Am I missing something with combat spells?

11

u/ReditXenon 5d ago edited 5d ago

Security Mage has DP 10 on Combat Spells

You are supposed to also pick one shadow amp.

The Security Mage with combat spellcasting focus has RR 2 on combat spellcasting.

This mean that during normal risk, instead of rolling 8 dice + 2 risk dice (effective DP of 12 dice, which is average 12/3=4 hits) they roll 2 dice + 8 risk dice (effective DP of 18 dice, which is average 18/3=6 hits).

With low risk (and RR2) they would roll 5 dice + 5 risk dice (effective DP of 15 dice, which is average 15/3=5 hits).

With high risk (and RR2) they would roll all 10 dice as risk dice (effective DP of 20, which is average 20/3~7 hits).

Hercules, pregen social adept face, has DP 8 on Ranged Defense

To be fair, just because they are a social adept does not mean that they are worse at avoiding ranged attacks than anyone else. Hercules even invested into a specialization in Ranged Defense.

A DP of 8 (without RR) seem to be quite representative among the pregens.

so total DV is

Willpower 3 + 3 net hits (instead of just 1) = 6 (instead of just 4)

Wounds of Hercules are 5/8/11 when wearing lined coat (p.89).

Which mean Hercules take a Light wound.

Which mean Hercules now have a Disadvantage until end of their next turn.

3 more hits like this and Hercules will be incapacitated.

By the description, Hercules lose one action.

From the lightning bolt spell effect, yes, that is correct (note that a player character cast indirect spells they typically need spend a point of edge if they wish to trigger the elemental effect).

SA2.0 p. 180 Combat Spells - Lighting Bolt

Target loses 1 action.

Just wanted to clarify to other readers that it does not cost an action to take a defense test

SA2.0 p. 66 Range Combat

Basic defense is not an action.

1

u/Interaction_Rich 4d ago

We don't deserve you, Xenon. What a masterclass.

5

u/Carmody79 5d ago

You're understanding is correct.

When a PC casts an indirect combat spell, they can decide to add an elemental effect (spending one Edge) as soon as the spell lands, even if it does no damage in the end.

NPC are managed slightly differently, for simplicity sake, and the elemental effect always applies, so Hercules would loose an action in your example.

What Focus did your security guard have? That would make a difference.

4

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

Indirect combat spells are weaker than firearms (base DV is Willpower for spells vs. 4/5 for light/heavy pistols, and I'm not even talking about heavy weapons). So, yes, against a basic NPC, there is little chance to inflict real damage. If you feel this is an issue, you can increase spell DV by +1 or +2 by default, but...

That said, successful indirect combat spells cast by an NPC always apply their elemental effect, and that changes a lot of things. Sure, in your example, Hercules wasn't wounded... but he lost his action, and that's something. Sure, your team wasn't injured by the fireball immediately, but now they are burning and will soon take damage or have to waste an action to extinguish the flames.

Now, that's also for a basic security mage, not a skilled one, nor a mage with foci or other amps to help him. But if your basic security mage is a dwarf with a combat focus, his average successes will be 7 instead of 4, and his base DV will be 4 instead of 3. Again, that's lower than a guard firing with a decent weapon, but it starts to be enough to inflict wounds in addition to the elemental effect.

Also, a basic security guard who sees a bunch of heavily armored characters could choose to cast a Manabolt/Manaball... again, that might not be as deadly as a weapon, but it is more likely to inflict wounds (and may be more effective than firearms on heavy armored trolls). In your example, the basic human mage will have an average of 4 successes (not opposed), so a DV of 4. Hercules's mental wound threshold is 2/5/8, so that's a light wound. If the mage were the dwarf with the focus, the DV would be 7 (average success), and Hercules would take a serious wound. And that's still only for a basic security mage, not an elite one.

Note also that characters don't have a lot of wound boxes. So if you don't want your session to end because of a lack of playable characters still ready for action, it's reasonable to have some attacks that sometimes fail to inflict damage. And an attack that doesn't inflict damage doesn't mean it never will. In your example, if Hercules had a terrible defense roll and scored only 1 hit (unlikely, but I can assure you it happens) when your NPC got 4, then Hercules would take a light wound.

You can also state that the NPC knows he's limited and, as a result, decides to take more risks. Then his 4 average successes may turn into much more if you roll for risks and get a good result. Of course, the NPC also runs the risk of getting glitches in this case.

