Really... The Optional Rule does not have any effect other than to cause the character to either Overcast or Multicast (Assuming a decenty enough dicepool). Most people solve that by just Overcasting and using no Net Hits. Problem Solved. SO the Force 11 Stun Bolt is a solution to the Optional Rule problem!!!

Lets see 4 Drain, even Physical (No, I do not agree that you should just switch to Physical Drain to offset the issue, but many people here do. I rarely Overcast, but that is the obvious counter to the ludicrous Optional Rule), is not all that hard to soak. I abhore Overcasting and avoid it unless I have absolutely no other choice. But 4 Physical is far more soakable than a Spell (say Stun Bolt again) using the Optional Rule, cast at force 5 and using all Net Hits to up the damage, resulting in, WAIT FOR IT, 6 DRAIN. Are you going to argue that 4 drain is harder to soak than 6 is? Yes, the Effect of the damage (if you take any) is definitely different, but you actually have to take that damage before it matters.

In my experience, the Optional Rule sucks and is totally useless for its intended purposes. I also do not like many of the Houserules touted as fixes. Probably because I do not see a need to Fix this issue. *shrug*

Anyways...

You keep saying this, BUT WE HAVE NO HOUSERULES ON THIS TOPIC. WE USE THE RULES STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOOK for Direct and Indirect Spells. Maybe that is why you keep having issues with my posts. You are ascribing things to me that we do not do.

For our Table:
Drain for Indirects are as in the Book.
Drain for Directs are as in the Book.
We do not use the Optional Ruling, becuase it is crap.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Please do not ascribe this to me. I am not sure where you even got that from.
I LIKE the way spells work currently. I see no reason to change it.

About the only thing that I DO AS A PLAYER is refuse to overcast unless my life depended upon it. Or I am prety damned sure that I can receive proper aid if I screw it up. My characters have an aversion to putting a Gun to their head and pulling the trigger just because.

You're wrong, actually. Object Resistance doesn't actually eat up successes, it's just a minimum threshold of hits you need for the spell to take hold.
Its a pass-fail system, not a 'reduce the hits' system.

It's a threshold; that means net hits are hits over the threshold.

TJ: Mea Culpa... Udoshi referenced your optional rule for drain. No /2 on drain and it's all stun. Which is absolutely punishing! Apologies for accrediting this to you TJ.

I as well think overcast drain could have been handled better. I would have added an extra 0.5 drain for each point of force over magic if I was writing things. IE: Magic 5. Force 5 manabolt... 2 drain.... force 7 manabolt 3 + (2*0.5) == 4 drain. I just don't like applying house rules unless required. Though knowing prior editions I understand why they didn't, they tried to keep things as similar as they could in many aspects to keep continuity. (overcast has always switched drain from stun -> physical. But not otherwise increased drain outside the basic formula).


But on your first post... you once again IGNORE the antecedent. You get hung up on how to minimize the drain after the optional rule is in play, and completely ignore that it does effectively increase the drain if you do either! It's one thing to argue that it changes the way people cast, another to argue that this doesn't increase the amount of drain they take for doing so.

antecedent: Force 7 for 2 drain.. net successes for free.
You say you cast at force 11 stunbolt for 4 drain. Successes not used for damage... drain most definitely went up significantly.
Multicast... splitting pool... means each spell has decreased odds of working, even if the odds stayed the same. Drain goes to force 7->5 (+1 multicast). So drain stays the same, but you need to roll it twice, doubling the amount of drain suffered.


So the question is... does the optional rule decrease the combat effectiveness of direct spells by increasing drain? Yes it does.
Does it penalize other valid uses of the spells by imposing a flat increase to drain. No it doesn't. (for example... in the past I would commonly split my pool to manabolt two targets at once when a ball is inappropriate... if the drain went up by 2... this would be a lousy option).
Does it encourage multicasting? yes.
Can this be exploited? Yes. how long does it take a spell signature to dissipate and how many spells are cast in a combat!

Ahhh... Thank You, I was trying to locate where the confusion was...

