You know, I've thought about it a little more, and I think these rules are INTENTIONALLY designed to make you want to overcast.

Because, you see, the astral signature that you leave sticks around for FORCE hours, right? So the more bad-ass your spell, the less likely the signature is to fade before corp sec/LS shows up, which means you're more likely to get nailed for blowing people away with Power/Stun. Ya' think?

there is the issue of noise to consider. also, unless its a air timed grenade, it detonates at end of pass/turn (cant bother to look), and have scatter...

btw, between split dice pool and longer lasting signature, it seems that the mage have become more then just a simple blaster

From the rules, you would have 5 Net hits. Since you can choose how many, if you want to effect the guy who rolled 3 successes, you need to keep at least 4 successes. That would put you at 4 Net Hits. Your drain would be +4

Actually, It sems mor elikely to encourage multi-casting. A series of short, low poered spells will have lower drains, and, sicne you will be splitting your dice, lower net successes, and multiple drain resistance tests, thus allowing you, even with the increased drain value for multi-casting, to be able to soak most or all of the drain, since your drain resistance test does not have its dice split.

so either one large boom, or a whole lot of small ones for much the same effect (but with a bit more control over who gets hit)?

Except, once again, Drain is not increased by Net Hits, but by Net Hits applied to damage, of which you are not required to have any. You can use your full 5 Hits for overcoming their Resistance, but apply none of the Net to damage, thus not increasing Drain at all.

Uh, what about chaff/flak? Have they suddenly become useless unless you overcast? (Because I don't know any non-highly process object which could be affected)?

So, are we going to punish illusion magic and the subtle way so manaball can be balanced?

None of those things help detect an invisible weapon. Or an invisible crate of C12 in the back of a truck or...

I am fully aware that there are ways of penetrating standard improved invisibility, but there is a point at which I am just being an arse by sticking that many sensors in a street. I like it when my players come up with creative and original ways if they want to smuggle stuff, not just a tired old spell.

I am perhaps somewhat biased after running a game where a player created a bunch of entirely Street Magic legal spells, which nonetheless were quite broken. An example: Taking improved invisibility, adding a voluntary target drain mod, and dropping the single sense drain mod, for no net change in drain, and a spell that renders things undetectable by the normal 5 senses. Casting a similarly tweaked levitate spell, and I had an invisible flying dwarf silently blowing holes in things with a medium machine gun, and all with a negligible likelihood of any drain whatsoever. Perhaps I'm too nice, and I should have outright banned the spells (I do ban homebrewed spells at chargen in my games now - you want a new spell, you need to research it in game), but I welcome the change in OR.



If I was referring to a bloke looking for things, OR would not be an issue, and neither would imp. invisibility. Cameras and drones in the street however... I am happy for magic to be used to circumvent technological surveillance, but I think it should require at least some effort. Increasing the OR from 4 to 6 does this quite nicely. It's been my experience that most mages have softcapped magic at 5, so requiring a spell to be cast at force 6 immediately opens up the chance of physical drain. To reliably get those extra hits you need 6 more dice in your pool, which is by no means easy. It is still doable, but it is less trivial.



That is where I think the new rule falls down. I don't think the caster should have any choice of which hits count. If you want to risk less drain, cast at a lower force. In the stunball example given I would apply drain for all hits above the minimum required to effect the weakest target, in which case it would be +5 drain.

Any sensor designed to find those things through any means *except* visual will still find them. The bottom line is that improved invisibility is a very limited spell. It stops things from seeing the target. That's it. It's very useful, but it has *severe* limits. If the ORs are changed to 6 the spell will do absolutely nothing since every single drone you attempt to walk past will see through it.



How is it "being an arse" to put sensors designed to find weapons/explosives in places to keep weapons/explosives out? And if there is no such security trying to keep such stuff out, how effective do you want that security to be?



I have little sympathy for a GM that allows that spell to be created. Yes the rules allow such a spell, but as you'll note none of the spells in the book are "perfectly" created and almost all have a downside. Allowing your player to craft a spell that has no "downside" simply means that you allowed an abusive player to take advantage of you. That's too bad and I hope it doesn't happen to you again.



I'm not sure what characters you have running around in your game, but I've never seen a mage without a ton of karma on their sheet that could reliably hit OR4 on every type of spell that they wanted to cast. I can think of one specifically built to do illusions that could do it (at 16 dice she did it a little better than *half* the time), but she'd have been hard pressed to pull off a combat spell at OR4 (at a whopping 10 dice). And this character that was built to do illusions would be made irrelevant with this new change. She'd only be able to fool drones with her spells if she were either really lucky or spent Edge. I'm sorry that players that you've had experience were bad players, but I'd suggest rethinking a change in the rules because of them. All it does it hurt those players who were playing a roleplaying game and weren't in a competition to show off to their friends how ridiculous they could be.

