Would you be.willing to post these samurai that are better than your adepts? I would be curious to see them.

I'll ask him to email him to me, I looked them over but I don't keep them.

Due to a gag order, I'm not allowed to post my builds. Let's just say that for what I was going for, adepts were better and easier.

It costs a little over 100k to get an arm with 9 agility and 11 strength (Orc), add cyberspurs and you have 14P AP-3 melee with amazing dice pool, excellent recoil comp (one handed) and lots of money left to be a decker or rigger on the side or go all out sam on other areas. Get +physlimit pos adv. instead of natural strength and you get lots of statpoints left to be badass sam.

The price reduction on deltaware makes upgrading a sam much easier now than before. In SR4 you started with all the cyber you would ever encounter and upgrading required insane amount of money due to the x10 cost of all upgrades. This is much better now with cheaper deltaware.

Also, note that Attribute Boost (0.25 pp) adept power that looks ludicrous at start has a big nerf to it now. It ONLY affects dice pools. Attribute Boost Strength gives dice for climbing and swimming but not +damage in melee, boost reaction gives more defender dice but not higher initiative, boost agility gives dice for attacks but not run speed.... One could probably read it as "doesn't affect limits but everything else" but I choose to read it purely as "only dice added" since 0.25 pp for +2-3 to any stat would be overpowered.
To get pure basic attribute boosts the Adept has to get the real version for 1 pp per level. Muscle replacement and the like is meant to be easier for Sams.

Cain... then don't post. Otherwise you merely bait others when they ask you to put up. At the very least be able to clearly make your point with a limited example then.


Lobo:
Reagants... at which point... lets see at $20 per dram. Lets say you use 5 units... at this point I could be tossing a grenade for the same budget with far superior results. See the 'fling' spell... no need for agility + thrown weapons! Or fun with levitation... or magic fingers... That of course touches into the one skill to rule them all problem that magic encompasses provided you have the right spell.


I understand that the indirects have a much bigger chance of simply fizzing by being dodged. I had it happen a few times in missions... but overall I found a force 6 lightning bolt tended to fry things very nicely. Force 6 on the manabolt was a waste in comparison. (I mainly got the manabolt for astral targets... since the character lacked astral combat skills. Though astral combat is a far stonger option in 5e than the spells I'd have to say as well.)

The problem is the added force on the indirect always gives a bonus. More base damage, more AP. The secondary effect as well can be enhanced as well (fire has a higher chance of starting that burning sensation). On a direct spell force only does one thing... it caps successes. And then you need to roll well. So you need a confluence of events... casting at high force... rolling well on the actual casting test to make use of the force. Then not flooring yourself with the drain which is going to happen whether or not you roll well on the casting test.

By the time you get through all that... you're lucky to get 2 or 3 points of damage out of the whole affair.


And that's not even touching into other bits such as... do indirects still qualify for called shots on placement for damage like they do in 4th.

Direct spells are still considered attacks... so as best I can tell. Take cover action still gives a dice pool bonus to resisting the attack spell.

And at the listed payout rate, how long will it take for someone to afford Delta, even at the reduced cost?

Where does it say that? I haven't seen any official errata, and it's not in my copy of the rules.

Two things - if you are saying you are only rolling 3 or 4 hits, you have no real need to use reagents, since you can cast it at force 5 and only have to resist 2DV drain. Also, I think this says more about the ridiculous grenade rules than anything else




Again, not sure why casting at a high force matters with the size dice pool you are using. If you are only rolling 3-4 (maybe even 5) hits, there is no need to cast Manabolt higher than 5 - and with that, how you "floor" yourself with drain when you are only resisting 2DV, I'm not sure.

I do agree that with only 10 dice, 2-3 points of damage is about what you would average against most targets. It will totally depend on the opposition you are facing. What is the Int, Reaction, Body, and Armor of your opponents? If they are average, you are absolutely right that indirect spells are the way to go. As they start to creep up and up, the Manabolt starts looking more attractive, although you aren't (without Edge) going to get lots and lots of damage with one spell.



No, because under the "Call a Shot" Free action, it says it can only be combined with "Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Attack Action"



Take Cover gives a dice pool bonus against direct spells only if you have Good Cover. Take Cover gives a dice pool bonus against indirect spells whether you have Good or Partial Cover.

Lobo you're awful close minded on your readings. The reason I mentioned those is the rules there are grey and *CAN* be read either way.

People made the exact same arguments in SR4a... the wording was nearly identical down to the must be followed by bits. Yet the FAQ clarified that the bits in the wording for the specific rules for indirect combat spells that they worked exactly like a gunshot including called shots. SR5 changes the wording but leaves intact that the spell is just like a gun firing a bullet made of fire or acid or whatnot....


