Is spell drain for combat spells something that needs to be revised?

Fireball. +5 drain. That's alot, especially for a spell that can be negated with conventional means (flame retardant, half impact, all that)

Meanwhile, you've got the stun-family that costs as little as -1 drain, and is far harder to resist.

Direct spells don't do more than Force damage, unless you accept +1 Drain for each net hit on the spellcasting roll used to increase the damage dealt. Also, your Indirect Stun spells like Punch, Clout, and Blast are opposed tests against a target's Reaction (+ Counterspelling) with a resistance of Body + Half Impact armor, just like the Elemental spells.

IIRC somewhere there's additional penalties for being the target of an AOE spell like Fireball.

The +1 Drain for each net hit is optional, not mandatory (last paragraph on Direct spells pg 204 SR4A). The other thing to remember is Indirect spells all have an elemental effect in addition to the regular damage. This kind of counter balances the high drain when you can light your target on fire. In addition, with the AOE spells like Fireball, you can hit targets you can't see, so long as the main target is in you LOS.
AOE attacks have a -2 Dodge penalty (pg 160 SR4A, Attacker Using AOE Weapon).

Have you...just...like, not seen any of the many, many, other threads on this topic? I'm kind of flabbergasted that someone would think this specific complaint hadn't come up before.

I do agree that the elemental effect should be worth something, I'm just not sold that it should be worth *that* much. I'm a bit rusty on spells, but isn't stunbolt or manabolt resisted by body and counterspelling alone? and a -1dv? Against the (usually) smaller stun track?

Have you tried using the search function lately?

Yeah, I know it's optional. Thought my wording above was clear enough on that.

And thanks for the AOE reminder, Mantis.

Crit, while I feel your frustration, I really really do, not helpful bro.

Although Redjack swears it works and wrote up a pretty useful guide to the Search function, I'm not really a fan of it either.

Here, is this more helpful? I just did a title search for "direct combat."

If you're looking to see the thoughts of other forumites on the matter, here you go.

You'll notice that I didn't do it. You're a better man that I sir.

I wasn't out to be a dick, it's just that I've never had much trouble with the search function, so I guess I expect other people to have the same one-in-a-million-mojo, or whatever, that makes it tick. No offense intended, AN. As you can see, it's a topic with plenty of posts (and flames) already.

If you are going for straight damage, mana bolt/ball is the way to go.

In case of (element) ball spells, we are talking extreme measures, and area effect. Burn the evidence with fire, disable with electricity, slow down with ice. And notice that element-proven gear is rare.

No offense taken, And I award you with the greatest thing on the internet ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84WpcmJ28Yg...player_embedded

One of the greatest things I've seen on youtube.

On the subject of drain, don't forget that 1) you are talking about an AOE, so I'd use single targets as a baseline, and 2) there are quite a number of ways to manage drain. I've made mages before who aren't rolling super-dice on spellcasting, but can soak drain like no other, so they cast spells somewhat weaker, but more often. Improved Attribute (spell) on a sustaining focus would increase dice for drain resistance. Fetishes are something I take for anything +5 on drain. Centering and centering foci are also wonderful things. And, if memory serves (no book in front of me) spirits can also assist resisting drain, though I forget on what capacity (bound, summoned, etc. I want to say bound)

The House-Rule I work with is that all Direct Combat Spells get +4 Drain and all Indirect Combat Spells get -2 Drain. Seems to even things out again.

I'm thinking about removing counterspelling from indirect combat spells altogehter. That should make them more attractive.

Not really, since they can still be resisted with something a lot more affordable than Counterspelling. Patching the Draincodes should do the trick nicely without any other tampering with rules. Besides, even with Counterspelling Stunbolt is going to be the go-to spell unless its Drain code is altered.

Even with nil drain you still have the problem that the spells can be dodged by REA+Counterspelling+Dodge on Full Defense (-2 for area spells).
Yes and no. If you increase the drain on damaging spells, the result will probably be that mages will just buy a big gun and sustain enhance aim and Increase AGI (and possibly learn a weapon skill).

Right, but you're increasing the Drain on some spells and reducing it on others. That lower Drain code makes those elemental secondary effects look even more attractive, and a spellcaster's Spellcasting pool should be larger, on average, than someone else's Full Defense + Counterspell. Even if you miss you made them give up their next turn.

I don't know why everyone seems to think that direct and indirect combat spells need to be "balanced" in regards to each other.

