I've been thinking about this change to the drain mechanic for Direct Combat spells. It's the one change that I actively dislike. A couple of the others I'm neutral on and the rest I think are very good moves. But this one seems inelegant. I don't have an issue with wanting to up the drain on Direct Combat spells to balance them. They're not too bad but over-casting them does make them a little powerful. But the change introduces a new sub-system which adds further decision making to the casting procedure and is a confusing exception to the normal means of spellcasting. It also has the bizzarre (to me and I'm sure others) effect of making over-casting easier than casting at the level you're supposedly capable of handling. Other fixes have been proposed but the simplest is surely just a flat increase in drain and I got to wondering why this wasn't done. We've managed all this time with the spells as they are so a small tweak ought to be all that's needed.

And then I realised. Changing the drain on these spells would render Street Magic incorrect in all the versions already out there.

So I'm asking the devs... is that why you took the approach you did? It would be helpful to know that because it would help me decide how to handle things in my own games. And if that isn't the reason, could you possibly talk us through your reasoning for this? The poll on this gave a 3:2 in favour of keeping the new rules so there's clearly a nearly not a- minority who are having trouble with it, ranging from the outraged to the puzzled (such as myself).

I hate that the unveiling of this lovely shiny edition has been marred by so much negativity about the errata, but this change in particular just doesn't make sense to me.

Peace,

Khadim.

I'm not a dev, but from a player/DM perspective (one who inevitably favors mages, too), I really really like this change, as it makes Indirect Combat Spells that much more appealing. It used to be you only took one for character flavor or for fluff, never for stats. The drain was higher, they were easier to avoid, and they were easier to reduce. Now, not so much.

I am also puzzled. I understand that there are a number of other changes to magic in the Anniversary Edition, which might help it make more sense. The part I like least is the option to choose how many dice are used to contribute towards drain. The way I see it, the principle means by which a mage should be permitted to control drain is by choosing the force they are prepared to cast at. Making drain partly dependent upon chance is something I like, leaving mages uncertain whether their drain soak pool is sufficient or not. However, both of these outcomes are changed by allowing mages to choose how many of their hits they use.

Because it's relevant to what you said, keep in mind that with the new Object Resistances, Indirect Combat spells have just received a substantial boost in popularity. You can't get more hits (not net hits) than the Force of your spell. To affect a drone (which counts as a Highly Processed Object), you need six hits just to hit the threshold. Now a drone's armour (or a vehicle's, or a cyborg's or whatever) helps it resist Indirect Combat spells, but at least you'll be doing something to damage it. Even powerful initiated casters who are confident they'll get six hits may prefer to use Indirect Combat spells against non-living targets if only to save themselves from horrible drain.

Interesting... Why would you need to overcome the OR of a drone/vehicle when casting an indirect combat spell at it?
Unless your talking about direct and indirect spells in the same sentence. I'm not sure...
I also don't have my books with me to check...
My thoughts on the subject: (YVMV)
You are using mana to create an effect to damage the target not forcing mana into the target to damage it. Fireball is like a flamethrower. Fire surrounds target, target burns. Acid surrounds target, target dissolves.
You cast the spell; cause an effect then the target tries to dodge and then soaks damage.

Reminds me of the thread where someone was talking about how illusion spells don't target devices (drones, cameras, whatnot) but a person. Sounds to me like OR should be how many dice a device gets to roll to resist the effects of a spell... But with that I think 6 is to low for highly processed objects, maybe increase it by 50 to 100% (9 or 12 that is)
Would have the added benefit of allowing counterspelling to work on objects.

But what do I know...

I'm pretty certain Knasser was talking about OR with respect to Direct spells.
He knows better than to get them mixed up!

Have they also changed the way illusion spells effect objects in the update?

Exactly!

Thats fine, I was figuring as much but (like the rules of the game) it could have been written better... I'm not picking on you Knasser, just a general observation of the system.
Ignore the first part of my previous post...

