There is no problem. In our games, that tactic will likely get you killed, because not everything is susceptible to Direcet Combat Spells. See how that works? Besides, Direct Combat Spells are like a good firearm. Reliable and sturdy.

Flexible Signature helps to, because it limits the duration of the Signature. There is aslo a quality that halves it. Not hard to cast spells and leave no signature.

EDIT: Damn, Ninjaed by Nil_FisK_Urd... By a lot of hours.

TJ, he didn't say *only* Stunbolt. The mage can carry an Indirect, a rocket launcher, whatever, for those comparatively rare other uses. However, yes, it's like a good gun… except without the need for ammo, with infinite range, ignores Dodge and armor, totally concealable/scanner-proof, etc. It's like an amazing stupendous gun. The issue isn't 'stunbolt does everything', but mostly everything.

Look at what I said. I did not say anything about Stunbolt specifically. I was talking about Direct Combat Spells as a category. Yes, you COULD carry rocket launchers, or an Indirect, or something else for when the Direct Spells do not work. That is the beauty of Shadowrun, there is always another path to the same result.

Direct spells have drawbacks. Mana Barriers add their dice to the defense of the spell, you MUST see your target, etc. They are not always the best option. That is why there are other options. However, having the Direct Spells take more Drain than the Indirect Spells is so counter to the paradigm of Shadowrun that it is laughable that that is a goal.

Direct spells are just like a firearm. Yes, they have no ammunition (A Street Sam runs dry how often?), and an unlimited range (when is the last time Range was an issue?), They do ignore Armor/Dodge (but that is what a Team Mage is for, COunterspelling is the equivalent), and any Astral Form, or opposition Mage, can tell that the Mage is exactly that, but they do have Drain (The street Sam is curious about this phenomenon), and I challenge you to show me a Character that NEVER TAKES DRAIN from a Direct Spell. I have seen characters with 18 Dice for Drain, actually take Drain form even middling Force Direct Spells. It happens. About as often as a Street Sam actually has a gun jam, or runs out of ammunition. So, what is the problem here?

Fine, then I'm saying he didn't say 'Directs only'. That is not the point. If you disagreed with his premise of 'no drain all day long', you should have said so. Instead, you said: "In our games, that tactic will likely get you killed, because not everything is susceptible to Direcet Combat Spells." This doesn't make sense, because he didn't suggest a tactic (so I've assumed you meant 'using nothing but Directs'), and he didn't suggest using Directs on things for which they clearly wouldn't work. The implication of his premise is that they do work. I'm not saying 'I don't agree about the stun, and I think there are many cases when the mage will have to resort to a different spell type' isn't a bad point. I'm saying I wish you'd said it.

If you don't think ammo, range, etc. are issues, then I dunno what to tell you. I know that people sure seem to care a lot about the ammo, capacity, range, etc. of their guns. I also know that mages can hide themselves better than you suggest; it's certainly not a dismissible feature. But most importantly, yes, I know that people use other weapons when the gun isn't the right one. … So? That hardly makes the wonder-gun less wonderful.

Not everyone uses an Ares Alpha. Wonder Gun Debunked...

In our games relying upon only Direct Damage Spells will get you killed. I assume it works that way in a lot of other games, based upon the posts I have seen here on Dumpshock. Yes, Indirect Spells DO WORK, contrary to what some have been saying here.

I have said it, many, many times in the past. I got to keep saying it?

About the Guns and their stats?
When is the last time you had an encounter outside of optimal range for an SMG? When is the last time you actually RAN OUT OF AMMUNITION? Characters may care about that stuf, but it rarely matters in the long run. *shrug*

See? "In our games relying upon only Direct Damage Spells will get you killed". Exactly. That's never been anyone's claim. That's not the issue here at all. No one said Indirects do nothing, and I'm willing to bet you can't rely on 'only' Directs+Indirects, either. So it's a good thing none one said you could.

Please read...



Really... Seems like what he was saying to me. He is making an assumption that Stunbolt will work ALWAYS. Making that assumption in our game will get him killed. Ergo, my statement.