Direct combat spells are zapping mana right into a target. A mage needs to have low-Drain go-to spells like that, and any nerfs to them cut right into a mage's viability as a PC. If you need to nerf anything, look at the real potentially unbalancing things, like overcasting, multicasting, mental manipulations, and high-Force spirits.

Indirect combat spells are flashy niche spells. They should have a lot more Drain. They are a very inefficient use of mana. They take a massive amount of energy to bring an actual energy/matter effect into the world - fire, lightning, acid, etc. They are occasionally useful - attacking vehicles, hitting targets that are not in visual range, and secondary effects such as cooking off ammo. But they have never been in any kind of parity, Drain-wise, with direct combat spells.

Because having 1 'best' combat spell is fucking stupid, especially in a roleplaying situation, and the lack of balance that exist currently is what directly creates having a 'best' combat spell.

There isn't one "best" combat spell - there is one best category of combat spells. And they are the best at the most common application of taking out enemies. Indirect spells are better at attacking unseen enemies or vehicles, and have useful secondary effects. They also take a lot more energy to cast, so they are best used more sparingly. Direct combat spells are like heavy pistols, while indirect combat spells are like grenades - better in some situations, but with less overall utility. Besides, there are more combat-oriented spells than simply the combat category. You can use illusion spells to incapacitate or deceive enemies, or mental manipulations to control them, or other manipulations such as ice sheet or ignite. If every option is equally optimal in all circumstances, then the variety becomes meaningless - it's one spell, with different fluff descriptions.

Nope.

Also, I was under the impression that direct combat spells had horridly high drain.

That can easily outdistance the drain on a direct combat spell.

That rule was so incredibly lame and stupid that they quickly backpedaled and made it an optional rule - for SR4 and all previous editions of Shadowrun, direct combat spells were low-Drain. Although indirect combat spells were not always designated as such - in SR3, they were considered damaging manipulation spells. Which is actually a more accurate designation - but the manipulation spell category was really starting to get bloated, so I can see why they moved them over to combat spells.

The world makes sense again.

The optional rule isn't that bad. It at least accomplishes the goal of making direct combat spells a bit harder to use by adding a little bit more drain to them (no more force 7 casting then use all the successes to stage damage to knockout levels... overcast right away taking more drain for doing so). As far as things they've published I've seen far worse. (pretty much the entirety of runner's companion for example!)


House rule junk like Neraphs +4, -1 stuff though. That is unmitigated garbage designed purely to stop combat mages from being viable at all as well as making indirect spells far more effective than they've ever been in any edition of SR. (remember not every mage is a combat mage).


About the only change to counterspelling indirects I'd look at is returning to the SR4 (not SR4a) counterspelling. Counterspelling used to add to soak damage not to avoiding damage outright in the initial reaction test. I have no idea why this was changed.


And I'm not certain where you're picking up that these spells were in any way lower drain or less deadly in SR3. All combat spells had drain == damage. Under SR3 it was the norm to watch a mage knock out single targets with a spell without breaking a sweat while taking no damage. (force 6, stunbolt, medium damage).

Elemental spells WERE manipulation spells in SR3 (not combat spells). That's the reason their drain codes are so high.

Just FYI straight from my SR3 book pulled off the shelf.
Stunbolt: Type: M, Target: W, Duration: I, Drain: -1(Damage Level)
AcidStream: Type: P, Target: 4 , Duration: I , Drain: +1(Damage Level +1)

Just to explain what that means... that means stunbolt directly targetted the targets willpower as it's TN. So someone with high willpower would be able to resist fairly easy... while acid always had a target number of 4.

The drain bit is trickier to explain... if your stunbolt did base medium damage... you needed to soak medium damage on a TN of (force/2)+(-1). If your force was 6, that meant TN2 (the minimum allowed). Every 2 successes staged down by 1 grade. (so 4 would take you from medium to none). Acid on the other hand started a damage grade ABOVE the base damage you inflicted... so the drain TN is still only 4 for the same force 6 (resisted by half impact armor), but the mage would need to soak serious damage.

So in SR4... they have a slightly higher drain to start... +3 for the equivalent acid stream in SR4. But they're also much easier to avoid the target actively gets to dodge the attack as well as soak it down. Shadowrun has NEVER been about mages tossing fireballs and the like as if they were some DnD clone... the magic is a bit different and elemental effects have always had severe drain out of proportion to their actual damage. (though you still generally want one to use against drones & vehicles under duress).

Apart from the fact this is a rehash of numerous other threads, I think Glyph summed up the difference between direct and indirect combat spells quite succinctly. Apart from the general coolness of being able to rain down fire (or lightning or whatever) over an entire area, indirect spells do have their utility (ability to damage unseen opponents, vehicles, secondary elemental effects etc), even if it does mean you might take a bit of drain.

