Direct and Indirect spells question Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I was under the impression that the optional rule was being included.

Not counting that rule, I would personally only use indirect spells if the secondary effect was needed. IE, something needed to be on fire.

Also, on a low defense target, things like Called Shot apply to all ranged attacks."Indirect Combat spells are treated
like ranged combat attacks." (pg 204 SR4a) It can boost your damage regardless of net hits, as long as you hit. Smartlink, too, will help with things like this.

Smartlink does not help with Spellcasting.

[Yerameyahu]

It does, you just have to install a smartgun system in the spell… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Krishach]

Smartlink does not help with Spellcasting.

Yes it can. See WAR.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Yes it can. See WAR.

I'll take your word for it, while I have war it is not something I use.
Even with that, um big whoop +2 dice vs reaction+body+1/2 armor is still a lot worse than just vs body or will.

I don't want to say indirect spells are bad but they are a hell of a lot weaker than direct spells. Niche uses do not justify buckets more drain. Don't get me wrong thematically it fits the current/old lore, flashy effects cost more drain. Thing is there is no reason they could not have designed the flashy effects to also be more powerful than the non-flashy ones so the extra drain was balanced. Or they could just update the lore, they already made all spellcasters the same mechanically, they could easily change the fluff to say something like rising magic levels combined with a polluted astral space has made spells that form direct links with targets more difficult to cast while making spells indirect spells where the spells forms at the caster without having to travel through the polluted astral space easier to cast.

I personally think magic is too damn powerful overall but that is mostly a spirit issue and not a spell issue, but still combat spells could be a bit weaker and mages would still look fine even if they never summoned a spirit. Personally I'd prefer they add a bigger bag of tricks to mundane characters, so all the cool utility was not just for mages or deckers. Better disguise gadgets, better flight gadgets etc.

[phlapjack77]

I'll take your word for it, while I have war it is not something I use.
Even with that, um big whoop +2 dice vs reaction+body+1/2 armor is still a lot worse than just vs body or will.

Also most armor will probably have +fireproof / +nonconduct / +etc

[Udoshi]

But the damage potential for Firebolt against a lower defense target is more than the damage potential for manabolt, at lower drain.

No its not.
The base DV is the same(force) and force also limits net hits for both spells. You compare the same spell at the same force, and firebolt/flamethrower loses because of the dodge/soak opportunities that manabolt doesn't deal with.
That's the entire reason I suggested as a houserule, in my first post, that indirect spells can get unlimited net hits(good aim), because they ARE a ranged attack.
About the only thing it maybe might do is set people on fire for a bit more damage. maybe.

It does, you just have to install a smartgun system in the spell… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I've figured out a way to do this! It also stacks with those spellslinging gauntlets from war!

[Amazeroth]

Yes it can. See WAR.

I'll take your word for it, while I have war it is not something I use.

Never just take someones word, especially if they do not provide you with a book reference. Like in this particular case, they often are just wrong.

Smartlinks do not help with spells and there is no rule in WAR!, which changes that fact. What you can do, though, is to buy a Microtónica Azteca Spellslinger, for which you need a smartlink in your cybereye. It's a glove which gives you a +1 dice pool to your line-of-sight indirect combat spells and ONLY to those. See page 161 in WAR! for that.

Like always I may have made a mistake, so if I overlooked something, please correct me. My mage would be happy about it.

[Krishach]

Nope, that's the one. It says flat out that it is a smartlink setup.

**** this is a long post, the math summary is at the end ****

: The Spellslinger is a glove that assists spellcasters in the aiming of their spells. It contains customized smartgun hardware that works with a smartlink. The system takes into account as many variables as it can to assist the caster in the aiming of her spell.

It's not worth getting a cyber eye JUST for that, but it does work.

For some reason, people keep mentioning armor, fire resistance, and non-conductivity on what I refer to as LOW DEFENSE TARGETS. Low defense seems pretty clear to me, but since there is confusion: these are targets that dodge AND resist damage poorly.