Your comments on take cover don't contradict my point. Only add more to it based on the same bits I had already read. Smart opposition won't resist the direct spell with mere 3 willpower... but with 3 willpower + 4 cover if they're smart! Taking another point or two of damage off the spell.


Your comments on attribute boost are again off the mark. It only explicitly states certain derived secondary attributes aren't recalculated. Your additional assertions are a possible reading but not a definitive one. My own take is that much like someone trying to play a 'hulk' if they go into a rage and pop their strength up using attribute boost, I don't believe it's the intent of the authors that the char not get boosted melee damage as well. That one is going to have to wait for the FAQ to clarify.

Falconer,

I'm not sure how:

"A character may call a shot (aim for a vulnerable portion
of a target) with this Free Action; see Called Shots,
p. 178. This action must be combined with a Fire Weapon,
Throw Weapon, or Melee Attack Action."

is "grey" and can be read somehow that it includes Spellcasting.

Perhaps someday there MAY be a FAQ that changes that to include Spellcasting, but until then it is quite black and white. Here is what a Called Shot is, and this is what it "MUST" be combined with.

As far as attribute boost is concerned, I will ask that you leave off telling me how close minded I am about it and instead direct you to be a little more careful on who you you are quoting. If you look I haven't said ANYTHING about attribute boost.

Mea culpa on the attribute boost bit... the RAW/RAI bit is a bit ambiguous I think there. Writing is the weak suit of most of the current crop of SR writers.



As for the other, read SR4a rulebook. The problem is you're only looking at one section of the rulebook. In the section pertaining to indirect spells it adds more. "Indirect attacks are treated like ranged combat attacks..." Now read the SR4a FAQ. Since indirect spells are treated as ranged combat attacks... all options open to ranged combat attacks were clarified in the FAQ to be open to them, including called shot. DESPITE the called shot section in SR4a having near identical wording as for which actions could follow. The text for indirect spells made it ambiguous as to whether firing one of those was equivalent to a 'fire gun' action.


SR5 changed the wording to be more flavorful but seems to have kept the meaning intact.... so once again. The question is "To what extent are indirect spells treated as normal ranged attacks?".

Given that it's already been ruled officially once that this extends even to called shots... I don't see why they wouldn't do so again. Especially because it makes sense... why couldn't a single target indirect spell like 'flamethrower' be aimed at the pursuing armored cars tires instead of the heavily armored car as a whole? The spell is fired "(In this case with bullets made of acid, or fire, or something equally unpleasant to be hit by)." If one should be able to shoot out the tires... why not the other.

Attribute boost is very vague, but



Emphasis mine, the reason I read that more explicitly is because it is one of those powers that give insane boost for lvl 1, but are pointless to have in levels. Roll 7 dice and get boost (max 4 mind you), or spend 4 times as much to roll 10 dice ... not worth it.

The boost per point is already amazing, I have no reason to let it affect anything other than dice pools when it gives that option. The regular attribute increase cost a full Power point for +1 while you roll 1 or MORE hits 94,1% of the time.

Additionally, initiative rating is a direct derived stat from Reaction just like melee damage is directly derived from strength and run speed from agility. I think it is somewhat clear and given the extremely low price (0.25pp) it sounds reasonable.


And with called shots, I think someone of the freelancers have tried to be clever and use "keywords" saying that if the attack uses the action "Fire weapon" it can use this. And, by this Cast a Spell is a separate action and thus not covered by Called Shot in the Called Shot list. However, if they could write it better with Indirect combat spells so that shooting a ray of fire "counts as 'Fire a Weapon'" then it would be clearer.
We already know Indirects doesn't count completely as ranged attacks since they have no range whatsoever. There is no penalty at all to shoot people with lightning from a hot air balloon several kilometers away (given that you have a spotter mark the target for you, I imagine spotting the target in the first place is a little tricky from that distance)

I'd personally go with "indirects are ranged attacks for ALL intents and purposes, all modifiers apply" (fire from cover, fire into cover, fire blindly, fog, glare, smoke, moving vehicles, running targets, running caster, called shots, ...)

So, what are they good at?

Did you really need to give him a setup like that?

Getting paid, I hope, but knowing Catalyst...

I think some of them get paid in time (or at all), but nevertheless the new crew is doing (basically) a great job. Immense output, good layout...no complains. But rule-wise....they follow the footsteps of the prevoius publishers. Nothing has changed. They bugfix some older problems and open up the box of pandora on the other side, causing more trouble than they fixed. After 4 versions you get used to that...to some degree. But SR5 is heavy to take...i think i need some regeneration time. Maybe i am getting older and don´t recover as quick as in the past?

