Do you KNOW Chuck, or merely know OF Chuck?

Direct spells were 1 hit KOs for most opposition. Many mages in 4th could cast them at force 10 or 12 and reliably suffer negligible drain. If the opposition's will couldn't match their spellcasting hits (assuming 12 dice vs 3, on average an opponent simply didn't even have enough dice to try) then they took the damage and went down.

Stunball could do that for a whole group with manageable drain, assuming decent drain attributes and centering.

In 4th direct spells were game breaking against living foes. The optional rule that increased their drain (and damage) was just that: Optional.

My only issue with direct spells in 5th is that their drain is higher than it probably should be. Direct combat spells are one of the most fundimental forms of magical combat, and thus should be comparatively simple compared to, say, summoning a blast of fire. Their lower damage is enough of a nerf to take them out from the 'game breaker' file, and with a very low drain their primary advantage would be that you can get them off with cast recklessly on a regular basis without knocking yourself out.

Apart from the flexibility a mage should have to pay for _somewhere_, there's also the fact that a mage can comfortably sit behind armored glass and direct spell you to oblivion.

I keep wondering if only people spoiled from SR4 are complaining about direct spells now (as they were screaming for houserules there), or if new players also can't see that there needs to be a drawback for an attack whose sole requirement is having LoS.

I've noticed people debating with different ideas of what the rules say. To help us get on the same page:

1) Spells do not benefit from the Take Aim action. Page 166

2) AoE spells are dodged at -2 dice; they don't automatically do their damage. Page 190

3) Magicians that routinely use spirits in combat face a -1 dice pool modifier to ALL tests while using any bound spirit. Page 301

Also note that magic is very very portable. Compare a Direct Combat spell to something as easy to conceal and draw, a light pistol.

It is easy to be unhittable and soak most damage from firearms while Direct Combat spells are near guaranteed damage.

When you want to one-hit-KO stuff you use an Ares Alpha but since it is big, forbidden and prone to get bricked if the Sam want to have his big dicepools or launch airburst grenades to try and match the mages excellent aoe spells.

Compared to SR4 spells are nerfed to nothing, but that is because they were horribly broken in SR4. It was so bad that the metagame around them went pretty sour.

Instagib is not fun when it takes hours to create new characters. Instagib is also not fun for the gamemaster since all opposition is ONLY counted in how many enemies you can fit around the PCs without getting obivous aoe-targets. The meta in SR4 was that any fight required <number of PCs> extra enemies that you knew would be instantkilled the first initiative phase of every combat. Then each IP After that <number of PCs> enemies would get killed so to have a fight lasting for 2 combat turns required at least 5:1 enemies:players ratio.
Needless to say, I'm happy to be a bit further away from that. I do not miss tinySMG-deals-17P full autos or F11 guaranteed onehit Stunbolt one bit.

And, as mentioned several times above. A mage focusing on nuking people is very effective but unless you go specialisation + mentor spirit + foci as mage you shouldn't compare with a fully cybered sam. He has spend his entire budget on shooting people, of course he dominates at that!

If sams and guns don't excel at basic damage dealing then they are pointless. If a mage could do a Sams job better AND also summon spirits, mind control people, cast heals and control the battlefield with stuns, illusions, ice sheets and other things then something would be terribly wrong.

An optional rule and situational modifier at best. Plus only applies to bound spirit, not the spontaneous summoning.

I'd like to know more about this.

It says that it applies to spirits you control and applies to all tests while controlling a bound spirit (the GM) that decides you use spirits in combat too often.

"2) AoE spells are dodged at -2 dice; they don't automatically do their damage. Page 190"

This has been clarified that it is an error, and that aoe spells, like grenades, do not allow a dodge test.

You can find it here third post down.

In the same box there's a mechanism for removing the modifier permanently. There is NO negative consequence for failing the test, so you can try again until you run out of dice.

Even without said mechanism, it's up to the GM to decide if your treatment of your spirit justifies its trying to break away in the first place.

The Chuck Norris that can be known is not the Chuck Norris.

Though to be fair, I suspect the beard and chest hair would smoulder a good few days before catching fire, thus providing some level of fire resistance.