I never argued that it did not increase the Drain, what I was arguing was that the Drain was LESS for the Overcast Spell, than it was for the Normal Spell with fully applied Net Hits, while using the optional rule (Resulting in the Same or Greater Damage Potential for the Overcast Spell, for Less Drain than the Normal Spell with Net Hits). WHICH ONLY ENCOURAGES OVERCASTING. This is bad Optional Rule Design, in my opinion.

And it does not decrease their effectiveness, especially if the Caster Overcasts, uses no Net Hits, and is capable of ignoring the Drain, which has been the complaint in the past. People complain about Direct Combat Spells becasue they are easy to cast, and result in little to no drain. The Optional Rule increases the drain dramatically (potentially), by applying Net hits as Drain. Of course, if you Overcast, and do not apply net hits, you increase the Drain only marginally (by comparison), and you STILL ignore the drain.

Yes, for a normal caster, that is a hefty choice. Because a Normal Caster probably only has about 6-10 Dice to resist Drain. For a Player Character, where Drain Pools tend to start in the low teens, it is a no-brainer. Just overcast and you will suffer less drain, overall, for the same damage potential. Even if the Drain IS Physical rather than Stun.

Anyways...

Udoshi... read what a threshold test is sometime. You really have no clue what you're talking about as regards spells and object resistance.


TJ: I only disagree with your last bit. Even if you do have say 12 dice on 4 drain... it's not a gimme... the odds don't change much actually from the 15 dice case... it's still a little under 60% odds you take at least 1 drain. The key words being at least 1. With drain 2... the odds drop precipitously towards a fraction of a point. The reason is... every point of drain pushes you way up the bell curve towards the peak at the average. And drain only cares when you don't roll enough... rolling too many doesn't let you bank the extra successes.

That +2 drain for overcasting does significantly increase the amount of drain suffered in play (which is the goal, to make directs a little more punishing on the caster). I'm feeling lazy, but it pushes the odds of drain from like 5% up to about 40% which is quite significant. So that old maxim statistics are lies might be true, if I said it makes drain 8x more likely (for a mere +2 drain in that case).

One rule I always tell people is NEVER let mages 4:1 drain. That's like one of the best gifts you can do to OP mages because they always know how far they can push themselves... and even with 4:1 there's a significant chance they'll still take at least 1 drain.

Well, you're not supposed to let any PC 4:1 *anything* unless it literally doesn't matter.

Agreed, for the most part. Just in my experience, there is often very little drain, because characters aspect to take very little drain. I know I do, but then again, I rarely have Mages that willingly cast above Force 5.

Yera, yet I regularly see people who won't allow a street sam to 4:1 a damage soak allow mages to 4:1 drain.

I was just saying for the benefit of some who might not realize. This can significantly reduce the amount of drain a mage suffers.

Indeed...

Those are bad people, Falconer, and they should feel bad!

You really need to read my post the way through. I stated quite clearly that the math was under the assumption that A) you had the net hits required to maximize the DV addition, and B) the math assumed you did so.

The math is entirely correct. Flamethrower has a higher damage potential than manabolt using the same drain, even at F12 manabolt adding 3 hits.

F12 manabolt, for the same drain as flamethrower, adds 3 hits to DV. DV is then 12-15.
Flamethrower can add ALL hits to DV. 1st success in a ranged attack adds damage. DV is 13-24.

I also analyzed the net hit potential for the average mage dicepool. Read the final paragraph again.

If you are going to call the math wrong, then at least put out an equivalent flamethower for comparison in your math. Just claiming "Manabolt is so good and cheap I can get F12 for 6 derp" doesn't show anything.

Easy... SO easy in fact that I cannot believe you missed it.
Here goes...

