[SR5] Direct combat spells and Errata Options

[FuelDrop]

Chuck Norris

Do you KNOW Chuck, or merely know OF Chuck?

[FuelDrop]

Before, a spell could potentially do 10 damage and one-hit KO a goon (remember, hits, not just net hits, were capped. Someone casting a Force: 5 spell needed 5 hits, plus the target getting no hits, to do 10 damage) - just like a heavy pistol, except that the heavy pistol got two shots. If a combat spell, at best, can only do a few boxes of damage, especially when firearms damage has been increased, then combat spells are no longer a very useful option. In other words, they have been hit too hard with the nerf bat. Especially when spirits and mental manipulation spells, which were always more potentially unbalancing, have been left relatively untouched.

Direct spells were 1 hit KOs for most opposition. Many mages in 4th could cast them at force 10 or 12 and reliably suffer negligible drain. If the opposition's will couldn't match their spellcasting hits (assuming 12 dice vs 3, on average an opponent simply didn't even have enough dice to try) then they took the damage and went down.

Stunball could do that for a whole group with manageable drain, assuming decent drain attributes and centering.

In 4th direct spells were game breaking against living foes. The optional rule that increased their drain (and damage) was just that: Optional.

My only issue with direct spells in 5th is that their drain is higher than it probably should be. Direct combat spells are one of the most fundimental forms of magical combat, and thus should be comparatively simple compared to, say, summoning a blast of fire. Their lower damage is enough of a nerf to take them out from the 'game breaker' file, and with a very low drain their primary advantage would be that you can get them off with cast recklessly on a regular basis without knocking yourself out.

[Chinane]

Apart from the flexibility a mage should have to pay for _somewhere_, there's also the fact that a mage can comfortably sit behind armored glass and direct spell you to oblivion.

I keep wondering if only people spoiled from SR4 are complaining about direct spells now (as they were screaming for houserules there), or if new players also can't see that there needs to be a drawback for an attack whose sole requirement is having LoS.

[Shemhazai]

I've noticed people debating with different ideas of what the rules say. To help us get on the same page:

1) Spells do not benefit from the Take Aim action. Page 166

2) AoE spells are dodged at -2 dice; they don't automatically do their damage. Page 190

3) Magicians that routinely use spirits in combat face a -1 dice pool modifier to ALL tests while using any bound spirit. Page 301

[Surukai]

Also note that magic is very very portable. Compare a Direct Combat spell to something as easy to conceal and draw, a light pistol.

It is easy to be unhittable and soak most damage from firearms while Direct Combat spells are near guaranteed damage.

When you want to one-hit-KO stuff you use an Ares Alpha but since it is big, forbidden and prone to get bricked if the Sam want to have his big dicepools or launch airburst grenades to try and match the mages excellent aoe spells.

Compared to SR4 spells are nerfed to nothing, but that is because they were horribly broken in SR4. It was so bad that the metagame around them went pretty sour.

Instagib is not fun when it takes hours to create new characters. Instagib is also not fun for the gamemaster since all opposition is ONLY counted in how many enemies you can fit around the PCs without getting obivous aoe-targets. The meta in SR4 was that any fight required <number of PCs> extra enemies that you knew would be instantkilled the first initiative phase of every combat. Then each IP After that <number of PCs> enemies would get killed so to have a fight lasting for 2 combat turns required at least 5:1 enemies:players ratio.
Needless to say, I'm happy to be a bit further away from that. I do not miss tinySMG-deals-17P full autos or F11 guaranteed onehit Stunbolt one bit.

And, as mentioned several times above. A mage focusing on nuking people is very effective but unless you go specialisation + mentor spirit + foci as mage you shouldn't compare with a fully cybered sam. He has spend his entire budget on shooting people, of course he dominates at that!

If sams and guns don't excel at basic damage dealing then they are pointless. If a mage could do a Sams job better AND also summon spirits, mind control people, cast heals and control the battlefield with stuns, illusions, ice sheets and other things then something would be terribly wrong.

