Do successes increase the damage of combat spells, or do the hits only insure the power of the spell against being resisted?

Combat spells inflict (Force + hits) damage (stun or physical, plus any elemental effects, as noted in the spell's entry). Physical direct combat spells are resisted with Body + Counterspelling, while mana direct combat spells are resisted with Willpower + Counterspelling. In the case of indirect combat spells, the target makes a dodge test with Reaction + Counterspelling; if he achieves more successes than the magician's Magic + Spellcasting test, he dodges the spell. Otherwise each hit reduces the modified DV of the spell as normal for a ranged attack. The target then resists Body + half Impact armor.

See SR4A, p. 203, under the heading "Combat Spells."

The damage is Force+Net Hits.

And the total hits are restricted to the force of the spell (unless edge is spent to increase dice pool).

Under the spoiler is a house rule, and may not interest you, but is included for information sake.

I use the optional rule where net hits are also added to drain for direct combat spells (giving the PCs the option to pull any number of their hits without knowing how many successes the defender rolled).

Yes, I know all of the ways you can get around this rule to keep direct combat spells broken (overcasting, multicasting, etcetera). Fortunately, my PCs don't! : )

Actually the official opinion is that you can pull net hits on that stupid optional rule. You simply choose not to apply any for damage.

Regardless, I think my solution is more likely to have an impact on rules abusers.

Edit: Sorry, not trying to make my solution superior. Each GM has their own choises and preferences. I personally chose this ruling for a different reason, this benefit was secondary.

Why does everyone insist on nerfing direct combat spells to the point where they are useless when guns are already the mathematically superior weapon in the vast majority of cases.

Because a gun can be taken away, or otherwise easily restricted.

I wasn't nerfing the spells in favour of mundane means, I was actually trying to make Indirect spells more appealing.

Slap magecuffs or that hood on the mage and his "gun" is taken away. Honestly though simply blindfolding them is just as effective if your only fear is combat spells.

Honestly, the problem with direct spells is that you can't dodge them.
They're broken not just because the resistance test is also the dodge test, but also because you roll two dice pools against one defending pool.

I think they would be a lot better if they allowed a soak test,as well.

Remember that normal ranged combat is also two dice pools (skill + Agility) versus one dice pool (Reaction). The only difference is that there is no equivalent of full defense for spells.

I almost wish they would revise the spell rules to bring them in line with the other combat rules. Because as balanced as they are in practice, people will always think they are "overpowered" because there is no dodge, just a resistance test.

If you do that, though, then you should remove the other factors that nerf them - remove the cap on net hits equal to the Force, and make spell defense cost an action whenever it is used, rather than simply being free extra defense dice for everyone.

Whut, you don't need to pull your hits, you caan decide how many net hits to use for damage.

I've never noticed direct combat spells to be nerfed. In fact, stunball is stupidly overpowerful, as it can wipe out a room with a single action, and no risk of drain.

Yes, I'm aware of the optional rule. No, I don't think fixing one broken rule with another broken rule is a good idea.

Depends on your table.
If you are always walking around with assault cannons and the like, yes.
If you can call yourself lucky, if you managed to sneak in a holdout pistol, no.
In between it tends to depend on several other factors too.

One thing I dislike, when it comes to magic is, that there is no way to prevent casting in an area. (Only thing would be the mana static...)

Followed up damage resistance. The thing about direct combat spells are that they only have the (damage) resistance step, there is no "dodge" step.

Actually, there is only the dodge step, except that you do get two pools (crippled, but..) for those - IF you have a competent mage standing behind you.

Now, to bring direct combat spells in line with other combat:

Use WP to strike off net hits.
Then use WP+counterspelling [+ possibly essence loss] to reduce damage.

That would at least make stunbolts less binary.

Full def would be using something + WP (or simply WP+WP) to reduce net hits, and use an action.

And then reduce the drain on indirect spells, so that it becomes practical to actually use them. And fix that damned Heal spell to do something again.

Well at least the first two attacks of a mundane aggressor usually skip that step as well due to surprise.

The problem is that it is a staple of SR magic that physical manifestations are more difficult (read draining) than pure mana effects.

What's wrong with the heal spell?

While I agree that the Drain on Indirect Spells is sometimes atrocious, the Heal Spell works extremely well already. What, exactly, is your problem with Heal?