Force 12 Mana Bolt. Drain is F/2. That equals 6 Drain. Starts at 12 DV Damage.
Ading NO Hits. Damage is 12 DV (I can choose to add no hits, and in the Optional Rule, it is stupid to do so).
DRAIN IS 6 DV Physical. Period. Better Damage, in the end, than your Flamethrower Spell for FAR LESS DRAIN.
What is the Drain for a Force 12 Flame Thrower? Hmmm... F/2+3, Oh yeah, that is right. So at Force 12, that would be 9 DV Physical. WOW.
And even if you went Force 6 to help minimize the Drain, you are still dealing 6 DV Stun Drain, and not even enough Damage to matter comparitively. Since the target gets to Dodge first, and then Soak.

As for all hits add to damage... Good Luck getting 12 Net Hits on a Force 12 Spell... Reliably you need 36 dice to do so. Riiiight !!!!!
Try something a little more realistic please.
And another question. You need to inflict 13-24 DV of Damage Why, Exactly? I have found that 12 is often more than enough for almost any target.

As you are so fond of saying. If you are going to criticize, please read what is said. I read yours, and called it BS, because it IS BS. With the Optional Rule in Place, it is ALWAYS beter to Overcast (at 2x Magic Rating) that Direct Spell, than it is to cast at Magic and then use all Net Hits. Period. The Difference in the Drain is so obvious I can only guess that you are being stubbornly dogmatic to not see it. Force 6, with 6 Net Hits (under optional rule) is 3+6 Drain for 9 DV Drain. FOrce 12 is 6 DV Drain. WHich is Better? Hmmmmm...

Have a nice day.

No the math is not entirely correct. You make several assertions which people are right to call you out on. They serve only to make the math simple... but not to make a representative model argument for how people will react. I agree +3/-3 is lunacy... but disagree with your method of arguing it.

Rule 1. Mages will act to reduce drain whenever possible. Drain is the fundamental limiting factor on a mage.
Rule 2. Except for very low forces... assuming capped successes is a mistake (very low being 1 success per 6 dice).
Rule 3. When examining spellcasting, simple averages are misleading (the average successes on 12 dice is 4... but nearly half the time 3 or less happen. Force and drain cap the maximum number of usable successes and skew the correctly calculated averages away from the simple average. Object resistance similarly means for direct spells the odds of failure and nothing happening are significant to estimating the drain.
Rule 4. Elemental effects are almost always included on indirect combat spells but not necessary... if ONLY COMPARING DAMAGE and not including secondary elemental effects. You can craft a single target indirect combat spell for a mere +1 drain code by RAW (it needs to be combat spell, physical and los, that's it... it doesn't need an elemental effect! it won't get half-armor though as that's part of elemental effects initial bonus ignoring elementals ongoing effects).


No mage in his right mind is going to cast force 6 then apply 6 success to get 12 damage with the net hits with the optional rule.
Why?
1. drain is force/2 round down... mages pick odd numbers except when there is a clear reason to go with an even force.
2. Much lower drain can be achieved by simply overcasting at force 11 and using no successes to increase damage! (this is enough to knockout/kill most things with 5 body/willpower or less). 4-6 drain going from stun to powerbolt.


There's another thread where I actually broke down Neraphs argument for +4drain, -2 drain (another god awful house rule suggestion). And did the full probability spectrum math for a mage rolling 15 dice. His assertion since he always assumed 5 successes to beat OR on a drone. That's why Yera told me not to break down math into this thread. +3, -3 isn't much different and still would show flamethrower being clearly superior to powerbolt when used on a drone. (indirect spells niche is attacking non-living targets).

I included the math for how often the flamethrower misses the drone in the opposed test. How much damage it would do in every case, the exact odds of each and every case given 15 dice casting. All this on a large combat drone with maxed out armor (steel lynx). Lesser drones would be stir fryed.

Rule of thumb: very high powered mages do well with direct spells. Low powered mages do better with indirects vs drones.

Not entirely assumed. I did not go further into it, as I was simply pointing out the area where indirect spell damage is underestimated.

However, I made blanket statements in which I assumed that direct spells were always better than indirect. I did not go into it further because the math is very very very niche heavy in favor of indirect. Assuming a lower dicepool for spells or lower force spells, I made the assumption manabolt and powerbolt are always better. Not sure if you guys missed this in my first post, but I did make a mistake in it.