And while the drain code mechanics might make most mages lean towards Stunball and Powerbolt as their go-to combat spells, it's not like there are not other almost always must-have utility spells out there (Levitate, Influence, Imp Invisibility, P Mask, Heal, Increase Reflexes to name but a few).

Then you are doing it wrong, Almost Normal...

Drain for a Standard Mana Bolt and Stun Bolt are Identical to Force 3, and are only 1 Point apart to Force 5. And guess what, neither are good for Physical Non-Living Targets (as in Absolutely no effect), so, no, Stun/Mana Bolt/Ball are not the go too spells. They are nice spells to have, but not required in any way. Hell, I have had plenty of Mages that have had neither set of spells at all. In fact, build wise, Power Bolt is more efficient, since it can target any target.

Indirects spells had their spot as long as avoiding them was "reaction" and resisting them was Body+Armor+Counterspelling+Elemental resistance.


And area effects should be handled in a different way altogether. But thats another can of worms...

I understand for some reason you have a personal dislike for me but that is no reason to attack things I propose. I've never played any Shadowrun other than 4th, and in 4th there's a problem with the draincodes. So, under 4th's rules, I proposed a logical fix for the draincodes which is far superior than inventing a new mechanic solely for one subclass of spell that encourages overcasting. My fix works.

"Works" is subjective, though.
I would not raise Direct Spells at all, and then Reduce the Indirect spells by -2...
Of course, that supposes that I think they are broken in the first place, which I don't. *shrug*

You mistake something... I have personal dislike for your free wheeling nature and ignorance of the setting and rules. Nothing for you personally. It's only the disdain I have for all munchkin powergamers who fancy themselves rules lawyers who regularly twist and ignore rules. And worse, you actively go out of your way to misinform new players with your warped readings rather than giving them the straight dope so they can make their own educated decisions.


In this case, shadowrun mages have ALWAYS had severe problems producing elemental effects. My criticism wasn't of you, but of your silly house rule. It's part of the core setting... shadowrun magicians are not the classic evokers of fantasy lore. They can be, but it's always been exceptionally draining and not very productive. Direct combat spells have always been squarely superior to elemental effects in most cases.

You created a house rule... to address a percieved imbalance which is INTENTIONAL in the setting. A house rule so bad a mage is better off picking up a gun than to use spells because the combat spell drain is so harsh.

Indirect spells are the thing you reach for when object resistance for direct spells is a bitch... or the body score of the target is really high or you need to use magic to target something specific (you can't do called shots with a powerbolt.. you can with a firebolt).


I don't see a huge problem with the +3 or +5 drain codes on them given what they do and their history. Lets put this in perspective... starting with an indirect elemental spell which did 3 base damage (medium), you needed to resist 8 drain (serious). But the TN for the drain was lower. SR4 got rid of the learn spell at damage level mechanic... instead it merged combat spells into the same drain system as everything else. So instead of starting with grossly more drain at a lower TN. They simply went with +2 more raw drain on the same TN5 dice roll that everything is in SR4 now.

What you don't realize is that now... the amount of drain inflicted on the caster after soak is ABOUT THE SAME as it was in SR2 or SR3 for a fireball or a firebolt, despite what looks like a much higher starting drain code.

Plenty of things have been retconned in SR, so excuse me if I don't find it weird that things would yet again be altered in the interest for preserving game balance as opposed to standing in proud support of stale history. The interaction between Combat spells and Manipulation spells in the past may have been perfectly balanced, but here in 4th Ed, where we now have Direct and Indirect Combat spells, the draincodes make it so Indirect are unreasonable for many reasons. They are easy to dodge, easy to resist, and have considerable more Drain than Direct Combat spells, making them a niche spell at best and a RP element at worst (akin to taking a holdout pistol for your main weapon because it "fits the character." I don't mind suboptimal choices for RP, but Indirect/Direct Combat spells go so much father than that).

Does everything have to be "perfectly" balanced? It is a staple of SR magic (in SR4 as well) that creating physical effects is very draining, just like that there is no teleportation no creation of magic items through spells, no time manipulation etc. Vastly changing that would IMHO change the flavor of magic too much.

Agreed... The "Balance" of Indirect vs. Direct is the same as it was in previous Editions when you equated "Combat Spells" with "Damaging Manipulations."

