Because it is magic. If you want predictable and reliable you should avoid it.

Yes, I've re-read it and I maybe I have missed Darthmord's point. It looks ambiguous but apologies if I have. I took it to be wanting Magic and Firearms to use the same mechanics. I see a flaw in that as stated. But if he's arguing that the new Direct Combat system introduces additonal unreliability and complication that isn't needed, then I agree with him. I'll be using a flat +1 increase to drain values. I have a lot of respect for the Shadowrun developers and if they think that Direct Combat spells need slightly more drain, then it's quite possible that's so. But I'll address it with a simple fix that doesn't introduce extra decisions into the middle of the combat or mess with my preferred interpretation of overcast spells being a mage exceeding their safe limits.

I think I'm done making up my mind on the various issues now. I'll be doing the following:

Increased Object Resistance: Keeping. I like it generally. It makes Physical illusions extremely difficult to pull off and beyond the reach of average magicians, but I'll accept that as just another interesting facet of the setting.

Direct Combat spells: As stated, a flat +1 to drain values. We managed all these years with the old values. A small tweak will be sufficient for me.

Increased Cost of Attributes: I will certainly be keeping the x5 multiplier. So long as the proportions between the costs of different things are correct, then I can increase the pace of advancement if I wish by awarding a bit more karma. I will advise players of metahumans of the potential future cost when they build their characters. I think Muspellheimer's approach has a lot of merit, but I'll not implement it in my game as I tend to like to keep things close to the RAW and only make exceptions when I have to. If it becomes a serious issue for a player in my game I'll consider adopting his approach.

+2 Limit on Upgrading: I'll keep this and I like this. I like to keep my setting internally consistent. I don't like everybody running around with the world's most cutting edge security software on their personal commlink and this will help me do that. As hacking is a defined activity that isn't competing with other abilities (like a magician and a samurai both trying to kill someone in different ways), relative power isn't an issue. I can just adjust NPC opposition as I like to deal with a slightly lower range of hardware. Not that players wont get hold of the good stuff anyway.

Lifting, Sprinting and "Average" Values: These haven't changed since pre-Errata. I'm just listing them because they're still wrong, imo. I'll continue to use my own house versions of these.

Barring the Direct Combat spells change, I think the Devs have done a good job. They maybe should have considered what they were doing to Physical Illusion spells however. I am content to live with this one, but I can well see why it's a problem for those that aren't and I'm not sure this consequence was entirely intended. If it was, it seems quite a radical change for something that was never generally raised as a problem that required fixing.

My thoughts,

K.

Just it isn't - you can now pick net hits for damage.

So Magic just became more predicatable.

I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read this !

That and there in like every freakin household with a low lifestyle or better. Hey runners companion, thanks for those advanced lifestyle rules.

I read earlier in the thread that they increased the target numbers? Can some nice person give me a better idea of what they changed? The change to stat costs does not seem bad but is there any change to stats at chargen?

I didn't equate the peripheral/commlink distinction with the electronics/computer distinction, but I can understand that being the intent. I'd suggest that this isn't quite clear anywhere in your rules set and perhaps something along that line could be included.



Does prevalent mean something other than common? As to where I got the idea that they were common; they are pictured in every single picture showing "daily life" in the shadowrun setting (including several on the cover of the main book). They're also used in at least one example of how people in 2070 are often being watched and their commlinks monitored. The books mention that they are used for every day purposes such as maid services in people's home and ad or delivery services around town to mention just a few. There are other examples, but the fact that they are relatively cheap, easy to use, and somewhat autonomous seemed to imply that they were used all over the place. Perhaps I simply got the wrong impression, but this would seem to make them "prevalent" or common. Also, as you noted they will often be used in mid to high security situations...where I would presume shadowrunners would most often use illusion spells.



I'm not sure that I ever said that OR 6 was impossible for a starting magician. I did, however, claim that it was hard. I maintain that not only is OR 6 hard, but so is OR 4. Your example of a mage with *only* 12 karma and 45k spent on 3 extra dice for this specific group of magic would only be successful on an OR of 4 half of the time. It seems that your intent was to make technology exceptionally difficult for mages to use magic upon. Was this change because you felt too many people were optimizing their mages and making the OR threshold trivial? Given your example, I don't see how that is possible, but I could then understand the change.

Again, your example provides a very clear reason, to me, to keep the OR a 4. You have a character who is good at magic with a moderately powerful foci (and a very significant investment) who can only succeed on this test with Edge. Is Edge not, by definition, supposed to be used for things that a character shouldn't otherwise be able to do?