The key is the spellcasting net hits. I erroneously wrote just "hits," though, which is my mistake.

The issue of using a F12 manabolt and not adding DV to the damage is really the same issue as acquiring fewer net hits. The math is the same in application, for drain and for damage. I should have written "net hits" in my first post instead of "hits" though.

If you limit your DV added by net successes, it doesn't matter then if you rolled only that many, or rolled more and use less. The result is the same.

So again, the blanket statements: direct spells are generally a superior choice to indirect. Direct spells tend to be much better choices with lower drain spells, OR lower amounts of net hits applied to DV (here is where I assumed your average player of spellcast 6 magic 6 would average 4 hits).

They are the same math. I did not, however, consider drones in the mix. I assumed, since they can carry the same elemental resistances, that it would be similar. And indirect spells have an undeniably high damage potential at the high end of possibilities, for less drain.

Trauma Dampers and Platelet factories. 3 physical damage turns into 1 physical and 1 stun, which makes things quite a bit more manageable.

Assuming you want to waste a point of MAgic to do so, of course. Not all mages roll that way.

Halinn:
Trauma dampers and platelets are a grey area of the rules depending on the table and the GM. The rules never say whether to apply them before or after the damage soak roll. Another way of saying... do you apply them to reduce the damage before rolling the soak dice. Or do you apply them after you've rolled the soak dice and you're actually checking off damage boxes.

Most tables I've played at only allow them to function when checking off boxes of damage after the soak roll which makes them far less useful but makes more sense.

It's a grey area if you squint so hard you can't see. It's hard to imagine it working the other way. First, how could it work before armor? Second, if you take 3 P and 1 S (TD applied), *then* roll resistance… how would you know whether to soak the P or S first, and how would you soak P and S with the same pool? Third, the stated reason TD works is 'feeling pain' and it doesn't work with Pain Editor because of this, so how can it work before you finish soaking and have Wound Mods ('pain')? As below, you have no boxes of damage until after soak; the example in the TD rules makes this clear. Fourth, Platelets say they work when you suffer (Physical! Don't even try it, Udoshi ) damage, and you haven't taken any damage until after the soak roll.

Why would it matter, anyway?

We apply them after damage has been applied, much like you apparently do. Kind of hard to apply their effects if there is no damage to apply against.
Makes them QUITE Useful, in my opinion.

Edit: Ninjaed by Yerameyahu...

Yera & TJ:
Because I've also played and seen it done elsewise in more pink mohawk games. Where they stage down the damage... they look at the armor... figure if it's stun or physical. Then apply the dampers... then roll the soak.

I'm actually agnostic on this one. I'm with you as that's my preferred reading after the soak. Though I also prefer the reading that platelets work on stun or physical (it's the grammarian in me).

I've seen it played the other way in pink mohawk games and it works well in that kind of over the top style game.

I have seen Platelets work for both as well...

I grow tired of your slander. If you don't like a House-Rule then no one is forcing you to use it. Your work on percentages and possibilities does not change the average effect however, and you seem to forget this - you get lost in your numbers. When I pressure you on your numbers your response is usually one of "but it doesn't fit the fluff either," which is a logical fallacy (actually, a logical fallacy in response to a logical fallacy).

If it would make you feel better we can take another look at some numbers using standard things and buying successes at 4:1 like the book says. This will still show that Direct are superior to Indirect and that my House-Rule will fix that (which is what it was intended to do). Your only argument against it is that statistics do not mean probability, which is something I never stated or argued; my numbers and my fix were not based on probability, but on statistical outcome. If something happens 51% of the time then most of the time it happens, regardless if 49% of the time it does not.

I guess I still don't get it, Falconer. Checking the armor first is fine (in fact, mandatory), but then there's still no reason to apply TD before soak. If it happens to be all Stun, then you're okay by coincidence, but a P attack still leaves you with a crazy split damage set (like, 5P+1S)… how would you soak that? It simply doesn't work that way, even if the rules for TD/etc. didn't pretty clearly say no.