You can't use most of the positive modifiers because they apply only to firearms. Your balloon caster is easy to deal with. The air is a bit hazy and thus gives a negative dice pool modifier to all casting.

Then which do you prefer: the corrupt, sinister Sheriff Lobo from B.J. and the Bear or the reformed good ol' boy from his spinoff series The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo?

Writing wise, I'd say they're pretty good at best. Since I get to see the raw output, I know how much work it takes to get things to the shiny final product you receive. Their output is indeed commendable, although the layout quite frankly stinks, and the amount of editorial oversight just isn't right for the task at hand. If you think there's a lot of typos in the books you get, think of how many were in the original documents submitted to the proofreaders and editors.

With a good editor, to direct and inspire the writing crew, we could have fantastic products rolling out.

Man, how deeply have you dug into SR5? There are a -lot- of writing problems in here that are caused by awkward wording and obvious points where the people writing two sections (or two paragraphs even) didn't talk to each other.

Cain's got the right of it, this thing cries out for a competent editor.

That was basically what i was trying to say, but maybe i didn´t point it out clearly enough? The problem you mention is not different than it was in the previous editions. If the wording would have been better and the rules were more clearly, we wouldn´t come to Dumpshock since several years, wouldn´t we?

Of course an editor would be great, but typos aren´t my biggest problems, as you might see at the original problem of the topic. ^^

An editor does more than fix typos. A good editor inspires the writers, pushes them to put out better writing. Accessible rules and clean layout are also the provinces of an editor. A good editor also would facilitate communication between writers on a project like this, so there's fewer contradictions and less redundancy.

The problem is we don't have a dedicated editor, we have a PR flack. And that problem is unique to Shadowrun's tenure at CGL.

Ok, so we all agree that a good editor would be a valuable addition to our game. But this doesn´t prevent us from guys that really want to tell us, that causing 3P damage while risking 3S damage is still good and we shouldn´t complain. ^^ Means: Our main-problem still exists and it will go on like this. But is this REALLY bad? I don´t know, because it brings us all together and what on earth causes better intersocial bonds than flaming, trolling, whining and bitching? ^^

We're Not Going to Protest! - PCU

Not having to deal with a defense roll nor armour is a serious advantage in SR5's high defense environment. You can at least agree to that much, yes?

So, a Street Sam is allowed to drop an opponent consistently and easily, but a Magician cannot?

You make it sound like it is super powered craziness, though, and it isn't. My experiences in SR4A are very different than many others (no Uber Spirits, and no need for Magic 6 Spellcasters at character creation), and I really do not think that magic is overpowered (even with the Force + Net Hits of Directs, though I think the drain could be adjusted for both Directs and Indirects a bit). My biggest comlaint in SR4A is that Overcasting is just too convenient and easy (which is honestly where I hear most of the complaints of overpowered effect coming from). Too many casters default to Overcasting as a standard Practice. The argument goes that if you are not overcasting you are intentionally gimping yourself. And I find that a highly offensive position. I don't think that Overcasting should go away, by any means, but there should be more of a cost associated with it (Drain Adjustments all the way around would likely fix that issue).

I really do not like the solution that SR5 uses for overcasting, either. I can cast at Force 10 and only suffer Physical drain if my Hits go over my Magic Rating. I think that is not a good solution, since I can restrict my hits using reagents. I do like the Drain Mechanics (F +/- Modifier), though I think that they could have balanced Directs vs. Indirects better than they did.

What I kind of like about over casting in SR5 is that in SR4, I had a friend that'd cast an eat a few stun drain, but when his stun track was starting to fill, he'd just resort to over casting to start to fill his physical. While this does add some strategy, now its much more uncertain if he'll overcast and need to soak physical drain or if he doesn't get enough hits and will now be sleeping on the job. I think its a bit more interesting of a choice, but I can see how the unpredictability could be a problem.

That's dodging the question, though.

And I've gotta figure that once you get the Force up, a Lightning Bolt is gonna be pretty great for dropping an opponent. But with the defense values in SR5, I'm not sure "consistently and easily" works for anything but area indirects and grenades.

Except that you can't Overcast by accident. You only overcast if you choose to cast at a Force above your Magic rating, or you choose to use Edge to bypass your limit. Casting drain is only physical if the player of the caster chooses to make it physical.

Even if the Force was greater than magic, it is still stun if hits <= Magic and physical only and only if hits > Magic. You can't choose to make it physical.
Force 1 with reagents or edge can do physical. Force 12 can still be stun.

