Second answer, with more time:

I explicitly made an argument that included casting a spell repeatedly to beat the OR.

Repeated casting is statistically easy: For n attempts, your probability of failure is (failure rate per test)ⁿ. So for two attempts and a chance of success of about 25% (nothing to write home about, that´s about 13 dice in case of OR 6), your probability of success is 1-(0.76)²=42%. Not THAT shabby already. If you can stand the drain, and the spell is not absolutely time critical, go ahead and cast again.

The consequences of that strategy make overcasting an iffy proposal: Those 1-3 boxes of residual drain damage on your condition monitor might end up doubled, like your castings. If you play it safe, you need more time, but will often have no drain issues.

Now one obvious response is "multicasting is too much dicerolling". I´ll preempt that one by saying that a) you figure out the pools only once, b) the demand that everything a mage touches succeeds on the first attempt is a fail, c) it will only be required in case of low dicepools and specific types of spell AND target, d) it´s easy to build around the need.

Physical Illusions are absolutely unnecessary against living observers. What happens if someone only observes the world through the recording of the camera in his Cybereyes? Do you have to beat the OR then?


@Mr. Unpronounceable: I forgot about summaning. That's a valid point. But still the mage is not attempting to dfamage the spirit by summoning or binding it.

What materialization delay? As long as the spirit is not materialized it cannot be affected from the phyiscal plane, when it is, it can act.

When you summon a spirit and command it to attack someone who isn't dual-natured or astrally projecting, it must materialize to affect them.

Materialization is a complex action, thus, basically, the spirit appears somewhere, everyone gets a phase to react to the spirit's appearance, then the spirit can act. (or possibly not, depending on the turn sequence - a spirit that materializes only has 2 passes, rather than their astral 3.)

Since, with the proper load-out, you only need 4 net hits or so to bypass up to a force 10 spirit's "immunity" and you can shoot twice per phase, it's really not all that difficult to disrupt a spirit before it can act.

i dont think its a problem if your player wants a migraine then cast at force 5(using magiv 5 exmple) or if he wants to have an anuresim and poped gall bladder then he casts at force 10 reguardless of net hits.
phisical damage is worse then stunn from a fluff or inteded rules stand point.... if your fighting wimpy things just use for 5 stuff then only for the big stuff break out the big guns and overcast.... so if your having too many issues with your players overcasting then talk to them about the magical school the players mage fallows (shaman, hermetic, corp-trained, street-learned) would they actually risk organ failer every time they cast a spell? i've played 2 magic users myself one would all the time but he overreacted to alof of stuff where as theother would use better tactics it depends on the intent of the tradition...

My point was that Mr. Unpronounceable's solution would allow a way to add drain to Direct Combat spells against tech targets only, utilizing the SR4 OR tables and not the new SR4A table. Thus, still using the SR4 OR table, physical illusions wouldn't receive a nerfing.



It's one of the questions that have been brought up with the change.

My gut reaction is no, as Illusions target the opponents mind directly. But I have nothing to back that up.




That's still not the same mechanic being discussed. That's the equivalent of casting a lot of spells and taking drain from it. Not from your targets defense wounding you.

Edited due to missed post.





First, I'll just say nice work on figuring all that out.

Second, my complaint has nothing to do with dice and everything to do with anyone who isn't a mathematician will be unaware of such a strategy, not to mention that it is gaming the system.

I don't know why the designers saw fit to implement this drain mechanic only for net hits applied to damage and ONLY for direct combat spells. Hell typing it out makes you realize how ridiculous it is.

Risking organ failure? Compared to the near-guarantee of getting shot if you don't?

At starting magic levels, an overcast spell is at worst 3 boxes of drain more than your maximum non-overcast spell.

Or, to put it another way: 3 spellcasting successes worth IF you use them. Which, if you get and use still won't do as much damage. And a target is more likely to resist a lower force spell, since total hits are capped by force.

Casting that force 10 spell means that target won't get to shoot back unless you roll really poorly.
Casting a force 5 without using those net hits and making the whole "less drain" issue moot means he can shoot back twice at a whole -1 penalty assuming he fails to resist. Or even more frequently if he has initiative boosting cyber, or bio, or drugs.

A mage would have to be a fool NOT to overcast given the new rules.

(edited for dumb typo & clarity)

I'm not sure if that was directed at me.

I totally agree with you that the new drain mechanic makes overcasting a clearly better choice for mages.

Nah - it was a responce to Namelessjoe's doom-and-gloom for overcasters post.

I mean, really...which is worse for the mage?

Casting a force 10 spell, doing 10 damage, and resisting 5 drain...or casting a force 5 spell, doing 5+x damage, resisting 3+x drain...and getting shot at?

I call it "abort&retry". It is the secret behind my attempt at a multi-post record during the last DS crash....

