I agree: as many have pointed out, Drain isn't the only thing we could possibly tweak. It's just the most obvious one.

This thread has been going a while, but its something I am interested in.

I have a house rule that I use for combat spells

"The base damage of the spell is the minimum of the force and the magic attribute of the spell caster"

This still makes overcasting useful, especially for those burned out mages: you don't cap the number of successes, but it stops the (IMAO) ridiculous force 12 stunbolts. I am not a big fan of the "you are dead unless you are very very lucky spells".

I find with this mooks are dealt with quickly, while more deadly threats take 2 or 3 bolts. Given that I could of shot them 4 or 6 times in the same time, the table I play at find it works well. It is certainly infinitely better than the ridiculous poorly thought through optional rule on drain.

Curious...

Minimum of Force OR Magic (Lowest? Highest?)
or
Force AND Magic (Combined)?

The Quote, and the explanation following do not see to add up. So I am curious.

I'm glad someone else was having the same problem understanding that post as I was.

If i read this correctly, then base damage capped at Magic.

He clearly means min{Force, Magic}

In which case... why would I ever bother using them. I can disable the target in a single spell with a single net hit, then stab it to death. Why would I use 3 min(whatever, whatever) spells to do the same thing I can do in one? Disable the target.

Again these spells don't exist in a vacuum.


Zeropoint:
I love how you say these things can't be quantified.. then start counting off things in the pro & con list as if they're valid.

All you're doing is trying to turn this into DnD 4th... where everything is an ersatz copy of everything else. The important thing is that you have how many 10's or maybe even a 100 spells now.. is that they each have a useful niche. The size of that niche is however large the GM makes it through his choice of challenges.


Astral isn't even relevent to indirects at all... only mana spells can be used on the astral. p162 street magic, all indirect combat spells must be physical (not mana). This only serves to illustrate that in massively increasing drain you affect things which never had anything to do with direct vs indirect.

As far as looking at it within context of a system. In the other thread I did the math based on how much does it takes to blow up a steel lynx (4bod, 12 armor) in one go. Indirect spells out damaged direct spells, even including for miss chance and soak. I setup a large multi-dimensional probability matrix. I set the goal as blowing up the drone in one hit. Using the optional rule only made this more so.

And if you don't trust my math. Look in the other thread.. I posted my equations and work there for others to verify.


The single best way I've seen handled to keep directs down is to keep OR high. One of my current GM's takes OR 5+ quite literally. Drones are not OR5... they are OR5+ by the book! So we go off the device rating. Consumer and lower DR3 and less stuff gets an OR5, Security equipment has higher tech so is more processed and is OR6, milspec is even higher tech and gets OR7. That can raise higher with RPM or by using a ward OR directly contributes to the chance of failure of direct spells while indirects ignore it and simply blast away.

While catchy, this is not a valid point. Some balance is not the same as 'enforced perfect balance'.

Attacking drones is not necessarily the standard. I don't think anyone said that indirects don't have *a* niche. Even if we're only talking about dropping people, that's still often a huge majority of situations (depending on the table).

For no successes on 18 dice: that's why they have Edge to reroll failed successes.

For 40% failure: that's 60% success. Do I really need to even form an argument about how the majority of the time it is still viable?


There's a difference between "weak" and "versatile" that you don't understand.


I used Compulsion on an enemy mage to overcast her most powerful spell on her own teammates to the max while she was inside R4 BC. Her most powerful spell was Stonbolt (highest drain spell she had...). She didn't take any Drain at all while throwing around F10s. In BC.


I work as security in a mall. One of my post orders is to, in the event of an active shooter in the mall, and under certain situations, to try and retain visual of the active shooter while not presenting myself as a target. I do not have a weapon. If I had a weapon, my post orders would be to (again, in certain scenarios) engage the active shooter. CorpSec are closer to private police than security guards; their post orders probably include engaging targets much more reliably than mine.

I've got more coming, so beware. I've been out for a few days because of my job and the new kiddo. so bear with me.

1) Fire makes sound. Anyone with any life-experience can attest to this. Burning things also make sound. Burning things also set of fire alarms, which tend to also make sound.

2) 4P, -1/2 AP is likely to get soaked by all but the weakest opposition (including most drones), which begs a different question: why are you using powerful, flashy spells to take out weak opponents if the drain is likely to do serious harm to yourself?


Allrighty, found one more niche that Indirects have over Directs!


I still find problems with your math. If I take 0.42 drain on average then that means it takes three casts to actually take one point of Drain; meaning most of the time you don't take any drain, which is the point of threads like this in the first place! It doesn't matter if almost nothing is three times higher than almost nothing - it's still almost nothing. You get lost in your "three times as much" and "quintuples" and lose sight that you're making the very point I'm arguing against.