I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt by expanding it to ALL Direct Spells.

That's not what I read. I guess you could interpret 'everyone' that way, if 'everyone' means 'vehicles and things' to you. Stunbolt (and directs) *are* nearly always the superior choice against people ('everyone'), with much less drain. That is the issue.

"Everyone" could encompass the Otomo Drone that looks human, could be the character with Arcane Arrestor, Could be the guy behind a mana barrier that the mage completely missed, etc. There could be a LOT of reasons that the target does not go down to the Direct Spell. Making an assumption that "Everyone" is susceptible will only result in tears and blood.

But why is that an Issue? Bullets are nearly always a superior choice against people than knives are. Should that be an issue? Yes, Stunbolt is awesome. So is a Viper Slivergun. *shrug*

I probably see it the way I do because I have yet to be in a game where the abuses that are so controversial on dumpshock have yet to really be a problem at our table (or any table I have played at). Mages routinely go down against the guy with the Gun. Yes, they can do a lot of harm, but you know what? They pay for that ability with Drain. In our games, Drain does have an impact (yes, even for such spells as Stunbolt). Maybe it does not in other games, I don't know. But I cannot believe that there are characters that never suffer drain. Even from Direct Spells such as Stunbolt. Especially at the Force levels that are routinely talked about.

I really do not see the issue.

When i was sniping ^^

This acually happens quite often with my characters, when i unexpectedly need to give cover (supression) fire. Unless i am in a War Zone, i rarely have more than 1 or 2 replacement magazines readily available, because you cannot hide them well on a person.

The part I left off (because I did not think I needed to mention it) is "in combat." In combat situations, Direct spells take supremacy (need I remind you a F7 Stunbolt is only 2 Drain?). What I can't Stunbolt (living creatures) I can Powerbolt (drones, weapons, ect.), and I will not take Drain for doing so (rocking augmented max for drain stats - easy to do). Mana barriers will rarely matter, if at all, because an extra 4-6 dice on top of their Will of 3-5 won't beat my Successes. Heck, I don't even need all my tricks to make sure I will cast every time how I need it for Direct spells.

Out of combat there are things like Negotiations, Con, and other spells to deal with things. Heck, with the proper gear you don't even need most of the Breaking skills from B&E.

Direct and indirect combat spells aren't (shouldn't be) guns versus knives. They should be pistols versus shotguns (possibly guns vs. rockets, but that's another whole thing). People *do* lament that shotguns aren't good enough compared to, say, SMGs (it depends). This is because we like for various roughly equivalent options to be viable options. (Hell, people lament that *melee* isn't as good as firearms!) The whole Direct/Indirect issue is dissatisfaction with how small the Indirect niche is, so people propose house rules to *change* the game to make them more competitive. That's not a hard concept.

Magic is arbitrary, so there is one perspective that says we can and should make the spells more equal. There's nothing wrong with your perspective (and apparently that of the game designers), that says Indirects are big and flashy and highly dispreferred except for a certain small niche. That's fine… if that's what you want.

Basically my problem with the constant "how about this way to change Direct/Indirect" stuff, is that I personally feel that if someone doesn't like the game to the point where they feel they 'have' to change it, why the drek are they bothering to play it?

That's just stupid. Every one of us changes every game to suit us better. Even if there were any merit in that point, this is a tiny change out of a whole big game.

Indeed - throwing the BBB out with the bathwater.

This one time, I had an Ares Desert Strike and the target was 1700m away. I was all like, "Damn! I should have gotten that extra barrel extension mod so my extreme range was 1800 instead of 1650."

I have been playing shadowrun since 1986. I have never seen a case where ammo/range were an issue for a street Sam.

People sure seem to care about clip size and ammo price/avail. They must all be dumb. Does a sam have distinct needs, because presumably we're talking about all characters. I bet if you offered them a gun that fired stunbolts (and therefore an invisible, weightless, etc. gun), they'd say yes.

Actually most would say no, once you mention the drain. In all honesty S&S ammo is so vastly superior to stunbolt it's laughable.