Also, the drain comments we are getting keep being inconsistent. Clearly without what the update list refers to as an optional rule, indirect spells have more drain. Everyone also seems to keep missing the small bit, if included, of "direct spell dice added to damage add +1 drain per dice." Which means Force 6 or higher manabolts with dice added to damage have the the same or HIGHER drain, using said rule.

So I will proceed forward under the assumption we are using the extra Drain for Direct Spells rule. Without it, manabolt/powerbolt is always better.
I will also assume the law of averages applies: 3 dice tend to be 1 hit. I will also assume you will always add the Net Hits to damage.



Force 6 flamethrower can work against a flat 3 stat go ganger and do 11 damage (after ganger resists with 3 body, and gets 1 hit), plus called shot mods if included. Keep in mind, despite Force limiting hits, that ranged modifiers can add to your dice pool, which makes called-shot viable in cases, so the potential damage is 15. Drain value for this is 6.

In addition, targets which have caught fire may extend the damage potential beyond 15, but I will not be counting on that.

Manabolt against the same target also does 11 damage flat (also assuming 6 hits) due to Will resist (3 will, average 1 hit) if you stack all the hits to DV. Potential damage is still 11. However, the drain value is 9.

a manabolt WITH EQUIVALENT DRAIN as a force 6 flamethrower is a Manabolt Force 4. 4/2 + 4 to DV = 2+4 = 6 drain, and 8 dmg against will 3. Using the Force 6 fireball, this would mean the target needs a combined resist dice of 1/2 impact + body + fire resistance of 12, which would average 4 hits, bringing a 12 DV force 6 fireball to an 8 as well.

The above math assumes the target did not get a Reaction roll. However, the ratio that Reaction reduces the DV is the same, 3 reaction averaging 1 hit, which reduces the number of successes of the mage.

So, comparing a force 6 fireball to a force 4 manabolt, which have the same drain:
If the targets Reaction + 1/2 impact + Body + Fire resistance total more than 12, and have a Will of 3 or less, flamethrower produces the same or more damage for the same drain.

Or,
Force 6 flamethrower does 12 DV and is stacked against body + 1/2 impact + fire resist
Force 4 manabolt does 8 DV and is stacked against Will


Powerbolt works the same: just substitute the math requirement for Body vs powerbolt instead of will vs manabolt.


At this point, whether or not manabolt is really more efficient for damage vs drain now depends entirely on your target.
Flamethrower with a force of 4 or less is NEVER more efficient than manabolt or powerbolt with only the optional rule, UNLESS you get Called Shot bonus damage or On Fire damage (which I would never count on).

Also, the higher force you cast at, the more efficient flamethrower becomes. Flamethrower Force 12 has a drain of 9, which is the EXACT same drain as a manabolt force 6.

Quick math:
Flamthrower F12 = 24DV base, with +4 called shot becomes 24-28 DV.
Manabolt/Powerbolt F6 = 12DV base
Targets total dice (reaction + body + armor etc) vs flamethrower must be 13*3, or 39 dice, assuming the target also has 3 will/body, before manabolt becomes more effective for the same drain.

So, the following pattern is observed:
The difference in DV between Flamethrower and Mana/Powerbolt, multipled by 3, must be greater than the targets difference between Indirect Fire resist and mana/powerbolt resist, in order to be more efficient on average for the SAME DRAIN. This is true for any indirect element, changing only the resistant dice pool

(IndirectDV - DirectDV) * 3 >= (IndirectResist - Direct Resist) ~ choose indirect
(IndirectDV - DirectDV) * 3 <= (IndirectResist - Direct Resist) ~ choose direct

This is in the context of maximizing efficiency, meaning Damage vs Drain. If drain is not an issue, or if the Force is maximized without regard for drain, then Direct Spells > Indirect Spells every time. If the rule for adding drain when adding DV of direct spells is not used, then Direct Spells > Indirect Spells every time.