Neraph... it's not slander if I'm calling you out and demonstrating your methodology is trash. And Neraphs House Rule ™ is worth even less than the attempt to prove it was. (For those who don't recall... neraph's house rule was a flat +4 drain to all direct combat spells and -2 to all indirects). Just like Krischach you used garbage assumptions to 'prove' things. Quite frankly, I'm not the one who brought you up as well... it was Yera who mentioned it and asked not to turn this thread into a math fest. Something I'm more than happy to do.

I objected to Krischachs method which agrees with me in substance because it's a weak argument. He makes bad assumptions... a mage is going to willingly use net successes to increase damage when the target is already dead just for sake of giving himself more drain for example. Or that force 12 with 12 successes is a valid comparison point for most purposes. I objected to yours because your examples were entirely contrived and self serving... and amounted to... so long as it works see this pans out (it didn't pan out), and it doesn't always work either! When it only works half the time... yeah that other half inflicting the same drain as the half of the time it does makes things exceptionally punitive.



You know full well I used your own numbers and assertions to come up with 15 dice I used for my calculations. Paraphrasing your words which you just incorrectly asserted again... the average is all that matters. So if you assume 5 successes always... then 15 dice is quite a reasonable starting point for dice rolled.

4:1 is something that should never be done either in combat situations. As the chances of actually not rolling the 1 are still quite significant. Nearly 20% in fact. Roughly the same odds as rolling a '1 on a d6.

More to the point. As I also said above... the larger the dice pool, the comparatively better direct spells become. Indirects niche is for dealing with inanimate objects without auras. Not everyone plays a powergamed to the hilt caster whose best pick is direct spells. In attempting to balance indirects so they work as well OR BETTER than directs in direct spells main niche (targetting living nonmagical beings), you break them unnecessarily for their own niche (smaller size casting pools,

What you're not realizing is I made two unrelated but parallel arguments.
1. your math is utterly useless for determining the average result.
2. the SETTING has always held that the classic chain smoking fireballs evoker is not really shadowrun. The magic is there but works differently, trying to make it do things like that is very draining on the users who attempt it. Why a fireball has a +5 drain code. I could make an area +3 drain blastball with no elemental effect as well as a indirect spell.
3. Why the hell would I ever resort to your gimped spells, when I could just use a 'save or die' effect instead and turn the target to goo? For less drain! Cross spell-type balance got screwed all to hell.

Arguments 2 and 3 are still relevant to this thread.
Argument 1 is as well, just you haven't provided any numbers for me to gleefully debunk yet!

keep in mind, please, that unless the math itself is incorrect, making assumptions for the sole purpose of positing value scenarios is perfectly valid. I also compared a Force 9 flamethrower to a Force 5 manabolt. It's easy to make the go-between. I've never argued that lower DV added direct spells are more efficient. I've stated quite the opposite.

One has to remember, though, that in order for a comparison of drain, you must add at least 3 DV to the drain of manabolt to match. Adding zero DV obviously makes for less drain. You can just get away with far more hits-add-to-DC using flamethrower, if you have the hits to do so.

This is why I said that at 4 hits added to DV or less, direct is almost always better, certain drones, called shots, or other circumstances not-withstanding.


Force 12 manabolt works with only 1 net success, yes? It's the exact same as rolling 6 net successes and adding no hits to DV, for drain and damage. Why discuss that further in depth when indirect gets so outclassed on average using those additions?


@Stormdrake
However, in terms of the original topic, modifying a direct spells drain may make up for this, while still using the DV to damage drain rule, may see more usage of indirect spells.

The amount of hits needed to match the drain of Flamethrower using manabolt is 3 net hits added to DV. I suggest adding 2 to the base drain outright, OR subtracting 2 from Indirect, depending on the power level you want in your campaign. Personally, I'd raise indirect spells by 2 drain.

By shortening the drain distance between the two, the ability to ramp damage with Flamethrower by adding hits to DV will more quickly outclass the damage by manabolt if adding more than 2-3 hits to DV, instead of the 4 or less I posited.


So, I'd suggest that Manabolt/Powerbolt drain be (F/2 + 2) for flat cast.