[Chinane]

3) Magicians that routinely use spirits in combat face a -1 dice pool modifier to ALL tests while using any bound spirit. Page 301

An optional rule and situational modifier at best. Plus only applies to bound spirit, not the spontaneous summoning.

[Shemhazai]

It is easy to be unhittable and soak most damage from firearms while Direct Combat spells are near guaranteed damage.

I'd like to know more about this.

[Shemhazai]

An optional rule and situational modifier at best. Plus only applies to bound spirit, not the spontaneous summoning.

It says that it applies to spirits you control and applies to all tests while controlling a bound spirit (the GM) that decides you use spirits in combat too often.

[Lobo0705]

"2) AoE spells are dodged at -2 dice; they don't automatically do their damage. Page 190"

This has been clarified that it is an error, and that aoe spells, like grenades, do not allow a dodge test.

You can find it here third post down.

[Chinane]

It says that it applies to spirits you control and applies to all tests while controlling a bound spirit (the GM) that decides you use spirits in combat too often.

In the same box there's a mechanism for removing the modifier permanently. There is NO negative consequence for failing the test, so you can try again until you run out of dice.

Even without said mechanism, it's up to the GM to decide if your treatment of your spirit justifies its trying to break away in the first place.

[Sendaz]

Do you KNOW Chuck, or merely know OF Chuck?

The Chuck Norris that can be known is not the Chuck Norris.

Though to be fair, I suspect the beard and chest hair would smoulder a good few days before catching fire, thus providing some level of fire resistance. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

ChuckNorrisRun™

Game Over Man, Game Over.....

They say the tears of Chuck Norris can cure anything, including HMHVV and VITAS. Too bad Chuck Norris never cries.

They say Chuck Norris was about to get into his limo in Washinton D.C. when then President Dunkelzahn cut in from of him taking his limo.

That's right, Chuck Norris kicked the Big D so hard he ripped time and space causing that astral rift in the process.

The tale of the Big D saving the world was just a cover story that his PR people spun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Machiavelli]

I am sorry that i started such a debate, but NOW we FINALLY have the discussion i was always waiting about. In the last few months (since SR5 is discussed), I really thought I am in the twilight zone and the only person that was not satisfied with the current ruling. I read the posts properly and I highly appreciate the efforts that were put in the maths that were done, but pleeeeeeeease folks, we all know that theory is not equal to the reality (in this case, the reality of gaming). I mentioned it a lot of times (but I don’t get tired using it again and again as an argument): I play this game since it started. Up to now easily since more than 20 years. I KNOW about the pros and cons of the game and I am CAPABLE to notice mistakes/problems, if I see them. I also agree that direct combat spells were overpowered in SR4, but now the mage has nothing left to do the one-shot-pony. Is that bad? OF COURSE it is, because

a) mages are (mostly) fragile and at least more fragile than combat-chars.
b) unfortunately combat IS happening in SR
c) I play a mage because I DON´T want to play a sam
d) so guns are no option. This is what I have combat spells for. Also I don´t have the karma to raise more mundane skills than absolutely needed.
e) mages are slow(er) on initiative and IP´s than combat-chars. Mages fire ONE shot per action, NOT 3.
f) so IF you shoot, the enemy better is drop-dead or not capable to fight anymore. Because IF he survives, YOU are dead.
g) Geek the mage first is still the point. Now I do less damage and because I HAVE to use indirect spells for it, everybody knows where to find me? F**ck you. ^^
h) mages HAVE drain, while guns usually DON`T explode in your face every 3 shots
i) mages have background-count, sams don´t
j) mages don´t have (proper) access to hardware that boots their skills, so usually their dice-pool is lower and they have less skills. So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun.
k) mages need to raise an attribute to access additional dice (when the skill is maxed) which is quite costly and this cannot be replaced by ware that only costs money
l) magic IS powerful. When did it change that dragons carry assault-cannons, because their manabolt is too weak? Haven’t heard of it up to now.
m) the more damage you do, the more likely the damage comes back to you
n) the game doesn´t care about math. My char. has a drain-pool of 14 and I get drain regularly. A LOT of drain sometimes.

