Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Blast Spell in SR5
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Machiavelli
Can anybody give me an explanation why "Blast" has a drain code of [Force] while every elemental-effect area-spell only has [Force-1]???
Jaid
my money is on bad editing, personally.
Sendaz
Could just be a typo, though if you look at Powerball it also has a drain of Force. Maybe someone just loved ele spells.

For added fun, you might want to allow Punch, Clout and Blast to reduce the Physical limit of a character by 2 when comparing it to the DV to determine knockdown, sort of like how gel rounds do.

You won't get more damage directly out of it, but plays well with the idea of it being a physical force slamming into the target(s), potentially knocking them on their backsides.
Machiavelli
Yeah, i thought so. Editing...again. ^^ It makes no sense because usually stun-damage-spells do less drain and you even donīt have an elemental side-effect.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
They apparently wanted to remove the lower drain of Stun Only spells. Apparently, someone considered that Broken. *shrug*
Many people have complained about that issue, including some freelancers. Personally, I see nothing wrong with how they were modeled in SR4A, myself. They were never the go to spells from my experience. eek.gif
Machiavelli
Ok, reduction of drain for stun spells is not needed, but increase?
Jack VII
Dunno, it might have to do with the fact you can get Armor upgrades that add resistance dice against elemental effects, but not stun effects. I still think it's a bit weird and figure the fewer target choices you have with stun spells would already balance that out.

Although, isn't it just the area spells that are different?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Jan 27 2014, 08:52 AM) *
Ok, reduction of drain for stun spells is not needed, but increase?


I think in the new dichotomy, Stun spells are harder to produce than total damaging spells. They are a more refined option to limit "damage" and thus are more difficult to cast.
Sounds a lot like Technobabble to me.
SpellBinder
IIRC there were complaints that the elemental combat spells were highly undesirable due to their higher drain code compared to direct mana spells with the same potential. So rather than having GMs grow a spine about the spells magicians are allowed to take the game designers made direct spells worse to make the elemental spells more appealing.

At least that's my take on this.
attilatheyeon
The devs hate leaving anyone alive in a game wink.gif
Machiavelli
Yeah, you get more karma if you donīt kill the enemies. Maybe they wanted to make earning that extra points a little bit harder. ^^
Shinobi Killfist
I really suspect typo. I get no benefit for stun drain which is true for other stun based spells, I get no cost for elemental effects as there are positives and negatives to them. But blast being higher seems off to me.
Machiavelli
But in this case it is a quite resilient typo, because it survived the translation into the german core-book, that makes A LOT of changes in direct comparison with the original.
RHat
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Jan 27 2014, 08:52 AM) *
Ok, reduction of drain for stun spells is not needed, but increase?


Stun damage has a cost in basically every other case - with firearms, for example, it means doing less damage. From that angle, it makes perfect sense that there'd be a cost to dealing Stun over Physical for Direct spells, as well.
RHat
QUOTE (SpellBinder @ Jan 27 2014, 10:53 PM) *
So rather than having GMs grow a spine about the spells magicians are allowed to take[...]


I'm sorry, but what?
Jack VII
QUOTE (RHat @ Jan 29 2014, 03:37 PM) *
Stun damage has a cost in basically every other case - with firearms, for example, it means doing less damage. From that angle, it makes perfect sense that there'd be a cost to dealing Stun over Physical for Direct spells, as well.

Sure, except that the variance only exists in the AOE spell. Powerbolt/Manabolt/Stunbolt/Clout/Lightning Bolt/Acid Stream/Flamethrower all do F-3 Drain. Maybe the variance is only intended to be incremental and thus is only negligible in single-target spells? Personally, I just don't think it makes all that much sense if the single target spells are all the same. It seems like uniformity would also make it easier for the inevitable "Design Your Own Spell" when the Magic book comes out.
RHat
QUOTE (Jack VII @ Jan 29 2014, 02:42 PM) *
Sure, except that the variance only exists in the AOE spell. Powerbolt/Manabolt/Stunbolt/Clout/Lightning Bolt/Acid Stream/Flamethrower all do F-3 Drain. Maybe the variance is only intended to be incremental and thus is only negligible in single-target spells? Personally, I just don't think it makes all that much sense if the single target spells are all the same. It seems like uniformity would also make it easier for the inevitable "Design Your Own Spell" when the Magic book comes out.


Yeah, I'm not too sure what the hell's going on there.
Beaumis
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jan 27 2014, 11:08 AM) *
I think in the new dichotomy, Stun spells are harder to produce than total damaging spells. They are a more refined option to limit "damage" and thus are more difficult to cast.
Sounds a lot like Technobabble to me.
Frankly, that's not really new. Its only that Shadowrun has always been inconsistent in this particular area. In 1st to 3rd edition, Magic has been portrayed as inherently destructive and hard to curb. (4th simply didn't have as much magical theory in it.) It always taxed the magician more to make magic more precise than it did just to let it flow. (For examples, see the rules for area spells, drain, etc.) With this in mind, it makes perfect sense for stun spells to be harder on the drain as you have to carefully restrict the mana to keep the damage to stun. Yet, this was never reflected in the rules, presumably because the devs considered stun damage to be less valuable than physical because it was less "severe". Hence the lower drain for stun spells.