Because turn to goo is sustained. Duh.

And gross. Anyway, the *intention* is to gimp directs, and slightly ungimp indirects. If the exact numbers chosen aren't good, tweak them. Duh.

If Iwas choosing to alter theDrain for Combat Spells.
Directs +1
Indirects -2

That should make them pretty good, in my opinion.

As has been stated multiple times in multiple threads on BOTH forums, all the optional rule for Direct spells does is basically tell mage-character players "always overcast if using a Direct spell or get boned hard".

It always said to me that indirect need to be stacked all to hell to work.


You didn't specify, but I assume this is without the extra added DV Direct spell drain rule? If you include that rule, I think direct +1 and indirect -2 is too much. I think it's too low for combat spells in general, as well. -2 is the same level as Improve [stat], and that only adds dice. Flat DV is more valuable.

Yes, without that crazy optional rule.
And the numbers are from where they are currently... This comes close to evening them out, but still leaves the niche capabilities intact.
I would never do that (I think they are fine where they are, personally), but if I was looking to do so, that is how I would go.

The drain numbers are fine where they are, and I think it's just the camp of "I hate mages, so I'll screw them at every opportunity" that caused that optional rule to exist in the first place (to stop their bitching and whining--or at least try).

I agree that they are fine where they are, but not everyone agrees with that sentiment.

I thought that was the point of the thread. The fact that "where they are" means indirect spells are all but ignored.

Under the current rules, indirect spells are a niche specialty, which is also supported by fluff to the effect that creating an external damaging medium takes a lot more effort than channeling energy directly into a victim. I kind of like the current set-up, to be honest. The really flashy stuff, you only break out when you really need it, and most of the time you low-key zap people.

Neraph's house rule would make indirect spells easier to use (firebolt/ball becomes equal to power bolt/ball, Drain-wise, while clout and blast would be even more low Drain than the stun spells). But you might as well forget about combat spells - even a Force: 5 stunbolt would have 5 Drain. That's not really "balancing" them - it's just making one set of spells nearly useless, instead of the other set of spells. Balanced would be if both kinds of spells were a valid option.

I use them, for their Niche abilities. Just like I use a Grenade when it is more appropriate than a Pistol. *shrug*

Wow, you're a sad, rabid person. You're not slandering me? "your methodology is trash... garbage... contrived... self serving...you haven't provided any numbers for me to gleefully debunk."

I honestly don't see your issue with the Law of Averages (excuse me, the Law of Large Numbers). I'm guessing you'd get your crazy-math on at the thought of saying that a coin flip is 50-50 as well? What I've been saying is that, statistically speaking, you should expect one success for every three dice rolled. This is neither far-flung nor illogical. Next, I stated the minimum successes required to affect a random drone (I think I chose the C-D Dalmatian..) with a Powerbolt versus a Flamethrower and compared the damage outcome of each to the Drain inflicted by each. In every case of raw damage potential, Direct spells trump Indirect. Indirect spells are, as you stated, niche spells with little actual reason to take.


Theoretically, and I've toyed with different numbers on my own, but adding only a +1 to Direct still makes them a better choice because of the inability to stage damage down from Direct spells.


How exactly is a (1/2F) + 1 Indirect spell useless? I consider that fairly valid. That's a 4 Drain on a Force 6, which'll probably cause a decent amount of damage (not including the secondary effects [knockdown, electricity, ect.]).

Direct Spells SHOULD ALWAYS be a better choice. That is the way the System was designed. However, there are always occasions where the Indirect Spell will do better. Which is why I don't think that they need to be altered in the first place.

'Is' is not the same as 'should', TJ. The reason this issue keeps popping up is that many people think that they should not always be the better choice, so they're deliberately altering the way the system was designed. Call it a variant if you don't like 'fix'.

Yeah, I get it. However, currently by the rules... IS and SHOULD are the same. The rules say that Direct Spells Should be your go to spells for damage, and that fits what actually happens.