On 2 drain, with 10 dice (your numbers, your math), you have a 90% chance of no drain (roughly). For 3 drain on 10 dice, you have the math saying a 69% chance of no drain - again, a clear majority, a likelihood of success without any drain. "Tripled" or not, the majority of the time you're not taking drain.


You even pointed out that the formula chart for spells is off and doesn't work entirely as designed.

You defend the problem with the O-RAW in that you're overcasting anyways, so why stop there? Really? I don't even need to formulate an argument against this.

And then you (predictably) end your arguments by pointing at the fluff from the game, which I change in my House Rule. Fluff doesn't matter when it comes to Crunch, and the Crunch is what we have a problem with here.


Actually, you posted the average damage done to a drone, not the probability to destroy a drone outright. Not to mention that I brought up drones to begin with, and the discussion was the minimum Force spell to deal at least 1 point of damage, assuming 3 dice for 1 success (which is the commonly accepted law of averages that you both dislike and prove with your math), and checking the Force of Spell versus the Drain done. I don't like how you misrepresent the facts in order to try and prove your argument.

So the single best way you can handle Direct vs. Indirect is to make sure OR is really high? And you don't see that as a symptom of the problem, not the cure?

Wow, just wow... you really do try and twist words to mean whatever you want. This is why I have little respect for you.

60/40 is a lot closer to only works half the time than implying works nearly all the time. It barely meets the threshold of most. So you use it to imply more than it really is... that's why I gave a number. This has been your twisting in the past and I see you haven't abandoned it.

Similarly you objected when I included the failure rate to give the average damage. Things only mattered when they worked, it didn't matter that drain was still applied when things didn't work. That was irrelevant only the potential if they did.



And as for the latter... you're complaining you could mindrape (without any of the reputation hits which come with being a known mindraper, I'm guessing for your sparkly power gamed nosferatu with no RP problems). In any case, you hit an enemy mage squarely in her attributes... wil + cha to resist IIRC. No counterspelling to resist. Then issued a single command to her. Of course your compulsion is perfectly balanced here (NO DRAIN) and you can do it at will... and the rating 4 background count didn't affect you much at all either I'm guessing... (-4 magic + willpower vs. whatever her stats were).

It sounds more to me YOU don't realize the difference between weak and versatile. Combat spells have very very limited utilty... the most you can get is to knock someone out. Or to apply pinpoint damage by targetting some weak point (SOMETHING ONLY INDIRECT SPELLS CAN DO!). Indirect spells are far more versatile than direct ones. Still that versatility is only to destroy/disable.


The bigger issue here is the compulsion and critter powers! This goes into one of the only reason why mages are a problem. Spirits and critter powers! Their actual spells are rarely an issue. Yet your sparkly vampire has them and it's not even worth a balance nod. Which goes right into my other point... I could use a mental manipulation spell and achieve similar results (if I wanted the PR hit... with far less effort). So you used a non-spell with no drain to force a non-combat mage whose only backup spell was stunbolt to attack her teammates (which probably knocked out one of the teammates, yet your beef amounts to that she didn't take any drain!).

Similarly, you ignore that 4BGC is insufficient info. If it's aspected towards her... then force 10 means her magic is only 5. (BGC gives +4 dice for casting and +4 dice for drain if aspected towards her). Not a very powerful mage, but in her home turf. With only 4 drain and +4 drain dice. Still a significant chance of a point or two of drain. On the other hand if it's a mana void and neutral turf... that means her starting magic is *9*... which means most likely she has killer drain stats as well. And multiple initiate grades... meaning centering might be in play as well. In which case, expecting 1 damage on 4 drain is probably not out of line to happen maybe half the time or less based on her drain pool.

Your example is far less than convincing. It shows more your skewed and abusive view of things and an obsession with a non-problem than balance as a whole. It masks concern for balance as a whole with a microfocus on two individual things to the exclusion of all else.



Yes, and the damage inflicted was enough to blow the drone up outright. In both cases.
That was using the book rules as published with the optional drain rule in place. The indirect came out clearly superior.

The example used a force 11 powerbolt (with no successes used for damage), with 6 drain. Vs a force 9 flamethrower with 7 drain. Against a steel lynx. In both cases the target tended to die. The indirect was more likely to do it though since it didn't have a 40% failure rate on 15 dice spellcasting. That's how much of a difference you're complaining about. A mere +1 drain more on the indirect with enough oomph behind it to fry a heavy combat drone in a single go. (that was a 40% failure rate on the direct powerbolt, vs a 95% success rate damaging the drone with the indirect. 90% if you called shot on the indirect for +4dam/-4 dice). And you wonder why I insist on apples to apples spells comparison. And once again, that's ONLY the initial damage... since the initial spell damage is more than the drones armor... it suggests that the drone is now burning... or it's ammo should go off or similar effects. Yet you completely ignore that side of elemental effects as do most others in this these threads, they completely ignore the elemental and only look at initial damage.

