http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=11303.0



So, lets take magic 10, spellcasting 12 and 8 bonus dices 8 (just for the theory, no idea if you can increase your magic attribute and receive any bonus dices):

30 dices by one of the worlds top non-immortal-elves mages. 10 hits (when used at force 10), 7-9 after non-antimagic spell resistance. The powerful (but not worldclass) mage would be in the 5-6 damage area. Compared to 16k grenades, 8k pistols and 11k rifles?

What exactly is the point of of direct combat spells now? Why do they even exist? What´s the selling point? Complete silence?

SYL

Without even looking at the book I can answer that one:

Direct Combat spells were too good. A Force 5 stunbolt could easily drop an average person instantly with virtually no chance of Drain on the caster. Willpower augmentation is very difficult in Shadowrun, so most average foes have 3 or 4, with 10 Stun boxes. A caster with 15 dice casting at Force 6 would generally ballpark 4-6 hits, and lose one to resistance, doing a good 9 to 11 damage, which is within good odds to immediately drop an average person. Too easy.

So easy, in fact, that in became much more effective to multicast 3 stunbolts rather than casting stunball. And about a zillion times easier and more effective than casting a fireball.

So now, with a split dice pool (and relying on net hits to deal damage), multicasting stunbolts is simply less effective than stunball (where you deal all your damage to the group instead of splitting it) unless your targets are far apart. And it's potentially more effective to hit that group with Ball Lightning, but Ball Lightning will probably hit you with hefty Drain.

Yes, maybe, but on the other side we are talking now 2-3 damage for the good/competent PC player. Compared to 8-15 damage for the normal gun (pistol to rifle). Wouldn´t it be the ... better way to improve indirect spells than in effect abolish direct spells (as indirect combat spells were not used in SR1234)? Raise one, destroy the other, because it was too powerful in the previous edition?

Why should now anyone take direct combat spells? What´s their selling point?

SYL

Ugh. I agree they needed some toning down, but this seems too much (I don't have a copy yet).

Maybe a house rule of 2x hits or something.

Sometimes it's better to just use a gun. It was often the way in the early career of many an SR3 Mage. Sure Mr average wage-cop could be dropped fairly easily back then and the run of the mill ganger too. But against a dedicated security team (WP3-4) in any area that had a BG count of a couple of points (that's alot of places) A bullet was the far better option. Magic sometimes is there to be used to do what technology can't.

Of course it would still be nice to be able to drop people with those spells too, but that's the problem the "Game Balance" on mechanics

Yes, that´s all ok and such ... but we are talking not about a "medium" power reduction of direct combat spells, we are talking that only NET HITS counts as damage - which in the end for normal mages (I am not talking about 800 karma monsters) will lead to direct combat spells doing something like 3-4 damage. Compared to the other options that seems a little bit low, and it could end with direct combat spells are no longer used (just as indirect combat spells were not/hardly used in previous editions)

In there anything in the SR5 rules which changes that? Or shed some different light on it? Something overlooked?

SYL

It might be an overcorrection, but I'd really need to see the rules to tell.

As sheer speculation, I'd say that it's the tradeoff for dealing relatively few nearly-guaranteed damage, since about no time ever would your average mundane threat be able to fully resist the direct spell.

I'll further speculate that the (new?) Enchantment stuff, fetishes, and foci might work for you here. One-time foci, or other magical gear bonuses, might really help gain the advantage on those Direct spells, but with a price tag attached.

Meanwhile, a classic Force 5 Fireball spell might tucker you out, but could do upwards of 10 damage to a whole squad of guards, and set them on fire.

Good question, well posed, looking forwards to an answer (Is a player who is looking at SR5 from SR3 and never ever touched 4)

Compared to gun damage (or god beware, grenade damage). I do not feel that you can soak gun damage as well (arond 20 dices against 9-16 base damage at minimum to resist).



What drain?

SYL

Well I'd imagine that a fairly maximized chargen character will have about 12 dice at his disposal without getting into gear. So that's about 4 hits. Assume that the target is Joe Security WP3, and gets 1 hit.

So right off the bat you're talking about doing 3 stun damage per action phase, with Stunbolt.

Let's say you get your hands on a rating 3 Direct Combat spell focus, you're up to 4 damage.

Without actually doing the math on this, what it really means is that you're probably ~75% or higher likely to get between 2 and 6 damage. Which means you're at fairly decent odds to drop Joe Security on Initiative Pass 2 (remember that most characters have a decent chance of getting more than one IP even without extra gear or magic). And on IP2, Joe Security is probably below odds to even resist at all, with his fancy new stun penalties. So IP2 you likely do an extra point of damage, meaning you're probably at fairly reasonable odds to drop him, but the most likely result is he'll just be really close to unconscious.