See, that situation for Overcasting really bothers (and even angers) me... I hate it when the metagame is that present. NO ONE SHOOTS THEMSELVES in the Head because they are tired of getting punched. Or takes off their armor because they are tired of being bruised. That is just ignorant. Not tolerated...

I don't think it is, really. I think it is a very valid question. And one I noticed you did not answer.

There has been a Hue and Cry against the Hacker in SR4A because he apparently lacks ability in combat, and so they augment him.
There has been a Hue and Cry because the mage is apparantly TOO POWERFUL in combat, and so they Gut him.

The fact is that those situations were never truly the issues (or at least were not the real issues) underlying those archetypes. It is action/reaction and the developers fixed the wrong things...

Exactly... It is a non-issue if you want it to be.

I'm trying to establish something, TJ - specifically, the value placed upon being able to circumvent all ability to dodge and all armour. You elected not to answer that question at all. And while I did respond to your question - the response simply wasn't an answer because I refused to grant the premises that the Mage is less able to drop opponents and that the Sam can consistently and easily do so in SR5's high defense environment.

Let me ask you a question...

If the target cannot defend, should both archetypes be able to deal the same damage? I would say yes. My guess is that you will say No... Which is it?

The Sam can attack a target, who has no defense, and then deal up to a 15p Attack (Sniper Rifle Damage, Right? If not, use whatever is equal) Base, which is then augmented by Net Hits (to Limit, if not bypassed with Edge) and is resisted by possibly Armor (if not eliminated through Targeting - you can still do that rigth?). Yes, it is Armor + Body (which can conceivably be stupid high as a DP, I understand that), with the only consequence of 1 expended round.

So... WHY would you limit a Mage to the Palrtry damage (net hits only), in the same circumstance (Yes, they soak with only Body or Willpower only, I do get that), for the crippling 15p base Drain (PHYSICAL, assuming the mage is capable of attaining that many hits, and their Magic was high enough to even have a chance in hell of that capability to start with) for the same POSSIBLE equivalent damage as the Sniper STARTS with before Net Hits?

See... I have no Issue with a Mage casting at Force 6 and getting his 5-6 net hits for 12 Damage (yes, I know, The Overcasters are throwing Force 12, with 10 Net hits, but does that really matter from my example?) in that circumstance (with the commensurate potential 5-6 Base Drain (of SR5 for Force 6), depending upon Direct Spell), and yet you apparently do. In both cases, the target is likely dead. In both cases that is an Extreme Example. The counter to the Sniper is to have decent Body Armor and pray they do not eliminate it through targeting... The counter to the Mage is to have Counterspelling defense and pray that it helps (much like they pray that the Armor helps)... Same circumstances and similar situations. And yet, in SR5, someone decided that that was just too powerful (I do think Drain needed adjustments from SR4A, however). I tend to disagree with that philosophy. No, I do not Munchkin my builds to be Capable of such things on a routine basis (I know that some do, and more power to them, I guess).

That being said... I have never had the problem with a Mage who spams Max-End Direct Spells, always overcast, as a solution to the problems he is facing. On Occasion, when I have absolutely no choice, my characters may cast an overcast spell, and sometimes that may even be a combat spell. But it is in no way game breaking when that occurs. Like I said, I do not tend to hyper-optimize for Best in Best of the World. That particular fact may make all the difference in actual play. But I do not play (or plan) with that mindset (becasue I find it very un-fun), so...

I'd just like to point out this:

If the mage can hit a single defenseless target for 15P without making their head explode, then they can also, as a result of the same change that made the former half of this sentence true, hit everyone in a 10 meter radius for 12P at the same personal expenditure of resources.

A sniper, conversely, cannot.

If the target has no defense, TJ, why are you not using an Indirect spell?

Sure he can, it is called a Greande Launcher....

Subtlety...
And you still did not answer the question put forth to you.

The defense, that a mudane character would have against direct spell, is one attribute (in most cases willpower). The mage has every advantage here. The typical goon, merc or even samurai does not come with a high willpower. So it is most likely something along the line of 10 - 14 dice (without fancy extras) versus something along the lines of 3-4 as defense (and no soak). Drain would probably be resisted with 10 - 12 dice. Having only 3 - 4 dice as defense, I would not like to be confronted with a gun-like basedamage.

Faced with a gun even the eventual passerby would have 6 dice of defense and then 3 soak (still won't help much of the shooter is a professional). If we put armor on that passerby, he easily adds 12 dice to soak up some damage. Defending against a direct combat spell is not that easy, and that is why it comes without nasty basedamage.