I have read through most of this thread (and the other one as well) and I agree with TJ here. I really don't see what the issue is. Direct and indirect combat spells are two different things, therefore they have two different drains. Yes the stunbolt/ball can drop a lot of people with very little drain. BUT, if the duck behind cover, or go invisible, or do anything else to remove themselves from your LoS, then that stun/power bolt/ball is useless against them. However, that fireball is not. Yes it has more drain, but it does more. It hits targets that you cannot see, and it produces a fire effect that does residual damage (both to people and things). Therefore is warrants a higher drain than the stun/power bolt/ball.

Not really an encounter then is it? And you had the weapon you needed, right?



If you have what you need, then range is never an issue.
An d yes, I have found that 2 spare magazines is often MORE than enough. If it isn't, I take them from my opposition.

You were under the impression I was talking about plinking Rats in the backyard? Interesting...

I have seen 18 Dice result in No Successes (and it is NOT easy to do, Costs a fair amount of Money and Karma to bond those Foci, or you are using Spirits to do so, or you are taking a penalty). And as for the Powertbolt against a Drone, even you admitted when pressed that 40% of the time it was unsuccessful, you just did not care.

However, I am glad to hear that a Mage has an option akin to the Street Sam. A Reliable, offensive weapon that causes little hardship. That is what Direct Spells are meant to provide, and they do a great job of it.

And yes, out of combat there are always options. As there should be.

It is what I want... I do not want DnD, which is where the change takes you.
Fortunately, that is the direction the Developers went with it as well.

Indeed... Rare Occasion, I would imagine, though, yes?
Besides, all you had to do was move 51 meters and he would be in range.

ikarinokami, the drain is presumed to be negligible, unless you're arguing that it is not. Either way, I'm sure you are capable of understanding the actual point I was making.

forgarn, the argument is that the niche of Indirects is smaller than some people would like. Those people would like it if Directs weren't so much better for the majority of situations, including when you do have LoS, etc. That way, there would be more choice in what to use without feeling like you're getting hosed for no reason.

TJ, spare magazines have to be changed, concealed, purchased, and so on. Even if that's 'nothing', it's a nothing that stunbolt (by which I mean Directs in general) isn't worrying about. And yes, that's the point I was making: what *you* want is fine, but not everyone wants the same thing. If all you're going to do is say, 'what you want is wrong'… that's hardly helpful. Surely you can understand this? It's not an uncommon conversation. There are those who wish cyber was more competitive with bioware/etc. There are those who wish hackers require Logic because they don't like the idea of script kiddies. And so on. These are significant variant changes to the game, and people don't have to agree on them, but we can understand, evaluate, and discuss their suggestions.

Oh, definitely... Just that so far, the options being discussed have been horrible.

For those that do think direct / indirect spells need changes, it seems there are a few choices (not saying they're all good choices...)

1. Use the optional net hits drain rule
2. Increase direct spell drain / reduce indirect spell drain
3. Disallow counterspelling on indirect spells
4. Use some kind of "ammo" system for spells, as mentioned in another thread
5. Combinations of the above?

Others?

Exactly. Amazing how the opposition (even lowly CorpSec) become a lot harder to kill when the GM plays them as intelligent folk who want to live to guard another day (even if it is in a smaller corp after they get sacked for dereliction of duty or whatever) ... If they line up like ducks to be shot, well the sammie can dispatch them almost as quickly and easily as the mage with his Stunball.

Also, people often seem to forget that with the horrendously overcast Stunballs being toted on this thread that the area of effect may also affect friendlies in LoS unless the mage withholds dice to reduce it (Negator glasses notwithstanding) ...

You can play this game all day, though. LoS is an incredibly light requirement, after all. Much easier than hitting someone with a bullet. They can't hide behind total cover forever, and a shadowrun isn't usually a dug-in military battle. Ambushes are more typical, to me. You can open up with that stunbolt to the limit of your vision, which is more like a sniper. And your *mage* is also 'intelligent folk'. He's not waltzing down the middle of the street. He's sneaking, lying in wait, invisible, flying, god knows what, at *least* as much as any other character. Personally, I'd thing the corpsec would be busy with the spirit he sent in to distract them and make then leave cover…

And why are friendlies in range? Anyway, you'd just switch to multicasting a bolt in that situation. These are not just weak concerns, but not common enough to be fatal flaws even if they were strong concerns.