Aha, but then there's always Lightning Bolt.

Let's take the same caster, 12 dice, who drops a Force 6 lightning bolt on Joe Security. 4 hits again, Joe gets his R+I (6) and gets 2 hits back. So the bolt does 8 physical. Joe's 12 armor and 3 body help, but the bolt cuts 6 out of the armor. His modified 9 dice grant him 3 hits, and he takes 5 damage.

Okay, so we're in about the same territory. The stunbolt's Drain is cheaper, though.

But then, the caster could always drop a Force 12 lightning bolt on Joe. Same rolls.. 4 hits to 2 dodges, so we're at 14 damage. Joe's 12 armor does zip, Joe rolls his Body for 1 hit, Joe takes 13 damage and dies immediately.

Then the caster's head explodes.

I'm not sure. They've said Drain is amped up a bit. I'm assuming some formula like Drain = Force with a +/- modifier based on the spell, rather than half Force with a modifier.

Stunbolt could, for example, be Force - 4. Or Fireball could be Force + 2.

Or anything. But I'm guessing I'm at least in the ballpark.

I'd assume that Direct spells still have the lovely benefit of bypassing armor, while Indirect spells are still treated like Ranged attacks, and as such are resisted against with Body + Armor.

And since we already know that armor is getting a bump up as well, Indirect spells still aren't necessarily more devastating for SR5 Direct spells.

Also remember that new to SR5 is Reckless Spellcasting, which would allow you to cast a spell in a Simple Action but with more Drain. So if you wanted to do the good 'ol Double-Tap while dealing with more Drain, there's that.

Of course, spells getting the nerf I'm not too sure how to feel about...

But then again Joe Wageslave has a Pistol (8+1 base damage), a rifle (11+1 base damage) and a grenade (16 base damage, no dodge, almost auto hit).

I am a little bit astonished. Direct combat spells needed a little bit toned down (or better: overcasting needed to be reduced, because a force 5 stunbolt in SR4 was something totally different then a force 11 stunbolt) and indirect combat spells needed a little push to make them an interesting choice?

But now? Combat mages seem to be reduced to "use buff spells, and then assault rifles and grenade launchers". Which is not really the direction I want the SR5 Magic system to go. Spells should be viable as a choice and I am not quite sure if combat spells are a choice now (as indirect combat spells were not really a choice in previous editions).

Does anyone can give some drain examples?

What do I miss?

SYL

Looking at other numbers, it seems to me that a Heavy Pistol (DV 8 AP-1?) in the same instance would do about.. let's see.. similarly optimized character versus Joe Security...

14 dice (smartlinked?) versus 6 dice dodging.. about 2 net hits for 10 damage. Joe gets his 12 armor and 3 body.. 14 dice after AP.. or 4-5 hits.

So Joe is liable to take 5-6 damage from a heavy pistol.

But now Joe's dodging on close to half the dice pool of the shooter, rather than on a quarter of the dice pool as with resisting the mage. He's much more likely (still not super likely) to dodge the shot and take 0 damage, while he's virtually guaranteed to at least take one or two damage from the stun.


I think the real trick here will be if cover/etc interferes with Direct Combat spells the same way it interferes with Indirect and Shooting. If your option is to shoot at a guy with a decent dodge pool in heavy cover, or zap them for fewer (nearly) guaranteed damage with no dice pool modifiers, it might make Direct Combat spells tactically appealing sometimes, and tactically unappealing others.

How are Traditions different from SR4?

They haven't said anything explicit yet, but they did promise more mechanical differences between traditions besides Drain attributes and spirit loadouts.

Yeah I did the math on this a while back and 1 net hit on a pistol will net more damage than a direct damage spell from a pretty damn solid mage. A mage will probably be better off with that pistol until he is a ocuple hundred karma in. Given that you can take drain from these spellsit makes it even less likely you will cast direct damage spells. And with the drain on AoE spells wether its fireball or powerball I doubt anyone would cast them in favor of tossing a 50nuen grenade. On the other hand I think some of the debilitating spells might be much cooler if they target limits. .

It's easier to cast at higher Force (yes, if you're willing to risk Drain) with less risk of overcasting than it was in SR4. That and elemental damage isn't an afterthought or a description, but actually has a concrete effect. In the games I ran at Origins, one magician bricked a Westwind, and another set her target on fire.