ChuckNorrisRun™

Game Over Man, Game Over.....

They say the tears of Chuck Norris can cure anything, including HMHVV and VITAS. Too bad Chuck Norris never cries.

They say Chuck Norris was about to get into his limo in Washinton D.C. when then President Dunkelzahn cut in from of him taking his limo.

That's right, Chuck Norris kicked the Big D so hard he ripped time and space causing that astral rift in the process.

The tale of the Big D saving the world was just a cover story that his PR people spun.

I am sorry that i started such a debate, but NOW we FINALLY have the discussion i was always waiting about. In the last few months (since SR5 is discussed), I really thought I am in the twilight zone and the only person that was not satisfied with the current ruling. I read the posts properly and I highly appreciate the efforts that were put in the maths that were done, but pleeeeeeeease folks, we all know that theory is not equal to the reality (in this case, the reality of gaming). I mentioned it a lot of times (but I don’t get tired using it again and again as an argument): I play this game since it started. Up to now easily since more than 20 years. I KNOW about the pros and cons of the game and I am CAPABLE to notice mistakes/problems, if I see them. I also agree that direct combat spells were overpowered in SR4, but now the mage has nothing left to do the one-shot-pony. Is that bad? OF COURSE it is, because

a) mages are (mostly) fragile and at least more fragile than combat-chars.
b) unfortunately combat IS happening in SR
c) I play a mage because I DON´T want to play a sam
d) so guns are no option. This is what I have combat spells for. Also I don´t have the karma to raise more mundane skills than absolutely needed.
e) mages are slow(er) on initiative and IP´s than combat-chars. Mages fire ONE shot per action, NOT 3.
f) so IF you shoot, the enemy better is drop-dead or not capable to fight anymore. Because IF he survives, YOU are dead.
g) Geek the mage first is still the point. Now I do less damage and because I HAVE to use indirect spells for it, everybody knows where to find me? F**ck you. ^^
h) mages HAVE drain, while guns usually DON`T explode in your face every 3 shots
i) mages have background-count, sams don´t
j) mages don´t have (proper) access to hardware that boots their skills, so usually their dice-pool is lower and they have less skills. So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun.
k) mages need to raise an attribute to access additional dice (when the skill is maxed) which is quite costly and this cannot be replaced by ware that only costs money
l) magic IS powerful. When did it change that dragons carry assault-cannons, because their manabolt is too weak? Haven’t heard of it up to now.
m) the more damage you do, the more likely the damage comes back to you
n) the game doesn´t care about math. My char. has a drain-pool of 14 and I get drain regularly. A LOT of drain sometimes.

So please stop this nonsense-argument “the mage still can levitate, or shield”. This was exactly was I was pointing out – reducing the mage to some kind of helpless buffer.

Except that the Mage MUST PURCHASE those abilities with KARMA... and spells are not an inconsequential expense if you want a broad versatility.

any orc/troll etc:
Body 8 + Armor jacker 12 + helmet 2 + bonelacing +4 + ballistic shield 6 = 32 dice

or go mystic adept
body 8 + armor jacket 12 + helmet 2 + F1 focus drams/edge armor spell cheese for 6-8, + mystic armor 6 (suboptimal, combat sense way better but for sake of argument) + F1 focus increase body w/ dramcrap +4 = 40+ dice damage resist. (still takes crippling damage from undodgeable grenades though)

Or go cyberlimbs

4 limbs * 4 armor + jacket + body + helmet + lacing for 42 soak dice


And, unhittable is easy too:

mystic adept with combat sense 6 + 6 F1/dram combat sense spell + 8 reaction + 5 intuition + 4 (F1 inc. attribute intuition) = 39 dice to defend without going full defence or even type /care versus enemies


in general, seems Drams + F1 sustaining foci are big part of "what is currently wrong in SR5", together with mystic adeptness of course.


But, to resist direct combat spells there isn't anything similar. Even if you deck out fat counterspelling that is only good the first action phase or so. Then it gets near impossible to defend against. A dead clear strong niche. Grenades, AoE directs and indirect spells all have in common that they ignore most defences. Directs also ignore armor and such, making the target pretty helpless quickly.

