Not necessary. I have run simulations. And although I am certainly not perfect, I have years of experience balancing new additions & rules for table-top RPGs, & experience with the metagame; I am also majoring in game design. I am very good at picking out problems, and after a few revisions, very good at coming up with a balanced solution.


I have offered alternatives, ones that I have playtested, that seem to be quite popular as the alternative of choice on these forums.

I would be interested in your thoughts on my response to your alternative Attribute improvement scheme. (See post # 187 in PETITION).

Look at Frank Trollman's house rules. Basically he cut skill costs in half, no change to attributes.

Gameplay perspective: Bonuses to attributes are a racial feature that have been payed for; they should not be punished for them. Negatives to attributes are a racial feature that they 'gained' points for; they should be punished for them. Simply reducing the maximum is not complete, as it affects only select characters.

I am lazy & will not go into the 'realistic' logic behind it (which may or may not be accurate, as I am not a biologist - same goes for your reasoning).

I'm sorry, maxed stats and a fetish (or a metamagic) is easy? Perhaps we have different definitions of easy. Mine consists of a standard character not built specifically to mitigate drain. We can argue over the specifics of what a standard character is, but I expect that more people will agree that a character optimized to resist drain for one specific spell (with a fetish) or using metamagic who's sole purpose is to mitigate drain (centering) is not a standard character.

Yes, you are correct that you can build characters that are good at resisting drain and who will, on average, have no problem with a 5P drain spell. I don't see this as a problem and fail to see why anyone thinks it is. Given that you need to devote a significant amount of karma to do so or limit your spell, what exactly is the problem? Are characters not supposed to be able to be built to be good at things?

Point taken, but in the game I run, the opposition isn't usually sporting layers of armor. Lets look at a sec guard with a vest. Let's say Joe Blow has Agility of 4, Pistols of 4 and a smart link. Sec guard has a Reaction of 3, and has some cover (-2). Joe Blow doesn't wanna be pinned down so he fires out in the open and gets 2 net hits. His damage goes to 6. Sec guard with body of 3 rolls nine dice and gets 3 hits. Pretty good, only 3 boxes of damage, but now he's knocked down, has a -1 penalty, and Joe Blow can take another shot at him (which reduces Sec guards defense dice as well) Assuming Joe Blow doesn't have recoil comp he still has 7 dice to shoot with. Since Sec guard is down 3 dice from being prone and wounded, not even dodging will help him now. This time Joe Blow gets 2 more net hits, and in the end Sec guard takes another 3 boxes of stun. He has 6 boxes of damage, and essentially is a combat kill or at the worst an easy target for the next runner that attacks him.
In my example above, the mage that doesn't overcast DOES succeed in knocking the guard out with his stun bolt, so better overall damage than Joe Blow and his light pistol, but now he has to soak off 6 boxes of drain (Ouch!). Plus let's look into what went into creating these different actions.
Joe Blow has an agility of 4 (30 BP)
He has a Pistols of 4 (16 BP)
He has a smartlinked light pistol and some glasses (Waaay less than the 5000 he got for 1 BP.
Total BP cost to shoot that security guard: 47

The non overcasting mage has:
Magician quality: 15 BP
A magic of 5: 40 BP
A spell casting of 5: 20 BP
A stun bolt spell: 3 Points
Total BP cost to knockout that security guard: 78
That's 31 more build points it took to knockout a security guard as opposed to making him a "combat kill". The mage should be more scary, and for good reason. Since he probably loaded up on mental attributes his physical stats might make him want to think very carefully about not getting shot by that security guard.
Joe Blow has a lot of other areas he can spend those extra 31 BP that the mage has tied up into well... being a mage.

When I say they don't punish the light pistol dude, it is comparison to the Assault Rifle dude. He can still be effective and not knock himself out in the process. Plus he has 31 extra build points to be good in other areas.
I'm trying to illustrate what others are saying here, that it encourages overcasting and min maxing. Especially with the OR changes added to it. Seriously, if I have a mage with a Magic of 5, now I have to overcast to sneak by a drone with Improved Invisibility?