And if Mages are supposed to be virtually unable to affect drones and computers (instead of having to be specialized to do so consistently) is this not considered an extreme setting change? I understand that there are several ways for mages to get increased die pools (specializations, mentors, foci) but doesn't this change encourage bonus stacking rather than generalization? There is plenty of encouragement for specialization. I wasn't under the impression that it needed any more.

To be clear, I have no real problem with the threshold for direct combat spells being higher. I think it's unwarranted for "normal" die pools, but I can understand why you'd want to encourage indirect combat spells, and give mages a "combat" weakness along these lines. However, the change as applied to illusions means that this entire class of spells becomes useless to those that aren't highly specialized or willing to use Edge on a regular basis.

Acting as Devil's advocate, here, or advocating for my players if I decide to implement the rules change regarding Object Resistance. As the GM, I feel that if I use a fairly armored combat drone or cyborg against my players, unless they are packing some serious heat, the mage may be the best route to toast the thing with a Power Bolt. My combat mage players do not consistently hit 4 successes now when facing drones (and the dice pools aren't small, either). They could use edge, of course, and if the drone is the only thing they are threatened by it makes sense. But if the character only has 2 or 3 points, they may want to save it for a defensive test instead. (I run weekly, and the games run about 4 hours in length, so I only refresh their edge before each session) Drones, especially rigged ones are nasty as they can rock and roll all day with no recoil penalties, so if I were the mage, I'd save my edge for that inevitable dodge roll if I fail to Power Bolt that drone.
The other beef is that it HURTS the mages without a rating 6 magic rating. Now they have to overcast to sneak by a drone (or a Sensor, depending on GM call?). Yikes. What if the mage wants to cast Imp Invisibility on himself and 4 other runner chums as they infiltrate a facility? If they "know" there are drones there, that mage is more than likely gonna be sucking down physical drain for each spell unless they have 6 as a Magic rating.
One thing I've always loved about Shadowrun is that you start the game with fairly competent characters capable of handling most of what the world can throw at you (or at least survive to learn not to try THAT again). It feels to me making thresholds that high mimicks other systems where starting characters need to gain more experience before they can hit that dc 25 .
I guess one could say that the Sensor is a sub system of the drone, and could be fooled by the Invisibility Spell with 4 hits, but unless it is specifically stated I can see a lot of confusion, especially with "Official" Mission games (Where all the players should have the same level of challenge, depending on table rating).
So what say you good sir? OR 4 to "fool" a drone, and OR 6 to nuke it?

I've been reading and thinking about this whole Direct Magic subject and came with a 'new' approach to it. I've didn't done any math, so i guess maybe will take only some minutes before someone just proves that my sugestion is a stupid one. But i will post it anyway, maybe part of it help another take on the subject.

What i was thinking about is, instead of adding +1 drain for every net hit used in damage, add +1 drain for every 2 hits (not net hits) used in the spellcasting roll (either for damage or to pass through the target defense). That would make Direct Spell more expensive (drain wise), makes sense fluff wise (more powerfull the target rolls his defense, more energy you need to put to pass through, more taxing the casting), and more dangerous the overcasting (since you'll still need hits to pass through the opponent defenses). Maybe you could even consider +1 drain for every hit (not net hit) in case of overcasting.

Well... that's just some random thoughts.

Lucky Casters then end up as Dead Casters:

"I only needed two successes, average is about three, and I can soak that drain to manageable levels, but look at what I got! NINE SUCCESSES! I can't soak that kind of drain!"

Hence why he can drop it down to just hose 2 net successes. Remember, it is NET successes, as in: successes after the resitance roll, and he can choose to not use all of those.

SR4A RAW, yes. But not to raphabonelli's suggestion, which is what I was replying to. Hence the quote box.

I wasn't clear enough. The mage would still choose how many hits to use... so, in this case, he can use just as many hits as he need to pass through the opponent defenses (or he can use as many hits and he thinks he can soak, for more damage).

A Magic 5 mage do a Manabolt force 5. In a good throw he get enough hits to pass through the 2 hits defense of the opponent with 5 more hits for damage. Total Drain 2 + 4* = 6S for 10P damage on opponent.

*4 = 3 hits to pass the defense and 5 for damage / 2.

The same mage do a Manabolt force 10. He just use enough hits to pass through the defense. Total Drain 5 + 1 = 6P for 10P damage.