Indirect spells by definition are PHYSICAL ONLY. So you pull out a mana spell instead with different use restrictions and which can't be done as indirect spells. So instead of comparing an indirect physical spell with a direct physical spell. People always go straight for stunbolt which is both not physical, and stun damage to boot. By the rules I can craft a stun damage indirect area spell for only +2 drain if I don't tack on an elemental effect!. It'll blast every living thing in it's radius seen or unseen.


If the OR of the target is raised even higher, the indirect becomes an even better option. That's the reason I suggest for people who have a problem, to look at raising OR's higher as per the book. (the book says OR5+ not OR5).

1a) 60% is the majority. Trying to imply that 40% is a great chance of failure is misleading.
1b) The discussion has never been about sustained drain over a long combat - you made it that. It doesn't matter (in the discussion of Direct versus Indirect) how much drain you take it you

2) You're missing the point of my example. My example was (admittedly an Initiated) mage overcasting at maximum Force a Direct combat spell in Backround Count and still not taking any drain whatsoever from it. I specified "use most draining spell" - I was expecting the mage to cast Armor, Combat Sense, Increased Reflexes or something else (I was expecting it to make the fight harder but take her out of commission). It just happened the spell with the most Drain on it on her sheet was Stunbolt (which is again another symptom of this problem - if Indirect are really as likely to be chosen as Direct, why didn't an NPC have any Indirect? The Corpsec Lieutenant doesn't either, by the way).

And don't call my nosferatu "sparkly." I was playing a nosferatu to be a monster, and he was. And he was in a group that had dealings with JackBlack, the Infected dude. So back the hell off with your preconceived notions about "mindrape" and Twilight, especially when that isn't the topic.

3) When you cite an average damage of 2.98 that doesn't mean it destroys the drone outright. Either your numbers were wrong or you conveyed them in completely the wrong way. Also, another point to think about is this: with Direct spells all you really have to help defend is increased OR. With Indirect you can increase Dodge pool, increase armor, and get armor modifications. Direct spells have less to get through than Indirects, deal more damage than Indirect, and inflict lower Drain on the caster, and are usable in more situations than Indirect. Tell me again how this isn't a balance issue?

I could care less how much respect you have for me, but when you start misrepresenting your own statements and statistics that you posted just so you can "prove" me "wrong" on something that is problematic.

"Abuse" is a subjective term, so I can't take your word that what I do with my character is abusive.

4) Again, you're going off topic about spells. This is not a discussion about spells in general - it is a discussion over the Direct/Indirect spell issue. Your standard "counterargument" of "but those spells aren't in a vacuum" is a meaningless Talking Point that you keep repeating like a broken record while trying to derail the topic of discussion.

Actually it kind of is. The aforementioned power wouldn't even have the chance for Drain like any spell would. So, instead of bitching about the non-issue which is the Direct/Indirect thing, why don't you just admit that for most people it isn't a problem and get off your high horse? Or is the fact that those few that do happen to agree with you have been drawn into the thread making your ego feel warm and fuzzy?

1) Again, what character I play has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, so back the hell off. Seriously, I'm tired of your Ad Hominem logical fallacy attacks.

2) The subject at hand is Direct vs. Indirect, and if it isn't an option why do: A) A lot of people disagree with you, and B) The topic keep coming up every few weeks?

I'm not on a "high horse" about this. It's very simple: Falconer is misrepresenting his math in order to win an argument and I won't let him. There is an obvious problem with the raw power of Direct versus Indirect spells, so many people propose changes. What's so hard to understand about that?

I'm not going to have this same debate with you again Neraph. You're mathematically illiterate and have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to numbers here. You insist on a microscopic focus and miss the forest for the trees by contriving one and only one situation that paints the indirects in their worst possible light. Then insist that their niche isn't big enough (that's entirely a function of GM opposition), and that they should excel outside of it as well as inside of it.

You similarly insist on wasting bandwidth on stupid things like 'most' vs 'nearly half'. When all that matters is failure happens enough to noticably skew the results and make the assumption that you can do things only assuming when it works clearly wrong when predicting the results over time. (which by definition must include a large number of samples both success and failure).

You then pull out an example of exactly what I'm talking about, you used a different magical power when you could have instead cast your own spell which DISABLED THE TARGET. Worse turned the target into a self-destructive ally for one round. If stunbolt was so broken, why didn't you do that instead and stunbolt her down? Instead you complain that she stunbolted one of her allies down and took no drain for it, when she's a high grade initiate.



For those who want to know what Neraph is misrepresenting... here's a link to the other thread... including where I list how I calculate this for those who don't trust my numbers. (yes I show work, and give you the tools to do it yourself). I did the numbers correctly based on Neraphs bits, then redid them as some other posters like Halinn asked for equal drain situations. I chose equal drain to be enough to blast a steel lynx combat drone in 1 or 2 shots max.