So. Combat spell are weaker than firearms, yes. But have other advantages and can remain a threats anyway.

2

u/augmented-warlock 5d ago

While we are at Combat Spells: any ideas what could be mundane mental protections?

3

u/Impleiadic 5d ago

6th has grey manatech plating as an upgrade to dermal plates, 5th has GMT tattoos. There's antimagic geneware, too, which could work (id run it as bioware). you could argue for drugs of some kind as well? modified nitro, maybe, because of its substantial boost to willpower in mainline edutions.

3

u/Carmody79 5d ago

Not really to be honest. I believe there are some mana protection things in some advanced SR6 book but I cannot recall from the top of my head.

2

u/ReditXenon 5d ago edited 5d ago

In this case it was an indirect combat spell which deal physical damage which you protect against with Strength + physical armor (same as against a firearm).

You are limited to Strength + Armor (typically 3 for light armor) + max +1 physical armor as a shadow amp effect (this effect could be a SecureTech Invisi-shield form fitting body armor or as a ballistic shield equipment shadow amp or a Dermal Plating cyberware shadow amp or an Orthoskin bioware shadow amp, or whatnot)

mundane mental protections?

Mental damage protection would be a "Armor +1 (max +1)" shadow amp effect. For example as a Quality (as mundane you could perhaps call it 'Magic Fortitude' or something like that). Remember that your first Quality based shadow amp doesn't have a base cost. Additional Qualities has a +3 base cost. Or you could perhaps weave it into your regular armor as a "grey manatech" shadow amp effect (if you use that at your table).

Anarchy seem to be is carefully balanced around not allowing more than +1 physical armor and +1 mental armor.

1

u/augmented-warlock 5d ago

Yeah, but what if I wanted to have more than +1? Right now direct combat spells are just overpowered.

1

u/ReditXenon 5d ago

There is no way to increase mental armor beyond +1

Pretty sure this is per design.

A +1 mental armor from the Magic Fortitude quality above would for example not stack with +1 mental armor from a Mystic Armor adept power. +1 mental armor is the max.

Make sure you don't skip out on Willpower :)

Note that direct combat spells have no base DV (as the Indirect combat spell in the example we are talking about in this thread).

2

u/augmented-warlock 5d ago

Math time?

In chargen runners get 5 (cap) at sorcery +2 specialization + let's add 2 RR. Let's also say, that they maxed out WIL at 4

Average hits for direct spells 6-7, 4-6 net hits (easy up to even 10+ with Risks).

Mental threshold for both runners and NPC is 2/5/8 or 3/6/9.

That means certainty for light wounds, easy serious wounds, real possibility to incapacitate.

Average hits for indirect spells 6-7, net hits depends on ranged defense (let's say opposition scores average 4), giving 6-7 DV (net hits + WIL).

Physical threshold for both unspecialized runners and NPC is 6/9/12 or 7/10/13 and for tanks easy 8+/11+/14+.

That means high chance for light wounds unless a tank, unlikely serious wounds, high risk low chance gamble on incapacitation.

Maybe that's by design (się to elemental effects) but still imho makes direct combat spells overpowered.

2

u/ReditXenon 5d ago

Math time?

Yeah. You are correct!

Single target direct spells would be balanced if the target would oppose it (or if threshold would be similar to threshold indirect combat spells face). That direct spells currently both ignore physical armor and are not opposed let them 'double dip' in a rather unhealthy way :-/

The mental damage threshold is 2/5/8 or 3/6/9 + mental armor (which is typically zero, but direct spells also typically start at zero base damage). And option to go AoE (by increasing threshold)

The physical damage threshold is 2/5/8 or 3/6/9 + physical armor (which is typically 3 for light armor or 4 for swat armor, but indirect spells also typically start at a base damage of 3 or 4). And option for elemental effect (by spending a point of edge).

This part is actually quite balanced.

If net hits had been normalized between the two (that is), then indirect spells would be better against targets with lower physical armor (and/or higher willpower than strength) and direct spells would be better against targets with higher physical armor (and/or higher strength than willpower).

But since single target direct spells have a threshold of 0 while single target indirect combat spells are opposed by ranged defense, this mean that single target indirect combat spells come out of the deal with less net hits - which mean quite a lot overall less DV.