I run my game every week, and have done so since 4th Ed came out. All of my players (SR dudes from waaay back, plus a few newbies) love the new system. Are there problems, sure. But min maxers and "Roll" Players are always going to be a problem (if you even view it as a problem, depends on your group, I guess). They certainly didn't just "break" mages. I've seen players "break" a lot of things in my day, and I just handle it in game, no big deal.

That all being said, I'm definitely buying the new book, cause I am a Shadowrun Fan, and from what I'm hearing, it looks gorgeous, and having a master index alone might be worth $45 dollars to me. But as I said before, i have the opportunity to run my game every week, so if I house rule something it isn't a big deal. For those on the boards that only get to play only a handful of times a year I can see the beef of having these changes 'nerf" their characters. I felt the same way when when my D&D 3 barbarian / sorcerer's buff spells got boned in 3.5. In the end though, I realized, it wasn't the set of numbers on the sheet that made the character fun and memorable for me to play, it was experiences and role play interchanges that made the character a legend in our little neck of gaming suburbia.

Change happens.
And my money gets spent.

Is it so?
Than why nerfing direct combat spells instead of making indirect combat spells easier to use?
Two little changes that could improve their usability are getting rid of the +1 drain modifier of the physical spells and reducing from +2 to +1 the modifier of elemental effects, now lightening bolt has a drain force/2 +1 instead of force /2 +3.


Than in my opinion they should rework the whole spellcasting dividing it in two parts: spellwaving and spellslinging.

The spellwaving is a Magic + Spellcasting + Force test, the number of hits on this test determines the base damage of the spell and is capped by the spell's force; in order to be succesfull the spelcaster must score at least a single hit (otherwise the spell simply fails to do anything), reguardless the outcome of the spellwaving the caster must resist the drain of the spell immidiatly after completing the test, if he/she/it is knocked unconscious by the drain the spell fades away.

The spellslinging thest varies betwen direct and indirect combat spells:
The direct combat spells is handled as a Spelcasting + Drain Attribute test opposed by a Willpower + Intuition + Counterspelling (if any, more on counterspelling later) test, if succesfull the spell manages to lock on the target and said target has to resist the damage with a Willpower + Magic Resistance (if any) + Counterspelling (if any, more on counterspelling later) test if the spell is mana based, or Body + Magic Resistance (if any) + Counterspelling (if any, more on counterspelling later) test if the spell is physical, if not successfull the caster can chose to let the spell fade or holding it for a later attempt of spellslinging using rules for witholding spells (see below); the direct combat spells require line of sight (unless they have touch range) and the caster can chose which targets affect (or at least try to affect) and which ones leaves unaffected (area of effect), can be used trought optical devices and are affected by visibility modifiers but not by range.
The indirect combat spells are handled as a normal ranged attack using a Spelcasting + Drain Attribute test opposed by a Reaction + Dodge test (the target can use full defence as per ranged combat rules), on a succesfull attack the target must resist the damage With a Body + Armor (modified by the spell's elemental type) test (if the Spell's base damage plus the net hits on the spellslinging test is lower than the modified armor rating the damage becomes stun); the indirect combat spells require line of action betwen the caster and the target, they can be blindfired but not used for indirect firing as they are unaffected by gravity, they are affected by all the ranged combat modifier and have their own ranges categories, the caster can chose to use single target indirect spell to saturate an area using the suppressive fire rules, the chois must be taken at the time the spellwaving is made and imposes a +2 drain modifier, ranged area of effect spells use granades rules but aren't affected by scatter and their damage is costant trought all the space affected.
While the spellwaving test (nad relative drain resistance test) and spellslinging test can be executed in a single complex action, however the caster has the option of withholding the spell for later slinging, doing so causes the spellwaving test to take a simple action, witholding a spell causes a -2 dp penality to the actions undertaken by the caster unless a sustaining focus (combat spells) having equal or greater force than the spell's base damage is used, if the the spell's base damage is greater than the caster's magic attribute the caster suffers a sustaining penality increased by the difference and has to resist (base spell's damage - caster's magic)S points of drain each turn (the drain resistance test is made immidiatly before he takes the first action of the turn starting with the turn immediatly after the spellwaving test), slining a withheld spell takes a simple action.
Indirect Comabt Spell Ranges
Short: from 0m to (Force * 100)m
Medium: from ((Force * 100) + 1)m to (Force * 200)m
Long: from ((Force * 200) + 1)m to (Force * 300)m
Extreme: from ((Force * 300) + 1)m to (Force * 400)m