I think this is post #74 of the thread, where Halinn asked me to calculate the damage for equal drain as published and with Neraphs™ House Rule of broken suck.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t&p=1168190
Force 11 powerbolt vs Force 7 flamethrower (equal drain as published). And again with Neraph's Broken House Rule™ applied.

Posts 56, 59, 61, #74 deal with probability and statistics examples. Including the ones where Neraph tries to smear me by referencing different posts and examples as if they were the same.

It's not my intention to turn this thread into a math fest. Unless I keep getting pressed by mathematical illiterates who keep making up facts which I can disprove easily.

Just because those that happen to agree with you that it's a "problem" all gravitate into the threads discussing it (and start new ones every few weeks) doesn't mean it's an actual problem. All it means is that they're trying to get those that do agree with them together to gangbang those who realize that it isn't a real problem and try to force it down our throats.

Let me try this again: MY EXAMPLE WAS TO SHOW WHAT THE ENEMY MAGE WAS DOING, which was using Stunbolt to subdue everyone without taking drain, EVEN IN BACKROUND COUNT. If you can't understand that then no amount of discussing this can help you.


Yes, you did wonderful math, but you lost sight of the argument for the numbers (that analogy that you used about forest for trees actually applies to you, bud). On 15 dice you are 60% likely to succeed in destroying a drone with a F11 Powerbolt, using book rules.

Actually, on second review, your numbers are wrong. You stated a F11 Powerbolt with 6 Successes (1 net) would be required to destroy a Sttel Lynx, but that deals 12P damage and the Lynx needs only 10 dealt, so you're off by two Force and one point of Drain (also you didn't add your Net Success to Drain). Again, proof that you're losing sight of the argument for the numbers. But, again, the numbers I was toting were those required at minimum to damage a drone, not the numbers required to completely demolish the drone, which you still got wrong. Also, your scenario kind of proves our point by highlighting that the drain on the lower-level Firebolt spell is equal to (higher than, if you adjust your numbers to reflect the actual Forces needed. Oh, and you padded your numbers by doing a Called Shot for more damage) the Powerbolt. That's our whole point - Indirect spells have a higher drain, so much so that Direct spells are the obvious choice.

What part of rules as published including the optional direct drain rule escaped you Neraph.

Force 10 and 11 have the same drain. So I used force 11 for the example. I don't gimp the opposing argument in my examples. No net hits were used for damage (consistent with the optional rule +1 damage +1 drain and simply overcasting right away instead to minimize drain). I have no idea where you're pulling this 6 from, unless you're asserting that you need 6 successes to beat OR5 (which is wrong, you only need 5 with no net successes, and no net successes are used for damage anyhow in that example). Going force 9+1 net would have even a worse success rate than going force 11 right away. So I ran with that.


And what the hell are you talking about, you can't called shot a powerbolt, you can called shot an elemental indirect spell though! I did the numbers BOTH WAYS showing the results if you did called shot for damage and if you didn't. And clearly marked both.

You want to destroy your credibility with any more easily disproved weak counterarguments which misrepresent my position and waste bandwidth?


And if the example did like some of my GM's here do and increase the OR on drones if they're security or military drones. The odds would skew even more heavily in favor of the indirect. (OR5 is 60%, OR6 drops to 38% (security drone), OR7 drops to 20% (milspec drone). And that's not even using a house rule. That's simply applying GM discretion to OR5+ on drones and giving higher tech drones higher OR than 5.

No one forced you to do anything, All4BigGuns. We're discussing house rules for those who want them. If anything, your side is saying, 'no, you must only play our way and like it'.

Irrelevant to the conversation (because we are not talking about balancing combat spells/noncombat spells, but direct and indirect...its in the thread title afterall or are you illiterate...since we're name calling and all) and your only proving my point that Combat spells, and indirect combat spells are of little utility, and for the purpose of combat you might as well stick with direct.



Thats right, when your talking about pros and cons that don't have hard numbers to them you can't quantify them...you qualify them (measure based on their quality, which is inexact by its very nature). You do understand how that works don't you or are you incapable thought beyond that of a third grader?



Do you even know how to read or do you just look at my text and hope there's a picture to explain it to you? What changes did I suggest that would make them the same? Any changes I suggested would actually make the MORE distinct.


And this is where you show exactly how limited your understanding is. Only mana spells can affect/be used on the astral....All indirect combat spells are Physical....therefore no indirect combat spells can affect the astral....all combat spells that are mana based....ARE DIRECT SPELLS.