Have we come to a concensus yet? Am I shooting the Mage first or the Decker?

You're throwing non-wireless grenades indiscriminately.
It's the only way to be sure.

just Glass the whole combat zone, now that Deckers have to be in the field more glassing the combat zone works.

I agree that was unbalancing, but to me, the problem wasn't direct combat spells, but the rules for overcasting, where something that should have been an extreme, risky tactic reserved for do-or-die situations became something that an optimized build could use as a standard tactic. My house rule would have been to increase Drain over the Magic Attribute at the rate of 1 per point of Force over the Magic rating, rather than one per two points of Force. And I would also make the physical Drain only heal-able by natural means, so mages couldn't overcast, then cast heal on themselves to negate the physical Drain damage.

Correct, you could wipe out an entire group with a stunball. But only under perfect conditions. Means everybody stands within the radius, nobody of your team is in the AOE, they don´t have counterspelling, you don´t have negative modifiers for e.g. cover, lighting, movement, enemy is not a drone or sitting into a car. They WERE effective against living foes, but as easy as it was to hit a human, the HARD it was to hit a nonliving. I NEVER experienced them so mighty, that they were a all-problem-solver. And even if everything on your roll is fine and you really scored enough successes to effect the enemy, it is still not said that you easily wipe off the upcoming drain.

Drain damage never could be healed magically. Besides that, overcasting is very risky. The problem was, that you NEEDED to overcast to make the one-hit-pony. And overcasting means physical drain, means if you f*ck up, your game-session could be over. TOTAL gamebreaker. ^^

a) False - you can wear just as much armour, and while you might not get as many +armour accessories, you can pack an Armour preparation, letting you get boosted armour for several minutes without a sustaining penalty. And you can do the same with Combat Sense, Increase Initiative, Increase Intuition...
b) Which is unfortunate for everyone
c) Fair, but your assumptions are at issue.
d) Sure, but that means that you're focusing on a much more diverse skillset. If you're using Spellcasting and Alchemy in place of Pistols, Longarms, Automatics, AND Heavy Weapons along with getting a huge amount of extra utility, you have to expect that there's a cost.
e) This is flat out not true. Take a gander at Increase Reflexes - Mages are the only ones presently able to access all 5 initiative dice without Edge.
f) This conclusion proceeds from false premises, as highlighted above.
g) They could see you pretty freaking easily before - the Perceiving Magic rules made it very, very, very easy for high Force spells.
h) Which is part of the aforementioned cost.
i) And Background count is a simple dice penalty, of which the sam has MANY that the Mage doesn't (recoil and range, for example)
j) Bwahahahaha. Mages have PLENTY to boost their pool with. Foci are theoretically unlimited, and mentor spirits provide an additional bonus. Your chargen bonus from mage stuff tops out at 5 or 6, sure, but the sam's LIFETIME bonus from sam stuff tops out at 7 (muscle toner 4, reflex recorder for 1, wireless smartlink for 2) while you can just keep going. The amount of bonus dice at chargen is largely the same, with the mage having a slight edge if he decides to super-focus. Further, the mage has the unique ability to set his own limits, and to further modify them with reagents.
k) You don't seem to realize that sam's are sharply limited in how much they can get from augmentation. The augmented max on attributes is current natural attribute + 4. Once you're getting 4 Agility from Augmentation, you can only raise it by spending Karma. And they have to worry about Strength, Agility, Reaction, Body, Intuition, and Willpower instead of just Magic, Willpower, Drain Stat, and setting a good Intuition and Reaction at chargen. AND they have to worry about more skills (Melee skill + Pistols + Longarms + Automatics + Heavy Weapons + Gymnastics + ...), which 'ware isn't that great for dealing with (skillwires are an option, but they have their issues)
m) Magic is powerful. But two things need to be considered: First, the sam is THE combat specialist. Second, direct spells cannot be the one and only one right approach to combat. Keeping in mind that if you don't get more hits than your Magic Drain is still Stun, consider the case of a Force 12 Lightning Bolt - 12 + net hits damage, AP-12, plus the rider effect. Then consider the Freaking Ninja adept or sam who pretty much can't be hit, as well as the
n) Game design cares about probabilities, because you don't EVER know how the dice will land.