Counterspelling: counterspelling can be used for different porpouses, breaking enchantments, protecting from spells, messing with opponent's magical actions, etc., the uses of particular interest for this discussion are the following:

Defence from direct combat spells:
Counterspelling can be used to protect a subject in two ways: by making harder for the spell to lock on the target or by actively trying to suppress the effect of the spell. In the first instance the counterspeller adds his/hers/its counterspelling skill rating to the Willpower + Intuition test made by the target (for objects roll the ounterspelling dices and add the hits to the Object Resistance to determine the test's treshold) to prevent the spell from locking on, in the second the counterspeller adds Counterspelling + Magic dices to the damage resistance test made by the target. If multiple counterspelling are applied to the same test only the best applies, however two magicians can protect the same target by providing dices to the different tests (one to the "dodge"test and the other to the damage resistance test), or one of them could chose to help the other making a Counerspelling + Magic test using teamwork tests rules.

Messing with other casters:
A magician can attempt to interfere with the magical activity of another magician by making a Counterspelling + Magic test opposed by a Willpower + Magic test from the target, if the counterspeller wins the opposed test the net hits scored are imposed as a dice pool penality on the magical activity that the target is undertaking, with the GM approval a penality equal or greater the target's willpower can cause him/her/it to automaticaly fail what was trying to do; messing with other caster magical activities consumes a free action and can be attempted anytime in the action phase as long as the character free action hasn't been already spent. Multiple simultaneous attempt of messing won't stack but teamwork tests rules can be used.

I had forgotten to mention effect of combat spells on objects:
Objects are immune from mana based spells so physical spells must be used, if using a direct combat spell the caster must make a Spelcasting + Drain Attribute success test with a treshold equal to the Object Resistance plus the eventual hits on a spell defence attempt (see above) rolled separately, if the test is succesfull the object must resist the damage with Stucture Rating (damaged objects will have harder time to resist damage) + Counterspelling (if any, see above); if an indirect combat spell is used the caster must make the usual ranged attack and if successfull the target must resist the damage with a Structure Rating (again damage reduces this rating) + Barrier Rating test. If for any reason the spell deals stun damage (for example the modified damage is lower than the modified barrier rating) it must deal a number of boxes of damage (after the resistance test) greater than the object's structure rating so that some of them overflowes in physical damage and are actualy dealt as objects are not subject to stun.
Vehicles/Drones: in order to target a vehicle/drone direct combat spells the caster must make a success test against the vehicle's OR as per objects rules, the vehicle/drone resist the damage with Body + Counterspelling (if any, see above), if instead of using direct combat spells indirect combat spells are chosen the usual ranged attack test is made and on a successfull hit the vehicle/drone resists with the damage with a Body + Armor test, object rules apply to the stun damage inflicted to vehicle/drone and the damage must overflow the vehicle's/drone's condition monitor in order to be dealt.
Called Shots: the caster can target single parts of complex objects (for example tires or weapons emplacements) using both direct and indirect spells, the direct ones require only the line of sight (yet GM should take care of applying all the opportune modifiers) while the indirect ones require the caster to make a called shot that impose a dp penality that varies from -1 to -4 (GG's chois); what the indirect combat spells can do that direct spells can't is using called shots rules to bypass armor (direct combat spells have no need of this) and for increasing the damage.

Well, better to quit it here.
Now chummers, what do you think about this?

Yes easy. Their not even optimized for drain resistance, if they where those stats wuold be higher and they wuold be using blood fetishes.