While yes concrete elemental effects are awesome, I'm wondering about this easier to cast at higher force thing. Yes from another thread you mentioned you can;t overcast without going over hits in magic, but a force 6 manabolt costs more drain in SR5 than it did in SR4, if elemental effects and AoE are the same drain booster a fireball is now F+2 instead of f/2+5 which means past force 6 it will cost more drain.(now if its +1 and +1 boost so fireball is just F its for 9 that is the breaking point for it. And without being able to first aid drain away drain seems much, much more harsh to me.

You realize he's probably asking someone who got the new book at Origins?

I guardedly enthusiastic about the spellcasting rules. I always felt Drain was out of whack (or at least too easily exploitable) and that the cooler spells were overblown drain-wise for their effectiveness, forcing most serious casters into pretty static spell lists.

On the overall level I agree, but I think they may have hit the combat spells a bit too hard. I'm not sure if hold out from a mediocre shot with ex ammo should be deadlier than the best a 6 magic, 6 skill mage can throw at you. Add in things like called shots and power bolt starts to look even wrose, and the mage is going to suffer drain for the glory of doing worse than a hobo with a streelie special.

I"m trying to at least. I keep asking the question, but I've yet to see any answers.

4 damage unsoakable is fine compared to 12 damage reduceable by body and armor to 0

One big point is that it's ~4 damage that's unsoakable by just about anyone but another mage. That means the giant wired and armored troll is just as susceptible to it as Joe Security. How many pistol shots do you need to bring down the troll?

It is probably 3 damage and it can get dropped to 0 on a lucky resist almost more easily than the 12 getting dropped to 0 since rolling high on 3-4 dice happens a lot more often than rolling stupid high on 16 dice. And taking 4 passes to beat someone to death with a spell when others will have a solid chance of one shotting them is not that awesome, especially when you have a decent chnace of taking drain for the glory of doing crap damage.

Seriously its 9P for the ruger, now add in ex exploive ammo and a called shot, its base damage will probably be 15P on a single net hit maybe more. Yeah they get 2 stats to dodge it, then 2 stats to soak, but a half assed build for combat will get a net hit outside of really bad rolls, and soacking 15dv has a decent chnace of meaning dead.

I've thought of a few points that have not been raised in this thread in comparing indirect vs. direct spells.

1. Cover. Direct spells presumably ignore cover. Therefore, they are much more effective when your opponent is hunkered down.

2. Full Defense. The new "interrupt action" mechanic really changes the way the game is played from earlier editions. Now a character targeted by an indirect spell (or gun) can take -10 initiative and add their Willpower to their dice pool for the rest of the combat turn. I am specifically planning on building a Willpower 7 dwarf street sam specifically for this tactic. This coupled with Edge allows someone to shrug off most damage from guns and indirect spells. Yet direct spells are unavoidable with this full defense tactic.

3. Edge. (examples assume 4 in stats). When you really need to kill someone fast, you burn edge to re-roll die pools. Since direct spells only target one stat whereas indirect targets two, the magician is at a much bigger advantage in an "edge" battle. For example, magician throwing, say, 15 dice (not too hard to get to) would have 5 hits before edge, then edge to re-roll 10 misses to net another 3.3 hits for a total of 8.3 hits. Joe Sixpack rolls his 4 Willpower and gets 1.3 hits. It's not even really worth it for him to burn an edge just to re-roll 2-3 dice. Since he gets more dice vs. indirect spells, it is more of a wash. If they want to Full Defense, the problem becomes more pronounced for the magician. Same mage burns edge and rolls 8.3 hits with an indirect spell. Target goes "full defense", he gets 12 dice, rolls 4 hits, burns edge, for another 2.6 hits (total 6.6). Magician nets 1.6 hits. Assuming force 6 spell, he does 7.6 damage which is then reduced by Bod+Armor (with AP of 6 for force of spell). Assuming 4 Bod and 12 armor, target rolls 10 dice reducing damage by 3.3 (which he could also edge if he wanted for another 2.2 hits). He takes 4.3 hits (or 3.1 with another point of edge). So, in this example, direct spells are twice as effective as indirect spells (8.3 vs. 4.3/3.1) and this example does not factor in any other modifiers like cover that would apply to indirect.

In summary, I think some of the contributors to this thread have over simplified and downplayed the effectiveness of direct spells. Direct spells will be relatively more effective when dealing with modifiers (e.g. cover), use of edge and the "full defense" interrupt. I am not advocating that direct spells trump indirect. I'm merely suggesting that there is a right time and place for each type of spell. This post was not intended to cover all scenarios (e.g. using edge for rule of 6, etc.), but instead to point out a few tactics and scenarios that have been overlooked.

