A major complaint seems to be that mages in sr4 and sr5 are overpowered, or significantly more so than in previous editions. It isn't a problem for everyone, but it can be a large problem when it does show up. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume there is something to all of the complaints.

It looks like the change from skill to skill+attribute may have played a major role here. I'm thinking while typing here, so people who remember SR3 better than me feel free to correct my thinking/math.

In SR3, the mage threw however many skill dice, and only hit on a value of your willpower (or body, depending on the spell) or higher. A very do-able 6 willpower would be twice as hard to hit in sr3 than in sr4/5 (although you may also have to hit as low as a 2 or as high as a dwarf (or troll, for body) could get, compared to 4 for most attacks, -2 TN for smartlink). This was resisted by willpower + counterspelling (both?) at a TN equal to the spell force. 6 is reasonable for that as well, so also twice as hard to get hits as it is now. The change from variable TN to static put the chance to succeed in a lot narrower band, but doesn't look like it was the main problem with magic.

The dice pools, however changed for mages only. The test went from skill vs stat+counterspelling to stat+skill vs stat+counterspelling. The offensive dice were doubled, with no change to defense. If defense had scaled, it would be 2 pools for the defender, with a possibility of a counterspelling mage with 2 pools (instead of having armor to defend you). Mental manipulation spells would be least likely to have a counterspelling mage, which may be part of why they are more likely to be a problem. Defense against drain also increased, but sr5 increased the drain to balance that back.

As a houserule, how would it affect game balance to give even mundane defenders a magic resistance skill and allow the counterspelling mage to roll magic+counterspelling?

Alternatively, treating willpower/body as hardened armor against spells (need to penetrate, plus auto-successes) would be simpler, but would probably swing the balance too far in favor of the defender.

Thoughts? Corrections?

What we did was take a page from SR5 and just allow a second stat for resisting a lot of those spells. The only ones we left alone were the direct combat spells (mana bolt, stun ball, etc), but instead changed the damage. So with two stats (generally either Logic or Intuition added to either the Will or Intuition pool) to resist things like mental manipulation spells, the defender has a better chance. Not exactly equal but when combined with spell defense, it makes it much less likely you will turn around and shoot your buddies cuz a random mage said it was a good idea.
This has the advantage of not having to add a new skill for mundanes or figuring out anything else on that front. If the spell is normally resisted by Willpower alone, then add Intuition and if it is normally defended by Intuition alone (many illusion spells) then add Logic to the pool. We extended this to the various critter powers as well, toning down on the number of times you run in terror from relatively weak spirits.

It's correct for SR4, and probably was part of the magical dominance there. In SR5, magic is quite a bit less powerful, because of the dual stat defensive pools. In fact, offensive spells are often even considered pretty weak in SR5, especially combat spells. The big power for mages comes from summoning, which is the same as it was in SR4 (and high Force spirits are still next to impossible to defeat for mundanes).

BTW, in SR2 (havn't played SR3 that much, but I guess it wasn't that different), experienced mages could get insane dice pools (like... 40). And you could use Karma Pool multiple times to re-roll non-successes, successively, multiplying a high dice pool even further. Also, don't forget the Spell Pool. You could put quite a few more dice into your offense than just the skill. Furthermore, combat spells were often cast at higher Force ratings (kinda like SR4), which made resisting them pretty hard. Back then, mages were seriously overpowered as well.

Bye
Thanee

Ok, Reason #100-something for me to continue avoiding SR5. If you prefer spellcasting-oriented Hermetic type mages (like me), then you're getting screwed. If you like playing summoning-oriented Shaman type mages, apparently you're doing pretty good in SR5.

I would say that it's an exaggeration to describe spellcasters as screwed in SR5. Direct combat spells are now much better balanced in SR5 than they were in SR4, when they were they only logical choice for the vast majority of combat situations. The pendulum has now shifted in favor of Indirect combat spells, especially area-effect spells. However, that's due more to the difficulty of dodging those spells, which is not unique to spellcasting. Grenades have the same issue.

To Iduno's original question, I have GM'd SR4 allowing the counterspelling magician to roll Magic+Counterspelling. In my experience, it swung things too far in favor of the defender(s), especially since the target still got to roll their dice to resist. Two dice pools (Magic+Spellcasting) versus three (Magic+Counterspelling+Willpower) nullified a significant percentage of spellcasting, which was more frustrating than fun and slowed things down considerably. It was a worthwhile experiment but I no longer use nor recommend that approach.

The premise of the question is more relevant for SR4, which had the issue that Indirect Combat spells were difficult to resist and did a lot of damage. SR5 has corrected for this by removing Force from the damage value of the spell, so that the only DV is from net hits. This produced reliable amounts of small damage but will almost never one-shot a target.