You do know that you can cheaply get fetishes for all of you spells?


You completly misunderstood me, I'm just countering you claim that mages compledly and consistandly negating 5 point of drain being a ridiculus claim.

Changes happen, not always for the better. People adapt to deal with them yet some changes are just detrimental, sure the mages can still play the role that the player envisioned for them but it's harder and the game becomes more about struggling against the rule and less about storytelling and having fun.
Oh well all I have to say is that in my own little corner of the world what I (and my fellow roleplayers) consider the best is the rule; yet in my opinion the day when the developer will say "ok this approach doesn't work, lets try something else" is bound to come, this fixes are worse than the problem that they are supposed to address.

The attributes you raise to resist drain are generally useful to a mage, so pumping those is usually a no-brainer anyway.
Also I prefer to use stunbolt, which has the same effect of dropping a target, but keeps it alive for questioning later and has a lower drain.
Eventually, when building a mage I usually end up with 12 dice to resist drain without specially optimizing the character for it. 3 dice more just cost a fetish and a rank of focused casting or similar.

The stats would be higher? Most of the ones given were at their natural maximum. How much higher did you want to make them?



I'm aware that you can limit your spell when you learn it to have to cast it with a fetish and that if you limit it and have the fetish you gain bonus dice on drain.



I get that. I maintain that maxed stats, a fetish, and a metamagic do not count as "easy" within any reasonable definition of the word.

Tis why I agree that some of the changes (as I understand them, hard to be an authority without having read them first hand) ARE bad. My point about change is that it's cool to not agree with them, hate them, change them, whatever. It is NOT cool to stop playing a character or constantly complain in game how bad your character sucks now based on changes that errata or rules changes brought about. I don't see the changes as being a complete detriment to characters as the rest of the game world would function upon the same set of rules. So for the folks that do see the rules as "ruining" their characters or concepts, I implore you to keep dumping your vitriol in these forums, and not on your poor GM if he or she chooses to implement them.

Maximums can be raised and in the case of the dwarf the logic can be augmented.

Complaining isn't always about bitching, sometimes is about trying to find better ways around problems.
Yet I have to agreed with you, if a rule sucks for you just ignore it and quit wasting precious time bitching that should be spent having fun, if not for our sake quit it for yourself.

Hey... Did anyone bother of reading my wall of test?
I would REALY like some feedback.

The problem with house rules is that a lot of us people who are complaining didn't think magic needed "fixing" in the first place. Yours seem, like the 20th Edition rules, to add unnecessary complexity. They bone mages less, so they're better than the 20th Edition changes - but that's kind of damning with faint praise.

I'm not a big fan of house rules, at all, so most of the time I don't even bother reading. From skimming over it it seems like a solid idea, I just would never use it. Mostly, because it's a house rule. Too much complexity is also a big turn off for me.

The text on p. 87 of SR4A, dealing with Foci at chargen, has removed the restriction on foci to which adepts can bond.

This is the last thing I wanted to hear.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

AH, ye of little faith
hehehehe

now much of the rules do I really pay attention to anyway??

oh, man, glad I was able to stop rolling on the floor to finish this

Just because it makes more sense for this post to be here and not where I originally posted it.

What I don't understand is why they took a mechanic that did not follow any other combat mechanic in the game and changed it so it does not even follow the magic mechanic.
Seriously, what happened here?
Direct combat spells where a problem, yes. But this "solution" does not fix the problem only sweep it under the rug as it where. Fix the problem by making it so unappealing to use is not a fix.

The better solution would be to bring Direct Combat spells under the same combat mechanic as everything else. Give them a "dodge" test. Use willpower or intuition (I vote intuition) as a dodge. Like someone subconsciously shifting their aura to stop it being flooded with mana.
Thus following the dodge/resist mechanic.

Also, shifting the +2 drain modifier for "elemental" spells to direct combat spells.
Given that (most) indirect spells use 1/2 armor and direct spells negate armor switching the two make sense.