Really does seem to me that it really is just people not really liking mages when they take the GM seat, and so they throw fits and argue in favor of crap rules and house rules in an attempt to cause mages to not be able to do much casting at all without flopping over unconscious.

Hey original poster here,
I like and play mages when ever I am not the gm. As a gm I am not out to get mages as I run a magic heavy game. What I have an issue with is that the mechanics for direct spells do not fit with the mechanics of the rest of the game. By this I mean that direct spells require a single resistance roll to avoid damage that is made with only Will or body (and any counterspelling available), ignores all armor, and removes any chance at dodgeing the spell. All other guns, spells, and even matrix combat rules require a roll to hit which the target can dodge, then a soak roll. The fact that the drain code is also very low is annoying but beside the point really.

My take on switching the drain code around was an attempt to address what I view as an abberent rule that appears to have no real connection to the mechanics for the rest of the game. I could have simply added a second dice roll for direct combat spells but that would eliminate the uniqueness of direct spells to avoid armor. Direct spells do have a very significant role in Shadowrun, especially against the heavy armor that players can make use of with the advent of War!

Having played this game sense the 80's (yes I am old ) I do try and keep the flavor of the game consistent but do understand that some changes were made in 4th at the request of many players. In the older edditions of the game the flashy (indirect spells) were the easier type of spell casting as the gathering and relasing of raw energy that produces some elemental side effects were the sign of a new or unskilled practitioner. The harder type of spell casting was the ability to cast unseen spells that can bypass the physical world and attack an individual at his core. This was the sign of a highly skilled individual who has learned to focus magic to a surgical level. Such ideas have shifted over the years and I have no problem with that but it is why I decided to go with the switching of the drain codes rather than eliminating the uniqeness of direct spells by adding the second dice roll as mentioned above.

It works for me and I have had no complaints from my very vocal group of players, of which half are spell casters of some form or another

The flashy spells have always had a higher Drain code in Shadowrun - it's not something new, although the classifications have changed (in SR1, all combat spells used the same mechanics; in SR3, spells such as fireball were a category of manipulation spells).

If you have a problem with the mechanic of how direct combat spells work, then fix that, not the Drain. Maybe you could give mundanes the ability to consciously resist a spell by expending an action, which could be an interrupt action (like full defense), letting them double their Willpower for resisting a spell. Maybe you could have separate "hit" and "damage soak" tests for direct spells - although you might want to also uncap spellcasting successes, if you do that. Or maybe you could just make overcasting harder, since that is more often the true culprit. But making direct combat spells harder to cast without needing a nap afterwards doesn't really do anything to either balance the game, or make it more fun.

I fail to see how. If making Direct combat spells more difficult makes mages choose other spells (Indirect or some other manner), or even another form of attack, more often, then that has accomplished a significant balancing factor by changing Direct spells from the "I win" combat spells. If it absolutely needs to be dropped Direct spells are still viable with my rules change - it's just that you will feel how badly you wanted to drop that target.

It isn't a real problem, and thus there's no reason to "fix" it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's "wrong".

So you don't see a problem with mages being able to drop everyone with Stunbolt literally all the time, all day, with virtually no chance for Drain? Can I play in your games?

The problem with overcasting in a game where the optional rule is in effect (as the OP clearly stated he was using) that nobody has yet mentioned is the amount of time it takes for the mage to clean up the signature of his overcast spell. Same goes for multicasting, more astral signatures to be scrubbed out.

So assuming the opposing mooks just line up like ducks to be shot (which if intelligently played they won't), the mage might one-shot them all with a F11 Stunball for no drain (which as Falconer pointed out is also a fallacious argument, bad dice sometimes happen), he is then going to have to spend 11 combat turns (33 secs) to clean up his astral signature while the sammie twiddles his thumbs and the opposing spider could be locking doors and deploying drones to contain/eliminate the runners.

Sure the Cleansing metamagic can help in this regard, but it is not necessarily the first metamagic a mage might take on initiating (Masking and then Extended Masking are useful alternative metamagics, to name but two).

Thats why you take Astral Chameleon and Flexible Signature ^^