Well... :/ - in this case the mage would be exchanging Physical for Stun damage to get a more certain damage.
I guess that would be not enough to stop everyone from overcasting every time. :/ - Maybe adding +1 drain for every hit when overcasting. The result would be:

The same mage do a Manabolt force 10. He just use enough hits to pass through the defense. Total Drain 5 + 3 = 8P for 10P damage.


Well... i'm just rumbling. Sleeplessness... it's 50 minutes past midnight here on Brazil.

Since counterspelling counters the success test I think extra counterspelling would more easily stop the Force 10 spell cast with fewer hits.

You don't have fewer hits. All of them are applied towards the success/failure test. It's after that that any NET HITS (from that test) can be applied (or not) to the damage/drain. Sure, you have fewer net hits, but if you're only using 0 or 1 of them (minimum required at this point is still unclear) then having 2 versus 5 is moot.

Wow that just gave me an idea for a overcasting nerf. For every force past your magic rating you lose 1 die from your dice pool for spellcasting or summoning. For combat spells it could still be useful since you are effectively giving up 1die for 1 damage other types of magic the loss of successes would limit there usefulness. But that easily can be described in the fluff as that most spells get more bang for there buck out of being used with precision not brute force.

Our difference lay in that I interpret an attack test to be blind... I run it that you say how many hits you've got without knowing how many the defender has, they are compared and effect ensues. SR4A pp183-4 don't say clearly that this way is right or wrong. SR4A merely says that a caster can use less hits if he wants to... it doesn't say if a caster knows the effect before or after he states his number of hits.

So in my way of reading it it would matter but its not explicitly supported (or ruled out) in the verbage.

It would also slightly mitigate mental manipulations and high-force Increase Attribute spells which is a good thing.

I can run mental manip spells at under magic rating and still dominate the game. A force 3 one will control virtually everyone even with counter spelling. All they needed to do is add a threshold of like willpower or at least 1/2 willpower round up. We just basically wrote these out of our Saturday game because they are so abusive.

Sorry for the gripe, but these spells are a pet peve of mine.

One way technique wise to mitigate mental manipulations is to let them be cast, counterspelling as normal, then dispel them. It eats one pass on the dispelling mage but hey, in the end it also ate a pass off the manipulating mage.

(Since dispelling is against the target spell’s Force + caster’s Magic, with net hits reducing the hits scored to cast the spell it means you need 3 hits to counter the max net hits of any F3 spell and its not per targeted person, its per SPELL. 3 hits on counterspelling is magic 5 skill 4. Adversary as a mentor spirit, counterspelling (manip) foci, and any other modifiers just make it even easier to rip the mind control back off.)

Its outlawed in my weekly game too, dont get me wrong, but it does have counters.

Yup, more spells that don't follow the basic combat mechanic. People targeted by mental manipulation spells (and spirit powers like fear and such) should be rolling a composure test (willpower + intuition) to resist.

It's been explicitly supported by (IIRC Synner) in another post somewhere. I believe there is a link to it earlier in this thread. The Mage chooses his net successes that he wishes to apply after determining spell success in order to add more damage and takes 1 extra drain for doing so is verbage that I believe he'd agree with.

which would explain why in page 62 of the BB is says 3 is the "typical" meaning most common attribute score... right?

It boggles my mind that synner said that but after a bunch of datasearching sure enough he did:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=782523

It says pretty implicitly on page 173 of the BBB(SR4) under Step 5, 1st paragraph, last sentence. "The spellcaster can always choose to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a spellcasting test. " One could argue that they need to decide that before the defense roll, but I feel that's being a jerk. Sort of like asking the player if they want to spend edge before they know if the amount of hits they have are enough or not. (I used to be that kind of jerk many moons ago with Combat Pools / etc in prior editions and have since saw the error of my ways )

Yes. It does say that. We also have a dev telling us what the RAI are for what the RAW says about the new Direct Combat Spell Drain Rules.

Hey - I do that! Am I a jerk?

Seriously, the players have always just accepted that as the way it is. A character doesn't know exactly how strong or weak an opponent is - they have to take a guess as to how hard to try. In a lot of cases it's not an issue because I've told them something like "you need four hits to jump the gap". But if they don't know, then they don't know. That's realistic. What? You think Shadowrun is some sort of game?

One of the reasons I dislike the new hits based drain is because of this fine level of control it suddenly gives the player. Nobody else gets to say: "I choose to do eight boxes of damage, no wait, I only need seven so I'll do that."

K.

I dislike it because it penalizes the player for their for their successes, something that happens no where else in the entire game.

