Looking through this, it looks like a few people have been claiming that unawakened characters lose to mages in the long run.
Can someone please counter these points?

• Pain editor to make stun pretty much useless for the first attack.
• Weapons have base DV, allowing them to be heavy hitters even before rolling, and you can get enough attack dice that rolling reaction, or even reaction + dodge isn't ever going to make you miss.
• Sammies will dump into reaction, and sometimes intuition, thus pretty much ensuring they go first in combat. At the game stage you guys are talking about, the first person to act decides who lives and who dies.

Don't be silly, longbowrocks. For one thing, anything X can do, mysad can do better. Sustained/anchored/quickened/adept power buffs for the Initiative, infinite LOS spells for the shooting (which don't have to be stunbolt), etc. Not to mention anything about spirits, utility spells…

This is specifically in the crazy-long run, of course. In the short run, things are a little better, which is good; that's when most games happen.

Ok, that make much more sense, i was mostly thinking "12 dice, wait a second if you have a magic 9 then spellcasting skill at rating 3 already gets us that"

Most characters should have at least a 4, if not a 5 (the skill group not being worth the BP--Banishing = Useless).

I read that as:
Cumulative -2 penalty/how? you're already dumping all your karma into magic and initiation/(don't have the book with me I'll get to this later)/hella expensive and can never compete with bioware unless you have dozens of power points (even then you can't simulate pain editor)


Infinite LOS is nice, in the rare situations where your LOS is unobstructed by buildings for more than the minimum range increment of a holdout pistol. Even then, there's camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree.


Lets talk crazy long run. We all know sammies will wallop a mysad's patooty in the short run.

Your move.

No, it's not a choice *between* those. It's having the option to do any/all of those.

Are you artificially limiting the discussion to melee range? That's ridiculous. And the Awakened character is better at "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree"—tons better. And astral sight defeats most of that.

Again, *anything* the sam can do, the mysad can do. Plus spells, astral sight, PP, spirits, metamagics…

Not all Spellcasters are Veteran or Elite Casters though... In fact, not many are. A Skill of 3 is a Professional Rating after all. Just because you CAN do a thing (Get a Skill above 3) does not mean that you SHOULD. The skill should reflect the Character, and I am sorry, if you were so skilled at Magic (Skills 5+), The corps would likely never let you go, or you would be working for them shortly after they discovered your potential, for those who started outside the Corporate Environment. Magically Aware people are a Rarity, after all, and ones so skilled (or so powerful for those with a Magic Rating above 3) are even rarer.

Banishing isn't useless unless your GM is a jerk and makes every spirit bound with 30 services.

I dunno. The threads demonstrating that Banishing is useless seemed pretty convincing. *shrug* IIRC, it's always worse than just Stunbolting (less effective and/or more dangerous).

Actually, the number of services and the effectiveness of Banishing is related to the number of services that a player character could reasonably get (without edge) on any given force of spirit.

The Banisher rolls Banishing + Magic, which is resisted by the Spirit's Force + Summoner's Magic (if bound). Net hits are subtracted from the spirits services.

If it's a low-force spirit, the spirit's owed services are going to be high (Magic + Binding - Force*2). If it's a high force spirit, it's going to have a lot of dice to resist banishing.

And it takes a complex action. Versus just stunbolting it to death.

No, it allows you to still cast spells in -12 background count.

Don't you mean (Magic + Binding - Force * 2) / 3? Unless we're assuming that every die for the binding is a success.

But I agree that you typically don't want to banish a bound spirit. A summoned one though, is usually easier to banish than he is to stun bolt to death, especially if he's of a type that gets counter spelling and has enough force that your sammies can't just kill him with a gun faster than you can say "heeby jeeby mumbo jumbo."

Each one has its downsides. All those downsides stack in the end when you're trying to cast spells.
the -2 penalty from sustaining one spell, in addition to having 1 less magic than you could because you invested in anchored spells, totals to 3 fewer dice than you would have rolled otherwise.
Sammies can have a similar issue, but in their case they just add recoil compensation.