In SR5, almost all spells - with the exception of Direct damage spells, which now do far less damage - are resisted with two attributes:

Combat (Direct/Mana): Willpower only
Combat (Direct/Physical): Body only
Combat (Indirect): Reaction+Intuition to dodge, then Body+Armor to soak
Detection (Active): Logic+Willpower
Health (for Decrease Attribute): (targeted Attribute)+Willpower
Illusion (Mana): Logic+Willpower
Illusion (Physical): Intuition+Willpower
Manipulation (Damaging): Varies, but two attributes to resist plus a Body+Armor soak is standard
Manipulation (Physical): Body+Strength
Manipulation (Mental): Logic+Willpower

Shadow Spells has some Health spells that affect the target negatively that are only resisted with Body, which is contrary to the precedent set by Decrease Attribute. However, these are all Touch spells so one might argue that the need to touch a target (who, in many circumstances, will actively resist) counterbalances the potency of only having one attribute to resist.

Two more prominent exceptions are Turn to Goo (Street Grimoire) and Petrify (Shadow Spells), which are LOS Manipulation (Physical) spells that, in the spell descriptions, somewhat inexplicably only call for a Body test to resist. This is at odds with the umbrella rule that Manipulation (Physical) spells are resisted with Body+Strength, so a GM could reasonably conclude that these are editing oversights rather than new superspells.

Mages were more powerful in SR3. They could get totem bonuses, pile on multiple foci, get assistance from elementals, and add dice from their spell pool. They could cast a manabolt at damage level D, meaning that they could kill someone with a single net success. Awakened characters didn't have the current glut of magical skills that they needed, and Magic mainly acted as a cap on the maximum spell Force you could cast at, which was easily mitigated with limited (for lower Drain) spells, geasa, or power foci (which raised your effective Magic rating.

SR4 was more balanced overall (but still had some exploitable areas), while SR5 has over-nerfed a lot of areas, with the main exception of spirits, which are too powerful now.

Maximum Force you could cast at without taking Physical Drain. You could overcast as long as you could keep from dying, so long as you know the spell at the higher force, you just had to be prepared for the consequences.

Not that it will change your opinion of SR5 (and why whould it), but it's not quite so bad.

Spells are pretty awesome still, it's just that the targets have a fair chance at resisting them, now. Invisibility is no autowin, anymore, you actually need a bunch of hits to avoid being seen. Spellcasting still offers the same versatility.

Indirect combat spells are just weak, though. They really should do 2x Force as base damage, like the corresponding critter power. This way they are like magical hold-outs that also damage yourself with Drain.

Bye
Thanee

I disagree that Indirect Combat spells are week... They are powerful and useful (Force + Net, AP -Force), and will no longer kill you with drain.

6P with AP -6 isn't much in SR5. Hitting with them isn't easy, so you won't get many net hits.

They are weaker than heavy pistols with APDS (available at chargen). And no comparison to rifles, shotguns, and the likes.

Once you get into higher Force levels, they become much better, but then the Drain starts to kick in pretty hard as well.

Sorry, but there is not much point in using them.

Bye
Thanee

I agree with Tymeaus. Drain on single-target Indirect combat spells is uncommon (12 soak dice have an 82% chance of resisting 3 drain from an F6 spell), plus you benefit from good AP and fun elemental effects that provide extra utility and may not be available to firearms. Indirect AoE spells are more likely to incur drain but are also very difficult to dodge with the current rules, resulting in near-automatic damage and secondary effects.

Many people agree with Thanee, and they often prefer AoE debuffs like Mass Agony/Confusion/Chaotic World instead. The fact that people can make a strong argument for each is, to me, a good sign that there's a measure of balance in the available options. Personally, I didn't like it in SR4 when Stunbolt was the go-to spell for anything that wasn't a drone. There are opportunities for improvement but, overall, I like spellcasting in SR5.

Conjuring is still unbalanced but that's not new to SR5. I wouldn't be opposed to reincorporating some of the approaches from SR1-3 to moderate it. SR2050 had rules for this but I never played a game of it.

I like it as well (in case that didn't come across), because it is not vastly overpowered (and I love playing mages). Just feel that some of the options are a little too weak now.

SR4 Stunbolt was ridiculous. SR5 Stunbolt is okay. It could be a little better, but it's useful enough.

Bye
Thanee

To be clear, summoning for hermetics and shamans is exactly the same in 5th, except that hermetics get fire spirits instead of beast spirits (I think fire is purely stronger than beast in any combat capacity). So it has nothing to do with hermetic vs shaman, it is just that spirits can be OP in combat, especially if overcast.

That said, it isn't that spells aren't good, it is just that in many areas a specialized, geared, prepared mundane can do that one thing better than a mage can. But magic is still both powerful and flexible, and still does some things that mundane's just can't come close to replicating.

