Direct and indirect drain codes in 5th Options

[Stormdrake]

Just finished reading magic section and while at first I thought they had fixed the issue with direct spells I was disappointed to see that it was pretty much the same as 4th. Yes they have done away with the dividing force by 2 but the over all result is the same as 4th. Unless you are needing to set something on fire indirect spells are never going to be used. Thoughts? Am I off base? If so how am I.

[Sendaz]

If you are casting spells at force=magic your drain has not changed much. As you start overcasting you will see the drain increase faster than it did in SR4.

The big difference is the damage. Remember Direct does damage equal to your net hits, but is only resisted by Body or Will (depending on if its physical or mana) plus any counterspell if available.

For Indirect the target also gets to dodge in the first place since its like a magic bullet, but Indirect has a higher base damage equal to Force plus net hits and has an AP equal to force for slicing through that armor as you resist with Body + Armor (less the AP) plus any counterspell if any. Also toss in elemental effect for added effects. Acid knocks off 1 pt of armor per spell, so you progressively chew through his defences, plus it will piss him off that you wrecked his armor jacket. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[SpellBinder]

Manabolt & Flamethrower & Powerbolt, all with a drain code of Force - 3

Flamethrower: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Reaction + Intuition (+ Counterspelling). Damage is [Force] + Net Hits and resisted with Body + Armor (+ Fire Resistance armor mod) -[Force]. At Force 6 this is from 7 to 12 damage at AP -6.
Manabolt: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Willpower (+ Counterspelling). Damage is Net Hits without resistance. At Force 6 this is anywhere from 1 to 6 damage.
Powerbolt: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Body (+ Counterspelling). Damage is Net Hits without resistance. At Force 6 this is anywhere from 1 to 6 damage.

You can also shatter armor with Cold elemental spells (yes, I know none are explicitly listed; just change the element on Flametrower & leave the rest alone), and short out drones & electrical equipment with Lightning spells. Also, Lightning spells incur additional penalties onto living victims that are hurt. See page 170 for details.

[Shemhazai]

Player Character combat magicians aren't dangerous anymore. What kind of stats would a combat magician need to have for you to consider her dangerous.

The non-combat stuff should still be quite dangerous, unless that's been nerfed in the same ways (less effect, much higher drain).

[Sendaz]

vs. Reaction + Intuition (+ Counterspelling). Damage is [Force] + Net Hits and resisted with Body + Armor (+ Fire Resistance armor mod) -[Force]. At Force 6 this is from 7 to 12 damage at AP -6.

Shouldn't that read with counterspelling going with the Body +armor portion? Counterspell is supposed to add to the resistance roll- adding to Body or Will, the Rea+Int is the dodge.

Mages can still be dangerous, you are just not going to one shot entire groups in one cast and walk away with only a mild headache. At least the drain does not go physical so easily as it depends on hits, which can be limited by Force. So if your magic 5 and cast Force 8 your drain is not automatically physical, rather you have to see how many hits are generated.

[Elfenlied]

Player Character combat magicians aren't dangerous anymore. What kind of stats would a combat magician need to have for you to consider her dangerous.

The non-combat stuff should still be quite dangerous, unless that's been nerfed in the same ways (less effect, much higher drain).

Do note that Spirit damage scales much better now, with Elemental Aura giving DV +F and AP -F. Spells, right now, are along the lines of guns in terms of damage, but that isn't necesarrily a bad thing. Mages still have tons of utility, they just don't outshine others so drastically anymore in combat.

[DoomFrog]

Shouldn't that read with counterspelling going with the Body +armor portion? Counterspell is supposed to add to the resistance roll- adding to Body or Will, the Rea+Int is the dodge.

No. Counterspelling is added to the defense test. That can be seen on page 295 in the example. A defense test is the Reaction + Intuition, as mentioned on page 173.

[Sendaz]

The example just says add to defense test, however it does not clearly specify where in the defense test it would apply. (They left out pieces to clarify special situations? *shock* )

In SR4 counterspell always added to the Body/Will roll.

For SR5 according to your interpretation, doesn't it seem odd Counterspell would add to Body/will vs a direct spell but then magically (no pun intended) is used on the dodge portion if the spell is indirect? Counterspell is the magical equivalent of armor and should help the body/will to resist ONCE the spell actually hits you in the first place.

And if we stick to your interpretation, a direct spell wouldn't get counterspell as while it says it adds to defense test, direct bypass the Int +Rea portion and goes to B. If step A is the only part of defense test you are counting for using counterspelling then counterspell should not apply. But in truth it does... in step B, which is where is should apply for both direct and indirect.

I admit I could be wrong, but I think we can expect to see some errata on this clarifying the point.

[DoomFrog]

The example just says add to defense test, however it does not clearly specify where in the defense test it would apply. (They left out pieces to clarify special situations? *shock* )

In SR4 counterspell always added to the Body/Will roll.

For SR5 according to your interpretation, doesn't it seem odd Counterspell would add to Body/will vs a direct spell but then magically (no pun intended) is used on the dodge portion if the spell is indirect? Counterspell is the magical equivalent of armor and should help the body/will to resist ONCE the spell actually hits you in the first place.

And if we stick to your interpretation, a direct spell wouldn't get counterspell as while it says it adds to defense test, direct bypass the Int +Rea portion and goes to B. If step A is the only part of defense you are counting then counterspelling should not apply. But in truth it does... in step B, which is where is should apply for both direct and indirect.

I admit I could be wrong, but I think we can expect to see some errata on this clarifying the point.

Okay. If you want an explanation of how it "magically" works, think of it as counterspelling reducing the power of the spell. Counterspelling dice always go first and reduce the overall effect of the spell. Then dodge for indirect spells, and finally damage soak for both indirect and direct.