Screw throwing them. Fire semi-automatic bursts of flashbangs from an MGL-12. It costs you 300 nuyen per burst, but it subdues everyone in the impact zone. Then you can murder the targets at your leisure, with a knife.

@Machiavelli,

I started playing SR with 1st edition back in 1990. Magic has been overpowered in ALL versions of the game. In 1st - 3rd, you better always, always, always, have a Willpower of 6, otherwise the first enemy mage that manabolts you kills you instantly. (and even with a willpower of 6, you are still likely to be dead, only he would have to cast the spell at Deadly Damage, and so his drain would be higher - but on average you still took a Deadly wound.) And in my experience, anyone who doesn't play a mage (and some who do) thinks they are overpowered.

Now in 5e, they finally nerf that "autokill" function the mages have, and many (you are by no means the first person I've heard) have been wailing and gnashing their teeth that this makes mages useless in a fight.

The problem is that seem to be taking the entire combat section, and whittling it down to a single comparison between a Manabolt and a gun. You have a laundry list of complaints, most of which seem to be inherent to the character that YOU play.

a) mages are (mostly) fragile and at least more fragile than combat-chars.

Why? What makes a character a "combat character"? Armor? Mage can have it. High body? High Intuition? High Reaction? The mages can have all of those. Cyberware/Bioware? The mage can have those, or he can have spells that mimic them.

b) unfortunately combat IS happening in SR

Agreed, but combat isn't just about two people just appearing at contact range.

The mage has all sorts of abilities to level the playing field that non-mages don't. They can be utterly silent, or invisible. Being able to surprise the enemy, or giving your attacker a -6 dice pool modifier for Blind Fire because he can't see you makes a big difference.

Not all combat occurs at point blank or even medium range - which doesn't matter to the mage, but it does for a gun. Not all combat occurs in the open, but direct spells ignore Partial Cover.

e) mages are slow(er) on initiative and IP´s than combat-chars. Mages fire ONE shot per action, NOT 3.

Two things. 1) Why are they slower? There is no piece of ware that increases initiative that mages can't have or can't duplicate (or in many cases do better) with the Increase Reflexes spell. I'd rather have Increase Reflexes cast on me than Wired 1, for instance. Also, in general, in a combat turn with the way they've done Initiative, it is unlikely that you only have 1 IP per turn. Even Int and React of 9 combined +1d6 means a 1 in 6 chance of having 1 IP. Conversely, even with wired 3 it is unlikely you will get 4 IP, so they've smoothed out the gaps there.

f) so IF you shoot, the enemy better is drop-dead or not capable to fight anymore. Because IF he survives, YOU are dead.

While I agree you want to try and put the enemy down in one shot, I disagree that you are dead in return. That depends on what damage you've done to him, his capabilities, your cover, etc. Again, if you want to be standing in the open dueling it out with a guy, and you miss, then you may be right - but who does that?

h) mages HAVE drain, while guns usually DON`T explode in your face every 3 shots

And if you cast spells properly, you should very rarely take drain, and even if you do, only 1 or 2 points. Manabolt is F-3 drain. Cast it at Force 5. Assume Magic+Spellcasting of 12. Odds are you aren't really being punished by your limit of 5 with only 12 dice, and now when you resist drain with Willpower+Logic/Charisma, you are resisting 2 drain. With your 14 dice pool, I did a test roll on invisible castle
here. As you can see, of the 50 times cast, drain is actually only taken once. For one point of damage. Hardly paralyzing. Once you initiate, you can get Centering and reduce the drain even more.

i) mages have background-count, sams don´t

Absolutely true. And once the rules for background count come out for 5e, I'm sure they will allow you to center against it as in previous editions. In the meantime, we'll say that counters the whole "sams are affected by range and partial cover, and mages aren't"

j) mages don´t have (proper) access to hardware that boots their skills, so usually their dice-pool is lower and they have less skills. So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun.