Besides, Neraph, RP reasons are the ONLY reasons a player should be selecting things (whatever they may be) for a character. Characters select things because they fit their style, or view of themselves (or whatever), and they have absolutely no idea of the game mechanics underlying them. If you are selecting your choices based upon their Numerical superiority (becasue they are so superior after all), then you are just pursuing an exercise in number crunching.

If I have a character that takes Fireball (over Stunball), it is not because I am deliberately trying to gimp the character, it is because it fits his style and he wants to throw fricking fireballs. I don't really care what the Drain Code is for it. The character knows that it is draining to cast... *shrug*

They don't have to be perfectly balanced, but when you have one spell that is obviously superior to another for combat, that's a problem.

Yes and no. The characters know through experience or research that some things are effective and others aren't. So it is entirely justified that someone with arcane knowledge would more likely learn a stun bolt or someone with firearms knowledge would buy SnS to neutralize living beings.

I don't think that direct combat spells are obviously superior. Against living targets you are right, most of the time. Against vehicles not so much. Stun bolts/Stun balls do nothing at all and with a power bolt/power ball you need at least force 6 and 6 hits. And that is without GM Fiat of increasing the OR above 5 or the OR increasing modification (forgot its name).

I have to agree with TJ. When I build a mage it is always what fits the character. Practicality plays a big part, but the RP aspect is just as big. I do however agree with Dakka Dakka and my characters are more or less rounded out. But it all still falls into the "what fits my character" category. Besides this game is all about the RP. If I wanted to play a game that was about seeing how many people I can kill I would play CoD and skip the dice.

huh, I missed the optional rule change in the errata. I must say I kinda liked it though.

All the Optional Rule does is promote Multi-Casting.

I can see wanting to look at more than optimization and efficiency for a character, but it depends. I could see some suboptimal choices being made if you are playing someone new to the shadows, but if a shadowrunner has been pursuing that vocation for awhile, then they will tend to be practical - they will know what spells generally work, and which ones don't work as well. They will know what guns do the job, and which ones are hype. There is still room for individuality, though, even at the optimized end.


One of the ironic things about the SR4A rules changes is that, while the proposed nerf to direct spells got a big negative reaction, they also nerfed indirect spells. Counterspelling works the same as it does against direct combat spells, now. Before, it added to the soak roll, which made indirect spells more likely to hit targets protected by another mage. Plus, that complemented the other advantage of indirect spells - if it hits, you need to soak the damage all the way down, not simply match the caster's hits.

Strongly disagree Tymeus... all it changes is that now the mage actually NEEDS to soak more damage one way or another. Multicasting is another option... but if they do that, they still need to soak twice as much drain. And the average drain soak roll doesn't count (excess successes don't help you). It's how many times you don't roll enough which is the problem.

Also once splits start happening, each lower force casting is much easier to resist especially in the face of counterspelling. Or even splitting say 2 force 5's... you now need to roll drain 2 TWICE instead of once. So if they have 90% odds of doing it once... they've got a 1% chance of taking 2 drain, or 19% of taking 1. Instead of only 10% of one... in any case it doubles the amount of drain suffered by the mage.

Force 11 and soak 4 drain reliably. As opposed to easy mode force 7 soak 2 drain, and use net hits to stage up damage freebie.

So while I DON"T CARE FOR THE WAY THEY DID IT. As far as published rules go. It beats nothing, and it beats every table having it's own house rule!



Glyph: agree wholeheartedly about the counterspelling change to indirects... that was unforgivable... we need to get torches and march on whichever of the authors was responsible for that bit of malfeasance. :P


Neraph: Again you fail to realize... people *DO* take indirect combat spells because there *ARE* situations they're better than direct spells even with the counterspelling nerf and other bits. Again there are circumstances when a firebolt is superior to a direct spell despite the drain code and people take them for those reasons. (such as to fight drones).


Dakka: actually you only need force 5 with 5 successes for a OR5 drone (you need at least 1 success to cast the spell... but then might need more up to the threshold to get any effect out of it; that's how it's worded in SR4a). Although the chart says OR5+ (meaning a GM may very sell set the OR higher than 5 sometimes for really whiz gizmos; redundant overprocessed or not).

Another way to protect an object though is to raise a mana barrier (research one specially shaped to the vehicles outline... the vehicle gains +1 OR per rating of the mana barrier. Anchor it to an eyebolt or something on the vehicle and you're set. if the GM allows mobile wards.. same thing.

And overcasting. Force 12 and no hits for extra damage drops most mooks as well.

Woops, you are right of course.