... Or it encourages Called Shot (-4 dicepool, +4 DV).

Since when can you use the Called Shot on Direct Combat Spells? The new Mechanic actually discourages it on Indirect Spells

Just thinking and posting at the same time. Dangerous I know. Assumption:Mage has spellcasting 6, willpower 6 and magic 6. Casting-Manabolt. Goal instant kill of opponent:
Security guard with a will power of 3, bod 3.

For sake of argument on luck 3 dice equal one success.

Ok in 4E:
1 F10 Spell results in target death, mage takes 1P damage (5P, 4 successes).
2 F5 Spells results in target death, mage takes no drain (2S is resisted, 3S is also resisted).
3 F3 Spells results in no target death and not a viable option, too few dice and spell is resisted.

In the new drain code:

1 F10 spell results in target death, mage takes 2P damage (Base 5P, +1 for 1 net successes, drain resists 4 of it.
2 F5 Spells results in target death, mage takes no drain (2S is resisted, 3S is also resisted, note at half dice pool no net successes).

You're missing a second drain attribute in there.

Wrong. You can use zero net successes for damage, so the Drain code becomes 5P. Which is soakable.

Hmmm If you have zero net successes, then the Spell failed
you need at least 1 Success meaning at Least Drain+1

with at least 1 net dance
Medicineman

Nope. Reread Cain's statement. "You can use zero net successes FOR DAMAGE". That's independent from any rolled net successes to sling the spell.

hmmmmm,
Ok so presuming after the Test there are still 3 net Successes left over....
using 0 successes sounds somehow cheesy for Me(but its a little bit difficult to explain it in English)
I'm a simple Guy. if I have up to three net successes,I'll be using up to three net successes. Using 0 Successes is a whimps choice

with a simple dance
Medicineman

My solution is the following. Instead of fiddling with basic drain values I've improved in how Indirect spells function to justify their drain. Basically they are now like shooting a gun and you can do it blindfolded.

Overcasting should be something a mage is loathe to do as it implies danger, hemmoraghing and other nasties. Overcasting is Force+Modifiers instead of the standard drain of F/2+Modifiers (Yes, that will hurt).

I completely ignore the rules regarding successes increasing drain for direct spells.

Indirect Combat Spells
Follows the rules for shooting so a mage can:
-Blind Fire spells (Throw a fireball into a dark room)
-Use Radar Sensor and Echolocation to “see� his targets (Shoots fireball from fingers for example)
-Shoot spells from fingers through small holes without seeing the target

And...
-Suffer the same ranged modifiers from the Ranged Attack Modifiers Table like everyone else.
-Suffer the same visibility modifiers from the Ranged Visual Modifiers Table like everyone else.

Indirect spells count as an Aerodynamic Grenade and use F as strength for calculating range. This also removes the silliness of easily hitting a 747 at 10000 feet with hardly any modifier (you are trying to sling a ball of fire 10000 feet into the air and hit a moving speck of metal...)

@Medicineman: It may be cheesy but that's exactly what Synner said about single target direct combat spells. The weird thing happens with area effect spells. According to him the drain is then calculated with the maximum of net hits.
That is allowed by RAW already
If the caster paid for it in Essence I'd probably allow it as well. There is however the thing that with Echolocation and Radar you are not seeing the target but an image of the target.
Should be possible by RAW

Which Range Table would you use? Hold-Outs or Sniper Rifles? or Even the one for some of the Vehicle Weapons in Arsenal?
That's RAW as well.

IIRC Echolocation and Radar are not "Sight" and thus cannot be used for Targeting a Spell.
If am mage uses Cybereyes and paid therefore with his essence thats ok, but neither Radar nor Echolocation are Eyeware,they're Headware

HokaHey
Medicineman

I am WELL aware of that. The reason for WHY I allow it is because you dont hit the first thing you SEE with an indirect spell unless you unleash the spell from the point of your head/eyes, you just fling it in the direction of your choice using whatever part of your body as a medium (most likely fingers, hand etc).

basically I ignore the rules of natural sight with indirect combat spells as they are more used as a gun.

Since the character can throw it into a room without seeing his intended target i also rule that they can use technology like a radar sensor to get a feel of where the enemy is hiding. This would be impossible with a direct combat spells as you need a "lock" on someones aura.

I use aerodynamic grenades because i feel that indirect spells are more affected by physics and gives Direct Combat spells a bonus in range. Yes, short range is a bitch when F6 has range of 12 meters on short range but that is not too bad since you have other perks.

Great another way to nerf indirect combat spells.

I edited my post. SHORT range would be 12 meters for a F6 indirect spell.

Its not so bad really. You have a 60 meter range with a -6D6 modifier as you try to eyeball a target that far away. Sure, use image magnification to decrease range and suchlike.