Should an opponent be lucky to be a bit better protected and thus not so susceptible to direct spells, well... I guess then it is time for a different approach. Maybe you should use indirect combat spells then or maybe something else entirely.

My premise did not presume a defense test... And any good Shooter can bypass armor if there is no defense (I have not actually looked at 5th for called shots though, so it is a supposition, I know it can be offset in SR4A).

My position is that both should be able to eliminate a target surreptitiously, with a single attack (Sam using a Gun, and Mage using a Direct Spell). SR5 does not allow that for a Mage. I think it should.

Longarms != Heavy Weapons
as compared to
Spellcasting == Spellcasting

so Isath, you suggest we need to rework Deckers as well? Because there are several Decker moves that give a person only a single attribute to roll for defense.

as far as Called shots, no TJ the one to bypass armor is no longer there.

So you've had a change of opinion? Because this topic has definitely come up before and you've definitely argued that the metagame of S vs. P is not a problem in overcasting or in any other situation. So I'm just trying to figure out if something caused you to change your mind or if you were previously just taking the contradictory position to continue debating.

You're still under the delusion, that under SR5 the direct combat spell is the gun's equivalent. It's not, that's the indirect combat spell.

Direct combat spells are the goto spell for situations when guns and indirect spell both are not a realistic option.

(And can we please stop comparison to grenades? You cannot take a grenade everywhere and i have yet to see a grenade that can switch AOE off - quite apart from the fact that the absence of a defense roll is ridiculous and should be houseruled anyway, IMO.)

Direct combat spells always have a "defense" as it is casted as an opposed test, one does not get to resist the damage though. In SR5 (as far as I see it) there is no way for the shooter to just bypass the armor (aside from AP value). This option is no longer available.

Also I do not share your position. In my book, direct combat spells, do not have to do the same under the same circumstances, they are ment to work different angles. Indirect combat spells are more compareable to guns & co, as they work somewhat from the same angle. Still I do not think, that even indirect combat spell should be the exact match as they have more than just damage to show for. The AP scales rather nicely, elemental sideffects can be nasty and spell damage is perfect to hurt and kill the supernatural, where "normal" weapons are very reduced in usefulness. Sure spells may cause drain, but they do not have to, if you are trained and prepared. You also can not be easily disarmed and magic usually is easier to carry around and sneak into places, than guns tend to be. Last but not least magic in general and especially spellcasting is a very universal talent / skill to have - one serve all.

If I get the pistol skill, I can shoot pistols... not rifles, not automatics, just pistols. If I have spellcasting, I can cast destructive spells along the lines of pistols, rifles or even grenades, aswell as heal, levitate, read and control minds, build barriers, buff up, turn incisible and so on. Sure, one hast to buy the spells, but even with 10 spell out of char.gen I'd be quite well off. Maybe spells do not need to be quite as destructive as guns, after all.



Of the top of my head I am not sure what you are referring to... I do however, not suggest to rework direct combat spells.

Indeed, and quite handy at that. On mudane targets, damage is almost assured.

You must have me mistaken for someone else. I have never advocated Overcasting via Metagame. It has ALWAYS displeased me. And I have always argued against it. It just doesn't happen a lot at our table, because we all think that it is an ignorant position. Not having to deal with it is not the same as accepting it as a viable option.

I am under no delusion. I am disgusted with SR5, for the most part, because they fixed the wrong things. It was never Direct vs. Indirect in my opinion. It was the drain values that were assigned to them, and the ease with which overcasting is accomplished.

If i ever hear the argument "spellcasting is too universal" again, i WILL scream. If spellcasting is so unviversal, what the hell is the automatics skill then? Most of our sams don´t even have other weapon-skills, because this one covers absolutely every imaginable situation. Instead of a pistol you can use an automatic-pistol (yes you get a licence for it), the SMG is already the common weapon of choice for the SAM and if you need more power or a better range you switch to an Assault Rifle. Now you add all the different ammunitions, weapon add-ons and rebuilding options and suddenly the sky is the limit. And with all this in mind some of you even DARE to say crap like "the mage is already mighty enough"? Do you believe the sh**it you are talking by yourself or are these just the SAM-players that always got outclassed by the mage and now finally see their time for revenge coming? If you have a problem with a mage being too powerful, your GM is doing something wrong. That is the lever you should switch.

Ok, let us - just for one moment - agree that the indirect combat spells are the gun of the mage. They do equal damage, they have equal AP-abilities, everything is fine. BUT you can only cast once, if you want to take somebody out you risk drain and your location is clearly visible. Where the hell do you see "equality"?

Yeah, I've been using the Automatics skill to heal people and turn invisible since 2nd Edition, and it's even harder to do in SR5.