And as I've said before, your utter lack of respect for your fellow Dumpshock members and propensity for misquoting, misrepresenting, and general douchebaggery is exactly why I have absolutely Zero respect for you, your opinions, and why I don't trust your math. If you would deliberately misrepresent your fellow members why wouldn't you misrepresent your numbers?

Regardless, I'm done with this thread. I've explained my thoughts on how to balance the two WITHOUT changing flavor and WITHOUT making them feel like the same thing (ie D&D4E).

We would only be gangbanging you if you wanted to play at our table and we were bad players. If you were playing at my table then I would respectfully listen to your opinions and concerns regarding a houserule before including it in a campaign. If it was that big of an issue than I would choose not to include it. This is how a good GM operates.

What we say here on this forum isn't magically going to change what's written in your rule book. Its not going to change the rules of the game in general or in missions. It would only affect the rules at our own respective tables. There are no Tabletop RPG police that will come and break up my game or yours for not following rules as written, or for not implementing a suggested rules change mentioned here on dumpshock.

The reason why threads discussing it pop up and draw certain people to it is because those people have noticed an issue with it and would like to discuss ways to fix it at their own respective tables. If your not interested in fixing it, stay out of the thread. Simple as that. We're not forcing anything on you.

Zeropoint: I really don't care. I just care to present the best argument I can. Most of my disdain is saved for the truly unrepentent who insist their 'math' is correct when I can clearly prove it isn't (or invent things in the rulebooks which aren't there). This isn't new math, and 2+2==4 not 5. If you don't like my position that's fine... I don't like yours because it's ignorant and spouts a lot of misinformation. I just provided hard numbers that on 15 dice... the indirect works better than a direct spell on a steel lynx. In the past I've also provided spectrum information for how moving from 9, 12,15, 18,21 dice changes things. I've also provided ways WITHIN THE RULES to further hinder direct spells without resorting to stupdendously broken house rules (like +4/-2, or +3/-3, gross 6 point swings in drain!). People don't like it when I do that, because it removes the need for a house rule. They'd rather break the game because they've blinded themselves into focusing on a non-problem.

Or those who insist their reading is the RAW when they're making up fake requirements. Example: Neraph doesn't make counterspelling easily available to counter direct spells because he insists that counterspelling must be declared ever action phase. That completely skews the game experience because now counterspelling isn't commonly available because people used actions to 'center' instead to avoid drain (the caster is always protected... too bad for the rest of you schlubs). For a 3 willpower guard behind cover... that's 7 dice to resist a stunbolt vs 11 with 4 counterspelling, a big difference (especially at starting out levels).


As for your arguments. I'm sorry, it makes me sound like a broken record, but none of these spells exists in a vacuum. By continually pounding your drum that it's only X & Y, but we'll ignore A through M even if they're equally or MORE deadly and far more utilitarian all you do is put blinders on. You achieve a fake balance which is no balance at all. You don't like it because there is no good argument whatsoever for why flamethrower should have a lower drain than ignite. So rather than engage, you repeat like a blind record this is only about X & Y. Dead is dead whether it happens when they stuff the pistol into their mouth and pull the trigger when I mindrape them, or if I shoot them down.

You end up nerfing things into oblivion in such a way that only stupid players who don't know better will continue to use the spells. Or those who have no choice and then they'll be forced to resort to the lowest drain offerings like stunbolt when faced with an astral threat. And yes I repeat the contention... you insist on your blindered view of direct vs indirect spells... there can be no comparison on the astral because of the reasons I just stated. There was never any case to be made, any way you gimp mana spells on the material you also gimp them for astral combat purposes as an unintended consequence.

And you end up overpowering mages even more. Why, by buffing indirects outside of their intended niche ... you make them absolutely divine against their intended targets so a rigger is suddenly not a huge threat to a mage beacuse he can easily blast the drones as easily as he can blast other players. All because you insist that a high damage spell that gets a resistance roll is less powerful than a direct one. Outside of the high body, extreme armor cases, this isn't so... the soak roll is a formality which does very little.

I assume this is an intended consequence, as people already think stunbolt is equally 'too good' on the astral.

In any case, there's an obvious difference between 'this specific fix isn't ideal, try something else' and 'you shouldn't even try to change anything at all'.

Just to clarify Falconer, I never said that I would change the drain code. In fact I would be against it because to me it doesn't achieve the desired end. I do believe there should be an adjustment to the rules regarding direct/indirect. And while yes, it is true that we would need to consider all spells when checking balance, you can't take everything into account at once. If we were to try to balance them against everything else in the game at once, this would be a much more complicated change and would likely require several changes to the system as a whole.

If you want to balance all the spells against each other, first you balance those spells that are already closest to each other, then you compare those spells in the next category and so on. And as you do so, you may have to go back to your first change and adjust it. And then you have to go and check to see how it compares to firearms, and melee, defense skills, armor, other skill usages, and so forth.