This is all fluff though. Game balance is something else entirely.

Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Beaumis @ Jan 31 2014, 05:26 AM) *
Frankly, that's not really new. Its only that Shadowrun has always been inconsistent in this particular area. In 1st to 3rd edition, Magic has been portrayed as inherently destructive and hard to curb. (4th simply didn't have as much magical theory in it.) It always taxed the magician more to make magic more precise than it did just to let it flow. (For examples, see the rules for area spells, drain, etc.) With this in mind, it makes perfect sense for stun spells to be harder on the drain as you have to carefully restrict the mana to keep the damage to stun. Yet, this was never reflected in the rules, presumably because the devs considered stun damage to be less valuable than physical because it was less "severe". Hence the lower drain for stun spells.

This is all fluff though. Game balance is something else entirely.


By your definition, then Area-Wide Destructive spells should be Easier than Pin-Point Directed Spells, and that has never been the case.
Beaumis
Once there is a need to "let mana flow", it is absolutely easier to let flow than it is to control. Try taking out two targets with one pin point spell. It's possible, but its always been pretty hard. You take higher TNs, more drain, split dice pools etc. Compared to that an area spell is relatively easy and gets easier the more targets are involved, at the price of potential colateral damage. You let the magic flow freely, rather than trying to restrict it.

The more precise you want your magic to be, the harder it is. In terms of stun spells, getting exactly the right amount of hits to take a target from no stun damage to exactly unconcious is really hard. In terms of the setting, it requires you to precisely gauge how much mana to channel etc. In game terms you have to roll exactly the right amount of hits vs. the victim's hits. In contrast, its a lot easier to just channel mana to blow away your opponent, not carring whether or not the damage flows over into physical.

Additionally, look at the history of ritual sorcery. For the minor cost of additional time and a few materials, you could increase the range of your magic exponentially.

Finally, have a look at the old increase radius of area spells rules. -1 die to extend, -2 die to narrow. The whole "easier to let flow than control" thing is pretty much a direct quote from editions one to three. In 5th you need a metamagic to adjust the radius and the distinciton between direct and indirect basically reads "let it flow freely"... .
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Beaumis @ Jan 31 2014, 10:21 AM) *
Once there is a need to "let mana flow", it is absolutely easier to let flow than it is to control. Try taking out two targets with one pin point spell. It's possible, but its always been pretty hard. You take higher TNs, more drain, split dice pools etc. Compared to that an area spell is relatively easy and gets easier the more targets are involved, at the price of potential colateral damage. You let the magic flow freely, rather than trying to restrict it.

The more precise you want your magic to be, the harder it is. In terms of stun spells, getting exactly the right amount of hits to take a target from no stun damage to exactly unconcious is really hard. In terms of the setting, it requires you to precisely gauge how much mana to channel etc. In game terms you have to roll exactly the right amount of hits vs. the victim's hits. In contrast, its a lot easier to just channel mana to blow away your opponent, not carring whether or not the damage flows over into physical.

Additionally, look at the history of ritual sorcery. For the minor cost of additional time and a few materials, you could increase the range of your magic exponentially.

Finally, have a look at the old increase radius of area spells rules. -1 die to extend, -2 die to narrow. The whole "easier to let flow than control" thing is pretty much a direct quote from editions one to three. In 5th you need a metamagic to adjust the radius and the distinciton between direct and indirect basically reads "let it flow freely"... .


Apparently My experience has been significantly different than yours. In truth it is just easier to use a Grenade than it is to use the equivalent magic, even for a Magician. So we rarely see AOE Large Damage Spells over a Grenade. We do see High End Direct Spells, even multicast ones.
Machiavelli
Direct spells? You are talking about the "net hits damage" ones?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Jan 31 2014, 11:27 AM) *
Direct spells? You are talking about the "net hits damage" ones?


Standard... Direct vs Indirect, and Single Target vs. AOE Targeted.
Force 10+ Power/Mana/Stun Bolts vs. Force 10+ Power/Mana/Stun Balls vs. Force 10+ Fireballs or Napalm.

We see more of the First (even multicast) than the 2nd, which has more than the 3rd.
If we want Area Effect Damage, Flash Bangs are the best bang for the buck. And cause NO Drain. smile.gif
If we want to take down a Drone, nothing is better than an AR or Heavy Weapon. Same goes for Spirits, too (Magical Drones), though the character I play has a Specific Spell (Spirit Bolt) for that.
Machiavelli
Spells with force 10+? How exactly do you survive this ones?
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Jan 31 2014, 02:07 PM) *
Spells with force 10+? How exactly do you survive this ones?