@Dakka Dakka
I guess a lot of people are not shure how it really works.

The drain is horribly ambiguous. What does it mean by 'Damage Value'? The number of boxes that have been suffered or the number of boxes that get healed? Or is it the amount of damage left afterwards? Is only physical damage considered? Was it intentional the the choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 and nothing else by virtue of not being linked to drain?

Did not exclude myself from this group...
Yes, this are the major points.
I also heard the interpretation, that the healing spell heals Force points of damage+ hits used for healing.
So the damage in the drain code is equal to the Force.
Bringing it in line with the damage spells. (It is horrible overpowerd I guess, but it is in Line with how the other spells work...)

Damage Value is the Damage that the Target has received, up to that point.
This makes the Drain fairly hefty, but it should be.
You can only use Heal to heal Physical Damage, so Stun is never figured into the equation for Drain, nor is it healed.
Force is how MUCH actual damage can be Healed, wherever you set that from 1 up to 2x Force.
Drain is based upon how much Energy it takes to actually heal the Target (Thus Drain = DV -2), not the Force of the Spell Being Cast, which determines how MUCH is actually healed (as odd as that may sound)

Pretty Straight Forward Actually.

Yeah, that is one reason I just said "Alright, when you use heal, the Force of the spell is equal to the boxes you are attempting to heal (either all boxes, or just the last set you haven't tried it on yet, GM's decision there). Drain is Force/2-2." I use the full boxes (the idea being a new wound could agitate older wounds, so treat it as a whole. Makes less book keeping in that regard, too), and at some point the Heal spell becomes inneficient, or even useless. (healing three boxes and resisting three physical drain isn't worth it, unless you are sure you can resist it. After magic x2, the spell won't affect at all, as you are above the force allowance.)

That's exactly what I would take as RAI but there are at least two assumptions involved and the result is, IMO, substandard. Choice of Force becomes either Magic or Magic x 2 - all other values are needless since Force determines the maximum that may be healed by hits. Healing a team mate near death now becomes a tricky choice, given the drain could easily be as much as twice what is healed. It's also at variance with every other spell in that nowhere else is drain subject to the working conditions rather than the amount of mana being called upon.

Maybe, but it does not bother me, or our table, in the least. Healing someone from 4 Overflow should not be something that is easy or painless for the caster. It does make a difference in the end, because you have to be careful of the drain involved. The Potential Drain is the more important factor for healing style spells, not the number of boxes healed.

No worries though.

Not quite true. The antidote and cure disease spell both have Drain based on the DV of the toxin or disease. I had assumed the DV-2 was referring to the boxes healed, myself, but when I read closer, I saw that the other interpretation was more in line with how the other two spells calculated Drain. I don't like it, though, for similar reasons to the ones you stated. Plus, I think a mage should have the option to heal someone just a little bit, for lower Drain, if they choose to do so. Oh well, I guess it's another reason to have someone use first aid on a character before casting heal on them.

That is so. Personally, I like it when massive damage can't be automatically healed to a degree, it adds grit and consequences. But, then, I might take the gritty factor too far.

Well, that would be around 12-16 points of stun damage. (To overcast healing is quite useless if you have at least magic 4 or 5. Because to really get more hits you would need edge anyway...)

When have you last seen Increase Reflexes cast at a Force other than 4, except for Edge Shenanigans? I'm sure there are other spells that the most sense at certain Force levels.

Yeah, but that Force: 4 spell has higher Drain, which is how spells should work.

He was saying that if someone has 8 points of damage, then if your Magic is 5, and you are not going to overcast, there is no point in casting it at, say, Force: 3, since it will have the exact same Drain as casting it at Force: 5, and the only difference will be that your successes will be capped at 3 instead of 5. I agree with him - it is jarring, to have a spell where the Drain doesn't depend on the Force of the spell itself, but other factors.

If it bothers you, House rule it. I've already mentioned how I change it to fit the froce rules for other spells, and the other restorative healing spells follow suit. Yes, it means the spells in my version can be used more often, but it also means they can't be used on higher outliers (a magic 4 character can't stabilize someone who has 9 overflow)

I think the problem with Heal is they just took the old SR3 mechanic (soak 1/2F or so with a damage code of the damage of the target) and tried to translate it. And that just doesn't work too well. In SR3 resisting 3D was definitely doable. 8-12 Stun are a totally different matter, IMHO, and will likely knock you out. Even in SR3 it was wiser to use First Aid first, but that was mainly a result of the way that worked - it removed an entire damage level.