It does that, and then simultaneously rewards gaming the system by using the overcast for 1 net hit+first aid trick.


I haven't seen a single reason I agree with to support changing the system so mages (and only mages) should be penalized for generating successes (which is the base mechanic for the game).

If the designers feel direct combat spells are too powerful and should require more drain, then a flat increase makes significantly more sense.

It removes an unneeded, extra subsystem to function and removes the super-fine control over damage that the SR4A change would bring.

If the intent was to make indirect combat spells more attractive, then make indirect combat spells more attractive by improving indirect combat spells.

Even with the current changes I don't see indirect combat spells becoming more attractive, because they still suffer from all of the things people don't like about them in the first place.




Making a useful option less useful when you succeed at it in order to improve a poor option, which is still poor, makes no sense of any kind. Leaving in the cheesy power gaming option to circumvent both issues just exasperates things.


The new OR table also cripples Illusion spells specifically designed to deal with technological obstacles.

I really dislike the implementation of both of these "fixes". So much so that I decided to stop lurking and actually register on Dumpshock specifically to post about it.

I've got a question: Why on earth a physical illusion does have to be resisted/beat OR? Its effect it to create a change in the visible light spectrum/air's chemical properties/air's particles vibration frequency so that a subject that perceive it sees/smells/hears something that actualy isn't there, shouldn't the illusion be disbelived throught a perception test? what I mean is that the spell doesn't affect directly the obvserver to force him/her/it to belive that something is or isn't there, in order to disbelive it the observer has to catch the inconsistences/imperfections in the illusion making it a matter of how perceptive the observer is; just make the hits of the spellcasting test (capped by the spell's force) the treshold of the perception test (Intuition + Perception for living, Sensor Rating + Clearsight autosoft for sensors/drones), in this way it's also possible to modulate the challange (is it realy possible to that Joe Everage's homemade surveillance system, sensor 2 clearsight 2 set to call the star if it spots an intruder, is no easier to fool than a military grade equivalent used in corporate sites, sensor 6 clearsight 6?).

That's SO true.
Maybe in time things will be defixed but for now all I can do is to point THIS POST for an houserule suggested by many that should take care of the overcasting issue, and THIS POST for some suggestion for rebalancing the direct-indirect combat spells relationship (it needs some playtesting, if you chose to give it a shot let me know the results).

I don't like this new Direct Combat Spell rule either.


A possibility, though just to be a dick I'd make the resisting attribute the same as the drain attribute of the casting magician.


That or lose 1 die from your drain pool. I know, I'm evil.


Yes. I like this one. Makes sorcery somewhat less predictable not unlike summoning.


Like this one too.

Hmmm. Choices, choices.

Can I just repeat the version I was derided for in my own thread.

Take out the Divisor and reduce the add by three.

So Stunbolt becomes F-4, Stunball becomes F-1 and Manastatic becomes F+1. Little difference at low to mid Force, massive difference at high Force. Just like the suggestion above but with a single formula to avoid confusion.

e.g

Stunbolt

Force.............Drain

----1----------------1------

----2----------------1------

----3----------------1------

----4----------------1------

----5----------------2------

----6----------------3------

----7----------------4------

----8----------------5------

----9----------------6------

---10----------------7------

---11----------------8------

---12----------------9------

Uhm... why is there two times force 7 in it?
Besides that - having a own drain value system for combat spells alone is as unelegant as you call the current system to be.

Sufrin' suckatash!

You misunderstand. That change would be for all spells. It firmly knocks overcasting into the territory of last resort where it belongs.

Ah, okay. Hm. Would you be so kind to present a full blown set of modifiers for each of the different spelleffect combinations you get in SR? To have a look if your system wouldn't break anything else.

Draco18s, did you saw the addendum i've posted here: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&a...st&p=783709

It's about that hit-not-net-hit rule i've talked about. I wasn't clear on the first post about what i meant.

I was hoping a flat -3 would be appropriate across the board. It might be a good opportunity to re-jig indirect combat spells to make them more useful which was the intent of the DCS nerf in SR4A.