Regards,
~j2klbs

Ooops. Math is wrong. If target of indirect spell burns second edge point, he would only take 2.1 (not 3.1) damage. Granted, target of direct could edge rule of six to reduce damage by 3.1 instead of 1.3 thereby reducing damage from direct attack to 5.2.

Still, when both sides burning edge, direct spells are more effective than indirect (5.2 vs. 1.3).

My examples assume 4 in all attributes. Your mileage may vary.

~j2klbs

Only one attack per IP no matter what kind of action it takes.

I don't know about most people here that are complaining about indirect damage spells being nerfed, but when you play with mages that consistently walk combat encounters by themselves without taking more then 1 point of drain, all thanks to stunbolts and stunballs, I'm glad that these spells have been balanced. And yes, I think that this is a good balance. Consistent damage every round for a mage that doesn't take up that much drain, compared to a gun that may or may not hit their target? Let's put this in very practical terms and maybe it'll make a bit more sense to people.

When you're a gun bunny, you have an insane amount of dice to throw at a problem. You'll have a heavy pistol, maybe two, and you'll be rolling a ton of dice. A DP of around 20 for a specialized, tricked out adept or street sam is still a possibility. A damage value of 15+ can still be thrown around at that point and makes the gun much deadlier then it was in 4th. But that's what a gun bunny does. They throw around little packets of death. That's their job, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Now, you take a mage. If we're trying to be as comparative as possible, let's go with a combat mage and say that they're specializing in doing damage with their magic. In that case, they may take direct combat spells for the use of convenience and utility, but if they want to get the job done with as much flare and focus as possible, they'll be loading up an indirect spell and firing it at the nearest thing that can be roasted. And, again, you'd have a mage throwing nearly 12 dice at this problem. Maybe more for edge. With an AP of -6 for a force 6 indirect, that's shredding nearly any armor the person has. So long as they're draining properly, I'd take the few points of drain to down a troll with an indirect combat spell.

So, why would I take a direct combat spell? It's already been stated. Cover, range, dodging capability of the target, being discreet (if magic is still the same, they have to be noticing me casting that spell since isn't not obvious), and consistency. I would gladly have that over more damage in some situations.

One shot. You shoot the decker, and then you brick his cyberware.

Or just one shot, called shot wiith ex-explosive ammo and while he may roll 24 dice to soak he still drops dead or close to it from your 18 or 19 DV. And that is from pistols, what happens on runs where you are going in prepared and not random street fights where you only have a concealable gun> Then its base 11DV and that troll is probably soaking 21+DV. Direct damage spells may be unresistable, though it really isn't getting 3-4 hits on 3-4 dice is far from unheard of but sure it is much more sure to get something, it just does not have the options avialable to it that guns do. You don't have called shots, specialty ammo, burst fire etc. I don't care that street sam of doom will outdo the mage, I do care that pretty much every one will be better off with a pistol than the mage wil be with direct damage spells.

And the guy with Wired Reflexes 3 with Reaction of 9 and Intuition of 6 and Gymnastics of 6 behind heavy cover rolling 25 dodge dice still only has Willpower 3 to resist.

Given that visibility effects magic, cover probably does as well since well it always has, so while we throw out extreme exmaples like reaction 9, intuition 6 behind heavy cover the mage will be facing willpower 6, counterspelling 6 with heavy cover and miss just as often.

That's an extreme example?

Also I haven't seen any word on cover affecting direct spells yet.

Yeah 2 capped stats behind heavy cover is pretty extreme and probably happens about as often as magical support and one maxed stat wit the same cover.

So I guess a Troll with Body + Armor of 30 would be a little too extreme, too, then?

Well since trolls are about as rare as mages so it is kind of exrtreme on its own, without knowing the limit of the +armor gear its hard to say how viable 30+dice to defense is without it being extreme for a troll. But most trolls will have 6-10 body, an armor jacket adds 12, a helmet another 3 anything past that is probably much rarer than magical support. And even with 30 resist dice that drops the damage down by 10DV which a pistol with a called shot will exceed and still trump average spell damage.

Your examples are like boss fight characters and then direct damage spells roughly average out with pistols. Most enocunters a pistol is a much better choice even for the mage.

Shadowrun doesn't have boss fight characters.

How about this, then.

Street Samurai (PC-level) with Reaction 8, Intuition 5, Gymnastics 5, Body 5, and 15 armor. And WP 4.

Shooting him with say a Predator (DV 8 AP-1?), with Agility 6, Pistols 6 and a Smartlink (+2 dice).