The drain is not negligible though, and alot of time it matters. I'm playing a mage now, and unless it's a super spirit or hardened drone, combat spells aren't worth it. that one and 2 points of drain you get every now and then does add up. A pistol with stick and shock is better. honestly i find mind control to be the vastly superior option. indirect spells have thier uses, they are like grenades, do you need them 90% of the time, no, but they are good for that 10% you need them for.


So i do think that indirect and direct spells are nicely balanced. I don't think direct combat spells are over powered but they are some of the WEAKEST spells in a mages arsenal. control mind, actions, trid phatasm, improved invisiblity, improved reflexes are spells that vastly for use and affect in combat, esp if you have a street sam on your team.

combats spells are a last resort, so i don't see the big obesession people have with them.

This is something I think TJ has been banging on about forever, and I think both you and he are right. I think the ability to kill/knockout somebody with your freaking mind appeals to the nerdy nature of a lot of gamers, but it is the other spells in the mage's arsenal that I as a GM have a hard time with. Sure, there is a time when any mage wants to take some mooks out with an AoE spell, but sammies are pretty efficient at that as well, although they can't implant an urge in the sec guard's mind to open the side gate on his midnight round ...

We're not comparing to mind control, illusions, or reflexes. It's just direct vs. indirect. Even if you don't care about combat spells as a whole, the topic is still exclusively direct vs. indirect.

If you're saying that indirect have a small niche, but directs have *none*, then that's relevant. I feel like many people don't agree, though. Possibly this question depends a lot on the level of drain optimization, so that the characters pass a threshold where suddenly directs (esp. stunbolt) *do* have basically negligible drain. It could well be just an issue of people having non-similar SR4 experiences. You could certainly be 100% right for your group/table/experience.

So, we evaluate their assumptions, but we also evaluate their points *given* their assumptions. I'm willing to take as given that stunbolt never causes drain at Neraph's table. Given that, I can easily see how directs (in general) would outclass indirects to a degree that Neraph and his group might not *like* (because remember we're talking about preferences). Therefore, it would make sense for them to tweak the relative power/benefits to tip the balance toward indirects a little.

Friendlies have to be in the mage's LOS if they are to receive counterspelling protection from their mage to start with (beware Negator glass advocates!) ...

Fair point about sending the spirit (or a sammie's grenade) in to smoke the opposition out if they're dug in, but the way I GM the game, if CorpSec know they're up against skilled runners they are gonna raise the alert and then hunker down as fast and as much as they are able, and given their standard professional rating, they are likely to try to retreat or surrender (once they've raised that alert) if they encounter the kind of spitting death that most runner teams can unleash.

Also, as some folks have pointed out on a number of threads, drones and a spider are a lot less expensive to maintain than a bunch of monthly Sec guard salaries, and as noted these babies are harder to affect with direct combat spells (due to the high OR) ...

Double post, sorry.

Not in LoS, in range of the -ball spell. Melee range with the enemy, basically. (I think Negators make sense to be, were intended to be, and should be used for this purpose, though.) I was half teasing about melee being lame, half serious about the mage/team being smart about positioning.

If the corpsecs just autohide… that's not very effective security. Hehe.

I agree: drones are antimage, and rightly so. I'm not positive that indirects are enough better than directs against drones, or if the mages should just let someone else handle those. Even if we limit ourselves to merely 'all living enemies', it seems like an important segment, though?

Point taken. I think what Fogarn and I were reacting to was the fact most posters were implicitly arguing that the mage would take Mentor bonuses and specializations exclusively in Combat spells (which certainly isn't always the case). Back to your scheduled programme ...

To my mind CorpSec are there for (1) show, (2) to deal with minor problems, such as potential gang incursions, and (3) raise the alarm if they come up against something they cannot cope with, such as a team of murderous professional runners. Sure, the Corp probably puts protocols in place in situation (3) where they are supposed to fall back to protect the server room/R&D facility/whatever, but with my GM hat on, Joe Nightwatchman at the end of the day just wants to get out of this alive and be able to say to his bosses that he did everything he reasonably could under the circumstances ...

