yeah. the thing with lethal and non-lethal combat spells is, there's no compelling reason to use the lethal ones--and some strongly compelling reasons to use the non-lethal ones. if combat spells were guns, then stun rounds would not only use the same damage code as regular rounds, but would also give you a -1 to your TN (since Willpower on most combat-ready targets is lower than Body) and you'd be able to fit an extra 6 rounds in your clip (lower drain = more castings before passing out). most runners don't need their opponents dead, they just need them out of the way, which non-lethal spells do with much greater efficiency.

Not really much discussion out of me, here. I completely agree.

Well, keep in mind when it comes to non-lethal combat spells:

1) Pain Editors make Sun spells almost completely useless.
2) Mana/Powerbolt are generally much better for taking out your fellow mages.

Oh, and this LOS blocking area of effect targets from being effected has got to go. This isn't Doom where you can escape the BFG by ducking around the corner

For combat spells? Are you serious? That'd not be something I'd like to see unless they eliminate combat spells as they stand now. The targets don't get dodge or damage resistance test, the drain is rather easy, and the area effected is huge.

One thing I would like to see is the return of elemental combat spells. I always loved the idea of looking at someone and having them explode into a fireball. Keep the Manipulation fireball, but put the elemental combat spells back in too.

My issue is with the ball spells. They should act more like grenades. Magical barriers act like barriers (except for returning force).

Though I'm all for dodging ball spells, if you are good enough to get the hell out of the way then you should be able to.

You dodge Manipulation based ball spells, not Combat. The theory behind combat spells (note, this may be second ed. magical theory, I don't remember if it changed in 3rd ed.) is that the spells force is centered inside the target and burst out. With ball spells you are simply targeting more people with the same effect, not throwing a grenade, that's why you have the manipulations spells like fireball, etc. Your description sounds like exactly the way those manipulation spells work, so I see no problem keeping combat spells in concept the way they are.

As far as using lethal vs. non lethal combat spell, I tend to agree that the non-lethal is the obvious choice for anyone who's not a psychotic killer. Same net effect (the target is incapacitated) for less drain and not gaining enemies as fast. If they put the elemental combat spells back in there would be some reason for using the lethal version (i.e. you get the elemental side effects of catching things on fire or whatever). (Note: Hellblast was far and away my favorite spell of 2nd ed.)

Manabolt is useful when astrally projecting, since it can actually destroy a spirit, not just disrupt. I think Wards and other astral barriers cannot be hurt by stun spells, but not quite sure about the former.

Anyway, Spiritball is a wonderful spell if you deal with summoners and astral attack packs.

Regarding the whole "Combat Spell Area" vs. "Manipulation Spell Area", here's our take here on it all. Lucyfersam I believe has the right idea, and perhaps an analogy can help.

Combat spells direct channel magical force into a directly destructive manifestation directly into a target(s). Elemental/Manipulation spells channel the magical force into a secondary effect that then has the opportunity to express its effects upon the area/environment.

When thinking of Combat Spells, think of a Flash Bulb going off in a room. If you are standing in the flash, it reflects across you but if you are behind an obstacle that blocks the bulb's flash from striking you then you do not show up.

When thinking of Manipulation Spells, try to imagine a volume of liquid that is suddenly brought into existence within an area and being sourced from a given/central location. As the volume expands to fill the area, it reaches around corners and flushes out into all associated space. It doesn't strike directly however in some of the associated (not in direct line of sight) space, instead it rushes into it and swirls kind of like a flood of rushing water. If you are sheltered somewhat, you will not take the full effects of the water. If you aren't, then you get struck full on.

Page 189, Spirit Combat

Banishing actually does the same thing as disrupting it, sends it back to its home metaplane (hence the term banishing as opposed to destroying). The only way to destroy a spirit is to take an astral quest to its native plane and engage it in combat in the citadel.

That is because the basic book doesn't talk about disruption at all. The rules for disruption in MitS talk about destroyed spirits being disrupted. It only talks about them being destroyed in combat, so I guess just by what they say I can see it going either way, but the fact that it's called banishing, and disruption does use the term destroyed would lead me to say that banishing also disrupts them.