This would be a much longer and in depth conversation if you were to start considering balance between the different combat spells and spirits or utility spells. That's why we were containing the scope of the conversation to direct/indirect. They perform the same role as purely combat oriented spells, and therefore can be examined separately, with minimal impact to the rest of the system. So, its not so much that we are simply choosing to ignore spirits or other utilitarian spells because we don't care about them or like them the way they are, but that its just not worth considering at the moment unless there were a proposed change would significantly impact one of those areas.

The main problem is that a lot of people proposing fixes seem to think that mana spells are "too good", and nerf them without giving the mage any kind of equivalent set of spells - low-Drain workhorse spells for combat situations. Making these spells too high, Drain-wise, only sucks fun out of the game and makes mages less effective (or more prone to go to other options such as spirits or mental manipulations - which, ironically, are much more potentially unbalancing). Plus, it skews things in the favor of NPC mages who have more support and more avenues of retreat. The NPC can cast a big mana spell and be done, while the PC mage has to worry about not getting too groggy, because he doesn't know how many times he is going to have to use his spells.

If you think direct combat spells need fixing, look at where they are actually unbalanced - targets get one combination dodge/resistance roll, and overcasting them is too easy. For the first problem, either give targets separate resistance and soak rolls (but if you do that, then take away the cap on hits), or give targets the option to spend a complex action (like full defense, this can be done as an interrupt action) resisting the spell, letting them double their Attribute dice. For the second problem, make Drain for overcasting increase at a 1:1 ratio for every point of Force over the caster's Magic Attribute - make overcasting a desperate but effective tactic again, instead of something that people do as a regular thing.

For indirect spells, make them better in their niche. They are the big boom, flashy spells that you break out when it all hits the fan. So bring back the old rule that counterspelling can't block them, but can only help soaking the damage, and quantify elemental effects more, to make them more significant and effective. Things like cooking off armor and grenades, raising a cloud of noxious fumes, and such should matter more in combat.

The part where I didn't read that. "Using the numbers as published though." does not include any information about an optional rule that you decided to include. Without that rule in place my statement above was correct.


English Lesson Time! All parts of information that are within parentheses are referencing what preceded them, and do not regard the parts that follow. So when I said "Oh, and you padded your numbers by doing a Called Shot for more damage," that was in regards to the Firebolt that came before the section in parentheses, not the Powerbolt that came after. It's basic English Comprehension.


Hate to break it to you, but you didn't "disprove" any of my "counterarguments," although the more you argue the worse you end up making yourself look.


This is actually a decent point. Indirect Combat Spells have a nifty habit of doing damage, although Indirects have less drain and, if they hit, are nearly always 1-hit kills (or close to it). I'll take little drain for two shots over a lot of drain for four or more, thank you very much.


You're like a puppy with a sock - you just don't know when to let go of things. As we went over ad nauseam in the other thread, the RAW is ambiguously written enough to make your side the preliminary correct form of Spell Defense; however, on a closer reading of the rules there's enough of an argument present to make my side probable also. But don't try to derail the topic here - that's why we had a different thread for that discussion.

Neraph, a few nitpicks.

1) Please go back and look at Post #1 on this thread. The OP specifically stated that he was using the dreaded o-RAW, not Falconer. No more lecturing other people on reading comprehension for at least a week, please.

2) As for your arguement that approx 40% failure to beat the OR means you beat it the majority of the time, you are correct. But the fact that in the given example you will statistically fail to beat the OR about 4 times out of 10 is not insignificant, whichever way you try to slice it. 50.1% success rate and up would give you success statistically more often than not, but 60% success rate does not equal 100%, and there is still a pretty big chance (in the example, almost 40%, or 2 times out of 5) of failure.

3) You are incorrect that you can use Edge to reroll in TJ's observed case of 0 successes in 18 dice. Unless you knew you would get 0 successes and declared the use of Edge before you rolled, the only thing Edge would do to help in this case is negate the glitch.

So yes he could reroll all the dice as they all did not score a hit.

Please understand that the math he was providing was from a different thread and in that post he did not state he was using that o-RAW. Looks like you're picking at the wrong nits.

That's true, forgarn: you don't *have* to negate the glitch. You can keep the glitch and still get successes. Yes, it's a weird situation.

But it's also not the point, because what they're actually talking about is 'extreme probability events'… and why we can just ignore them.

It is even weirder. If you roll a glitch or critical glitch and spend Edge to reroll all dice that did not score a hit, you also pick up all the ones, that made the roll a (critical) glitch in the first place. The rules say nothing whether these ones still count after you added the hits and ones from the reroll. The rules don't say anything about whether the reroll changes the dicepool with regards to glitches.

We have had this actually come up a few times at our table. from our observations, if you glitch with a small dice pool, its better to spend edge to reduce the glitch, while if you glitch with a large dice pool then its better to reroll misses.