Against living enemies, sure, direct combat spells are a much more drain-friendly way to fry them than indirects (except for those guys in the AoE but out of the mage's LoS). Against drones, I think it was Falconer who pointed out in a recent thread that direct spells have to defeat the OR (so it's all or nothing, and even with a DP of 15 there is a significant possibility of the latter), but indirects always do some damage (and might do other stuff via elemental effects).

To me, assuming the opposition is played smart, direct spells may be the mage's bread and butter combat spells, but indirect spells are also an important part of their tactical arsenal, and definitely *not* just a niche spell. The difference in drain code doesn't bother me either, that's what fetishes are for ...

So, again, my understanding is that people who *are* unsatisfied with directs simply being the predominant anti-living combat spell are suggesting tweaks to make indirects more competitive there. Drain is the primary reason for that relative dominance, so that's what's tweaked.

I guess it's the same as ikarinokami (and presumably TJ): in your games, the assumptions underlying positions like Neraph's don't hold… but they presumably do in his. Those assumptions again are 'living targets are the majority of targets', 'we want indirects to be a more equal choice', and 'PC mages are able to easily avoid most/all direct drain'.

I agree that the assumption of a highly specialized *combat* mage is perhaps an extraordinary one, given that it's not a great choice. So it depends if that was an important/necessary assumption.

Thats pretty much the way of it. If you like direct spells to be go to spells for the fluff, leave it as it is. If your like me, neraph and a few others and/or you don't like the fluff and think its silly that direct spells are the easier to cast spells, or also like me if you disagree with it from a Game Theory perspective, then you need to adjust something.

My problem from game theory perspective is that direct spells are the obvious better choice in completing "most" objectives for this game. They are silent. They are invisible. They are as TJ stated, a the reliable standby. In game theory, options should not be the "same", but they should have equal value if all other costs are the same. So in other words, if direct/indirect spells are the same in Action Economy, Initial learning cost (karma cost to learn the spell), and if Damage/force ratio are the same, then trade offs have to come from somewhere else.

Currently the trade off in benefits between direct and indirect (without optional rule) is Stealthy/ignores defense/lower drain VS not affected by OR, does not require line of sight with AOE affects

Trade off in negatives are: must have line of sight VS obvious/high drain/AOE affects more likely to cause collateral damage

When you have both more benefits and less negatives towards using a indirects, and in a game where stealth is king...that pretty heavily weights things in favor of direct spells which means they are not equal.

The only way they wouldn't be imbalanced is if there was a Majority factor favoring the benefits of indirect...so in other words only if over 60+% of encountered enemies were drones/behind mana barriers/etc or are behind complete cover. But even that wouldn't be enough because a high casting pool will get you through OR/barriers and you can move 2 meters one direction and now you have someone in line of sight...and using indirect AOEs to hit someone not in line of sight is gonna be iffy at times.

Mhm. That's what it is for me: directs have just *so* many advantages over indirects, even if they're not totally better in *every* way.

I've been sticking out of this, but most of what you've just said doesn't make a lot of sense and I need to disagree strongly with many of the assertions. As well as Yera's repititions about that it's only about combat spells. Combat spells don't exist in a vacuum and overall I find them the least useful spell category. And yes it is a salient point... if it were there'd be no difference between flamethrower and ignite. Flamethrower starts fires just like ignite does that's it's elemental effect! (and yes metals can and will burn)... only it starts them INSTANTLY... that's why it has +2 more drain.

Similarly, why the hell would I waste my time with these uber-gimped direct spells when I could just turn the target to goo... then stab it to death with my survival knife! Yes, goo is sustained, but the target is completely helpless so long as you have a mere 1 success for far less drain. I can do it, or my street sam buddy can finish the job with his wolverine clone spurs.