Adding less dice to the DV of manabolt/powerbolt can mediate the drain, but Flamethrower still CAN outstrip manabolt/powerbolt in terms of efficiency regardless.

questions?

[Udoshi]

I'm absolutely loving that you're using a force 12 flamethrower aka winstall myself from the drain spell as a serious example

[Krishach]

My point was more that a Force 12 Flamethrower has the same drain as a Force 6 manabolt, using the rule and applying extra DV. "Winstall" from a Force 6 Manabolt would be the same Drain amount.

(IndirectDV - DirectDV) * 3 >= (IndirectResist - Direct Resist) ~ choose indirect
(IndirectDV - DirectDV) * 3 <= (IndirectResist - Direct Resist) ~ choose direct

The math still applies entirely. If you can cast a Force 6 Manabolt and get away with it anyway, then why not the flamethrower? I've done it before. Even lived through it.

If the relative efficiency of the spells is to be discussed, the parameters must be accounted for. Admittedly, I didn't go higher, but it could. If I did every number in between, you'd be here all night. Here's a medium example though:

Force 9 flamethrower vs force 5 manabolt (EQUIVALENT DRAIN VALUE OF 7)

F9 flamethrower does 18 damage, minus vs hits
F5 mana/powerbolt does 10 damage, minus vs hits

The targets Reaction + Body + 1/2 impact + Fire resist dice pool must be TWENTY FOUR MORE than their will/body [(18-10)*3=24] for Mana/Powerbolt to be more efficient, assuming you can get 8 hits on your cast.

At forces 5 or less, or spellcasting hits 4 or less, manabolt/powerbolt is always more efficient without Called Shot. Since your average 6 magic 6 spellcasting mage gets 4 hits average, manabolt is typically a better selection.

[Krishach]

For reference, using the rule, here is the drain values per force:

_Force___flame____manabolt
Force 1 | Drain 3 | Drain 1
Force 2 | Drain 4 | Drain 3
Force 3 | Drain 4 | Drain 4
Force 4 | Drain 5 | Drain 6
Force 5 | Drain 5 | Drain 7
Force 6 | Drain 6 | Drain 9
Force 8 | Drain 7 | Drain 12
Force 10| Drain 8| Drain 15
Force 12| Drain 9| Drain 18

Or

For every 2 Force, Drain of flamethrower goes up by 1
For every 2 Force, Drain of manabolt goes up by 3

[Yerameyahu]

I'm still recovering from the idea that WAR seriously added a glove that smartlinks indirect spells. I just… wtf. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yes it can. See WAR.

Not the same System Krishach...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

For reference, using the rule, here is the drain values per force:

_Force___flame____manabolt
Force 1 | Drain 3 | Drain 1
Force 2 | Drain 4 | Drain 3
Force 3 | Drain 4 | Drain 4
Force 4 | Drain 5 | Drain 6
Force 5 | Drain 5 | Drain 7
Force 6 | Drain 6 | Drain 9
Force 8 | Drain 7 | Drain 12
Force 10| Drain 8| Drain 15
Force 12| Drain 9| Drain 18

Or

For every 2 Force, Drain of flamethrower goes up by 1
For every 2 Force, Drain of manabolt goes up by 3

The problem is tht you are assuming maximum hits on all spells. To get 12 hits consistently on that ludicrous Force 12 Flamethrower Spell, you would need a Dicepool of 36 Dice. Good Luck on that one. And you are forgetting that I can cast that Manabolt at Force 12 as well, for ONLY 6 DRAIN... and STILL DO 12 DAMAGE, WITH ONLY 1 NET HIT (AND NOT EVEN APPLYING IT) AND NO SOAK FROM THE TARGET.