So please stop this nonsense-argument “the mage still can levitate, or shield”. This was exactly was I was pointing out – reducing the mage to some kind of helpless buffer.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And can that pistol skill also let you fly? control minds? heal? Defend yourself?

Is there ammunition that sets people on fire? covers them with acid? hits everyone in an area with no chance to dodge?

The pistol skill can do one thing: shoot people with pistols.
The spellcasting skill can do pretty much anything.

So lets factor in ammunition: Ares predator with Stick and Shock vs mage with lightning.

Force 6 is 6P -6 AP.
Predator is 6S -5 AP.

Both have identical elemental effects.

The pistol guy has +1/+2 dice due to smartlink, with otherwise identical investment. That's a fairly minimal difference. Start factoring in range and you will find that the mage begins to pull ahead.

With both using a complex action (semi-automatic burst-standard spellcasting) the effective difference is 2-3 dice (factoring in AP difference). Not inconsiderable, but considering the flexibility of the spellcasting skill that's an acceptable difference.

Except that the Mage MUST PURCHASE those abilities with KARMA... and spells are not an inconsequential expense if you want a broad versatility.

[Surukai]

QUOTE (Surukai @ Oct 15 2013, 06:56 AM) *
It is easy to be unhittable and soak most damage from firearms while Direct Combat spells are near guaranteed damage.

I'd like to know more about this.

any orc/troll etc:
Body 8 + Armor jacker 12 + helmet 2 + bonelacing +4 + ballistic shield 6 = 32 dice

or go mystic adept
body 8 + armor jacket 12 + helmet 2 + F1 focus drams/edge armor spell cheese for 6-8, + mystic armor 6 (suboptimal, combat sense way better but for sake of argument) + F1 focus increase body w/ dramcrap +4 = 40+ dice damage resist. (still takes crippling damage from undodgeable grenades though)

Or go cyberlimbs

4 limbs * 4 armor + jacket + body + helmet + lacing for 42 soak dice


And, unhittable is easy too:

mystic adept with combat sense 6 + 6 F1/dram combat sense spell + 8 reaction + 5 intuition + 4 (F1 inc. attribute intuition) = 39 dice to defend without going full defence or even type /care versus enemies


in general, seems Drams + F1 sustaining foci are big part of "what is currently wrong in SR5", together with mystic adeptness of course.


But, to resist direct combat spells there isn't anything similar. Even if you deck out fat counterspelling that is only good the first action phase or so. Then it gets near impossible to defend against. A dead clear strong niche. Grenades, AoE directs and indirect spells all have in common that they ignore most defences. Directs also ignore armor and such, making the target pretty helpless quickly.

[Emil Barr]

Have we come to a concensus yet? Am I shooting the Mage first or the Decker?

[Draco18s]

Have we come to a concensus yet? Am I shooting the Mage first or the Decker?

You're throwing non-wireless grenades indiscriminately.
It's the only way to be sure.

[Dolanar]

just Glass the whole combat zone, now that Deckers have to be in the field more glassing the combat zone works.

[Glyph]

Direct spells were 1 hit KOs for most opposition. Many mages in 4th could cast them at force 10 or 12 and reliably suffer negligible drain. If the opposition's will couldn't match their spellcasting hits (assuming 12 dice vs 3, on average an opponent simply didn't even have enough dice to try) then they took the damage and went down.

