This quote comes from the changes thread, but that thread so long I’m not sure I want to add anything to it. So I’m spinning this off in a new topic.



As it turns out the italicized portion knasser mentions in that post is in fact a new change.



The prior version said, “targeted by Indirect Combat spells�.

So DD spells cast on objects get a damage resistance test that they did not get before.

Let me see if I got this right... Direct Combat Spells now have more drain, bigger target numbers AND a damage resistance test?

If that's not an error, they should just remove them from the game if they feel that strongly about it.

New rule, since your magic is useless, you get 3 free grenades with each point of magic you have at character creation.

Maybe they should change the name of the game from "Shadowrun" to "Cyberpunk 2070... with ELVES*!"

* == These Elves just have pointy ears, eat veggies and are mostly fruity bastards.

I actually thought that the addition of Resistance rolls to Direct Combat spells for non-living targets was a mistake at first, so I didn't go into it. But reading that passage, it's pretty clear that it was deliberately re-written. So that's another special case you need to cover when handling Direct Combat spells as the damage calculation process differs between living and non-living targets as well as the differences due to Object Resistance.

Given all these changes, I thought it was worth doing some quick calculations. Now this isn't comprehensive by a long means, but it will give us a feel for how things are now. I'll do the equivalent tests for both the old system and the old system but using the new thresholds shortly. If anyone wants to sanity check my numbers, please do so!

Indirect Vs. Direct Combat Spells Post-Errata

I had to use two different types of Indirect Combat spell because the presence or absence of Elemental Effects makes a difference to both the drain and to the target's damage resistance test (Armour if there's an Elemental Effect and Armour x2 if there isn't).

Both drones have a Pilot rating of 3 If you have a very good Pilot rating it makes Direct Combat spells slightly better in comparison to Indirect, but certainly not enough to care about. I haven't covered Counterspelling in this. However, Counterspelling has also changed (thanks to whoever caught that one and pointed it out to me). Counterspelling now applies to a non-living target's Dodge roll rather than its Damage Resistance test.. That's a slight nerf of Indirect Combat Spells in most circumstances.

Anyway, look at the tables above, it seems that under the new system, only very powerful mages can expect to damage drones with Direct Combat spells. The rest are either spending Edge like there's no tomorrow or hoping for a lot of luck. When they finally are able to affect drones with Direct Combat spells then they become comparable in damage rather suddenly If the target is heavily armoured, then they actually become significantly better. But by this point, we're talking very powerful magicians and the drain is monstrous whether its Direct or Indirect spells.

So when it comes to non-living targets, Direct Combat spells are a bad idea. This certainly resolves any pre-Errata concerns about Indirect Combat spells not being useful. But please keep in mind that this is due to the revised ORs, not the alteration to the Drain mechanic for Direct Spells.

So Indirect Combat spells are far better. But just because Direct spells are bad, doesn't mean Indirect is good. In the examples, a magician with Magic 5 and a casting pool of ten dice casting at Force 5 (safe limit) will probably do a box of damage to a doberman with Clout (no elemental effect) and three boxes with Flamethrower (elemental effect). It's not much and the drain will be two boxes with Clout and five boxes with Flamethrower! If the magician really goes for it and overcasts at Force 10, then she can deal a lot more damage (six and eight boxes respectively) but the drain's leapt to five and eight. Better hope there's only one Doberman drone.

I'll post some comparisons to how things were in the previous system in a bit.

EDIT: Small error on the Direct Combat spells drain. Now re-uploaded.

EDIT EDIT: Cardul has pointed out that the book contradicts itself and rules out Damage Resistance tests for Direct spells in the "Combat spells" section of the grimoire. I looked at the Calculate Effects part of the new magic rules and saw that they had explicitly changed it so that all Combat spells granted a resistance test. I'm guessing that the section in the Grimoire takes precedence but then if that's so, why did they change another part of the book. Should we add any weight to the fact that the part that allows resistance rolls was changed last indicating an intention to change the way they work?

OK, I just read the relevant passages. The section talking about the Damage Resistance test is under Indirect Combat Spells, and under direct combat spells it explicitly says that the resistance test against Body or Willpower replaces the damage resistance test and armour does not apply. So, yes, you could say there is a Damage Resistance Test for thiose targeted by Combat spells, however Indirect Combat Spells are the only ones that make it. There is no defense test for Direct Combat Spells, either.

However, Indirect Combat spells, despite that they have a chance to miss, and that the target gets to resist the damage have something going for them over direct: They do not need to beat the Object Resistance Threshold. This turns Indirect into your "anti-drone" spells, while Direct are your "anti-People" spells, unless, of course, you think you can pull off 6 hits with a Powerbolt or Powerball, or can pull off the higher powered indirect against a Troll in Security armour.

I actually like there being reasons to take spells other then Mana Bolt, Power Bolt, Stun Bolt, and Stun Ball.

Is this a response to my post because a lot that is what I just said. However, regarding the Damage Resistance tests for Direct Combat spells, the book actually contradicts itself now. Page 183 states that they get a damage resistance test and makes no distinction between Direct and Indirect. I agree that they shouldn't though and that the paragraph in the Combat Spells section is presumably intended to take precedence. Really the passage on page 183 shouldn't be there.



So do I. But the change results from the increased OR, rather than the drain mechanic for Direct Combat spells being changed. That's partly my point as some have said that the change to Direct Combat spells' drain mechanics makes Indirect more appealing and this is incorrect. And it was worth pointing out that even with Indirect spells, a magician is still in trouble if they have to use magic to take out a drone. I mean 8P drain to nearly take out a Doberman using Indirect spells? That's nasty!

Well you resist 5 of that and the platetet factories eat one of point from remaining, so you take 2P damage not to bad.

This is true for fairly well min-maxed characters. Everyone else gets the shaft.

If your table has powerful mages, and you want to make the game more difficult for them, the new rules work just nicely (i.e. they don't change gameplay all *that* much). If not, this takes a lot of fun out of being a regular spellcaster.

And that's why Indirect Combat spells are disparaged.

Too much drain, not enough effect.

Actually, you can take a drone out with an ICS without wiping its damage boxes out or taking a lot of drain. Lightning is your friend.

That has to do with the secondary effect of the ICS of choice there.