*handwavium*

I wrote an ambiguous sentence. *shame*

Yes, as ornot kindly put it, I was referring to Direct Combat spells having to overcome the OR. Direct Combat spells against highly processed objects are horrible for the casting mage. Note that even for things less than drones such as plastics, alloys, etc., we're talking an OR of 4. Worse - though most GM's wouldn't be so cruel - the OR for highly processed objects is not 6, but 6+. A GM would probably bring that in for aircraft, ships, but it's there, anyway.

@ornot: Regarding illusion spells. It depends how you mean. They haven't changed the way they work - the spells are all the same and the drains haven't changed. So if you're wondering does this mean drones, etc. are harder to affect with spells like Physical Mask then yes - much harder. This area of weakness of magicians, formerly minor, is now a serious issue for them and they'll have to be inventive to get round it (or very powerful).

@Mikado: Giving non-living objects a resistance roll with a set number of dice based on the same categories as the OR uses at present, then that would work fine. If you wanted to keep the same level of difficulty though, you'd have to set the dice pool quite high. I.e. 3 x the current OR. Eighteen dice for a drone to resist with? Yikes. I imagine your intent is to make them easier to affect so if you lowered it down to 2x the current OR, you might be in the right sort of region.

K.

That's actually almost exactly what I wanted to know, Knasser. Thanks.

I quite like the idea that improved invisibility is slightly less w1n now. I got a little tired of mages using invisibility to smuggle anything they liked through mundane secure points.

I was dubious about it at first, but I'm quite warming to it now. I wrote some Shadowrun fiction one time in which a young magician turned her companions invisible and got herself escorted across the compound by a security guard with them tagging along quietly next to her. The sensors picked the companions up fine, but they just saw a security guard escorting them so sounded no alarms. What did the dog brains know if he should be escorting one person or three?

I've been using spirits and, to a lesser degree, wards to do this. Even a watcher spirit should be able to spot a big shiny spell on the astral.

I'm a bit hesitant about running with the new ORs, because they seem to make dealing with tech impossible for the regular spellslinger, while not impairing characters with huge dicepools in the slightest.

I agree that 18 is way to high. I was thinking 9 to 12 for OR 6. The GM could then give bonus dice based on... something.. size maybe. Or mass, say +1 die for every 500 to 1000kg. The bonus dice would stack with whatever the original OR was so a lump of steel would get 4 dice base (OR 2?) but a "brick?" of steel the size of a small car would get 10 or more.
I don't know... I would just like something to quantify the + when it says OR6+.
This is me just putting stuff out there... I don't think I would use it unless I did that rework of the magic mechanics I was thinking of.

What horrible drain? Overcoming an OR of 6 means your net hits are going to be pretty small. Drain isn't raised by gross hits after all.

OTOH, that same mage who can routinely get 6+ hits on a spellcasting test will be avoiding casting direct combat spells at people so he doesn't kill himself.

A shadowrun mage can start the game with a mentor spirit (combat spells +2), spellcasting spec on combat spells, and an force 3 (without quality) combat spell focus. All those are dicepool-modifiers. Which according to DS lore has some nice benefit if the basic dicepool has to be split. You could conveivably cast 3 force 3 manabolts, netting 14 dice overall, compared to one rating 11 manabolts, that not all mages can even cast (my Fomori druid certainly can´t). At the high end, that does not matter. Dead is dead. On the lower end, you´ll bleed from the ears now.

Multicasting is still a viable option, but much more in line. I might even mention it to my group. And yeah, nice that indirect spells get a leg up.

Just a note that this dosen't really add a new step. You always had the option of using less than the number of hits you rolled, it was just an oft overlooked part of casting. It has always been part of Step 5 determining effect. p.173 in the old book.

So another option is that it was done to give meaning to an oft overlooked portion of spellcasting.

And, IIRC, you could use less hits than you rolled when you shoot someone in the face... When was that ever used.

I don't think you remember correctly unfortunately. I just looked over the combat section in the old SR4 (v1.3 PDF) and nowhere does it indicate that the attacker may always choose to use less than the number of hits they rolled. So unless there's another place where it notes that for all success tests no matter the purpose you can always use less hits then that's not the case. I'll look around some more to see if there is a general ruling, but I think you may be mistaken.

I am unfortunatly human... I accept being wrong.