Powerball (F/2+3 or F)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------4 or 1------

----2----------------4 or 2------

----3----------------4 or 3------

----4----------------5 or 4------

----5----------------5 or 5------

----6----------------6 or 6------

----7----------------6 or 7------

----8----------------7 or 8------

----9----------------7 or 9------

---10----------------8 or 10------

---11----------------8 or 11------

---12----------------9 or 12-----

Lightning Bolt (F/2+3 or F)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------4 or 1------

----2----------------4 or 2------

----3----------------4 or 3------

----4----------------5 or 4------

----5----------------5 or 5------

----6----------------6 or 6------

----7----------------6 or 7------

----8----------------7 or 8------

----9----------------7 or 9------

---10----------------8 or 10------

---11----------------8 or 11------

---12----------------9 or 12-----

Toxic Wave (F/2+5 or F+2)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------6 or 3------

----2----------------6 or 4------

----3----------------6 or 5------

----4----------------7 or 6------

----5----------------7 or 7------

----6----------------8 or 8------

----7----------------8 or 9------

----8----------------9 or 10------

----9----------------9 or 11------

---10----------------10 or 12------

---11----------------10 or 13------

---12----------------11 or 14-----

Increase (Attribute) (F/2-2 or F-5)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------1 or 1------

----2----------------1 or 1------

----3----------------1 or 1------

----4----------------1 or 1------

----5----------------1 or 1------

----6----------------1 or 1------

----7----------------1 or 2------

----8----------------2 or 3------

----9----------------2 or 4------

---10----------------3 or 5------

---11----------------3 or 6------

---12----------------4 or 7-----

Increase Reflexes (F/2+2 or F-1)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------3 or 1------

----2----------------3 or 1------

----3----------------3 or 2------

----4----------------4 or 3------

----5----------------4 or 4------

----6----------------5 or 5------

----7----------------5 or 6------

----8----------------6 or 7------

----9----------------6 or 8------

---10----------------7 or 9------

---11----------------7 or 10------

---12----------------8 or 11-----

Improved Invisibility (F/2+1 or F-2)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------2 or 1------

----2----------------2 or 1------

----3----------------2 or 2------

----4----------------3 or 3------

----5----------------3 or 4------

----6----------------4 or 5------

----7----------------4 or 6------

----8----------------5 or 7------

----9----------------5 or 8------

---10----------------6 or 9------

---11----------------6 or 10------

---12----------------7 or 11-----


[Element] Wall (F/2+5 or F+2)

Force.............Drain

----1----------------6 or 3------

----2----------------6 or 4------

----3----------------6 or 5------

----4----------------7 or 6------

----5----------------7 or 7------

----6----------------8 or 8------

----7----------------8 or 9------

----8----------------9 or 10------

----9----------------9 or 11------

---10----------------10 or 12------

---11----------------10 or 13------

---12----------------11 or 14-----

Yeah this is something I never understood either. You are not targeting the drone with an illusion, well maybe with a chaff style spell you are, but mostly you targeted the guy you made invisible. And why doesn't perception add into it? If you are bad ass at noticing things shouldn't you be able to notice flaws in the illusion.

Really?

This is the Internet, how dare you sully this discussion with your 'logic'.

Take thy common sense and get thee hence!

The funny thing is as far as what has been stated here i agree on most things that had to be changed, but i disagree on most solutions the devs have for it.

Direct combat spells- Yes they needed to be weakened but the way it is done now it just encourages casting them as powerful as one can to have minimum drain. Basically every other method suggested in this thread is better and more consistent with other spells.

Sensor OR- Simply put, the way those illusions are described the hits the mage rolled should be the threshold for detection by the scanner, not vice versa. On top of that now every average illusionist is completely worthless even to trick low end equipment. Needing munchkinish dicepools to accomplish basic tasks is not helping the game at all, it just forces everyone to powergame.

Attribute cost- Yes they are better then their old price would suggest but simply upping the cost will just lead to slower character improvement or GMs handing out more karma. If you want the game to be more focused on skills then adjust the rules to reflect that, don't just increase the cost of attributes. For example you could use skill x 2 to make a test. Attribute level could be a soft cap on the skill level you can achieve for normal bp or karma cost, double the cost of skill levels above that value until you reach the hard cap. This way it still pays off to have a high attribute in an area your character emphasizes on but it doesn't mean you're better in shooting then an average cop in spite of never seeing a gun before just because you're oh so agile.

crizh. I hate to say it but: Your idea is nice. I like it.

Yes.

So do I. It seems to keep drain cheaper or as affordable up to force 6 and then it starts getting more expensive than the current system. Force 6ish is kind of as hish I want spells to be cast at before the big drain starts tumbling in. Initiates could have a higher than 6 magic so this would effect non overcasting issues as well, but initiates can center for drain so tough for them.

Honestly it seems like they went in the wrong directions with things that (at least we are assuming) they wanted to fix.

