QUOTE (mielikki @ Apr 23 2010, 02:13 PM)

Well, my pdf version of the SR4A rules contains this as regular, not optional rule, and that is the way we run it.
And playing the mage character, I still find direct combat spells very useful - and even with force 5 spells hardly ever end up with more than 1 or 2 stun unresisted.
Heck, the guys who play sammy characters even think the rules are broken in favour of the magic attacks as is!
You've missed the bit about the hits-drain duality. The rule treats both the spellcaster and his target equally, despite that the target didn't blow 75 BP on being a target or an edge point on a big pile of hits.
You cast a force 5 manabolt for 5DV on the target and 3DV on you. You roll really well (and/or the target rolls really badly) giving you 3 net hits and let's say you score a couple of hits on drain resistance. Now, you need this guy to go down ASAP so you let him have it all. Result? Well, because you're really good the target suffers an extra 60% damage (5 + 3) and you suffer an extra 300% damage (1 + 3).
So he's still not dead but now more than a third of your stun monitor is crossed out (and the samurai
kills three other goons before your next action). And remember – this is because you did really well.
Ok, so I'm being maybe a little facetious about this. I get the fluff (that direct combat spells involve more harmful mana-contact) and I get that they wanted something to balance them out against the indirect spells (though I think they're even enough without it) but you end up with the situation whereby a veritable master of mana is discouraged from putting this mastery into effect, choosing instead to do the same as a lesser magician would. Rolling spellcasting+magic should be about how skillfully you direct the mana towards your chosen intention, but this rule implies that the more skillfully you cast a DC spell the more difficulty you have in coping with it. Counter-intuitive I say.