No, don't worry about that. I don't even like melee. I was just pointing out that infinite LOS seldom comes in use (at least in our games) I told our mage in our last session that he had infinite range when provided with non technical LOS. He was pleasantly surprised, but we still didn't get a chance to use it. I was even ready to use MRSI with my bow from 720 m away to get multiple simulatenous impacts on all the building's supports.


Great. Now nobody can see anybody. We all win. Except the sammie can use thermographic, ultrasound, and technical instruments for sight, many of which will not be fooled by magic.


What is this I don't even. Aren't there like five ways to defeat astral sight in the core book alone? Again, I'm not a huge magic buff, but there are a few plants with astral projections in gear (runner's companion?), one of which you could feasibly make a gillie net out of, and a few qualities to disguise or remove your astral presence spread throughout the books.


I still don't see anything on par with the pain editor.
Or platelet factories.
Or ridiculous internal armor from cyberware, which is a strategy restricted to unawakened characters (unless you have a strong desire to be the formerly awakened mage).

MyaAd can take the top two, but that reduces his max potential in other areas permanently.

vestri permoveo

PS, lemme know if I got anything mind-blowingly wrong. I'm working off memory here.

Isn't spellcasting a complex action anyway?

Dice pools. Magic + Binding vs. Force * 2. Hits on the latter subtract from hits on the former.

Don't worry. It's an internet forum debate. Someone will let you know if you got something even slightly wrong (like spelling), and won't let you live it down either.

3 dice (from Magic) isn't important. Ask Mäx about his combat mage munchkins. And are you intentionally ignoring sustaining foci (or Spirits of Man), or what?

In fact, all of those can be fooled by magic, whether it's a perfectly legal (and game-breaking) custom spell, or a spirit with Concealment.

I can count on one finger the number of FAB ghillie suits I've ever seen. And I said 'most of that', meaning your explicitly listed "camo, stealth, and just plain being behind a tree". I don't see where you mentioned rare, expensive, and fragile manatech there, Mr. 'What is this I don't even'. Nevermind that the mysad, as I said, can get all those visions. Say it with me: 'anything X can do, mysad can do better'.

The mysad can *have* a pain editor. And Platelet Factories. And spells ignore armor. Come on, man! This Dumpshock; when it comes to Magicrun, ain't our first rodeo.

I guess if your GM's a jerk and corpsec wagemages have Magic 6 and Summoning 7, that could be a problem, too. But even then, I wouldn't expect an unbound spirit (even a very low-Force one) to have more than 2 or 3 services on it -- especially since the summoner has to expend at least one service to get the spirit to do anything other than sit there staring at him.

Beyond that, if the spirit has a high Force, odds are a stunbolt isn't going to cut it, unless you over/multicast it so much that the drain starts to become a serious problem.

Imagine even that the summoner summons a Force 10 spirit, with 2 net hits on it -- this isn't far outside the realm of possibility, even, since you can easily have more dice on a summoning test than a very high-Force spirit gets to roll to resist. The summoner spends one service to get it to guard something. This spirit is going to have 10 resistance dice and 12 stun boxes. You can't plan on taking this out in one shot. When you overcast that Force 10 stunbolt with Edge, and there's still a sizable chance of the spirit completely resisting the spell, or at least still being alive after it takes the damage, you're in trouble. Because on top of the 4P drain from that stunbolt, the spirit is going to roll 20+ dice on its attack, even after wound penalties, and your mage is going to be a puddle of magically delicious red goo.

Or you could take your chances rolling Banishing with Edge (with more dice than the spirit gets) and trying to get just 1 or 2 net hits to save the day - because your buddies probably aren't getting through that 20 hardened armor. And every IP that spirit gets to act, someone is probably going to die.

Not that you get to go first, anyway, since it probably has 20+ initiative dice.

You can multi-cast two F7 stunbolts for about 1 drain.