You have access to foci. Not sure what else you want, as foci (while expensive) can increase your dicepool faster than any piece of equipment a sam has. In addition, you only need ONE skill to attack people with a spell. Sams need to have multiple skills and multiple guns to cover the different situations they are likely to get themselves into. The last part I'll get into in a second.

k) mages need to raise an attribute to access additional dice (when the skill is maxed) which is quite costly and this cannot be replaced by ware that only costs money

I'm confused, as samurai have to raise an attribute as well, and not only can mages have ware, but they can have spells sustained by themselves, or foci, or bound spirits, or quickened, or by Focused Concentration, all of which replicate the same effects as the ware.


Back to this " So IF I focus on magic, it should be capable to do more damage than a simple gun."

Do you mean that if you focus on magic, you should be able to do more damage than someone who focuses on using a gun? If so, I cannot stress how much I disagree with that statement. You are taking someone who spends 6 skill points on the Pistols, plus 1 for a specialization, plus buys the gun and the toys. Now, he rolls, assuming a 6 Agility, 13 dice + enhancements, and he can do ONE thing. If he wants to be able to damage something far away, he has to spend another 7 skill points for Longarms, lets say. So he is down 14 skill points and can do 2 things.

You on the other hand, lets say take Magic B. You choose Spellcasting as one of your FREE rating 4 skills, and spend 2 skill points to raise it to a 6, and lets say you specialize in Combat spells so that is 1 more for a total of 3. You now take Manabolt as one of your FREE 7 spells.

You still use that skill to cast ALL of your other FREE spells, plus any you purchase. When you raise that ONE skill, you raise your ability to use ALL spells, not just combat ones, while if the samurai wants to be better at both, he needs to raise both. (Even if he has the Firearms Skill Group, it is much more expensive for him to raise that than your one skill).

Your spell ignores equipment. I'm going to say that again, it ignores equipment. Yes, the samurai shooting at Bob the security guard with stats of 2 and no armor and no ware does a lot more damage than you do with your Direct spell.
Add armor - the differences start equalizing out. Add better stats, add ware, etc - all of these start equalizing the field of play.

If you could with ONE spell, do more damage than a samurai could by using all the equipment and ware at his disposal, then what is the point of ever playing a samurai? That is the question that the game has to take into consideration.

a) Even if you can wear as much armor, your body is still lower. Your reaction is lower, your dodge-skill is probaly lower, so soak-pool and dodge-pool are lower. So for ME, this sounds like "more fragile". Maybe fragile means something else for you?
b) it is one of the main reasons the game makes fun. And combat is not avoidable all the time.
c) they are not
d) i think you forgot some skills that are needed by a mage. E.g. conjuring, binding, banishing, spell-defense, astral-perception (in addition to the regular one). So i don´t see much less skills, just different ones. Spellcasting is the mages Firearms-skill while the spells are the weapon and you drain is the ammo.
e) if you have it, if you can sustain it, if you invest in a sustaining focus, if there are no wards (that are everywhere), if...too many if´s. I think you got the problem. You CAN do stuff, a lot, but proper combat is not more one of them. That is the whole problem we have. Options are gone. Mages still excel at specific stuff, but even if you overspecialize, you will not become the combat mage (sounds stupid now) you was before.
f) they don´t as mentioned above
g) easier than a friggin fireball? And besides: the MAGE was glowing while casting, the direct-combat spell (mana) itself was invisible.
h) ah, so cons are ok, while pros are not needed? Good explanation. Mages playing mages more fun.
i) simple dice penalty? You should check the rules before you talk about them.
j) you are talking about the unlimited foci that are theoretically not affordable or you cannot bind because the karma-costs are too high? guns are quite real, not just theory in comparison. ^^
k) oh, you shouldn´t start about the karma-needs of the different classes. No class needs more karma than a mage. You should stop that before you ridicule yourself. Sams can skip spending karma by installing ware, this is what it is made for. The...we will call it "difference".
l) you skipped l for m. Just wanted to point it out
m) aha, and the combat mage is what? The little brother of the sam? If i hear your arguments, i really don´t understand all the novels with these all-so-mighty mages anymore. Fear the warrior. Why geek the mage first? Because he can levitate? ^^
m) EXACTLY, this is the point. Even in SR4 the direct spell could go wrong and then you still have the drain which ALSO could go wrong. Even you have to admit, that if you now fire a manabolt 6 with 3 net successes and cause 3 damage while you get 3 drain is stupid. Would you use a gun that does that? If i would use a gun and risk blowing it off into my face, then one that really does damage. Direct combat spells are no option for that anymore.