On the face of things, the Samurai is about at odds to dodge the pistol shot, presuming he doesn't actually spend anything extra on dodging. That'll be a 50% damage reduction on average.

So the pistol shot will hit with probably fewer than 3 net hits. Let's say 3. That's 11 damage. 19 dice for reducing it (armor + body - AP). About 6 hits. So 5 damage from a pistol shot.

So the Street Samurai will take an average of about 2.5 damage per IP from the Predator. Standing in the open, straight dice versus dice.

On the other hand, let's say the mage is rolling 12 dice for his Manabolt (6 attribute + 6 skill) and doesn't even have any cool magic gear like a smartlink. Same rules, 12 dice versus 4 dice. That's about 4 hits to about 1 hit on average.

So the Street Samurai takes about 3 damage per IP from the Manabolt. Dice versus dice.

Then take into account that the mage never has range modifiers and spells have a concealability rating of infinity, the Manabolt is slightly better than the pistol.

Slightly better.

Slight.



It should be much, much better. Otherwise, mages aren't all that 1) scary, and 2) in demand - at least for combat

Well maybe the mage should throw a Force 6 Flamethrower at someone, then. Decent damage and now they're on fire. That's kind of scary.

EDIT:

Or they could just be invisible and setting you on fire.

Or Influencing you to shoot your teammate in the back of the head.

Or summoning a water elemental that then drowns you.

Totally not scary.

~hmm~ So "scariness" is limited to the capability of killing with a stare? And it's totally unscary that this dude might make you see / hear things that don't exist? Nor is it scary that he has means of telling you exactly how you feel or what your health condition is?

Sorry, but there's more than enough reason to be afraid of mages besides doing massive physical damage just with a stare. All in all I'd even say that people would fear getting ignited with an (indirect) fire spell more than being killed by a manabolt.

As for mages not being in demand for direct combat? In context of previos editions I would have said, that a lowered demand for direct combat prowess with low drain magic was more than called for, since mages do have other areas to shine in and still can play the magic bomb (at higher, potentially self destructing drain levels) ... Unfortuantely CGL decided that hackers as similarly shining characters in other areas needed more direct combat prowess with their main field, so "nerfing" mages in that regard somewhat contradicts the notion.

Which is why the Mages Guild will be working on that EMP Bomb spell and just fry all those hackable toys.

Yes lightning does some of this, but still....

I would say that the damage potential for direct combat spells tends to cap out a little low even if the sustained damage output is okay. Even with 30 dice you'd be somewhat unlikely to actually kill someone with a single manabolt (and then to do that you'd need to be okay with casting at a minimum of about Force 10 to even consider trying). I'd honestly expect some mechanism for boosting these spells a bit, but maybe something that's not immediately accessible to a new character -- something from Enchantment, or perhaps fetish or focus related. Or even a perk of Initiation.

And now the same with a (silenced) assault rifle.

SYL

Yeah a simple normal shot from a ares predator does about the same damage as a direct damage spell. Add in ammo, called shots, bursts and the versatility of guns will make them the better choice by far. not facing the 13 dice dodge street sam, oh you go for a called shot, facing the 13 dice dodge guy, you use a burst to reduce the dodge pool etc. And even relatively low force spells like a force 5 manbolt comes with the risk of drain which now can't be first aided away. And this is compared to a pistol which is far from the limit of gun options.

This isn't about mages in general, their versatility still makes them useful and deadly. And maybe these alchemical things will make a difference. But in most cases a non-ridic mage will be better off investing in automatics skill and going to town with machine pistols, assault rifles etc than casting direct damage spells, hell learn increase agility before manabolt.

Also remember that Increase Attribute and Decrease Attribute suddenly became a lot more important, since those will affect limits.

It's one thing if the mage fries you with mana; quite another thing if they make it difficult for you to do your job.

Depends on how they work.

Why not compare manabolt to a tank cannon? What's the expectation for the spell, here? That it's always supposed to be the best choice for the job, no matter the job?

No, that it should have a place in the universe. And a small DoT is not really what I would have expeceted, compared to the other damage values, both magic and non magic.

SYL

Because Slippery Slope. Shadowrunners do not commonly carry tank cannons about, or even have access to them. However, shadowrunners DO quite commonly carry a shotgun or an assault rifle at minimum when expecting combat. The ONLY advantage of a pistol is concealability, otherwise one of the standard rules of gunfighting stands: "If you can choose what kind of gun to bring to a fight, bring a long gun. If possible, bring a friend with a long gun."