I agree that was unbalancing, but to me, the problem wasn't direct combat spells, but the rules for overcasting, where something that should have been an extreme, risky tactic reserved for do-or-die situations became something that an optimized build could use as a standard tactic. My house rule would have been to increase Drain over the Magic Attribute at the rate of 1 per point of Force over the Magic rating, rather than one per two points of Force. And I would also make the physical Drain only heal-able by natural means, so mages couldn't overcast, then cast heal on themselves to negate the physical Drain damage.

[Machiavelli]

Direct spells were 1 hit KOs for most opposition. Many mages in 4th could cast them at force 10 or 12 and reliably suffer negligible drain. If the opposition's will couldn't match their spellcasting hits (assuming 12 dice vs 3, on average an opponent simply didn't even have enough dice to try) then they took the damage and went down.

Stunball could do that for a whole group with manageable drain, assuming decent drain attributes and centering.

In 4th direct spells were game breaking against living foes. The optional rule that increased their drain (and damage) was just that: Optional.

My only issue with direct spells in 5th is that their drain is higher than it probably should be. Direct combat spells are one of the most fundimental forms of magical combat, and thus should be comparatively simple compared to, say, summoning a blast of fire. Their lower damage is enough of a nerf to take them out from the 'game breaker' file, and with a very low drain their primary advantage would be that you can get them off with cast recklessly on a regular basis without knocking yourself out.

Correct, you could wipe out an entire group with a stunball. But only under perfect conditions. Means everybody stands within the radius, nobody of your team is in the AOE, they don´t have counterspelling, you don´t have negative modifiers for e.g. cover, lighting, movement, enemy is not a drone or sitting into a car. They WERE effective against living foes, but as easy as it was to hit a human, the HARD it was to hit a nonliving. I NEVER experienced them so mighty, that they were a all-problem-solver. And even if everything on your roll is fine and you really scored enough successes to effect the enemy, it is still not said that you easily wipe off the upcoming drain.

[Machiavelli]

I agree that was unbalancing, but to me, the problem wasn't direct combat spells, but the rules for overcasting, where something that should have been an extreme, risky tactic reserved for do-or-die situations became something that an optimized build could use as a standard tactic. My house rule would have been to increase Drain over the Magic Attribute at the rate of 1 per point of Force over the Magic rating, rather than one per two points of Force. And I would also make the physical Drain only heal-able by natural means, so mages couldn't overcast, then cast heal on themselves to negate the physical Drain damage.

Drain damage never could be healed magically. Besides that, overcasting is very risky. The problem was, that you NEEDED to overcast to make the one-hit-pony. And overcasting means physical drain, means if you f*ck up, your game-session could be over. TOTAL gamebreaker. ^^

[RHat]

I am sorry that i started such a debate, but NOW we FINALLY have the discussion i was always waiting about. In the last few months (since SR5 is discussed), I really thought I am in the twilight zone and the only person that was not satisfied with the current ruling. I read the posts properly and I highly appreciate the efforts that were put in the maths that were done, but pleeeeeeeease folks, we all know that theory is not equal to the reality (in this case, the reality of gaming). I mentioned it a lot of times (but I don’t get tired using it again and again as an argument): I play this game since it started. Up to now easily since more than 20 years. I KNOW about the pros and cons of the game and I am CAPABLE to notice mistakes/problems, if I see them. I also agree that direct combat spells were overpowered in SR4, but now the mage has nothing left to do the one-shot-pony. Is that bad? OF COURSE it is, because