Machiavelli. I haven't played SR for 20+ years, and I haven't played 5th ed. at this point. But here's a thought: If we ignore what mages did in the past editions of the game, how do they perform in 5th? Are they balanced overall? Do they fulfil a niche and contribute something to the group, that another member isn't also adding? The mentioned Combat spells have been nerfed. Possibly too much. But could it be that the goal has really been to change the role of the mage, and make them more of a flexible tool box that provide capabilities that other stuff doesn't provide, rather than being able to act as heavy weapon platforms in combat? Could it be that the goal has been to let the Combat Character Types be the main badasses in combat, and relegate the mages and deckers to more of a supporting role in this respect of the game?

You must have missed the Threads on Deckers. Apparently, Per the Developers desires, Deckers are being positioned as Front Line Combatants now...

Positioned, yes. Achieved no.

a) None of those things have to be true. If you're a combat mage, none of them ARE true.
b) Sure, I'm just pointing out it can always go bad for anyone.
c) ... I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what I do and do not take issue with.
d) I didn't forget those skills. Those skills expand you into different roles, much like adding infiltration skills to the sam does. And if Spellcasting is your firearm, that means Spellcasting is standing in for every single firearm skill at bare minimum.
e) Or if you use it as a preparation instead, letting you get it ready hours in advance and have it up for minutes without the need to sustain. And if you're a combat mage, you have it. Hell, damn near ANY mage is gonna have that, and if you don't it's your own damn fault.
f) Clearly a contested point.
g) Pretty much the same at Force 6+, under the old rules - the threshold was 6-Force, with no minimum that I can recall. Now it's Skill-Force, minimum 1, unless it's freaking obvious.
h) Mages have plenty of pros. Versatility is key amongst them, though far from the only one. Combat wise, they have access to degrees of battlefield control the sam can't touch, they can do some truly nasty things to the enemy, and they can reliable hit otherwise nigh-impossible targets.
i) Actually, you do. Those are the standing SR5 background count rules as per the Missions Hot Patch Errata. Old background count rules do not apply to this discussion.
j) As you yourself point out, mages have little else to spend cash on - and a Power Focus 8 is worth the fragging karma.
k) You need to actually read what the rules are this edition. Buying 'ware cannot be in place of attributes, it must be in addition to - augmented maximum is now based not on metatype maximum, but on actual natural attribute. If you have Agility 1, no augmentation can ever take it over 5. So no, sams can't skip spending karma, they have to spend both in varying degrees.
l) So I did. Whoops. Oh well, not like L was all that relevant.
m) A combat mage is a mage who is built primarily for combat. However, his skillset remains intrinsically more versatile because Spellcasting is the solution to far more problems than every combat skill put together. No matter how much you build towards combat, it's literally impossible to build a combat mage who is anything but a few spells away from being great at other stuff too, which takes a lot more investment for the sam. But if we take the approach that the combat mage, in aggregate using all his tools, is to be as combat-effective as the street sam, we have to take into account the combat implications of things like Ice Sheet, Increase Reflexes, Illusion spells... He has combat options the street sam doesn't, which means that his flat-out damage needs to be lesser or to be costly. As such, you have the choice between reasonable Drain and lower damage, or high Drain and hella high damage.
m) That possibility always exists with Drain. However, you can't compare their post-soak damage to your pre-soak Drain. Now, direct spells have their uses, and indirect spells have their uses. Direct spells are specialized tools that are very, very, very good for their purpose (and the fact that Force isn't part of their damage means you can just as easily use Reagents or Edge to alter the limit without consequence). It's like having a gun that is absolutely guarunteed to hit the target in a completely unarmoured spot.