Also... using the same mechanic for healing spells uses essence loss as a dice pool modifier for the casting mage. (maybe an optional rule...) (I would add it to the "dodge" test to make math easy when casting "Ball" spells)

All of that still makes Direct Combat spells useful and brings them in line with all other combat mechanics and magic mechanics in the game. It actually fixes the problem not just cover it up.

Makes sense to me.

You don't even need maxed stats. A human hermetic with Logic 5, Willpower 5, Centering and a fetish will easily be soaking 5P drain. That's easily within reach of a starting character, especially if you're using karmagen and allow the mage to initiate once. You haven't hardmaxed a thing.

I'm not entirely clear on where people are getting the idea that a Mage gets to "choose" his Net Hits on the Spellcasting test. In my game, the Mage must decide to withhold hits when he rolls his first test, before knowing how many hits the opponent got in return. It will be a strategic decision balancing the increased drain vs. the chance that the target will wholly negate the spell's effect.

On the +2 Matrix Attributes thing: I will be allowing my players to simply buy a stock commlink to install in their drones and that will not count as "improving" the attributes, it is simply "replacing" them. After buying the Rating 4 Commlink and popping it in the drone, then they can upgrade it to Rating 6.

The rules implicitly tell him to. "as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1." That indicates that it is a choice to use net hits to increase the DV ("net hits used to increase the damage..." vs just "every net hit increases the Drain...").

My guess is it probably had a lot to do with the Developer saying that was how it worked.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=782523

Indeed. Thanks for the link. I don't think I'll be playing it that way.

I can see why. Several of the changes, this included, are attempts at solving real problems, but approach them in really odd ways that avoid the primary issue.

I can see a very valid point for using that option, though. A mage is channeling magic, and he has some degree of control with it. Alot more control then someone shooting a bullet has. What this means is that the mace can choose after casting to dial back the successes so he only knocks someone out with a stun-bolt, instead of going into the physical, or he can stop with leaving someone only critically injured and stabilizable instead of "crispy critter." If I were going to put a limit on it, I would be more inclined to say that they could only dial back a number of net hits equal to the appropriate spellcasting skill. But, seriously, when you are looking at maybe 10, 12 dice at chargen, are you really going to be seeing that many successes?

i just found myself wondering, what else can net hits on a combat spell be used for, besides upping damage?

It would be nice if they allowed you to use hits to add to the drain resitance test for direct combat spells. That way your not wasting BP/karma for having a casting pool over 10. (Since statisticaly you can always beat someone with a body/willpower of 5, which is way above average) Although you would need 3 net hits to off set using 1 net hit for raising damage.
But then again... Why should the "fix" not follow the magic system...

That would make it very easy to reduce the drain by choosing to overcast so you have more dice against less drain.

Is your point that soft maxing your stats and using a bunch of karma on a metamagic (whos sole purpose is mitigating drain) and limiting your spell with a fetish gives you less than a 50% chance of resisting all of 5P drain? Because if so, I'm with you there (given that it is my point exactly).

sounds to me like overcasting for extra bang is one hell of a return on investment, if one wants to be a combat mage (and who else really benefits from overcasting?)

Well, now they can be used to increase Drain, too! Yay! Isn't it exciting?

Well, yes... it would...
I keep forgetting that at our table we have some house rules to reduce overcasting.

Spells (Over Casting)
To represent the difficulty in knowingly hurting oneself, you must make a Composure (Drain/2) Test in order to overcast. Failure represents an inability to overcast and the spell is then cast at Magic Rating.

Yes, its not much but when your talking about some of the higher drain spells it can get very hard.

(yea, I know... does not do much to stop stun spells but we house ruled that those have the same drain as mana bolt/ball spells.)