Stunbolt: (F/2)-2
Multi-cast: +1 drain DV

F7 -> (7/2) -> 3. 3-1 -> 1. 1+1 = 2 DV.

Drain resist (non-twink): Willpower 5, [Drain Stat] 4.
9 dice to resist 2 DV twice.

Those sound like good odds to me.

Split your dice pool versus something with 6+ resistance dice?

Also 3 - 1 = 2, so that's 3 DV apiece. Good odds, but you'll probably pick up 1 or 2 physical.

Lol. You've got us pegged.


Aren't the foci just for bonuses? Maybe I'm a bit out of my depth, then again, 3 dice will only get you that one anchored and one sustained spell. Are you going to give up more for an astral barrier? how about invisibility?


Custom spell:
Did you know the game doesn't say how movement bonuses stack, or mention which ones don't stack? 5 hits to sprint and my centaur named Guile breaks the sound barrier, rending all nearby into red mist.


Wouldn't ultrasound vision be technological and therefore useless for any spellcasting?
As for the addition to the list, there are so many possibilities in this game that I can't think of everything on the first post.


Nevar!
Even if you can knit that sweater, I can fill it better.
And any song you can sing I can sing louder, I can sing any song louder than you.


I pointed out that you're giving up magic for the bioware, and karma for the wasted magic.


Oh, so now it's out in the open. We aren't just talking relative bonuses, but how the sammie will kill the mage and vice-versa.
Please don't die on me now thread. The battle will continue later today after my CS 352 exam.

Banishing is good against high force unbound spirits with counterspelling.

A sustaining focus sustains a spell; that's the job. So, for example, you sustain Wires 3. Or invisibility, sure. You can have several, and they're honestly not that expensive (cash/karma). Not in the 'crazy long run' context we're using.

If there were rules for ramming with nonvehicles, your centaur would kill himself anyway. And there aren't.

I didn't say ultrasound worked for spellcasting. That's all you can respond to 'the mage can get all the visions, even though he barely needs them' with? Come at me, bro!

The loss to magic versus the bonuses of getting a little cyber/bio is minor, and that's specifically what 'crazy long run' Initiation/Magic raising fixes. It's even worse if you cyber up while your Magic is lower, a truly ridiculous munchkin tactic. (See also: any number of threads specifically about this.)

You're the one who mentioned armor as if it were relevant. I only pointed out that it's not. And non-cyber armor is more than sufficient, except for numerical exercises. That's the thing: these Awakened are fully playable, not a Binky or a pornomancer. There's *one* thing that can sorta help counteract the Magicrun dominance in the (once again, totally ridiculous) 'crazy long run': Astral Hazing. And that's an extreme SURGE-only power.

I don't even care about this, I literally never play Awakened characters. But since you're new and curious about powergaming, I'm mentioning what I've seen. Hehe.

So what, the caster is getting no net successes on his Stunbolt?



Even with just the 1 net hit you need to be successful on your cast, you've increased your drain by 50%.


Also, Stunbolt is -1 (you switch between -1 and -2 in your post), which makes the force 7 stunbolt 2 base +1 for multicasting = 3 + 1 for a net success = 4. If you get more than one net success that goes higher. So you're resisting 4 DV twice with 5 will and 4 drain stat, which is an average of 3 successes. Meaning you take on average one drain for each cast. More drain if you roll better.

"used to increase the damage value". Don't pay for what you don't use.

Also optional rule. Also dumb. Also doesn't matter.

As for "splitting dice pool." Let's see:

6 magic (we'll overcast, because we want that thing dead).
4 Spellcasting
2 Specialization ("combat" is always useful)
3 Focus (spellcasting)

6+4 = 10
Split is 5/5
+modifiers of 5

10/10 dice vs. a spirit with 6 willpower. Reasonable odds for 1 net hit per spell. If it has counterspelling, use Edge. No one will blame you.

I get the impression that people who crow about the awesome power of Stunbolt typically don't use that optional rule.