I can attest to my Decker having 9/10 wounds, 9/9 stun after his stim patch wore off on his last run to that effect. It turns out charging the security guard in a full body suit and an ares alpha was 'unwise'. I got the drop on him, then he dropped me.

I find it highly amusing that we have this thread complaining about mage's combat spells being nerfed and several other similar threads alongside threads complaining about how SR5 is magicrun and mages are overpowered.

What I don't get is why the mage is bothering with any sort of combat spell when they can summon spirits? Seriously, for the drain, the amount of damage a spirit can dish out (many times over since spirits hang around and keep fighting) tops any combat spell and the spirit tops any armor spell since they'll be the one drawing fire most of the time (not getting shot at beats pretty much any other defense).

Mages are still brutally powerful. However, the Direct Combat spells are pretty terrible. A single F9 or F10 ball lightning still cripples groups of foes with minimal effort.

So is the complaint "I am only a demigod?"

-DrZ

It looks like someone doesn't like having to reach into the bag for another club after spending an entire edition playing a 3 iron on every stroke of every hole.

Spirits do actually fall under the "indirectly nerfed by damage and armour changes" category, as their Hardened Armour wasn't increased to suit (though the effect was enhanced to be less all-or-nothing); it takes Force 6 to get a pool of 10-13 with DV12 AP-6 (basically equal in damage to a well equipped Street Sam, but notably inferior in attack pool, and without the ability to diminish defense pool), and to get this you need to risk anywhere from 2 to 12 Drain. Conjuration is a good tool to have, but it's only one tool.

Spirit armor was greatly enhanced. In addition to getting double their force in armor, they get their force in automatic successes on damage resistance. Offensively, Fear is still the spirit's equivalent of the aforementioned 3 iron. Resisting it is all but impossible for most characters, and the duration is going to be longer than most combats. Tack on that Concealment is even more brutal with the reduction in Perception bonuses and Energy Aura and Engulf are still a mountain of automatic damage with giant AP penalties and it's a tough sell that spirits aren't still brutally powerful.

Kinda why I made my first post in this thread. >..>

It was twice their Force in SR4, too (and thus the change doesn't keep pace with damage and AP increases); Energy Aura is not automatic damage but rather bonus damage to melee attacks and a damage reflection; Fear is not at all "impossible" to resist unless you were foolish enough to go for dump stats (and Willpower would be an exceptionally poor choice of dump stat anyways), and the fact that you're not factoring the much longer combats of SR5...

It went from double force to double force with Force in automatic successes (which is roughly the same as rolling 5 times its Force on a damage soak test). The damage reflection is automatic. Next time you see a PC with two mental stats of 6 or 7, let me know. Until then, I'll keep betting on the spirit landing that Fear for a combat turn or two. Two turns is a ton of time to clear the board. The last combat of the last thing I played at Save Against Fear over the weekend was over in less than a combat turn, and it started with a group of well equipped combatants who outnumbered us encircling and ambushing the team.

I haven't actually found combats to take that much longer in SR5. I thought that they would on initial reading of the rules, and if you tried to fight the way you did in SR4, I can see how they would. The old paradigm of trading bursts from cover means gunfights turn into sieges as lots of ammunition is expended to no worthwhile effort due to the drop in offensive bonuses and the addition of a second defensive stat. Abandon the tactics that don't work, shift to things that do (like grenades and indirect area spells and the liberal application of Stick&Shock suppressive fire) and the shooting stops a lot quicker.

That change doesn't keep up with the damage and AP increases - spirits are vastly more vulnerable now than before.

Damage reflection is automatic if you're stupid enough to attack it in melee. Punching things that are on fire is an obviously bad idea.

Two or more net hits happens less than half the time if the PC has Willpower+Logic 8; if the player chooses to Edge the roll the spirit's odds get a lot worse (also, consider it's chances of getting EVERYONE - rather low).

The vast majority of reports from SR5 have been longer combats; you have amply demonstrated the problem with Grenade Formation, though.

As I mentioned earlier, my experience with Shadowrun 5 combat was extremely brief.