a) mages are (mostly) fragile and at least more fragile than combat-chars.
b) unfortunately combat IS happening in SR
c) I play a mage because I DON´T want to play a sam
d) so guns are no option. This is what I have combat spells for. Also I don´t have the karma to raise more mundane skills than absolutely needed.
e) mages are slow(er) on initiative and IP´s than combat-chars. Mages fire ONE shot per action, NOT 3.
f) so IF you shoot, the enemy better is drop-dead or not capable to fight anymore. Because IF he survives, YOU are dead.
g) Geek the mage first is still the point. Now I do less damage and because I HAVE to use indirect spells for it, everybody knows where to find me? F**ck you. ^^
h) mages HAVE drain, while guns usually DON`T explode in your face every 3 shots
i) mages have background-count, sams don´t
j) mages don´t have (proper) access to hardware that boots their skills, so usually their dice-pool is lower and they have less skills. So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun.
k) mages need to raise an attribute to access additional dice (when the skill is maxed) which is quite costly and this cannot be replaced by ware that only costs money
l) magic IS powerful. When did it change that dragons carry assault-cannons, because their manabolt is too weak? Haven’t heard of it up to now.
m) the more damage you do, the more likely the damage comes back to you
n) the game doesn´t care about math. My char. has a drain-pool of 14 and I get drain regularly. A LOT of drain sometimes.

So please stop this nonsense-argument “the mage still can levitate, or shield”. This was exactly was I was pointing out – reducing the mage to some kind of helpless buffer.

a) False - you can wear just as much armour, and while you might not get as many +armour accessories, you can pack an Armour preparation, letting you get boosted armour for several minutes without a sustaining penalty. And you can do the same with Combat Sense, Increase Initiative, Increase Intuition...
b) Which is unfortunate for everyone
c) Fair, but your assumptions are at issue.
d) Sure, but that means that you're focusing on a much more diverse skillset. If you're using Spellcasting and Alchemy in place of Pistols, Longarms, Automatics, AND Heavy Weapons along with getting a huge amount of extra utility, you have to expect that there's a cost.
e) This is flat out not true. Take a gander at Increase Reflexes - Mages are the only ones presently able to access all 5 initiative dice without Edge.
f) This conclusion proceeds from false premises, as highlighted above.
g) They could see you pretty freaking easily before - the Perceiving Magic rules made it very, very, very easy for high Force spells.
h) Which is part of the aforementioned cost.
i) And Background count is a simple dice penalty, of which the sam has MANY that the Mage doesn't (recoil and range, for example)
j) Bwahahahaha. Mages have PLENTY to boost their pool with. Foci are theoretically unlimited, and mentor spirits provide an additional bonus. Your chargen bonus from mage stuff tops out at 5 or 6, sure, but the sam's LIFETIME bonus from sam stuff tops out at 7 (muscle toner 4, reflex recorder for 1, wireless smartlink for 2) while you can just keep going. The amount of bonus dice at chargen is largely the same, with the mage having a slight edge if he decides to super-focus. Further, the mage has the unique ability to set his own limits, and to further modify them with reagents.
k) You don't seem to realize that sam's are sharply limited in how much they can get from augmentation. The augmented max on attributes is current natural attribute + 4. Once you're getting 4 Agility from Augmentation, you can only raise it by spending Karma. And they have to worry about Strength, Agility, Reaction, Body, Intuition, and Willpower instead of just Magic, Willpower, Drain Stat, and setting a good Intuition and Reaction at chargen. AND they have to worry about more skills (Melee skill + Pistols + Longarms + Automatics + Heavy Weapons + Gymnastics + ...), which 'ware isn't that great for dealing with (skillwires are an option, but they have their issues)
m) Magic is powerful. But two things need to be considered: First, the sam is THE combat specialist. Second, direct spells cannot be the one and only one right approach to combat. Keeping in mind that if you don't get more hits than your Magic Drain is still Stun, consider the case of a Force 12 Lightning Bolt - 12 + net hits damage, AP-12, plus the rider effect. Then consider the Freaking Ninja adept or sam who pretty much can't be hit, as well as the
n) Game design cares about probabilities, because you don't EVER know how the dice will land.

[DWC]

You're throwing non-wireless grenades indiscriminately.
It's the only way to be sure.

Screw throwing them. Fire semi-automatic bursts of flashbangs from an MGL-12. It costs you 300 nuyen per burst, but it subdues everyone in the impact zone. Then you can murder the targets at your leisure, with a knife.