3 hits is all you need for the area ones, they are difficult to avoid...
And at F-3 for Drain on single target, they are not bad... Even an overcast F8 is respectable (Drain 5). Our Mage uses F8-F10 routinely. When it really needs to count, anyways.

I must say, that when I speak of indirect combat spells, I am mostly thinking about the single target ones.



Why are they difficult to avoid? They are easier to avoid.

They have a threshold of 3, so less hits to defend against.

All the defender gets is a -2 to the dice pool. The threshold of 3 is an equivalent of -9 dice.

Am I missing something there?

Bye
Thanee

In the SR5 book, there is no defense against grenades and AoE at all. So even if you don't get as many net hits, the enemy has to soak all the damage. A force 6 fireball with 5 hits (8 fire damage) has to be resisted by everyone inside the blast, and most characters can't shrug off that easily, especially with -6 AP.

I had an idea the other day (for SR4 at least) that might address this issue. What if someone Anchored a Mana Static spell into something that could be used like a grenade? Activate it and toss the thing toward the bad guys and WHAM! the background count goes through the roof. Yeah, that'd make your own magic completely useless, too, but if some wizgang conjures up a flotilla of force level HOLY FUCKING SHIT fire elementals, or if you don't have a caster in the first place (he's dead or whatever) then it might make a viable "oh shit" option.

If you beat the threshold, you add net hits to damage (not net hits minus threshold), so that would be 11 fire damage. Check the example on page 283, when the character casts Blast. The example is curious, though, in that it has the gangers getting a dodge test as well as a soak test despite it being an area spell.

What makes you think so? They are still ranged attacks. Besides, area-effect attacks are specifically mentioned in the defense part of the combat chapter.

See SR5 p. 190 "Defending in Combat - Targeted by an Area-Effect Attack".

Bye
Thanee

That is, however, the very definition of net hits. See SR5 p. 44/45 "Hits & Thresholds".



I believe, they simply forgot about the threshold in the example (there is no mentioning of it or any scatter at all), or the threshold was added later, and the example written before that.

As a side note, the Manabolt does stun damage in the example.

Bye
Thanee

It's possible they forgot about the Threshold, but it's impossible to tell from the example, because 5 hits beats the threshold, and when you beat the threshold, it basically doesn't come into play.

As I said, check the text on p. 44/45.

Bye
Thanee

It has been mentioned that the Defense test against AOE Effects is wrong... Multiple times by multiple people of authority.
There is a Half-assed defensive action you can take in Run and Gun, but if you are targeted by an AOE you have issues. The -2 listed in the combat section is incorrect.

I never saw anything like that? Do you (or does anyone else for that matter) have any links handy?

Bye
Thanee

OK, a lot of back and forth here.

First of all, the general rules on thresholds and net hit specify that any hits above the defenders hits OR the threshold of the test = net hits. For example, if the threshold for spotting something tiny is 4 and you get 8 hits, you have 4 net hits (which is really good, and a critical success). The damage of a firebolt is specified to be force + NET hits. If not, it would simply say add hits to damage. In the case of single targets, the net hits is simply every hit beyond what the defender gets, but as the rules say for area effect :

The test is like that for grenades (p. 181):
a Spellcasting + Magic [Force] (3) Test with scatter of 2D6
meters. Unlike grenades, you get to add your net hits on
this test to the Damage Value of the spell, but only if you
beat the threshold; otherwise the spell still detonates, but
the hits are used to reduce scatter by one meter per hit.

So grenade rules are not defended against at all (pg 181), as it is simply a threshold (3) test. The Indirect area spells have an advantage of being able to get net hits to damage as well as going off right away, while grenades have a really high base damage that deteriorates and affects a larger area.

Now we can certainly argue about optional rules and house rules could be used to make more sense or balance out these effects, but the RAW is fairly clear.

I'll answer Thanee's question, with the express written disclaimer that I don't like or agree with the answers.

No dodging grenades (specifically, those on motion sensors): http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index....23914#msg223914
No dodging indirect combat spells (three posts below the aforementioned post): http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index....24005#msg224005
Statement that the dodge examples are erroneous and the rules text should be used instead: http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index....28837#msg228837
More of the same: http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index....29035#msg229035
Yet more of the same: http://shadowrun.com/forums/discussion/com...#Comment_117065

To me, it doesn't seem reasonable that someone could potentially dodge a bullet but couldn't avoid a thrown grenade. The last post mentions a common houserule that dodging creates distance from the epicenter of the blast, which reduces the DV. I've used this with some success, but it creates some absurdities of its own with respect to the movement rules. I'm not entirely happy with it either and will continue to tinker.

Thank you, Tecumseh! That was very helpful.

Okay, that does make the indirect area-effect combat spells pretty decent.

Bye
Thanee