In a nutshell? Yes.

Basically Illusion spells, along with Ram/Wreck/Demolish have been nerfed to the point of near uselessness.

Why?

Because rather than make indirect combat spells more appealing by making wide changes to both the core book and street magic (including design rules), it was easier to just change the OR of inanimate objects.

I'd really like to see a designer comment that says "Yes, we think magicians should have 18+ dice if they actually want to have a snowballs chance in hell to affect a drone with an illusion spell".

I hear you there, even with 430 karma my character only rolls 12 dice for combat spells and 8 for the others. Even with my ally spirit (which is not around all the time being locked into a physical form and all) adds 4 dice to each. I feel a major smack down to the point where I'm making a new character and ditching magic. Sucks to because the team will loose out on counterspelling.

Incorrect:
Net: Remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses: net profit.

If you roll 5 hits on spellcasting (requiring a force 5 or greater spell) and they get 3 hits on resistance, then you have 2 net hits. This would be, at most, a +2 to drain per the rules.


edit: y'know...thinking about it - this makes the change even less sensible - if you overcast a force 12 direct combat spell and keep one net hit you do 13 damage for 6P drain...if you cast a force 6 spell and get all 6 allowable hits and use them for damage, then you do 12 damage for 8S drain.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what this change was supposed to accomblish?

I'm just wondering why the justification for taking more drain for casting a spell well. The spells force should determine the amount of energy the spell is carrying. The net hits you generate should determine how efficiently you use that energy. If you did something similar for guns, and cost more ammo based on net successes people would be outraged. If you inflicted damage on the shooter based on net successes they'd figure you're crazy. But doing this to mages is just fine?

I've seldom looked at indirect combat spells as viable because of the higher drain and the lower chance of actually accomplishing anything good. In my mind they were virtually useless. Now they've gone and crippled direct combat spells too, and every other spell, if you want to do anything to something even remotely high tech. So unless a mage has 18dice to throw around, you can pretty much expect most drones to have a very good chance to being unaffected by them. Which makes me want to munchkin the crap out of any character I'd be making any time in the near future, just so I can somehow effect drones.

It is kinda arsey to stick sensors specifically designed to stymie the runners all over the place, since then they can't go anywhere.



The munchy PC was actually in an online game. My tabletop players are generally reasonable, although they do have their downsides. That being said, the mage can hit an OR4 more often than not, and he's little changed from chargen. Most of his karma has gone on new spells, and learning some small degree of skill in conjuring. The player is absurdly lucky though.

Clearly your players are being babied and having their GM allow an invisible gun to not set off a simple metal detector because they couldn't be bothered to think of another solution.

Then their GM bitches on some forums somewhere about how even low amounts of magic are too powerful for his game.

<.<

Except that it's a multi-target spell. 5 hits vs. 0, 0, 2, and 3 results in how many net? 5? 3? 2?



That's what we thought, but some dev posted a comment about "I don't mind over-cast spells" and didn't elaborate further.

Dear gods. You have to go and make it personal, don't you. I use an example of why I think increasing the OR of things makes magic better balanced with tech, and you start some crazy vendetta. You know nothing about my situation with my players but you slag me off anyway. *golfclap*

Hmm...well, I'd say if you're using one net hit, then you're using one net hit - that means you're NOT staging up damage on anybody (beyond the required +1 anyway), even the 0-resistance guys.
So everybody in an AOE would take the exact same amount of damage, unless they got more resistance hits than you got spellcasting hits, in which case they'd take none whatsoever.

So to expand your example a bit, 5 spellcasting hits on a force 5 stunball, vs. 0,0,2,3,and 6 resistances would do 6 stun damage to everybody but the 6, who takes no damage.

Which still feels odd, but at least it has the benefit of being easy to calculate.

That's uncalled for. A lot of subtlety is lost when translating the complex web of group dynamics into a few lines of forum post. Every game has different levels of power, GM shepherding and rules addiction. And different players are fine with different levels of these. I treated my last group but one like dogs, and they loved it. They wanted a harsh game and took huge delight in "defeating" their GM.

Each their own so there's no need to be unpleasant to someone.

Peace, eh?

K.

You think making 20+ non combat spells totally useless against technology is balanced?

That's patently absurd. You need 1 net hit for it to come off at all. If you choose 1 net hit, then mooks 1 and 2 are the only ones affected, and 3, 4 and 5 are unaffected since they got more than one hit. It makes no sense that you can apply a hit against one target and not another, and it is equally silly to allow some hits to just evaporate for some targets. Net hits stage the damage up. That's what they're for.

Apparently, they are also there to punish magicians for being good at magic.

Go figure.

Which spells are you referring to?

Fix is no more broken now than it was before. Most of the other spells that have to beat OR are unconcerned with net hits once they pass that threshold. It just makes it harder, since you need more hits. That's not "totally useless".

