If all players were great and no one abused the system then you would need only a hand full of rules and you could trust them to do the right thing.

The problem is that one of the most basic functions in a role playing game is resource management. You provide them with the points and the limits and this determines what kinds of characters they will create. If you want to run a game with a certain feel but the rules set doesn't make it even likely then you have to change the rules.

I think that usefull feedback is what he is looking for. Something that would bring the combat spells back in line with how he sees the setting work in HIS head. Everyone's game is going to be different and I apload anyone who recognizes this and makes it easier on themselves as GMs. The game mechanics are the medium for telling these stories and they should work based on how the GM's style works and not as a straight jacket.

I already threw in my two cents worth and I hope they will be useful to someone but I don't think that there is any point in berating someone for doing what they said in the topic title they were doing.

Be nice, be useful, or be silent.

Yes but we can disagree nicely and constructively.

I confess I didn't read through the thread in entirely prior to posting. So if this has already been proposed to the author of the thread, I will welcome the ridicule.

That said.

One more since it came in while I was writting my last one.

Steak and Spirits:

Re: Laughing Owl - That's fair enough. My personal opinion is that given the near-average of 1 success per 3 dice rolled, it will be doubtful that any combat spells will be used over a force of 6, for any circumstance. I believe this alternate solution addresses the issue of the DV of spells becoming rediculous, without killing combat spells outright.

Re: Fortune - I was thinking something along the same lines. And really, I couldn't say that it -gimps- combat spells, given the usual comparative dice pools between caster and target.

I would. As one example, it places the whole mystical one-shot 'Sleep/Stunball/Knockout' effect out of reach of any but the most powerful, or those that really enjoy overcasting (and even then they'd have to be quite powerful Magically).

How would you work Direct Combat Spells that affect both animate and inanimate targets (like Powerbolt)? What about Direct Combat Spells that solely affect inanimate objects (like Wreck Gun)?

So in other words, basically rewrite most of the Magic rules just to accomodate a change that could cause balance problems, and isn't really necessary in the first place. Ok.

Still think that bringing it in line with the other combat, and even indirect spells, is the way to go.

Combat Spells:

Attacker rolls Magic + Spellcasting. Defender rolls Reaction. For net hit, the damage is staged up by one.

Damage = The Spell's Force (+ Net hits)

Damage Resistance =

) Indirect Physical -- Target's Body + 1/2 Impact Armor
) Direct Physical -- Target's Body
) Indirect Stun -- Target's Willpower + 1/2 Impact Armor
) Direct Stun -- Target's Willpower

And you're done. Direct Combat Spells ignore armor, which is huge, but, don't have Elemental Effects. Indirect Combat Spells go against half impact, but DO have Elemental Effects.

Either way, the target gets to dodge, just like it was gunfire.

Overcasting can make targets into crispy critters in no time (Force 12 Powerbolt?! Mommy!), but, at least they get a chance to get the heck out of town, take cover, or otherwise not get hit.

Makes the combat system fall in line with everything else, so simple and streamline.

So the only real change you are suggesting is to add a Reaction test against Direct Combat Spells?

What is the rationale behind that addition from an in-game flavor (not balance or rules) perspective?

Big ol' Fireball comes at you.

You jump aside.

I'm not wading in saying that you shouldn't do this (although it takes away from the variety of shadowrun - okay, I guess I am saying you shouldn't do this a bit), but I just wanted to comment on the fluff angle of this.

I think the reason that most magic doesn't allow a reaction test to dodge it is because fluff-wise, it tunes straight into your pattern / aura and zips in at astral speed. It's not something that you can get out of the way of. And even if you could, you would have to percieve it. You can see a flamethrower effect coming at you. Can a mundane see a powerball? How about mana spells? You can allow all this, but it's altered the fluff a bit and could throw up odd inconsistencies. Like if the target can see the spell heading for him, why can't the observer? He can? Okay - now spells are visible. And if your resistance is based on being able to jump out of the way, why isn't spell casting hampered by range like gunfire is? After all, I have more chance of dodging something that's coming at me from 1000m away than I do from 3m away. I expect there could be more unexpected consequences.

Funny, but I'll direct your attention to this line from the very first post in this thread ...