-DrZ

For us so far combat is much, much quicker. We have been going through running wild and the PCs steamroll things and they are not that optimized. Maybe it will change when the opposition is on more even footing with the pcs, but right now the pcs hit ell over 50% of the time and they kill or incapacitate virtually every time they hit.(except the mage who does lack luster damage.)

As for the main topic, I'll reiterate what I said earlier since another session went by to the same effect. Mage overall is fine, its not magic run though I do think some spirit powers and a spell or two needed a bit more nerfing like fear, concealment and mental manipulation spells but overall they are fine. Direct damage spells were nerfed too hard. Yes in 4e you could overcast too easily, the higher drain and the removal of first aid as a drain healing option fixed that though. The double hit of making direct spells just net hits in damage makes there damage far far too weak in comparison not only to other pcs but the mages other options. A more effective combat spell(as a preparation for max benefit) for the mage would be improved attribute agility and then just go to town with a SMG. While that is a cool option for a combat mage, it seems off that its a better option for a book worm mage with very limited combat skills.

Are direct damage spells relatively assured damage? Sure, but if you work autofire it is as well, AoE damage hey look relatively assured. Yes when fighting the cyberzombie troll tank with ninja speed it might come in handy, but that is a bit too specific of a niche to call it a balanced spell.

Not what I'd call official.

I will add that healing was pretty snappy in this new edition. If you survive, you can come back from the brink relatively quickly. My aforementioned Hacker who was unconscious and at 9/10 wounds was able to heal fully at a street doc in just 2 days. Not too shabby considering a stiff breeze would have punched his ticket to the big metaverse in the sky.

-DrZ

Yeah you do heal up pretty good, we have found with the combination of first aid(form people who suck at it) the heal spell and a street doc, you can go from deaths door to right as rain pretty damn quick. I like it, it keeps the flow of the game if someone gets injured mid run.

Another reason to geek the enemy mage, so he doesn't get his side back up and running fast.

Yup. And he was at 9/10 wounds after Heal and First Aid. Suffice to say he won't be taking any "milk runs" anytime soon.

-DrZ

magicians are already incredibly versatile. they can very easily add a lot to almost any situation you can name. they have massive utility both in and out of combat. the cost for all that power has to be somewhere.

magicians doing bloody awful damage would actually be a good thing, because it would mean that instead of being best or second best in every single field, there would actually be areas where they aren't at the top of the heap. except that they don't deal awful damage. they have options that let them deal lots of damage, just like any other character. they even have the option to so using their core skill of spellcasting.

as it stands, magicians don't need godmode with their direct combat spells. they need to either be nerfed everywhere else, or nerfed *more* in damage (ie in their indirect spells), not less. you have one type of character that can, when well-built, perform at or near the highest level of ability in almost any field (hacking being the exception, pretty much, although you can sometimes achieve the same results if you approach from a different angle... you may not be able to use spellcasting to copy a file from a host, but you might be able to mind control the host's spider into giving you a copy of the file you want, for example).

it isn't good for the game to have one archetype that is the best (or just slightly behind the best) at everything with comparatively little cost unless everyone is supposed to play that archetype (that is, it's fine for magicians to be better than everything else, so long as the game is designed with the intent that everyone is going to be a magician. shadowrun is not designed with that intent, as far as i can tell).

Easy fix:
The auto-hits are not subject to AP. The dice rolled is (as well as the stun v. physical), but the auto hits themselves are not.

That is, a Force 6 spirit always gets 6 hits on its armor roll, no matter how much AP you use.

Also, the "modified by AP" bit is weird on hardened armor, is it "(Value / 2) + AP" or "(Value + AP)/2"?

I've seen mages who treat spellcasting as an all-solving hammer, and try to stretch spell definitions far beyond where they were intended to go in order to avoid spending points on more spells by making their existing list do everything.

After an entire edition of having my combat monster outclassed by the guy who happened to pick up stunbolt because it seemed like a good idea at the time, I have no problem with mages having to work towards being as good at hurting things as a street sam.

So yeah, I've got a worlds smallest violin here. Who wants me to play it?

I'm not saying it's an issue, just something worth noting - some of the structural changes had pretty broad reaching effects that I'm not sure people are giving proper credence.