I don't see anything that says you can choose to not use it to increase your damage value. The only reference I see is:





If you could choose to not increase it to reduce your drain it would say "Any net hits on the spellcasting test may be used to increase the DV by 1", the way it is worded says that it always increases, and thus always increases your drain.




It's not an optional rule, it's in the core rulebook listed under the properties of combat spells. Nowhere is it stated or implied that it is optional. But yes, I'm sure a lot of stuff is broken when you ignore the rules on them completely.

I have gotten the impression that most people in general don't use that optional rule, mostly because it's probably the stupidest optional rule ever written for SR4(actually us saying pretty much exactly that is what got it turned in to an optional rule )

Please get an updated version of your PDF, it's been an optional rule for a long time(much, much longer then it was a non-optional)

Mainly because it's a rule that encourages overcasting (and multi-casting). It doesn't actually solve the problem it tried to fix (which was to curb overcasting).

So they took away the one balancing factor of indirect spells while not simultaneously raising the drain to match elemental manipulations? The lower drain values of mana spells make sense when you figure it's expecting a few extra hits to raise the drain. The drain values with that being taken away make no sense. I'm going to repeat, of COURSE when you take away the balancing factor of a spell, it's going to be broken.



How does a rule that increases your drain encourage over casting? I can see the reasoning for it encouraging multicasting, but I can't see someone wanting to overcast when there's a chance they'll get a really good roll and kill themselves.

The rule that you quoted above is an Optional Rule, and does not apply by default.

@Yerameyahu
What is "the long run"?
500 Karma? 700 Karma? 1000 Karma? 1500 Karma?

"Hmm, if I raise my force by 2 and spend no hits on extra damage, I get 2 damage for 1 drain."

vs.

"Hmm, or I can spend 2 net hits for damage, and I'll get the same 2 damage for 2 drain."

Which would you do? And once you're overcasting, you can eek out even more damage for only half the drain of using net hits.

All of our discussions have to be at least based in RAW. RAW, that optional rule is not used, so don't get mad about it.

Let me clarify, that rule was only ever non-optional in the first pdf version of the anniversary edition corebook(it didn't exist before that) and when we pointed out that it's stupid and doesn't really do what it's supposed to do at all it was turned in to an optional rule in the updated pdf and the hard copies.

Why do people on this forum always insist on pointing something out that's already been pointed out by 2-3 other people? Is the redundancy somehow worthwhile?

Anyway, it was initially a mandatory rule, apparently somewhere along the line it got erratad to an optional rule. This is really stupid given they didn't errata drain of other spells to compensate for losing that, so now all direct spells are much lower in drain than their indirect equivalents. For the elemental effects, I could see +1 dv for the secondary bonuses (catching things on fire for extra damage for example is worth a little something extra), but compare Stunbolt to Clout. They do the exact same thing, except Clout gets to be resisted by armor, and has a +1 higher drain.

First, I think there's a typo there.
Second, it's not true.

How is it not true? Spell drain codes did not change. They are exactly what they were in SR4 as they are now in SR4A.

Also: compared to elemental effects, even with the optional rule, the direct spell is better.

Except there is no rule for omitting net hits to deal less damage, as was already pointed out. So you overcast, you get the 1 higher drain, and drain converted to physical, AND the same number of net hits, so your damage is now 2 higher, but you're facing the same drain as before, plus 1, and it's all physical. Yes, that is enough to divert most people from wanting to overcast.

That's still not how dice pool splitting is supposed to work. Specializations and Foci are intended to be applied before the split. In your example, the split should be 7/7.



Has there been some official or semi-official release changing this from what's in SR4A? It's not listed as optional in my book.

Fixed.



You realize you're basically confirming my point? They changed the rule that was intended to balance direct vs indirect, then reverted it after some forum whining. So Direct remains blatantly better. The answer should have been to increase the DV of direct spells by +1-2 across the board, if they were going to get rid of the rule to increase the DV based on the casting.

It might make more sense for splitting to work that way, Epicedion, but it's not how it actually works. As with the optional rule, we use the RAW for discussing, no matter how reasonable a house rule seems. Seerow, again, we're talking about the RAW, not what you think would be a better rule.