The bits on stealth as well... where is it written that flamethrower makes any sound for example. Nowhere. Similarly, you only look at the initial damage. You completely ignore the secondary elemental effects. That's the entire reason elemental spells add an extra +2 drain to evoke the elemental effect according to the formula in street magic. Does that mean ALL the elementalized spells now get a -3 adjust on top of the +2 adjust for GAINING a special benefit! There's others besides just the indirect combat spells with some punishing drain.

Simiarly, if only looking at direct INITIAL damage. You realize I can make an indirect combat spell BY THE RULES with the exact same drain code as powerbolt? Just don't add an elemental effect and you're done.

Another one... you ignore that you can't subtarget with direct spells, you either attack the entire whole or you don't. Indirects you can call shots and aim at weak points.

I see so much posted about how this balances when it does nothing of the sort... if you need to add a little drain to directs it's one thing... but dropping drain on indirects only makes mages far stronger against drones and eliminates their natural weakness. Which is an unintended balance consequence. At the same time... odds ranging from 1in6 @ 9dice to 5in6 @21 dice, with 60% midrange at 15 dice. So even for most casters... direct spells are not a panacea with non-neglible chance of failure (one other notable poster in this thread instists failure chance doesn't matter for estimating drain). That's assuming the drone is ONLY OR5 as well... RPM can raise that to OR7 easy... if a ward is anchored on the drone/vehicle higher even (every 3 points of force of ward

Here's another unintended consequence... astral. Direct mana spells are a mages only option there.

Not only that but the sheer number of people who have no idea how much they increase drain with these sledgehammer tuning tactics. Just to give an example... on 10 dice drain... just to keep the sample size small.. the same shape still applies at higher dice pools. On 2 drain, there's just under a 2% chance of 2 drain, and just over an 8% chance of 1 drain. That's an average of 0.12 drain for 2 on 10 dice. HOWEVER, adding 1 more drain... 2% of 3 drain, 8% of 2 drain, and 20%! of 1 drain. The average drain goes up to .42! The average drain has MORE THAN TRIPLED! If I go up, to a drain of 4, 2%-4, 8%-3, 20%-2, 26%-1 Average: 0.98 again more than doubled. That's why I refer to these gross drain massive drain adjustments as ignorant of how the dice actually work.


Personally, rather than putting a microscope on two closely related spells and ignoring the SYSTEMIC balance (and game style). I'm more curious how people would alter the spell crafting rules in street magic which formalizes how drains fit together. I could see dropping the elemental from +2 to +1 (but don't believe in something for nothing. However, i don't think it's wise because it nerfs riggers vs mages all in the name of making indirects more usable against animate targets and expanding their niche.

I'm often the only defender of the optional rule as published as well. Not because I like how they did it, but because it does exactly what it aims to do while also being widespread and well known and understood. Noticably increase the drain of direct combat spells without affecting drain codes directly. Yes it results in even more overcasting, but my experience is those spells were already being overcast (force 7 being the most common, then using free successes to increase damage to knockout/kill levels). So forcing the increase to force 11 right away is a flat increase of 2 drain over the status quo ante (and see above about how a mere +1 drain increase doubles the average drain... +2 then is quite significant). It also causes more complications with spell cleanup. And while flexible signature can help it relies on a high initiate grade! At that point we're no longer talking some low karma starting mage but some really really top flight mage. Most of the house rules (like this thread) are so bad, that people aren't even playing shadowrun anymore they screw the spell balance up so badly.

None of this even starts to touch on the nature that indirects are stylistically meant to be hard to use in SR as a matter of canon.

Not sure where you pulled your 60%+ figure from, but anyways. As I have stated before, in my game drones are seemingly more common and CorpSec mooks tend to go full cover in the face of badass runner teams (assuming they are still standing by the time they get to go), so I guess conditions favouring indirects might be more common on my table than others. Perhaps this is why I see indirects as more than a niche spell.

Trusting Falconer's math from the other thread, a casting DP of 15 will fail to beat OR5 around 40% of the time. That's not insignificant, and a casting DP of 15 is not either, especially when you factor in visibility modifiers, wound modifiers and other stuff bringing it down. As for moving 2m to (tadaa!) suddenly get LoS, that certainly isn't always the case. You won't get LoS on that CorpSec guy hunkered down behind a crate the other side of the warehouse by moving 2m or even 10m - you're gonna have to go around or over the crate to see him (or, as Yera suggested, send a spirit to smoke him out).