My character Does Not... smile.gif
Our Combat Mage, on the other hand is pretty bangin' when it comes to Directed Combat Spells, and is a Grade 6 or 7 Initiate (Subtlety is not his forte, though it is mine). He does take a bit of drain occasionally, but not all that much, most of the time. However, he is ONLY good for Combat with his Magic, and his Mundane skills are something to be desired. smile.gif

And note that this is after 400 Karma of advancement. smile.gif
Beaumis
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jan 31 2014, 02:09 PM) *
Apparently My experience has been significantly different than yours. In truth it is just easier to use a Grenade than it is to use the equivalent magic, even for a Magician. So we rarely see AOE Large Damage Spells over a Grenade. We do see High End Direct Spells, even multicast ones.

I think you misunderstand me. While what I am saying is (sort of) reflected in the game mechanics, my primary focus is the setting's magical theory. Not the mechanics and especially not how the game is played at various tables. There has always been a major disconnect between the game's lore and rules when it came to magic. While the setting says it's rare, every group has a mage. Previous editions have made all spells above force 3 restricted by law, but almost no player ever chose a force below three for anything. The list goes on.

My point was that within the game's lore, it's easier to let magic flow than it is to control it. This is sometimes poorly reflected in the game mechanics (though they did try) and entirely negated when comparing efficiency of "magic or no magic". I merely wanted to point out that the whole "magic stun is easier than physical" theme prior editions had going was sort of against the lore of the game and that now, in 5th edition, lore and mechanics are more in sync than they have ever been in this particular aspect.

All that being said, unless he's centering, his initiate grad has little to do with drain. Still, that's a pretty impressive grade even for 400 karma. With that much oomph he should be damn near undetectable by non-magical means using the right spells... .

Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Beaumis @ Jan 31 2014, 04:10 PM) *
All that being said, unless he's centering, his initiate grad has little to do with drain. Still, that's a pretty impressive grade even for 400 karma. With that much oomph he should be damn near undetectable by non-magical means using the right spells... .


Yes, Tables are different, and yes, the Systems vs. Fluff has been at odds with each other to a degree in ALL versions of the game.

He is indeed Centering. Sadly he is ALWAYS detectable.
He leaves Signatures lying around like they are Cabs in New York. And he NEVER remembers to clean them up, which has led to a lot of issues over the years.
And IF he had spells to hide himself, well, he might be better at hiding, but sadly, they are not in his repertoire.

The Character I play, on the other hand, Never leaves Signatures... and in fact has to cast at Force 7 to even have a chance of leaving a signature.
Since that is a rarity (Usually cast at Force 3 or 4), I don't even have to remember to clean them up.

Machiavelli
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jan 31 2014, 10:42 PM) *
My character Does Not... smile.gif
Our Combat Mage, on the other hand is pretty bangin' when it comes to Directed Combat Spells, and is a Grade 6 or 7 Initiate (Subtlety is not his forte, though it is mine). He does take a bit of drain occasionally, but not all that much, most of the time. However, he is ONLY good for Combat with his Magic, and his Mundane skills are something to be desired. smile.gif

And note that this is after 400 Karma of advancement. smile.gif
Ok, 400 karma is way off the regular runners i know. I think 99% of the characters die before they even reach the 100. Initiate grade 7 is also quite exceptional, therefore he might not be the best example. ^^
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Feb 1 2014, 01:29 PM) *
Ok, 400 karma is way off the regular runners i know. I think 99% of the characters die before they even reach the 100. Initiate grade 7 is also quite exceptional, therefore he might not be the best example. ^^


Maybe not, but he is one of the current characters in the campaign coming to a close. smile.gif
Sadly, we will be closing out in a month or so to transition to SR5. frown.gif
Machiavelli
So you were talking about SR4 all the time?
Jaid
i thought it was fairly well known that TJ hates SR5 and still hadn't made the switch...
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Feb 3 2014, 01:01 AM) *
So you were talking about SR4 all the time?


For the Most part, yes. There were a few references to SR5 to compare and contrast the two editions (Post 23 started my SR4A comments - Sorry if I was unclear on that, as it likely led to some confusion) but the character descriptions were all about SR4A. See, I do not think magic is all that bad in SR4A. And I think that Magic in SR5 is ignorant bordering on ludicrous (they fixed the wrong things). *shrug*
Machiavelli
QUOTE (Jaid @ Feb 3 2014, 09:57 AM) *
i thought it was fairly well known that TJ hates SR5 and still hadn't made the switch...
It is also fairly well known that i hate SR5 as much as TJ does, but this doesnīt hinder me playing it or analyzing them rules. ^^
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012