I am honestly of the opinion that manabolt/ball is right where it should be drain cost(that is without using that horrible optional rule from SR4A), it is a useful damage spell with a low enough drain to be used repeatedly, but enough drain where there is almost always some risk of taking damage from it. It's damage is decent, but it's usually eclipsed by firearms if the user is skilled except in the case of very high armor foes.

I do believe that indirect combat spells are overpriced. I think that you should have to pay something for the elemental effects(even if they are vague and poorly defined). They have advantages and disadvantages over direct spells(don't need LoS, but allow a reaction and body+half armor roll). I'd price indirect spells at 1 or 2 higher than manabolt/ball.

I do think stunbolt is slightly underpriced, for some reason stun spells cause less drain even though stun damage really isn't any worse than physical damage in 9 our of 10 cases, and in fact, it's oftentimes better(prime runners usually have smaller stun tracks, and dead bodies cause problems). I'd price stunbolt/ball the same price as manabolt/ball.

Do you have a quote for that from SR3 ? I only see the part where it's said spell defense reducing the successes to zero cancels the spell entirely… But as you say, if spell defense and dodging weren't enough you had to do a real damage resistance test rather than canceling the mage's successes.

Anyway, maybe it's hard to compare spells from both editions regarding the very different mechanics. In SR3, the increased drain came from manipulating mana to obtain and master physical harming effects, but casting was mechanically target-independant (could be dodged with combat pool, which was a much more uncertain reserve than your pure reaction…).

Assuming the goals and definition of fireball didn't change from SR3 to SR4, if you think you can get a better implementation, i will try here to summarize the differences between direct and indirect in SR3 :

Direct :
- Difficulty based on target's attribute.
- Could be cast through a window
- Lower drain.
- Resistance test could cancel spell effects.

Indirect :
- Difficulty based on TN4.
- Would have to break the window.
- Higher drain.
- Resistance test is a classic damage test. Target could be harmed while having more successes. You could though dodge totally if you had enough combat pool left.

I am not a SR4 specialist, but I think they pretty much respected these differences when translating it into the new mechanics.

The real whining trigger is probably the fact that advantages of TN4 versus TN based on target's attribute quite totally disappeared in SR4, due to variable TNs disappearing. In SR3, stunball or stunbolt were already ruling due to low drain and low average goon willpower, but manipulation spells could have interests in some other situations due to fixed TN against high body-high willpower foes. Going from two mechanics (variable TNs, number of successes) to one mechanic (number of hits) clearly took out a lot of complexity from the game, but it also took out some versatility. Maybe indirect combat spells suffered from it.

Okay, let's look at drones.

A CD-Dalmatian (OR 4, IIRC - my copy of SR4A is not the newest) with a machine gun - every 'runner's bad day. So let's compare Powerbolt and Flamethrower.

Powerbolt at F5 with 5 successes will do 6P damage to the drone and result in 3 Drain.
A Flamethrower would have to hit (drone gets one success to avoid) and then uses its 4 Body and 1 (halved) armor to get another 1, possibly two hits to reduce damage. This would require a F4 Flamethrower just to compensate for the successes lost through attrition (resulting in 1 net), and it would result in a total of 5P damage (less than Powerbolt) and results in 5 drain.

So the Powerbolt not only does more minimal damage to the drone but also results in less drain from the casting - exactly like I predicted. And it only gets more pronounced if the drone: has a higher OR/DR, has more armor, has special armor modifications (Non-conductivity, Fire Protection, ect). Reduntant Processing will be the only thing to hamper a Direct caster, but even then you can cast at a higher force for less drain than an Indirect caster. Every time.

EDIT: The only reason for an Indirect would be their ability to hit AoE targets you can't see.

Drones are OR 5+

Well, then a F5 Powerbolt will do 5dmg with 5 hits (drain: 3), and a F5 Flamethrower with 5 hits (drain: 5) does hit for 7dmg (F5: 5dmg, 5hits: 5dmg, drone dodging 1 and soaking 2).

An F3 Flamethrower with 3 hits will do 3dmg and have 4 drain.

You'd need a F6 Powerbolt with 6 successes for 1 net resulting in 7P damage and 4 drain. Still better than a Flamethrower spell. Also, your example Flamethrower of F3/3 Successes would do 6P, but it would likely not get 3 Net successes and the 6P would be reduced by Body + 1/2 Impact while resulting in the same drain from a F6 Powerbolt. Still, the Powerbolt is superior against a drone.

Lightningbolt would be a better Indirect option if only for the secondary effect, but the secondary effect can be overcome with Armor and Nonconductivity.