothing else by virtue of not being linked to drain?

Yeah, that is one reason I just said "Alright, when you use heal, the Force of the spell is equal to the boxes you are attempting to heal (either all boxes, or just the last set you haven't tried it on yet, GM's decision there). Drain is Force/2-2." I use the full boxes (the idea being a new wound could agitate older wounds, so treat it as a whole. Makes less book keeping in that regard, too), and at some point the Heal spell becomes inneficient, or even useless. (healing three boxes and resisting three physical drain isn't worth it, unless you are sure you can resist it. After magic x2, the spell won't affect at all, as you are above the force allowance.)

[Aerospider]

Damage Value is the Damage that the Target has received, up to that point.
This makes the Drain fairly hefty, but it should be.
You can only use Heal to heal Physical Damage, so Stun is never figured into the equation for Drain, nor is it healed.
Force is how MUCH actual damage can be Healed, wherever you set that from 1 up to 2x Force.
Drain is based upon how much Energy it takes to actually heal the Target (Thus Drain = DV -2), not the Force of the Spell Being Cast, which determines how MUCH is actually healed (as odd as that may sound)

Pretty Straight Forward Actually.

That's exactly what I would take as RAI but there are at least two assumptions involved and the result is, IMO, substandard. Choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 - all other values are needless since Force determines the maximum that may be healed by hits. Healing a team mate near death now becomes a tricky choice, given the drain could easily be as much as twice what is healed. It's also at variance with every other spell in that nowhere else is drain subject to the working conditions rather than the amount of mana being called upon.