Your Math is WRONG. You make assumptions that would never occur in game using that ludicrous optional rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
As you have proven... Why would you apply Net hits to a Force 6 spell, when you can not apply hits and Overcast it for FAR LESS DRAIN, for the SAME DAMAGE.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm still recovering from the idea that WAR seriously added a glove that smartlinks indirect spells. I just… wtf. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yep... Pretty funny. Though I can understand the idea. Not sure I would ever purchase one, though.

[UmaroVI]

Krishach, several people have already told you why you are wrong but you keep overlooking it. You only add net hits, not all hits, to the drain of Manabolt, and you can choose to drop all but one net hit. So you don't cast Force 6 manabolt and keep 5 net hits unless you are an idiot. You cast Force 11 manabolt and keep only one net hit. Now, do all your math again, assuming that the mage isn't an idiot and instead of doing terrible things like casting Force 4 manabolt and keeping 3 net hits because they love drain, casting Force 9 manabolt and keeping only one net hit.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Krishach, several people have already told you why you are wrong but you keep overlooking it. You only add net hits, not all hits, to the drain of Manabolt, and you can choose to drop all but one net hit. So you don't cast Force 6 manabolt and keep 5 net hits unless you are an idiot. You cast Force 11 manabolt and keep only one net hit. Now, do all your math again, assuming that the mage isn't an idiot and instead of doing terrible things like casting Force 4 manabolt and keeping 3 net hits because they love drain, casting Force 9 manabolt and keeping only one net hit.

You do not even HAVE to apply ANY Net Hits... The spell works as long as you HAVE a Net hit. You can choose whether to apply it or not. If you do not, you apply only Force DV Damage.

[Stormdrake]

My take on this above was that the optional rule was being used. What this does is make direct spells the arena of higher level initiates and other high magic rating creatures. From a fluff point of view this makes sense as the direct combat spells become a higher level of spell slinging that only the iitiated can use with safety. Thats fluff though.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

My take on this above was that the optional rule was being used. What this does is make direct spells the arena of higher level initiates and other high magic rating creatures. From a fluff point of view this makes sense as the direct combat spells become a higher level of spell slinging that only the iitiated can use with safety. Thats fluff though.

Not really, just means that you overcast and do not use any of your Net hits to get the same effect for far less drain. Which is why it is a bad Optional Rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) *Shrug*

[Halinn]

If they'd been smart about it, the optional rule would have been an extra point of drain for every two net hits (round down). That would have meant that if the optional rule was in effect, there'd be more drain for direct combat spells, but it wouldn't mean added incentive to overcast.

[Falconer]

Not really, just means that you overcast and do not use any of your Net hits to get the same effect for far less drain. Which is why it is a bad Optional Rule. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) *Shrug*

BS TJ. You keep saying this. But overcasting DOES have a cost. Just because it costs less drain to overcast and switch the drain to physical. You keep comparing two outcomes AFTER the fact, but ignore the situation without any optional rule at all where the drain is normally 1-2 points lower every time because you need less force and net hits are freebies.

Instead of rolling against say 3 drain at force 7. You now need to roll against 5 drain at force 11. If I multicast instead... if I average .5 drain on one... casting twice doubles the average drain to 2!!! (since the proper average on 1 has been calculated... casting twice does double that since it's just the same prob curve applied twice to the same set of numbers).

It most assuredly DOES have an effect on drain suffered by the caster. Which was entirely the point... the caster can no longer coast by casting at a low force then using net hits to stage things up to the levels he needs/wants. He actually needs to pay for those enhancements with either a much larger amount of stun drain, or a lesser amount of physical from overcasting in the first place.


In my experience, the optional rule works. Just like many people I don't like it for fluff reasons. BUT it's a well-known, widespread, AND PUBLISHED rule. I'll take that any day over all the half-assed house rules I see on the subject by all the people who make bad assumptions and can't do prob and stat distributions to save their life to actually estimate the effects of their malfeasance.