You want less drain? Use a lower Force. That automatically caps your hits at a level you can handle.

If this is a response to my response (heh) you're still using a false definition of the word net.

If you have 5 hits, and there's a guy with:
0 resistance hits, you have 5 net hits, and can choose to apply one or all of them.
1 resistance hit, you have 4 net hits, and can choose to apply one or all of them.
2 resistance hits, you have 3 net hits, and can choose to apply one or all of them.
3 resistance hits, you have 2 net hits, and can choose to apply one or both of them.
4 resistance hits, you have 1 net hits, and apply it.
5 or more resistance hits, you have no net hits, and your spell has no effect.

Total hits are what you rolled, limited by spell force (with an edge exception.)
Net hits are counted after resistance hits are subtracted.

The fact that you can have a different amount of net hits for each person in an AOE spell leaves a hole in the rules. My suggestion plugged that hole with a minimum of fuss.

Chaos
Chaotic World
Trid Entertainment
Improved Invisibility
Physical Mask
Trid Phantasm
Silence
Stealth
Ignite
Ram
Wreck
Demolish
Animate
Mass Animate
Bind
Net
Fix
Glue
Glue Strip
Lock
Pulse

This list.

Unless you think needing 18+ dice to affect drones is ok.




Needing a target number of 6 to affect drones makes that entire list kind of silly.




A mechanic that basically punishes magicians for being good at their specialty.

Will you punish other archtypes when they are successful as well? You know, to be fair.

You do not need any "net" hits for the spell to go off. I get 5 hits to cast you get 5 hits to resist you take damage. Well, that is as far as I can tell. NET hits are for damage. The caster got 5 hits, two mooks got 0 hits, one got 2 hits, one got 3 hits and the last got 7 hits. Now, you can't do any damage what-so-ever to the mook who got 7 hits. Everyone else takes base damage. PERIOD. You soak drain for whatever spell you where casting.
IF, and ony if, you want to do more damage you wind up with 5 net hits for the first two mooks, 3 net hits for the second and 2 net hits for the third. And you would soak drain based on the max number of NET hits you used.

Ornot, "totally useless" might be exactly what it is if you're not a high-power magician. Even when the threshold was 4, it was hard to beat consistently, but it was doable. A magician that was reasonably good at Illusion spells (e.g. Mentor bonus, decent Sorcery and Magic) could pull off the Physical Mask et al fairly confidently though others would be taking a risk. OR of 6 is beyond the reach of most magicians however. It's overcasting to begin with and you'd need 18 dice just to have an average chance of doing it! Which means you'll fail about half the time. If you know you have a fifty-fifty chance of failing with you Physical Mask, you're probably not going to chance walking past the Lone Star drone with it.

"Totally useless" gets pretty close to the mark for the non-optimised, karma'd up mage, I think. And this is from someone who will probably be using the revised ORs.

K.

The magic system already does punish mages for being good at their speciality...all spells...regardless of objects or not are capped at their force. Its the inherant design of the magic system.

Its to preven things like force 1 icontrol thoughts from affecting a willpower 6 character just because a mage has 12 dice to cast.

I think if one decided to play with the Force caps one would have to rewrite all the spells to go along with it.

A force 1 control thoughts can affect a willpower 6 character - it's just fairly unlikely. And if the mage decided to throw edge in, it actually becomes highly probable.

As I read it: You Determine the Net Hits you are putting in. Thus, you have to use the net hit on the guy with the 3 resistance Hits. Your drain is determined by the person who got the MOST net-hits, so, if you put 4 net hits into that, instead of all 5(pulling yorself down to 4 Net Hits over all), you have a +4 Drain.

This is different. Having a good Magic rating is a fundamental part of "being good at their speciality".

1) Being capped at Force is a limitation of the system. It doesn't punish the mage when they are successful.

2) Taking drain when you are successful in your spellcasting roll with a direct combat spell is punishing the caster. No other mechanic, anywhere in the game, punishes anyone else when they actually succeed at their dice rolls.

If your drain is deteremined by the guy who got the MOST resistance hits, than many times you'll be taking the minimum possible drain because somebody resisted the spell leaving NO net hits.
Even though the spell quite obviously hit and affected the other guys, even with increased damage!

I'm fully aware of the meaning of "net hits". Where we differ is not in the definition of net, but in when one chooses which hits you roll you will use. I feel it should be before the resistance test(s), you think you can choose from the hits remaining after the resistance test. Where we also differ is that you think it reasonable to apply some hits against some targets, and not against the others. The AoE problem you have identified is most easily solved by taking the highest number of net hits.

@Mikado. You will always need 1 net hit. Ties go to the defender in SR4.