Indirect combat spells are still unappealing, due to the mechanics of indirect combat spells.

If they wanted people to go more for skills, why didn't they make skills more appealing/better value to buy?

Part of it could be the perception of karma awards. Synner posted about 9 or 10 for the average run, where as the actual numbers suggested by the core book are half that with 10 being the maximum.

"As a general rule of thumb, characters should be earning an average of 4-5 Karma per adventure, and no more than 10 Karma."

I like that ramped drain as suggested by "AllTheNothing" since it Nerfs Overcasting, which to me is the big issue. Also stating flat out that first aid can not be used to heal Drain, only time, would serve to Nerf Overcasting.

I also like the idea of slightly reducing the drain of Indirect Spells. It would actually cause them to be used more often, which I see as a good thing compared to the "Stunbolt, Stunbolt, Stunball, Stunbolt" casting I see right now.

Something like this would lighten the load a bit for me. As I said before, I have a bias toward the old system for several reasons; we don't play so often so we don't see fast improvement even under 3x Karma, I(and some of my buddies as well) personally enjoy adepts a lot who get hosed harder than a sam under this system, and I prefer raw natural potential over tons of world-class skills.

I think the biggest thing, though, indeed, is that they wanted to make skills count for more, but did nothing to help that but make things harder in general. Your method has some good points to it. Rolling 2x the Skill level(then adding a specialization). Increasing skills should be cheaper as well, 1.5 for normal, and increasing to 2x new rating when it goes above the attribute. Hell, with this, attributes would mean a lot less, and isn't that what they are intending? The only drawback to having the attribute affect the linked skill cost would be a couple of groups like Athletics and Stealth, which use more than one attribute in their group, so something would have to be done there.

This way, the adept could still match a sam's die pool, but it would just cost them a bit more to do so(since the sam likely pays a lot less for say, his Agility linked skills.) The sam would still have his advantage of ''advancement through nuyen'', the Adept his thing of being able to do some crazy stuff via Initiations and the like, but would take a bit more to increase his raw potential.

But yeah, I do agree, if they wanted to make Skills more important, they maybe could have taken a few extra steps to show that rather than just jack up Karma costs. (Also agreed that after thinking about it, throwing more karma on the party simply skips that anyway.) It hurts Karmagen folks(again, especially Adepts who did not need to be hurt under it), but even then giving more Karma just alleviates it, as mentioned. But knocking down Skill costs and tweaking how they work could well help.

I've always used (new attribute - metatype modifier)² or (new attribute - metatype modifier) x 5 (with the first method it takes 90 karma to max an attribute, but was dropped because the astronomical cost of magic/resonance eventualy came to have, with the second 100 karma, both were more expensive than the 60 karma required with the x3 multiplier), the main reason was that metatypes payed alot more for increasing attributes after having already payed an extrra cost at chargen, that and the fact that for some reason a troll could increase his/hers charisma from 3 to 4 (the equivalent of raising it from 5 to 6 for a human) for the same cost that would spend an elf (for whom is the equivalent of raising it from 1 to 2), increasing the attribute with the same ease of any metatype just to come to a sudden halt (I just didn't like it).

I wouldn't complain if you were my GM, but I used to get reamed for my "poker" style way of handling the various "pools" of past editions and the old karma "pools". I still keep the thresholds hidden from my players, I just tell them not enough, wanna use Edge? Before SR4A, the only time a mage might not want to do maximum damage (IE. Using max hits) is if they catch themselves or their chummers in the radius. If my player was just attempting to "knock out"' a foe with a mana bolt or death touch by with holding hits, I might look at him weird and have the schmuck he zapped die of shock anyway . I'm still debating whether I will use the new way of adding hits to drain. But I run in Hong Kong, so sometimes they get boned with the wild mana surges of the area.
And by reading what you post sir, I can safely assume you are NOT a jerk.

Wow, I think I just had an epiphany... Well, maybe... sorta...

Allot of people still have problems (with the new rule or even some of the proposed fixes) with AOE spells, specifically Direct Damage and Manipulation spells. How about a cap on the number of targets you can hit with a single "ball" and "mob" spells.

I suggest: Maximum targets is limited to 1/2 MAGIC and you may affect an additional target per each +1 increase in drain. (Maybe up to a maximum of MAGIC)
If your magic 6 and there are 10 guys in a room and you want to hit all of them take an extra 7 drain!

I am not sure if anyone suggested this. If they have sorry for stealing it. I just thought it was a decent idea.