[Yerameyahu]

I've never heard any of the many people saying they don't like it, say that it's for fluff reasons. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Falconer]

So have been running a game using the optional rule for direct damage spells for over a year now and have to say it still feels broken. My thought is to kinda reverse the drain codes on direct and indirect by subtracting three from the drain code of all indirect damage spells and adding three to all direct damage codes. I know it opens the way for some really nasty indirect damage but npc's and other players can roll to dodge it and then soak where as the direct dge spell allows only one roll. The rules as they are written for direct damage don't match with anything else in the game as far as I can find which just annoys the hell out of me for some reason. Anyway has anyone tried a reversing of the drain code along the lines I am thinking of?

You have no idea whatsoever what you're doing.

I already blew through a ton of math to show Neraph had no idea what he was talking about and I'll repeat the same to you.

The problem is that indirect spells have a niche, direct spells have a niche. All you do is force indirects to be vastly better within their niche (and nerf drones, vehicles, and riggers against mages!! something you really shouldn't do as it's a fundamental game balance that mages are weak against these things). And direct spells to suck badly, even within their own niche.

It's also a problem of setting. Shadowrun mages are NOT supposed to be elementalists out of DnD type. While they can toss a fireball. It's very draining to produce elemental effects. That's why all elemental effects have an additional +2 drain tossed on them.

Another thing people completely miss, it's possible to make an indirect combat spell WITH NO ELEMENTAL EFFECT. Such a spell would only have a +1 drain code like powerbolt. But NOT have to deal with object resistance. That extra +2 drain to do a flamethrower for example adds the elemental effect. Well if all you do is look at the initial damage AND IGNORE THE ELEMENTAL EFFECT of course you're going to have issues. You ignore fundamental limitations on direct spells such as being unable to target sub-parts of a larger target, while you can do this with indirect spells and called shots.

[Yerameyahu]

Spare us the ton-of-math-blowing-through, actually. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) He can just go read the other thread if he's actually interested in that, ugh.

I don't see any non-elemental indirects in the book, myself. Neither do I see "being unable to target sub-parts of a larger target" as useful except in the rarest occasions. As before, we're comparing their straight up combat effectiveness. If that stacks the question unfairly toward directs, that's because they're 'unfairly' good at combat effectiveness. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) The elemental effect that were ignoring is being ignored because it rarely matters. If you're saying indirects are good at a totally different thing (and bad at this), that's not a refutation.

[Falconer]

It makes a lot more sense when you realize what kind of Forces, Hits and Drain you need to reliably instakill things.

For example.... drones! They never have more than 4 body, which means 10 boxes, and an OR of 5. So if you can get 5 hits, or spend an edge to do so, a force 5 powerbolt instakills any drone for 3 drain.

This is incorrect. The drone has OR5. No successes are left to stage up damage. Congrats you've hit the drone for 5 damage. With a 60% success rate on 15 dice. The other 40% of the time you do nothing... your average damage is only 3 per casting. By that math you're going to need 3 castings to kill off a drone on average (1 failure and 2 succeses). Whether it works or not you still need to roll the 3 drain. (which is going to average out to about 1 point drain per casting for smaller drain pools).


Now eat LMG full auto fury and prepare to die meatbag since you've just identified yourself as the mage. Invoke rule#1 geek the mage.


You also ignored the OP's assertion that he uses the optional rule to INCREASE THE DRAIN OF DIRECT SPELLS in your examples of direct spells alleged overpoweredness.


TJ's house rule for overcasting is similarly flawed. It ignores the spirit of the rules for a long time. And raises drain to absolutely punitive stun levels. If this is his house rule and he uses it... in combination with the net hits used for damage add to drain. Then overcasting is a WORSE proposition than actually casting normally and staging up direct spell damage using net successes!

There's already far too much which goes to the stun track in SR4... this only makes that problem worse. Really I can't see why pain editors aren't more common! Especially for mundanes! (+1 wilpower to resist mages... and ignore stun damage penalties making stunbolt and ball far less effective). If I had to go for big canon change to limit mages a bit more, I'd make tech like this which works against them more common.