So I'm not sure what's the best solution, but I would go back to halfing the drain, probably still based on DV. 1/2 DV or so. If that seems too easy, make it 1/2DV +1.

Oh and there is an other interpretation too.
You may treat any damage sustained from a different source alone...
Sorry, to say that, but in my opinion the healing rules in general are not that good.

Yes, that was also done in SR3 sometimes.

In SR3, there was the tremendous quick-healing you could do with first-aid and magic paired, and then the rest of the healing process took for fricken ever. NOW I'm not sure, it seems quick healing is harder (threshold for first-aid, and somehow weaker heal spell), but natural healing was supposed to be quicker. I haven't actually ever read those rules, because we always just did downtime healing, and there was always enough time.

Healing Naturally is horrendously fast. I have seen Trolls go from 5 Over flow (13 Boxes of Normal Damage, and 5 Overflow) to fully healed in 3 days or less, Naturally. Healing that would take a normal Human in todays world Months to occur, and require Therapy for full functionality a Shadowrun character can naturally heal up in less than 5 days. Combine that with the Magical Healing and First Aid that goes on and you can go from Death's Door to Fully Functional in a Day or two, Tops.

Yeah, definitely not something I agree with. Which is why I use both slower healing options; Body-wounds for physical damage; Body/Willpower-wounds for stun. It takes that Troll from 3 days without help, and assuming 10 body, will make him wait 3 days to wake up (on average).

I'm assuming that incorporates mods for hosptital care? Or is that just baseline?

Straight Baseline...
With a High Lifestyle, and decent Conditions...

By RAW probably not.

No, it wouldn't. By RAW, the Troll would roll either 18 or 20 dice, depending on body 9 or 10. With 18 dice, he likely gets about 6 hits each roll, which would heal all 18 damage in three days.

IIRC there is an optional rule to slow down healing, and I believe it mentions healing in SR4 was designed to be faster than older versions.

Applied use of Medicine skill can make it even faster.

Oh Yes... Applied Medicine, or First Aid, creates situations in which Healing is about as good as Regeneration.

Hmmm... that sure is fast. BUT quite a few runners I know do not in fact have a high lifestyle, and would at least have to pay a fair amount of money to improve their living conditions for a short while.

It's still fast enough to make injuries basically a non-issue unless you're sitting in the muck somewhere with no way to improve your conditions. Which... would make for a bit of good drama.

The trouble is: Slowing down baseline healing will necessarily also slow down healing under poor conditions, which you might also want to be finite in time scale. (A short stint with one runner incapacitated in hostile territory might be fun, but having to sit out three months of healing while under fire and nowhere to run will invariably be boring to the player of the incapacitated guy.)

Don't forget mystic healing. I forget whether or not it's incompatible with other bonuses, but I do seem to recall it can be a nice little extra boost to the healing DP.

Healing in squalid conditions: another reason for adepts to take up Heightened Concentration.

That's only baseline. No penalties or bonuses for conditions or lifestyles. I prefer grittier, and use the rules I mentioned above. Even in average conditons (not good or bad) the Troll would be unconscious for 3 days on average, and most others would need help to get anywhere on the healing.

The serious wounds and heavy damage rules can slow things down a bit. As and when they apply there are a fair few ways to make the player feel the hurt that little bit more. For example, I once had a party of 8 foolishly send the two dwarfs to take care of a cybertooth tiger on their own and one of them was a very squishy TM. In short order they were both out of it, one with brain damage (the TM) and the other with a couple of broken ribs. I ruled that the TM would suffer the Mental Handicap quality until he could source some gene therapy (or perhaps common or garden neurosurgery) whilst the other guy would be permamently saddled with six boxes of damage until he got some professional treatment. It might seem harsh, but lessons must be learned in my game!

I completely agree. I use the sever damage rules as well, but the only times they came up were for a PC's broken ribs and internal bleeding, for an NPC getting a brain hemhorage after someone stun bolted him, and another NPC going into shock and soon dying after someone decided to try non-lethal with 14+ dice pool and Ex-Ex ammo.