[Lobo0705]

@Machiavelli,

I started playing SR with 1st edition back in 1990. Magic has been overpowered in ALL versions of the game. In 1st - 3rd, you better always, always, always, have a Willpower of 6, otherwise the first enemy mage that manabolts you kills you instantly. (and even with a willpower of 6, you are still likely to be dead, only he would have to cast the spell at Deadly Damage, and so his drain would be higher - but on average you still took a Deadly wound.) And in my experience, anyone who doesn't play a mage (and some who do) thinks they are overpowered.

Now in 5e, they finally nerf that "autokill" function the mages have, and many (you are by no means the first person I've heard) have been wailing and gnashing their teeth that this makes mages useless in a fight.

The problem is that seem to be taking the entire combat section, and whittling it down to a single comparison between a Manabolt and a gun. You have a laundry list of complaints, most of which seem to be inherent to the character that YOU play.

a) mages are (mostly) fragile and at least more fragile than combat-chars.

Why? What makes a character a "combat character"? Armor? Mage can have it. High body? High Intuition? High Reaction? The mages can have all of those. Cyberware/Bioware? The mage can have those, or he can have spells that mimic them.

b) unfortunately combat IS happening in SR

Agreed, but combat isn't just about two people just appearing at contact range.

The mage has all sorts of abilities to level the playing field that non-mages don't. They can be utterly silent, or invisible. Being able to surprise the enemy, or giving your attacker a -6 dice pool modifier for Blind Fire because he can't see you makes a big difference.

Not all combat occurs at point blank or even medium range - which doesn't matter to the mage, but it does for a gun. Not all combat occurs in the open, but direct spells ignore Partial Cover.

e) mages are slow(er) on initiative and IP´s than combat-chars. Mages fire ONE shot per action, NOT 3.

Two things. 1) Why are they slower? There is no piece of ware that increases initiative that mages can't have or can't duplicate (or in many cases do better) with the Increase Reflexes spell. I'd rather have Increase Reflexes cast on me than Wired 1, for instance. Also, in general, in a combat turn with the way they've done Initiative, it is unlikely that you only have 1 IP per turn. Even Int and React of 9 combined +1d6 means a 1 in 6 chance of having 1 IP. Conversely, even with wired 3 it is unlikely you will get 4 IP, so they've smoothed out the gaps there.

f) so IF you shoot, the enemy better is drop-dead or not capable to fight anymore. Because IF he survives, YOU are dead.

While I agree you want to try and put the enemy down in one shot, I disagree that you are dead in return. That depends on what damage you've done to him, his capabilities, your cover, etc. Again, if you want to be standing in the open dueling it out with a guy, and you miss, then you may be right - but who does that?

h) mages HAVE drain, while guns usually DON`T explode in your face every 3 shots

And if you cast spells properly, you should very rarely take drain, and even if you do, only 1 or 2 points. Manabolt is F-3 drain. Cast it at Force 5. Assume Magic+Spellcasting of 12. Odds are you aren't really being punished by your limit of 5 with only 12 dice, and now when you resist drain with Willpower+Logic/Charisma, you are resisting 2 drain. With your 14 dice pool, I did a test roll on invisible castle
here. As you can see, of the 50 times cast, drain is actually only taken once. For one point of damage. Hardly paralyzing. Once you initiate, you can get Centering and reduce the drain even more.

i) mages have background-count, sams don´t

Absolutely true. And once the rules for background count come out for 5e, I'm sure they will allow you to center against it as in previous editions. In the meantime, we'll say that counters the whole "sams are affected by range and partial cover, and mages aren't"

j) mages don´t have (proper) access to hardware that boots their skills, so usually their dice-pool is lower and they have less skills. So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun.