How often do you sling fireballs more than 60 meters? If you do, use a powerbolt at that 747 10000 feet away instead and forget the range modifiers.

Well, a concern was that indirect combat spells were generally not as attractive as direct ones. So using an Powerbolt is not really an alternative

At 747 10000 feet LOS should be a problem do to the curvature of the eath.

1) damage would be 1P as you don't need to use net successes for damage
2) drain is raised by 1 for each spell, so he would have to resist 3S twice. (BBB P.173, Additionally, the Drain Value for each of the spells is increased by +1 per additional spell.)
Furthermore the mages dicepool would be 6 after split and going with your assumption of 3 dice equal 1 hit that means that both spells fail.

Considering that your whole argument was very favorable towards dice pool splitting (rather weak opponent and no vision modifiers at all) shows that this mechanic is pretty useless for combat spells unless you have a monster of a mage.

Well, it DOES create two different areas for the spells to work in. Direct combat spells would be more effective at extreme ranges, and indirect combat spells would be more close range, brute force affairs.

Since direct combat spells dont really care about physics the curvature of the earth wouldnt come into effect.

Magic Lightning Bolts ignore gravity.


On a serious note, play it how you like. But Indirect Combat Spells really don't need to be any weaker.

Because of the curvature you cannot have LOS at that range either with direct or indirect spells! A human's LOS is capped at about 4650 m. Everything beyond is below the horizon unless the caster has an elevated position. If you know german, this weird song may prove it.

Well, i was more thinking about a plane more or less straight up above the caster, not a target at the horizon.

And yea, the range might be a bit short. What about a range increment per kilometer?

Hitting a target with a fireball at 4 kilometers is at a -4D6?

QFT

A Perception test however may be in order if the caster wants to hit a target several kilometers away.

Since when can't you?

@ the people wanting to nerf spellcasting even more: Just get some Vision Mag (optical) and lock onto the target before spelling off. Done.

The direct combat spells affect the target from within. The whole target, not just a part. calling a shot is worthless.
Taking an aiming action for indirect combat spells is worthwhile.

I channel my powerbolt into his head.

Unless of course you can see the contrail of the Jet above you at 35,000 feet, use your visual magnification (paid for by essence) to reduce the visibility by 50 and voila... targetable at 35,000 feet...

Specious arguemnts mean absolutely drek...

Get over it...

Since lock on is a simple action and casting a complex one and you loose lock when either the target or you move this doesn't really work that well in combat.

Sorry, I assumed 6 in every stat. Drain pool of 12.

And an aircraft (excepting some, such as the heli) tends to be moving all the time.
Ah ha! THERE'S the reason mages don't Wreck [Corporate Helicopter]s out of the sky: they're moving!

I missed that part about it being each spell. I wasn't trying to be favorable to any point, I was just trying to figure out the difference be tween the options. If I was to add my opinion, the 3 S is still better than overcasting against low level opposition (easier on the drain). Against tougher opponent you'd probably choose overcasting. And yes, you really don't need to use the extra net success to knock the guy out, but for sake of argument (you want to really kill him) you do.

Actually with only 3 Will power, the schlub guard would garner only one success vs the mages 2 (at 6 dice each).

Normally, a F6 Powerbolt with 6 net successes would give you 10S drain and 12P damage. If you were to allow Called Shots, you take a -4 dicepool penalty to your Spellcasting Test, use 1 Net Success, and deal 11P damage with a DV of 5S.

Under the new Direct Combat rules, instead of complaining and whining about the changes, I would just allow mages to use the Called Shot rules on their spells.

In the words of First Wizard Zorander - "Think of the solution, not the problem."

As much as I like the idea of "Spleenbolt", I don't think it works according to the rules.


"A character can only make a called shot with weapons that fire in single-shot, semi-automatic, and burst-fire modes. A character can aim ... and then call a shot at the time of the attack. Calling the shot is a Free Action."

For one thing Powerbolt is a spell, and not a weapon. Beyond that, it doesn't fire in any of those modes, which are specific to Firearms by the codes SS/SA/BF.

That being said, I'd personally allow it for Indirect Combat spells, as they produce a physical effect and have some similarities to conventional weapons. It would also help give them a boost, and give you more reasons to use them in combat against living targets as well as drones/vehicles.

EDIT: Made a mistake.

One of the examples of Touch Only Attack state spells. Combat Spells have the most touch spells out of any other class (IIRC, not including Street Magic).

I cast Clout on the troll, and I try to touch his head. (Touch Only +2 Dice, Called Shot).

I thought "Health Spells" had the most touch spells.

You can use "called shot" rules with spells? I don't remember reading that before...

You can't. That's why it is called "Called Shot" and not something akin to "Called Target"

I know... I was being sarcastic.