Lets see then...

Force 5 Mana Bolt Spell. 5 Net Hits: 10dv, with a Drain of 7 (Stun). You are Not always likely to get those 5 Hits either.
2x Force 5 Multicast Mana Bolt Spells. No applied Net Hits, with a combined Drain of 3 Each. Damage of 10dv. Drain of 6 (Stun)
Force 10 Man Bolt Spell. I will use NO net hits to increase Damage. Damage 0f 10DV with drain of... Wait for it... 5 (physical)

Yes, The overcast Spell's drain will be physical, but so what. Any competant mage will likely be able to reduce this to insignificant Drain damage, While 7 is generally GOING to give you some damage, stun or not.

So, you see, The Rule enforces Multicastiong and Overcasting to get the effects wanted, with minimal drain to boot.

Epic fail for a rule to curb Overcasting.

There is no reason what so ever to say "every net hit used to increase the damage" unless you allowed to select whether or not you use those net hits to increase damage.

Tada!
There's even a section in the spellcasting general rules that a magician can chose not to apply net hits if they so choose.



(I do not have the SR4A book here at work)

Here is the full quote from the most recent books.



Please see the Highlighted text... It is both Optional to apply as many hits as you would like (you do not have to apply them all by default), and it is also an Optional Rule for Applied hits to increase Drain...

Hopefully this will solve the Yes it is, not it isn't line of thought.

EDIT: Damn. Ninja'd by Draco18s. Though he used a different page source for his; so, TWO sources that confirm the same thing. Can't argue that...

Given the discussion started by this optional rule starting as a RAW rule that got changed, the discussion is relevant. I've already said that yes, with that change stunbolt is blatantly overpowered. The drain is still higher than what the original poster I quoted said (3 as opposed to 2 per casting), but that is more manageable.

My point is the creators appear to have made a change at the last minute based on whining, and balance was hurt because of it.




You're still trying to say you can choose not to use net hits to increase damage. Since we're discussing RAW that can't actually be done. So your force 10 mana bolt spell will have the same 5 net hits as the force 5 mana bolt, giving you a 15 DV with a drain of 10(physical).

I'd say that's a huge deterrent to overcasting. I already said yes, it does encourage multicasting.



Show me where it actually says you can make the choice to not increase the damage. I already quoted the relevant part from the book where it says every net hit increases damage, as opposed to can be used to increase damage.


edit: And ninjad with a quote from the newest version of the book.

Yup. So, choosing is RAW, and not increasing DV is RAW. *shrug*. You act like people are lying to you, instead of assuming they know the correct rules. No one (well, some crazy people) disputes that magic and direct mana spells can be imbalanced… that's the point of the thread. You're just re-proving it.

It's not a house rule. There's a very reasonable explanation of it in the FAQ that doesn't require you to add or remove any text or sidebars to the rulebook.

Before anyone goes all up in arms about FAQ ISN'T ERRATA ARAAGAHGALBRBL as has happened in the past, what this means is that the developers view their FAQ explanation as RAW. They aren't treating it as a rules change, just as a clarification for what's obviously become a confusing mechanic. Otherwise they would say "this is a better way of doing it" or "this is a rules change." No, they said "this is what the rule means. This is how dice pool splitting is done." Specializations and Foci aren't Dice Pool Modifiers. They "add to tests." They "add to dice pools." But they are not "Dice Pool Modifiers."

It then follows that anyone who prefers to stand by their prior interpretation of the rules has essentially house-ruled in a flawed understanding (assisted heavily by some pretty flawed writing), and that house rule shouldn't be discussed in a conversation about RAW.

If that were the case then, those bonuses would not be called out as a "modifier" to the dice roll... The FAQ is trying to do an endrun around the non-existant Eratta. Everyone knows that. Yes, it is a terminology thing. But there you go. Specializations and Foci bonus dice are MODIFIERS to the skill roll. And Modifiers are added AFTER the split.