*made you look though*

Made me look twice actually, I went back after I posted that to look at the generic mechanics for all success and opposed tests on p56 of the old SR4, and SR4A. I wanted to make sure that I checked both places.

Coming down now on the side of this is an odd change, what happens with DD AoE? I manaball a room with 5 mooks in it, I roll once only for the opposed test. The five mooks each roll their own resistances. If I get 5 hits, and they get {0,0,2,3,7} hits respectively then do I have:

5 net hits; the number of net hits against one of the poorer rollers
No net hits; the number of net hits against the best roller
15 net hits; the total number of net hits against the targets who I affected
13 net hits; the total number of net hits counting the two negative from the guy who beat me

Did this get asked somewhere else?

Just so I understand this, the above three modifiers would add +7 dice to each of the three spells being cast simultaneously, is that correct? I get this from SR4 (p. 173) saying the casting of multiple spells splits the "Magic + Spellcasting dicepool". So presumably the modifiers come after the split. This corresponds to modifiers for range, laser sights, etc. applying to two weapons being fired at once.

So:
1)
MAG 6 plus Spellcasting 6 gives you 12 dice, split 3 ways makes 4 dice each, with each one bumped by modifiers to 11 dice. The Drain on each of these manabolts would be (F/2) + 2 {for the extra spells}. For the example given of Force 3 spells, the Drain would be 3S for each of the spells. In the SR4 mode, this is not bad and likely to be soaked. The damage done, again in SR4 would be that of 3 spells at DV 3, bumped by, say, (3 hits - 2 opposing hits [estimate]=) 1 to make 3 spells that do DV 4. This adds to DV 12 damage, with no serious chance of Drain.

If one were to change the Force of these three spells to Force 5, then the cumulative damage would be DV 18 (!!), with three Drain Resistance Tests of 4S.

2)
Conversely, overcasting one manabolt to Force 12 would give 12 + 7 = 19 dice. The Drain would be 6P, and the damage would be DV 12, bumped by (6 hits - 2 opposing hits=) 4 to make 1 spell that does DV 16, with a significant chance of Drain damage.

Both 1) and 2) do overkill damage to the target. Overcasting hurts, while the multiple-undercasting does not.

Now:
In the SR4A schema, the Drain for 1) the multiple low Force spells, would be 3 shots of 4S (or 3S if the extra hits are 'pulled' to reduce Drain, in which case DV would be 9 not 12), each resisted separately, and for 2) the single overcast spell, would be 10P, or at the very least 6P if extra hits are 'pulled', in which case DV = 12. One of the three little guys could be left at 4S Drain to make the damage DV 10, still a kill.

As shown in this example, overcasting does not have a greater effect on the target than undercasting (if multiple shots are taken), but it does still increase the danger of Drain.

This example does not support the current argument that the changes to Drain in SR4A encourage overcasting.

What it does suggest is that multiple-casting has been an under-explored and under-utilized technique for doing 'one-shot kills' that split the Drain into smaller, more manageable chunks. In the SR4 system, the multi-shots could be juggled to min-max hits and Drain. The SR4A system would appear to recognize this ability to kill with little guys, and makes that juggling more difficult. It would seem to me that if anything, the SR4A system reduces the effectiveness/attractiveness of one-shot kills with multiple, low-Force spells.

The SR4A system, then, says, "If you want to kill all at once, you will have to use high Force to do it, or pay the price of Drain even in the little spells."

Hmmm. Isn't that what people want to be the case?

Near as I can tell...
The first 4 mooks get hit with Force damage, the last is not affected at all.
But the you can pump the spell:
First two you have 5 net hits, third you have 3 net hits, fourth you have 2 net hits.
At this point I have no idea what you do... I would allow you to use whatever number of hits you have and drain is based off the max net hits used. So say you used all 5 net hits the first 2 mooks take 10 damage, the third takes 8 and the fourth takes 7. You then resist (F/2+2)+5 for net hits used.

Trivial wards stop that.

I really don't think it does, you know. The Drain mechanics for spells are covered in SR4(A), not in Street Magic. The release of SR4A/the latest BBB errata doesn't impact on the content of that book one bit -- the direct Combat spells in there are still direct Combat spells and will use the SR4A mechanics without the need to alter Street Magic.