@The Mack. Several of those spells are combat spells (ram, wreck etc.), others remain perfectly viable against humans and low tech stuff. The point of the rule change is to make tech less susceptible to magic. I've not got my book, but many of those spells gain little or no benefit from hits in excess of their OR.

@Knasser. Perhaps my players are just lucky, but they pull of hits in excess of the force they use pretty regularly. Maybe I should check their dice aren't loaded! Personally I think that the PCs shouldn't be able to reliably succeed in defeating tech. It's now tough, but doable.

You're not getting it. We're talking about the NEW rules in SR4A about "then the caster chooses how many net hits he wishes to apply to damage and takes +1 drain for it."

Which is one of my problems with it. It suits my idea of magic that if you cast a spell at a Dragon and hurt him, it took more effort than if you cast a spell at a wage slave and hurt him. But assuming the PC doesn't hold back, that isn't the case any more. I grow more suspicious that the reason for this odd approach is to avoid breaking compatibility with the tables and design rules in Street Magic.

@ornot: I will in fact be using the revised ORs, though fully aware of how it rules out a lot of spells from being useful. But I wont be using this drain mechanic.

1) Ram/Wreck/Demolish are specifically designed to target inanimate objects.
2) An OR of 6 is not "less susceptible" in any but the most high powered games. Needing 18 dice to have a 50/50 chance of succeeding is not "less susceptible"




You're confusing the issue between DC spell drain mechanics and the new OR table's effects on Illusion and Physical manipulation spells.

You're also missing the point. Completely.


So I'll not bother repeating it for you, since it's an exercise in futility.

Yes, that's what I'm saying...which, oddly enough, was what the writer said the intent was!


My suggestion was just as simple - if the mage wants to raise his drain by one net hit, then he does so, and the targets will take less damage from that choice.

Adding blind bidding as a spellcasting mechanic just seems...illogical.

No other mechanic, anywhere in the game, requires the character to invest himself in the flow of raw energy through his body/mind. Force is the primal element to a spell, and all spells are affected the same way by it. If you look at the Drain Modifiers Table in the Spell design section of Street Magic (p. 163), the modifiers are almost all linked to ways in which the magician tries to control and direct the flow of magic: level of permanence, area affected, extra effects, etc.. The more the magician tries to exert control of the initial 'blast' as defined by Force, the higher the Drain.

The SR4A modification to Direct Combat spells is completely in line with this solid tradition that dates back to the beginnings of Shadowrun. The more a magician tries to mold the flow of energy to do more damage than the Force, the more Drain he suffers.

The SR4A mechanic is not a radical change in Shadowrun, it is a conservative realignment with the basic principles.

I'm curious, what value do you see in the new OR table knowing how badly it's going to break so many spells?

Urgh...and after much searching I found that the dev actually supports ornot's view of how AOE drain is supposed to work. Which is, quite frankly, friggin stupid. AND an exception to that same dev's previously stated "choose your net hits" rule!

P: OK, what do I see?
GM: Well, you see a half-dozen goons with gyro-mounted HMGs, the corp sec-mage and Skippy the janitor.
P: Crap! I cast stunball...er...force 12! Edge to reroll failures...and wow! 9 successes!
GM: (rolls) OK, you drop 4 of the goons, the other two look really unhappy, the mage is pissed, and Skippy critically glitched his resistance roll with no counterspelling because the mage was hoping you'd include him in the AOE. Resist 17P drain.

Brilliant!

Wait... The Dev's now say that drain is based off net hits regardless of how many you use! So DDC spells are now F/2+modifier+net hits. Yea... Raizor... I'm not playing a mage anymore... EVER... I'll have a new character writeup before we play next week.

No - only for AOEs. Single-target spells still allow you to choose how many net hits to apply.

Why yes, those are two mutually-incompatible rulings...what did you expect? It's Shadowrun.

Mr. Unpronounceable, could you please quote the devs on that. I remember Synner saying that you could choose the number of hits for increased damage.

Just great, SR4 is becoming more and more like SR3 a different mechanic for each action in the game. The great streamlining of the rules vanishes again.

So... They create a new rule for drain and now have it operate differently based on single target or AoE? WTF!
And it is a new rule! Manipulating the mana and how difficult it is was always based off the +- Modifier for a given spell.
And they still have to change Street Magic in regards to the new rule... Now, with it being different for AoE's, even more so.

I don't get it...

That's called "debugging".
The technic of exchanging old problems for new ones.

Well, his initial ruling was:



but then he also said that:



So, either you get screwed when you cast AOEs, or maybe you can choose your level of pain by letting the highest resist test go unaffected...but linking the amount of drain you take to the worst resistance test all but guarantees the Skippy scenario above.

101 hairy bugs in the code. 101 hairy bugs.
Fix one bug. Compile it again...
102 hairy bugs in the code.

repeat till bugs = 0