Presumably, you keep any glitch/crit glitch that is scored, regardless of what happens later… but yeah, it doesn't tell us specifically.

And it is possible to get all misses with no glitch since a glitch is half or more of the dice pool is 1's. With no hits that would make it a critical glitch.

Could you imagine how screwed you'd be if you crit glitched twice (as in, crit glitch, Edge, crit glitch)?

That would totally suck. But, maybe you should have listened to the dice gods the first time

What we do know is that a glitch cannot be determined until after the dice pool has been rolled and a glitch occurs whenever half or more of the dice pooled rolled comes up as 1s. In such a sense, a glitch that was rolled can be negated by adding edge dice to the pool. For example, if you have 10 dice in your pool, and 6 edge, and you rolled 5 1s, and 3 hits. Electing to add edge raises your rolled pool from 10 to 16 negating the glitch. Additionally, your pool is raised by 1 for each 6 rolls on that edge dice. So if you initially rolled 8 1s and 1 hit, added edge dice after the test raising it to 16 dice (still a glitch), and you rolled at least 1 6 off the edge dice, you pool would raise to 17 negating the glitch.

The same principle applies with rerolling all dice since the state of the dice rolled is not determined until usage of edge has been declined.

Additionally, it doesn't make much sense to factor 1s rolled against the original dice pool in cases of edge dice before the roll and exploding 6s. You can end up with a situation then where your initial roll of 16 dice came up with 5 1s, and at least 3 6s which explode into 1s causing the test to become a glitch during the explosion....

Or not. We don't know. It may well be (and I typically see it played this way… in theory) that the glitch is 'banked' as soon as the dice stop, regardless of subsequent Edge jankery. Luckily (hyuk) none of this matters, because nobody ever rolls glitches in SR4.

I don't think it matters if allowing you to reroll dice allows you to negate a glitch or not. Each dice you roll or reroll has the exact same probability of coming up as a 1. While your chances of getting less 1s in total for the dicepool are greater, it still doesn't negate the possibility of a glitch.

In other words, if you have a low dice pool, and a low edge, and all you need to do is get a success (and not glitch), then it may be safer to just negate the glitch and move on. Rerolling non-hits or adding edge dice may also work, but there's still a possibility that newly rolled dice will come up as 1s as well.

Sorry for not responding sooner

• If you have magic 5, and force 3, the damage is 3 + net successes
• If you have magic 5, and force 7, the damage is 5 + net successes

This basically means that overcasting is still useful, but in no way breaks the game: like every other spell it just affects the number of successes you get.

We did try base damage = magic (we have played a lot of feng shui, and that is how they do it), but that was a little too good (although typically only 1 drain too good).

No Worries... I thought that was what you meant, but was unsure enough to ask.
Feng Shui for the Win...

On glitches, there's a thread on here where this was gone over in detail.

The rules never exactly say, but there were two camps. One held that only the final dice result mattered. The other said that the rules say a glitch occurs whenever the dice roll half the dice pool or more of 1's. (even if it wasn't the final result after spending edge to reroll). IIRC, more people were in the latter camp, once you glitched, the only way to remove the glitch was to spend edge specifically to negate the glitch.

That's my general feel for it. Okay you rolled your unarmed to kick him in the head... Well you glitched... you edge to reroll failures... you kick him harder in the head... but you fall on your ass from the glitch as you go off balance. Glitches are rare enough they shouldn't be that easy to negate while at the same time getting a better result than you otherwise would.



Like I said before, this is far too gimped... I'd never bother with the spells as such, until my magic was a really high levels.

I'd sooner use other far more problematic spells which WOULD neutralize the target in one complex action, not waste multiple rounds casting utterly gimped combat spells. Example... turn the guy into a meat puppet then shoot/stab himself in the eyes.

If you like the idea, why not try instead averaging the two stats for the damage (Force + Magic)/2. The option to overcast under duress is still there. Only you get far less milage out of overcasting than you normally would. The drain goes up a bit as well if you're aiming for one shot knockouts.


You'll find the average produces a far more balanced result. Effectively caps the damage, The caster needs to overcast by 2 force for each point of damage over Magic. This is similar to another house rule in the past of increasing drain by an extra half point for each point of force over Magic but limited only to direct combat spells.



Neraph:
I did say it numerous times in that thread. It was immediately obvious... besides I spent the ENTIRE THREAD arguing that the optional rule direct spell drain rule by itself is generally enough to balance direct spells. I still do. I'm normally the lone defender because the rule may not be optimal but it does accomplish the ends of applying a slight balance tweak to direct spells and it is also widely known and understood. (because it is published as canon rules, unlikes all the house rules I see all over the place).

Or maybe I should say it would be obvious to most anyone who read it and understood the math right away.

But the point remains, you're nitpicking.