What he tried to say is that if you changed the drain code from (F/2) to (F/2)+1 for the manabolt instead of introducing this weird new mechanic for the drain, this would mean that the whole mechanic for creating new spells and the descriptions and lists of spells would have to be changed.

That's knasser point, I guess:
Had they chosen for a flat increase of drain for direct combat spell, Street Magic would have been incorrect in regard to SR4A.

Oh wow! Because it's never come up, I'd actually forgotten about the impact on the spell design rules. That makes me even more suspicious that the reason for this odd approach to modifying Direct Combat spells is to avoid rendering Street Magic incorrect. If that's the actual aim, then it's actually quite an innovative solution. But for me it is far easier and better to simply up the drain. The problems with the errata'd approach are too large imo.

I really would like it if one of the designers would come in and say a few words about the new approach and reasons for it.

K.

My bad -- I thought knasser was suggesting it was a cynical plot to make people buy new copies of Street Magic rather than that this method just gets around the problem of changing the table in the back of SM.

No. I've just been perplexed by such a weird and problematic change to the way Direct Combat spells work and then started the thread when I had an 'Oh...' moment.

but then it is not a mundane secure point. I try to run a relatively low magic game, since i don't want to bone mundane characters.
Also, i notice one poster saying that higher OR doesn't effect drain. But in order to work, the force of the spell must be higher than the OR, which directly increases drain.

Unless there is a new rule in SR4A, the force does not have to equal the OR as long as you spend edge.

Indeed. Nothing less than a Force 6 spell can fool a drone now. That's overcasting for most mages!

I'm quite warming to the new ORs, actually. I wont have to have bound spirits guarding everything now meaning that my world can be slightly more realistic (for values of realistic that have 1 in a 100 people with some variant of magical power ).

Hits (not "net hits") are capped by the Force of the spell. (SR4A, pg. 182). If your Force is less than the needed OR then you cannot get the necessary hits to overcome it.

EDIT: This isn't new. It's how it was pre-Errata.

Unless SR4A has deleted the following line, my statement is still true.

Ah no, that's still in there and unchanged. If you're using Edge then you can sneak past this rule, but that's a special case. Ornot's point is generally correct and you have to burn precious Edge to get round it.

Which is exactly what you said.

I'm quite warming to the new ORs, actually. I wont have to have bound spirits guarding everything now meaning that my world can be slightly more realistic (for values of realistic that have 1 in a 100 people with some variant of magical power ).
[/quote]

Object resistance for combat spells, maybe not so bad, but Perhaps looking at how object resistance affects spells like Chaff or Fix might change your mind a little. Both of these dont affect the target at all unless the net hits are over the OR. So, for example, if you use FIX on a drone, you need to be able to cast F7 or higher to even have a chance to repair 1 damage.

Force 7 Fix may be bad for drain, but regularly achieving 7 hits requires a dicepool of 21! BTW the description mentions only hits for the "healed" damage boxes. Does that mean that a drone always gets at least 7 healed boxes? or at least one?

I don't think that the hits required to reach the OR can count, since they don't count towards effectiveness when trying to damage things; if you cast a force 8 powerbolt, get 8 hits, an OR 6 drone should take 10 damage, not 16, right?

Fix doesn't even work that well with the original ORs. Each net hit repairs a box of damage to an item. Given a drone with an OR of 4 (pre SR4A), a Force 6 Fix spell will potentially repair only 2 boxes of damage, or 2 points of Structure, which is frankly piss all. The only way around that is to say that Fix ignores OR, which has the exact same effect on both SR4 and SR4A, and opens all manner of cans of worms. I'm inclined to simply have magic gimped when it tries to directly effect tech, but YMMV.

The problem lies with Indirect Spells then.

Because I find them still unappealing. They still have higher drain. They are still easy to avoid, and reduce.


Making one option useless, does not improve a poor option.

The better option in my opinion is to now carry a grenade launcher. Because you don't need karma to buy grenades, and they don't drain you into unconsciousness.