Then there's the secondary elemental effects, which your side of the arguement seem to perpetually ignore. Such effects may be case specific and therefore hard to quantify, but if they are not significant in many cases then quite frankly your GM doesn't understand SR4 magic very well.

As for stealth, remember that the threshold for noticing a spell being cast is 6-F, so at the mook-toasting F being thrown around as examples in this thread, directs are pretty much as unsubtle as the indirects, although I guess at least the sprinkler system won't be set off by a powerball.

Finally, there is the question of efficiency. Direct spells lock onto the aura of a target, while as I think Glyph mentioned wa-ay upthread, indirects rain mana down randomly (and therefore less efficiently) on an area. Seems reasonable to me that the mage is gonna sweat more if he has to do the latter.

I am not saying you and Neraph should not change drain codes on your tables if you want to see mages tossing around indirects more often, but I do think that things should become so generic that the mage thinks "For my 3 drain code should I go Powerbolt flavour or Flamethrower flavour?".

I really wish there were a Like Button... +1 Falconer... Though I still do not really like the Optional Rule.

Falconer, that's all just repetition. In particular, this: "None of this even starts to touch on the nature that indirects are stylistically meant to be hard to use in SR as a matter of canon." Um. Yes? That's the whole point: these people are suggesting changing the style/canon.

ok, so we add to the benifits:

Can use in astral against astral targets (This is huge!) vs elemental effects (utility and slightly more damage over time)

...equation is still imbalanced guys...you add 1 to both sides it doesn't change equivialence....and in this case, targeting astral is more like adding 2 since its something that indirect can't do at all but direct spells still deal damage....and with lower drain codes means you can cast at higher force dealing more damage...



5 is right next to 6, thats a typo. But that also gets me thinking because if its just more than 50%, your majority factor isn't large enough to matter most of the time. Majority factor, especially given the fact that direct spells still have means of dealing with protected targets.



I already mentioned that I don't like this.



Note I never once said that "I" would increase drain. I just said that as they are now, they are imbalanced and there needs to be an adjustment somewhere.

And so what if their drain goes up to ".42!'...thats still lower than an equivalent indirect spell (by measure of merit). Your only looking at it in context of itself, not as a system.



yeah, but its fire...suddenly your setting off all the fire alarms....thats really stealthy there. Oh yeah, and its fire! so it lights up that dark room something fierce...sure thats not gonna attract the attention of the night guards.

Or perhaps your using lightning...Thunder anyone? Sure there are silent/stealthy options for indirect spells, but they are harder to come by and not the most common of spells, and I believe they pay for it in higher drain.

Also there is the fact that Stunball/bolt (one of the staples of direct spells) is one of the cheapest spells to cast, quiet, and leaves them alive! stun damage! This is a benefit remember?



First off, you should never trust someone else's math. Second, I already noted that having to deal with object resistance and line of site is a negative to direct spells, and benefit for indirect spells. And as you mentioned, mages are not operating in a vacuum. There are several ways for them to flush that target out of cover, including using your spirit/sam buddy. and also the fact that if you can't see him he most likely doesn't have line of sight to you either, in which case your not getting shot at by him..in which case you can delay your action until he pops out to shoot you...stun him then. Line of sight is not that big of a deal for directs....OR on the other hand can be troublesome. But you can also just cast again (or perhaps multicast? not sure if that will work or not).



Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is to notice the spell being cast, not notice the effects of said spell. In other words, thats only gonna matter if they can see you while your casting it. Stunball/bolt is invisible. If they have their back to you as your hiding in a dark corner, you can start casting without them noticing for the most part, and if they do, by the time they open their eyes wide in surprise, they are already unconscious. And nobody else will notice unless they can clearly see the guard you just stunned fall over.