My houserule do add complexity but once you get used to it should work good with minimal loss of speed, it's just one extra roll for indirect spells (mainly meant for disincentivating overcasting) and two for direct ones (the second is to allow the target to resist); the positive aspects are that it should get rid of the 15 vs 5 opposed tests, it allow the use of ALL the net hits (no cap on them in the slinging test, if the caster uses force 2 stunbolt and obtain 5 net hits slinging it the will have to resist 7S not 4S) allowing the mage to deal damage with lower drain, reduces the incentive of overcasting (on everage the hits on the spellwaving test increas by one every three extra points of force), makes indirect combat spells more attractive (not so much against mundane targets but against targets protected by counterspelling the should fare better than direct combat spells).
Many people that the system worked well, yet the change was made; obviously people at Catalyst think that the system that works well could be changed to work even better and tried to improve it (with questionable results, imo). Due to the fact that the path of the change has been undertaken it does no harm to try to make it for the better, if the result doesn't like you you can always chose to say "screw it" and keep using old rules; than I have to admit that I had added some level of complexity that aren't realy needed (I did to better represent the working of magic, as I envision them, and to disincentivate overcasting), but it's easy getting rid of some, you don't like the spellwaving test? just make it a simple action and use the old force = base damage paradigma, you don't like the sustaining overcasted spells penality? use the normal rules for sustaining spells, heck simply reducing the drain modifiers for physical spells and elemental effects would go a long way toward making indirect combat spells more attractive.

Well, the system may have worked well - if you were playing an awakened character. One of my players switched to an adept a few months ago, making my game all-awakened, because he did not see a point in playing a mundane anymore - after 6 years.

Kind what I suggested in my wall of test:
indirect spells have Reaction + Dodge, direct ones have Willpower + Intuition;
indirect spells have Body + Armor, direct ones have Willpower/Body + Counterspelling.

Instead of increasing the drain of direct combat spells I suggested the reduction of the drain of the indirect combat spells; I have to give you credit for the part of the essence loss thought, adding the essence loss (round down) to the target's "direct spell dodge" pool.

And there are also the changes to the overcasting drain from THIS POST

Dodge is only used when going on full defense so I would only give one attribute for the direct combat spell "dodge" and maybe use attribute x 2 for going "full defense."
Indirect spells also get counterspelling so it is not a fair comparison which is why I suggested to switch the +2 drain modifier. It makes indirect spells more attractive because the drain is less and direct spells are still attractive because the target does not get armor.

I'd like to see Direct Combat Spells resisted by (Body or Willpower) + Edge. This really only helps out PCs, important NPCs, and certain critters, but I'm OK with mooks getting toasted by magic.

I like the switch of the +2 Drain Modifier to Direct Spells instead of Indirect Spells. I'm almost certain to use that change.

You know that's actually a pretty dang good idea. I like it.

Has anyone toyed with the idea of switching overcast drain to Body + drain stat?
I guess that could be justified in the fluff, and your average mage would get a couple dice less to soak his 4 or 5P.
Just a quick thought, any takers?

I just figured that this would probably encourage more ork and troll magicians, but technically, they'd have lower values in their drain stat, which would even that out.

Thats why you get a rating 2 or 3 Cerebral Booster for a cheap +2 or 3 to logic.

Nah, that would make things worse. You'd have Orks or Trolls overcasting at Force 10 or 12 and having like 18 DP for soaking it.

I think that the simplest fix to the Overcasting problem is to not divide the Force of an overcast spell when calculating the drain. Then a Force 10 Stun Bolt threatens the caster with 9 points of damage instead of 4, which will make the caster think twice about throwing the spell.

Yea... And what is to stop a streetsam (or anyone for that matter) from putting down their pistol and picking up a PAC.
Other than every cop would shoot first and not bother asking why you sporting milspec hardware but on that same token a cop would shoot a mage castng a force 10 spell too. If you want to reduce overcasting put in a rule like the one my table uses.
I agree that direct combat spells need to be nerfed (8 out of 14 spells my char has are DC spells) and overcasting needs to be addressed but remember that stretsams don't fall into a coma when they reload their firearm.

Drain damage already can't be healed magically. What if it also couldn't be healed with first aid? Would that made the physical damage from overcasting more of a deterrent?

cant that already be done by spending a point of edge on the test? would grant access to exploding dice while one is at it

a mundane cop cant spot a mage until the spells go bang. unless one is blind, one can spot someone carrying a PAC