Indirect spells can be very handy. The elemental effects are nice, and they can't be taken off you like grenades can. Many spell effects can be approximated with tech, does that make mages useless?

Personally I prefer utility mages over combat mages, and if you want to play a mage, but dislike both direct and indirect combat spells, you can always go that route instead.

I think something should have been done to bring indirect and direct spells into some kind of parity, but I'd like to test this new system in game before making a decision.

I agree, I just wish the parity came with improving indirect combat spells.

Which is why I, and a few others on the boards, suggested to swap the +2 drain modifier for elemental spels to direct damage spells.

As another person pointed out, trivial amounts of magic get around this. In fact anyone with astral perception (including watchers) can simply see these people or what they are hiding. As far as technological means, keep in mind that invisibility is *only* sight. Every other type of sensor still works to find the objects or people being smuggled. Combined with a bunch of other spells the mage can make it much more difficult for sensors to find what they are hiding, but still not really impossible (most illusion spells just give a negative modifier to perception tests and so aren't perfect by any means.)

So, if people were abusing improved invisibility to get past "mundane secure points" it might be because those places had minimal security (maybe just a guy standing there watching?) And if you consider it an abuse that a spell can overcome the absolute minimum security possible, then I'm not sure anything could be done to magic to balance it for your game besides getting rid of it.

At no stage did I say it was an abusive use of the spell. I simply said it was irritating. Please don't put words or even sentiment into my mouth.

I don't think that there should be a necessity for every checkpoint to have a bloody mage standing by it. Even if the mage is remotely located, he still has to monitor all the wards he's put up, and contact the guards to let them know the ward has been breached. I like my runners to make special arrangements if they want heavy weapons conveniently to hand.

Irritating: isn't magic SUPPOSED to solve problems such as this?

Solution: ULTRASOUND SENSORS! RADAR SENSORS! MOTION DETECTORS! HEAT SENSORS! PRESSURE SENSORS!

Unfortunately that would require a rewrite of how things work. I.e. the concept that it's more draining to produce physical, particularly elemental, effects.

That I understand... But now with the new SR4A Direct Damage spell drain rule puts that on its head. It can now be more difficult to weave mana into an aura to do damage than to weave mana to create an elemental effect.

You can follow the same logic with indirect spells as you can with direct spells, I push more mana into a target to get more damage with direct damage and I push more mana into making more fire/acid/light to do damage.

Something at some point has to give which is why they came up with the direct damage drain rule and as a secondary effect they don't need to reprint a source book. The creation of a new rule is foolish because it goes against the core magic mechanic already in play it is better to find a solution that works within the framework already in place. And the second part is foolish because you only need to do an errata on the book and print any new copies with the changes.

My apologies, I did push your argument to an extreme in order to counter it, and should not have done so.

However, my point still stands. You don't *need* another mage to be standing by to counter magical illusions (though another mage makes countering trivial). But you do need something other than a guard standing around hoping to spot weapons with the naked eye. MAD scanners (and almost any other sensor system designed to) will detect the heavy weapons. My question remains, did you want magic to be able to do anything if not be able to sneak things past the absolute minimum security?

Maybe we dug too deep. The rule ties a casters direct spell damage output to the drain resistance, in addition to the casting dp. A flat drain modifier could not have done it, as that would merely have adjusted the effective damage down, but not capped the net hits effectivly. Force 11 + 7 hits was a doable combo, and came with drain 5 on stunbolt. A simple +2 would not have changed a thing, as force 7+7 hits is still 14 boxes. The new rule does not change a thing for characters with little expected net hits (nothing to loose), but caps munched character damage at (2*safe drain value)+1 DV. Which is usually WAY lower than those force 10/11 spells you actually saw. Multicasting is only fixed as a byproduct, since it relied on multiplying the dp mods.

I think the change they made to DD spells was intended to solve the problem that increased OR did to DD spells: their effectiveness on drones.

I have no problem with a "low cost" method of completely taking an NPC out of combat (say a force 8 to force 12 stunbolt). It's like the gunbunny aiming up and taking a called shot on one guy: he spent an entire pass to make sure that guy goes down NOW. Heck, the gunbunny doesn't even take damage for doing it.