Also, you are half right about 4th edition. In the case of indirect spells counterspelling dice are added to the reaction roll to dodge the spell in the 20th anniversary edition (Page 204). But in the original 4e book counterspelling was added to the damage resistance roll of body + armor (Page 196)

Although in 3rd edition the counterspelling mechanic was different, but would be considered adding to the dodge roll of the defender. Page 183.

Now 2nd edition it gets weird. Because indirect combat spells were actually manipulation spells and were treated as ranged attacks. So the counterspelling dice were added to the damage soak test. Page 131.

And I don't own a copy of 1st edition so I don't know how it works.

[Sendaz]

I have the SR4 and not SR4A though I have peeked at a friends copy so that is where I have gone astray then... so SR4A is basically 4.5 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Mäx]

Unless you are needing to set something on fire indirect spells are never going to be used. Thoughts? Am I off base? If so how am I.

You have it ass backwards, unless you simply can't hit the target at all with an indirect(or the have really massive soak pool) direct spell are never to be used, they just do way too little damage.

[Stormdrake]

They are still force plus net hits for damage with one dice roll to reduce damage removed. How is that weaker than indirect?

Yes, net hits add to drain but unless I am wrong (and I can always be) that occurs with both direct and indirect. If it does not occur this way can you list the page where it says so in the book?

[Sendaz]

Not according to page 283

Direct: When your direct combat spell is successfully
cast, it inflicts a number of boxes of damage equal
to your net hits on the opposed test. The opposed test
generally pits your Spellcasting + Magic [Force] against
either Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana
spells).

The logic behind it was since you only get to resist with one stat, they tweaked down damage to just hits. No more single Manaball levelling entire gangs in one shot.

A bit of a kick in the nards, but there is a certain logic to it as it does bypass armor and such.

[Mäx]

They are still force plus net hits for damage with one dice roll to reduce damage removed. How is that weaker than indirect?

No their not, their nethits for damage, not force+nethits like indirects are.

[Stormdrake]

Max and Sendaz, ok I see what I missed. Net hits only as damage for direct combat spells makes a heck of a change.

[Jaid]

Max and Sendaz, ok I see what I missed. Net hits only as damage for direct combat spells makes a heck of a change.

yup. makes indirect a whole lot more interesting now, that's for sure.

[Grinder]

The logic behind it was since you only get to resist with one stat, they tweaked down damage to just hits. No more single Manaball levelling entire gangs in one shot.

A bit of a kick in the nards, but there is a certain logic to it as it does bypass armor and such.

Seems like a good idea; wonder how it will play out, though.

[Skynet]

Looks a little weak when you have a force 6 spell with DV 6 and a holdout-pistol with DV 7. Looks like manipulation and illusion-spells are the way to go. But I haven't had the chance to playtest them yet, so maybe reality will prove me wrong.

[Sendaz]

yup. makes indirect a whole lot more interesting now, that's for sure.

I always thought the elemental add ons made indirect have a certain charm, but then I am a sucker for special effects.

Seems like a good idea; wonder how it will play out, though.

Looks a little weak when you have a force 6 spell with DV 6 and a holdout-pistol with DV 7. Looks like manipulation and illusion-spells are the way to go. But I haven't had the chance to playtest them yet, so maybe reality will prove me wrong.

It won't be great coming out of the gate, but mages have good growth potential (initiating, foci, etc) while there is only so much that you can really boost Wil up with.

Just means the mage has to be a bit cagey to start and not be afraid to use any available tool.

[Starmage21]

I always thought the elemental add ons made indirect have a certain charm, but then I am a sucker for special effects.




It won't be great coming out of the gate, but mages have good growth potential (initiating, foci, etc) while there is only so much that you can really boost Wil up with.

Just means the mage has to be a bit cagey to start and not be afraid to use any available tool.

Underlined the important part. What that essentially means is dont bother to learn combat spells. Just use guns with special ammo or grenades to achieve greater effect than you could manage with spells, AND have no risk of hurting yourself with drain!

[Psikerlord]

yeah the old stunbolt etc were OP. but then so was shooting twice each phase. both got the nerf, hopefully for the better. although longer combats are not necessarily better, see dnd 4e for an example. i think the real strength to 5e magic is utility, but still pretty good at combat, as it always should have been.

[Jaid]

i'm just waiting to hear about people who decide to use force 12 lightning spells, with 4 reagents to replace the limit (to make sure they don't fry themselves with physical drain, which is absolutely brutal in SR5 since you can't heal it with anything but rest).

[Shemhazai]

i'm just waiting to hear about people who decide to use force 12 lightning spells, with 4 reagents to replace the limit (to make sure they don't fry themselves with physical drain, which is absolutely brutal in SR5 since you can't heal it with anything but rest).

Wait, you can use reagents to lower the limit to take stun instead of physical damage?

[Jaid]

Wait, you can use reagents to lower the limit to take stun instead of physical damage?

you can use reagents to replace the limit, which is normally force. you only take stun damage if you roll more hits than your force, after considering the limit.

so, presently, yes you can. there is no mention of it only replacing the limit if it would make the limit higher or anything like that.

there is a fairly decent chance this is in fact an oversight on the part of the author though. it's quite possible they just never considered that anyone would want to artificially *decrease* the limit with reagents. technically, you could set it to a limit of 1 or something like that, but you want enough that they're not going to dodge it.

mind you, i suppose for an area spell, even that isn't a concern (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Epicedion]

Note that Drain doesn't care what the Limit is. That Force 12 Fireball is still going to hit you for 11 Drain. It'll just make you pass out instead of explode.