This is identical to the standard spell until you overcast it. It only "gimps" overcasting. And turns the spells from a "one shot I win" to being balanced with the other spells.

They are still awesomely effective.

How are Control Thoughts, Mob Mind, Turn to Goo, Reduce [Attribute] and to a lesser extent Orgasm and Orgy not "one shot I win" spells? Some of them you don't even need to overcast to "win".

… Direct, and Indirect, Combat spells.

Are you saying the existance of other "I win buttons" is irrelevant to the discussion? I think they are relevant. If you nerf direct combat spells, players/characters will just use something else that works, be it some of the spells I mentioned or if elimination is the desired effect, just buff their dice pools and use guns.

They are a bit. We are however changing the conversation from "how can we make it so that the direct and indirect spells are worth having without spoiling game play", to "how can we fix these other spells so that they are worth having without spoiling game play". In all of these, IMAO, you need to balance the effectiveness vs a street samurai with a concealable weapon (and the street samurai is crazy effective).

I still use a house rule for the mind control spells (it used to be standard in earlier versions of the games): you need a threshold equal to the targets mind (or body) to succeed. At this point, targets with low body / willpower can be got with a single spell, while high willpower people are mostly unaffected. This is a desirable effect from my perspective.

Ignoring my house rule (back to RAW). The main issue really is stunball vs mob mind, as both of these can wipe out an individual encounter

• Stunball is a "defeat everything I can see" with a drain code of f/2+1. It takes one complex action to defeat all visible targets with little chance of the target surviving (foci + mentor + magic + spell casting + aid from a bound spirit vs willpower usually gets more than 1 success)
• Mob mind is a "control everything I can see" with a drain code of f/2+4. As well as the complex action, you have to then spend more actions to get your new minions to do stuff (like stop shooting you). So you have taken 2 IPs and a much higher drain code to get the same effect

The spells have quite different properties and I am much more concerned about stunball than the others (the street samurai has probably downed 2..3 opponents in the time that the mob mind has kicked in, and the mind controlled minions could easily of killed the mage before he gets his instructions off.

Other examples you give

• Reduce Attribute: it's a touch spell (and cannot stop being a touch spell) and can only target one opponent. You have to maintain the spell, and it's hard to maintain it with foci, so everything else you do is at-2. Sounds pretty well balanced to me.
• Turn to goo: I still use the body threshold rule (don't know if its RAW anymore) and thus have never had problems with it.
• Orgasm/Orgy: IMAO are clearly typos in the drain code. They are exactly equivalent in effect to things with higher drain code, so I think they typo is missing out "only on willing targets". This is backed by the fluff. YMMV

I apologise for answering with houserules. I really like playing and GMing mages in shadowrun, but I want a game that isn't called magicrun. The driver for the houserules is that I want to be able to field challenges (social and environmental as well as combat) that makes the players think. If they know "oh well if it all goes wrong all I need to do is cast stunball" then I cannot really field any serious threats that are not dragons. If stunball is as effective as it is, how can I let the players survive when the bad guys cast a stun ball (or two) at them?

That's what I'm saying, Dakka Dakka. The issue is only balancing direct vs. indirect. Once that's done, yes, worry about balancing combat spells vs. other spells. Neither of these leads correctly to the conclusion 'don't bother, they'll just win somehow'.

I don't want "I win buttons". I want "I win gameplay" in which the players have to pit their strengths against the opponents weaknesses, and avoid allowing the enemy to target their weaknesses. Problem with the direct combat spells as written with overcasting and multispelling is that every opponent has a weakness to it, so the gameplay vanishes. In addition the games would be short as the first mage to cast stunball at the player would wipe them out.

a fool's errand, tilting at windmills. no direct combat spell will ever be balanced with heal, fix, detect life, control thought, trid phatasm, turn to go, sterilize, levitate.

again, this idea of balancing direct and indirect by changing the rules is a failure of imagination and lazy.

if you want to "balance" the use of direct and indirect combat spells do so by gming situtions where it is logical and reasonable why the direct spell won't be as effective as an indirect one, regardless of the drain code. the enemies are hidden but known.Use drones, which are ubquitious in 2070. Use this old drone, if they are facing a street gang, enforce line of sight instead of handwaving it.

even a street sam does better in these situtions. I still remain flabbergasted as this obsession with the absolute weakest part of a magican's line up.

I'm stil amazed that there are this many shadowrun players that use combat spells this much. In pathfinder for instance, you would be riduculed on the boards if you suggested using a direct damage spells. and the fact is shadowrun "utility" spells are vastly superior to any thing that pathfinder has. stunbolt is so weak when in comparison can make you street sam invisible and impossilble fast, or use physical mask not avoid the fight all together, or use trid phantasm to ensure that everyone makes it through alive by providing cover so the rest of crew doesnt get shot?