You have access to foci. Not sure what else you want, as foci (while expensive) can increase your dicepool faster than any piece of equipment a sam has. In addition, you only need ONE skill to attack people with a spell. Sams need to have multiple skills and multiple guns to cover the different situations they are likely to get themselves into. The last part I'll get into in a second.

k) mages need to raise an attribute to access additional dice (when the skill is maxed) which is quite costly and this cannot be replaced by ware that only costs money

I'm confused, as samurai have to raise an attribute as well, and not only can mages have ware, but they can have spells sustained by themselves, or foci, or bound spirits, or quickened, or by Focused Concentration, all of which replicate the same effects as the ware.


Back to this " So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun."

Do you mean that if you focus on magic, you should be able to do more damage than someone who focuses on using a gun? If so, I cannot stress how much I disagree with that statement. You are taking someone who spends 6 skill points on the Pistols, plus 1 for a specialization, plus buys the gun and the toys. Now, he rolls, assuming a 6 Agility, 13 dice + enhancements, and he can do ONE thing. If he wants to be able to damage something far away, he has to spend another 7 skill points for Longarms, lets say. So he is down 14 skill points and can do 2 things.

You on the other hand, lets say take Magic B. You choose Spellcasting as one of your FREE rating 4 skills, and spend 2 skill points to raise it to a 6, and lets say you specialize in Combat spells so that is 1 more for a total of 3. You now take Manabolt as one of your FREE 7 spells.

You still use that skill to cast ALL of your other FREE spells, plus any you purchase. When you raise that ONE skill, you raise your ability to use ALL spells, not just combat ones, while if the samurai wants to be better at both, he needs to raise both. (Even if he has the Firearms Skill Group, it is much more expensive for him to raise that than your one skill).

Your spell ignores equipment. I'm going to say that again, it ignores equipment. Yes, the samurai shooting at Bob the security guard with stats of 2 and no armor and no ware does a lot more damage than you do with your Direct spell.
Add armor - the differences start equalizing out. Add better stats, add ware, etc - all of these start equalizing the field of play.

If you could with ONE spell, do more damage than a samurai could by using all the equipment and ware at his disposal, then what is the point of ever playing a samurai? That is the question that the game has to take into consideration.

[Machiavelli]

a) False - you can wear just as much armour, and while you might not get as many +armour accessories, you can pack an Armour preparation, letting you get boosted armour for several minutes without a sustaining penalty. And you can do the same with Combat Sense, Increase Initiative, Increase Intuition...
b) Which is unfortunate for everyone
c) Fair, but your assumptions are at issue.
d) Sure, but that means that you're focusing on a much more diverse skillset. If you're using Spellcasting and Alchemy in place of Pistols, Longarms, Automatics, AND Heavy Weapons along with getting a huge amount of extra utility, you have to expect that there's a cost.
e) This is flat out not true. Take a gander at Increase Reflexes - Mages are the only ones presently able to access all 5 initiative dice without Edge.
f) This conclusion proceeds from false premises, as highlighted above.
g) They could see you pretty freaking easily before - the Perceiving Magic rules made it very, very, very easy for high Force spells.
h) Which is part of the aforementioned cost.
i) And Background count is a simple dice penalty, of which the sam has MANY that the Mage doesn't (recoil and range, for example)
j) Bwahahahaha. Mages have PLENTY to boost their pool with. Foci are theoretically unlimited, and mentor spirits provide an additional bonus. Your chargen bonus from mage stuff tops out at 5 or 6, sure, but the sam's LIFETIME bonus from sam stuff tops out at 7 (muscle toner 4, reflex recorder for 1, wireless smartlink for 2) while you can just keep going. The amount of bonus dice at chargen is largely the same, with the mage having a slight edge if he decides to super-focus. Further, the mage has the unique ability to set his own limits, and to further modify them with reagents.
k) You don't seem to realize that sam's are sharply limited in how much they can get from augmentation. The augmented max on attributes is current natural attribute + 4. Once you're getting 4 Agility from Augmentation, you can only raise it by spending Karma. And they have to worry about Strength, Agility, Reaction, Body, Intuition, and Willpower instead of just Magic, Willpower, Drain Stat, and setting a good Intuition and Reaction at chargen. AND they have to worry about more skills (Melee skill + Pistols + Longarms + Automatics + Heavy Weapons + Gymnastics + ...), which 'ware isn't that great for dealing with (skillwires are an option, but they have their issues)
m) Magic is powerful. But two things need to be considered: First, the sam is THE combat specialist. Second, direct spells cannot be the one and only one right approach to combat. Keeping in mind that if you don't get more hits than your Magic Drain is still Stun, consider the case of a Force 12 Lightning Bolt - 12 + net hits damage, AP-12, plus the rider effect. Then consider the Freaking Ninja adept or sam who pretty much can't be hit, as well as the
n) Game design cares about probabilities, because you don't EVER know how the dice will land.