The difference between disruption and destruction is largely academic in most situations anyway. If the spirit a guy just summoned is now out of commission for 28 days, rather than simply destroyed, it's still unlikely to be able to serve the purpose it was summoned for. Free spirits are the only exception... I'm sure there's no easier way to get on the permanent bad side of a free spirit than to force it to spend a couple weeks languishing in the metaplanes while its earthly business goes to hell.

Disruption is coverd in the main book, pg 176 first collumn the last paragraph before Astral Objects.

MitS pg 98 "If a spirit takes Deadly Stun damage in astral combat, or its physical form is destroyed (through Physical or Stun damage) in physical combat, the spirit is disrupted."

"Banished spirits my never be brought back."

A spirit only materialzes and takes a physical form when it has to interact with the material plane. Destrying it's physical form (either by physical combat or by mana/stun/spirit spell) only disrupts it cause a spirit is not a physical entity. It's an astral form/entity. Banishing on the other hand is a direct attack on a spirits true astral self and thus will permanently destroy a spirt.

I strongly agree that any spell that does damage well should be a combat spell. Only really rube-goldberg damaging spells should end up in other categories.

So exceptions could be thinks like:
poltergeist (a manipulation spell that does weak damage in an area, but mainly makes a big mess)
disease (a health spell that does damage very slowly)

Even poison should end up in combat, unless maybe the poison takes hours to take effect.

And, yea, would be good if stun combat spells were harder to cast than physical ones... or the magical stun damage should wear off really fast, like 1 box per initiative or something unless sustained to make permenant like a health spell? Ehh, that sounds like a pain.

I don't really like the idea of taking elemental spells and making them combat spells. I know it means combat spells are fairly limitted, but creating a bout of flame or a massive ball of fire isn't combat. Elemental manipulation spells should be just that.. elemental manipulation spells.

I mean.. just because a spell can do damage, doesn't mean that it should be a combat spell. If I want to write a spell that cooks meat (really really fast), that should be a transmutation spell or something similar.. if I cast the spell on the ganger that's beating up my buddy the decker, then the spell should kill him (or at least cripple).. but it isn't a combat spell, and shouldn't be a combat spell.

Thing is you are thinking about magic rules as if it were real world physics. What you need to do is think of it like a game mechanic about magic.

All those damaging spells in manipulation are an OOC balance problem and don't make any more IC sense than putting them in combat. The reason to put them in combat is because the intention of the spells is to blow stuff up, the reason to put them into manipulation is because of some theory of how magic works and idea of what "manipulation" means (in shadowrun it really means something like "other").

Saying they should be in manipulation because they are presently called "elemental manipulations" is entirely circular. If they were in combat they would be called "elemental combat spells".

A "cook food" spell would most likely not even be able to target a living animal any more than it could target a rock. If you made a "heat object" spell my system would clearly put it in manipulation. Such a spell's primary intention is to heat things up, not to hurt them. Any damaging mechanics it had should be very inefficient compared to a combat spell. Like the poltergeist spell it might indirectly damage things, but really it is about warming them up. If you allowed such a spell that was as good or better than a combat spell at damaging things you have just made all combat spells obsolete, so your game is broken no matter what category you put it in.

Another question is whether enhanced aim, combat sense, and armor should be combat spells? They are all nearly only useful in and primarily intended for combat.

I really think that if the "anywhere but manipulation" guideline was adhered to very closely we could end up with spells distributed quite evenly across the groups, and manipulation would still have lots of really cool spells.

I didn't mean to sound like I wanted it to be based on the name, more on the intent.
I actually agree with armour going into combat more then the elemental spells.

I like having elemental spells somewhere other than combat, because they have uses beyond combat.. combat is a primary use, they're something far more than combat. That's all. The 'cook meat' spell was just an example of using something else to cause damage -- I doubt I'd be able to convince any DM to let me write it. I'd spend too long being laughed at.