This I think underlines where you may be misunderstanding me. Generic is not what i'm looking for. In fact as I said, spells should not be the same but have equal value, all else being equal. One spell should be better than the other 50% of situations (if costs are the same). If one costs less than the other, it should be less useful most of the time. If something is MORE useful than the other, it should cost more.

Cost doesn't have to be drain. And their costs don't have to be from the same pool.

In this way the costs for the spells are the negatives that I already mentioned, and not all of those are equal. Having to deal with OR costs more than Line of Sight (in my opinion). Having higher drain value costs more than line of sight. Being easily noticed has higher cost as well.

In costs, the two are pretty close, if slightly weighted in favor of direct spells in my opinion.

Value added benefits on the other hand still strongly favors direct spells.

Edit: a few quick typo fixes

The idea that spells should all have the same value is silly. Do guns have the same value? in 90% of cases an SMG or Assault rifle is better than either a shotgun or a pistol. Centers are better than point guards, quaterbacks are better than running backs, you still need running backs. direct combat spells are better than indirect ones, most of the time, but you should still have the indirect one. As long as there is a situtation that the indirect spell is need then all is mine. attempted to make all spells have the same vaule is ludricious. Illusion spells will always be better than combat spells because Guns's exist. Manipulation spells will also be better than combat spells, because there are very few things if any that can duplicate the effect of most manipulation spell. No spell will ever have the same value of heal or fix. As long as the spell has a reason to exist, whether it's 10% or 90% is all that is reguired. Honestly if this what you are after then you really should D&D 4th edition. i don't mean that as an insult, but that game was design with in my opinion this silly game theory that every option should be "equal". RPG are games yes, but they are also abrstraction of real life. the moment you attempt to make an RPG totally fair or equal is the moment it losses it's ability to make you believe this could possible be real, because we all know there is never a time when all options are equal.

It's not 'the same value'. It's 'some semblance of balance that allows reasonable player choice'. Besides, people *do* (constantly!) complain that Automatics are dominant, so you almost couldn't pick a better example.

It *does* matter if the niche is 10% (or less) versus 90%. All games are designed with balance (again, not 'the same value', not 'exactly equal') in mind. Drain exists as a balance, not just because someone thought it was a fun abstraction of real life. Ditto for most of the weapon mods: how realistic are the extended clip mods, or the mod slot limit in general? The game is full of clear balance concerns, and that's because balance is fun. It's beyond useless to just say, 'it is what it is, shut up and like it'.

Guns SHOULD have the same value given the same costs. As it is, their costs are cheaper than that of an smg or assault rifle...of course they won't be as good. They cost less in nuyen, legality, concealabilty, and ease of procurement. As to whether a shotgun isn't as useful as an SMG/assault rifle is up for debate.

I don't really know anything about pointguard vs centers, but quarterbacks have higher costs associated with them as well. Since they call the shots and handle the ball they are more vulnerable, and if they go down, the whole team loses the play...thats a cost to offset their strength

If you can't look at each item and see where you have pitfalls/weaknesses or cost/benefits you are never going to understand what makes a good game.

THAT BEING SAID....I understand where your coming from. The key to making a successful game is making it so that players have many viable choices...but that those choices are fundamentally different (This is where D&D 4E screwed up HUGE). Game balance can't be quantified, but you can look at it qualitatively. So its very hard to make things equal in power without feeling like they do the same thing. And what i've found is the best way to do that is to NOT make everything equal on all points but one.

In other words, rather than balancing their drain codes to make them equal, I would find some other benefit to give to indirect spells...either add different/new costs to direct spells or build in new benefits to indirect spells

In this the optional rule in the book is actually an interesting way to fix the issue. I wouldn't call it optimal, but its a solution.

really, a simple change to balance the two might be...

don't allow net hits to add to direct spells damage, instead only applying towards OR.

Net hits for indirect spells not being limited by force...like a gun.

This helps them balance out more, helps keep the theme for those of you that direct spells are easier, and keeps them fundamentally different.

There may be unforeseen consequences, but as will all game development, you can't see everything right away.

And thanks for hitting on some of the points i forgot to mention (mainly automatics being overpowered as a group)