a) Even if you can wear as much armor, your body is still lower. Your reaction is lower, your dodge-skill is probaly lower, so soak-pool and dodge-pool are lower. So for ME, this sounds like "more fragile". Maybe fragile means something else for you?
b) it is one of the main reasons the game makes fun. And combat is not avoidable all the time.
c) they are not
d) i think you forgot some skills that are needed by a mage. E.g. conjuring, binding, banishing, spell-defense, astral-perception (in addition to the regular one). So i don´t see much less skills, just different ones. Spellcasting is the mages Firearms-skill while the spells are the weapon and you drain is the ammo.
e) if you have it, if you can sustain it, if you invest in a sustaining focus, if there are no wards (that are everywhere), if...too many if´s. I think you got the problem. You CAN do stuff, a lot, but proper combat is not more one of them. That is the whole problem we have. Options are gone. Mages still excel at specific stuff, but even if you overspecialize, you will not become the combat mage (sounds stupid now) you was before.
f) they don´t as mentioned above
g) easier than a friggin fireball? And besides: the MAGE was glowing while casting, the direct-combat spell (mana) itself was invisible.
h) ah, so cons are ok, while pros are not needed? Good explanation. Mages playing mages more fun.
i) simple dice penalty? You should check the rules before you talk about them.
j) you are talking about the unlimited foci that are theoretically not affordable or you cannot bind because the karma-costs are too high? guns are quite real, not just theory in comparison. ^^
k) oh, you shouldn´t start about the karma-needs of the different classes. No class needs more karma than a mage. You should stop that before you ridicule yourself. Sams can skip spending karma by installing ware, this is what it is made for. The...we will call it "difference".
l) you skipped l for m. Just wanted to point it out
m) aha, and the combat mage is what? The little brother of the sam? If i hear your arguments, i really don´t understand all the novels with these all-so-mighty mages anymore. Fear the warrior. Why geek the mage first? Because he can levitate? ^^
m) EXACTLY, this is the point. Even in SR4 the direct spell could go wrong and then you still have the drain which ALSO could go wrong. Even you have to admit, that if you now fire a manabolt 6 with 3 net successes and cause 3 damage while you get 3 drain is stupid. Would you use a gun that does that? If i would use a gun and risk blowing it off into my face, then one that really does damage. Direct combat spells are no option for that anymore.

[Kyrel]

Machiavelli. I haven't played SR for 20+ years, and I haven't played 5th ed. at this point. But here's a thought: If we ignore what mages did in the past editions of the game, how do they perform in 5th? Are they balanced overall? Do they fulfil a niche and contribute something to the group, that another member isn't also adding? The mentioned Combat spells have been nerfed. Possibly too much. But could it be that the goal has really been to change the role of the mage, and make them more of a flexible tool box that provide capabilities that other stuff doesn't provide, rather than being able to act as heavy weapon platforms in combat? Could it be that the goal has been to let the Combat Character Types be the main badasses in combat, and relegate the mages and deckers to more of a supporting role in this respect of the game?