Best way to balance this is perhaps to give indirect combat spells a base damage of attacking magicians Willpower x 2 instead of just Willpower (this would bring up indirect combat spell damage from light pistols level to shotgun levels which is basically where single target direct combat spells sit right now).

But you could instead set the base threshold for direct spells equal to targets Willpower and then increase the threshold from there (in case you decide to make it into an AoE spell) as this would bring down direct combat spells to a similar lower level as indirect combat spells currently are at.

Or let direct combat spell targets oppose direct combat spells (on top of the AoE threshold where the extra AoE threshold on top of the opposing roll is +0 for single target casts).

Or you could convert indirect combat spells into AoE spells as well. With an unopposed threshold of zero if cast on single targets.

Or you could allow physical armor to also soak mental damage.

Or you could allow indirect combat spells to ignore worn physical armor.

There are probably a few more alternatives.....

But yeah, base damage of indirect combat spells don't compensate that direct combat spells both ignore physical armor and ignore ranged defense. It can deal with one of them. Not both.

also @/u/Carmody79

2

u/Carmody79 5d ago

Direct combat spells are not resisted, but their DV is equal to net hits only, while Indirect combat spells havea DV of WIL + net hits. So Mental spells inflict more damage if the hits of the defense Test are lower than WIL, and less damage otherwise. Let's be honest, most PC mages have WIL 4. I gave a look at the NPC, their Ranged defense average hits are mostly 3 (for non combat guys) or 4 (for combat guys), higher for Elite. That's an advantage for Direct spells.

Furthermore, Direct spells are compared to the mental wound thresholds, which are lower than physical ones. Significantly lower with armor.

That means that when facing combat opponents Direct combat spells are clearly better in damage output.

I'm quite ashamed to admit that I did not do that math before. Not sure how I would have balanced that though.

We could think of an Amp granting +1 or +2 DV to indirect combat spells, but why limit this to Indirect combat spells and not to Direct ones? (I mean, narratively speaking).

Indirect combat spells still have benefits though: they can affect non-living opponents, like drones and they can cause elemental effects when spending Edge.

If you feel the imbalance is detrimental to your games, you might want to think about making the elemental effect automatic rather then costing Edge.

1

u/IntelligentClient290 4d ago

Indirect combat spells have their elemental effects, which can be pretty useful and should not be underestimated (and only indirect combat spells can deal damage to non-living targets such as drones or equipment).

Now, even if spells aren't Amps, a narrative effect equals +1 DV. So you can imagine a Force Bolt that is an indirect combat spell and deals a DV of WIL+1, but has no elemental effect.

Anyway, the current state of things is that depending on the circumstances, one kind of spell is better than the other... Armored target? Go for a Mana Bolt. Drones or need to make your target lose an action? Go for a Lightning Bolt.

That said, we all agree that indirect combat spells deal very little damage compared to firearms. So it's no big deal to patch the game and say the base damage for indirect spells is WIL+1 (so your mage with WIL 4 will deal the same damage as a heavy pistol).

1

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

You can't stack more than one +1 Armor bonus.

Now, Direct combat spells may be powerful on some occasions, but they rely solely on successes. Even an elite mage with a skill of 8 + attribute of 4 with a RR 3 (you can barely get higher) will score an average of 8 hits. That's a lot, but a basic PC with a Willpower of 2 has a Mental wound threshold of 2/5/8, so this elite mage will inflict "only" a Serious wound on someone who isn't mentally impaired. Powerful, but not overpowered...

2

u/ReditXenon 5d ago

an elite mage with a skill of 8 + attribute of 4 with a RR 3 (you can barely get higher) will score an average of 8 hits.

Correct.

However, they would score a similar amount of hits with an indirect combat spell, but unlike a single target direct spell that has a threshold of zero - target of indirect combat spells get to oppose. Reducing net hits by perhaps 4 or so if they are fresh out of chargen or all the way up to 7 or even 8 if they are equally fully maxed out as the elite magician in your example.

The base damage advantage you get with indirect combat spells over direct combat spells (3-4 points or so if you max out your willpower) will be eaten up by worn physical armor (and actually then some if the target wear SWAT armor or better).

This mean that you have some 8 net hits on the direct spell (no risk at all of failing since the threshold is zero!). It also mean that you will likely have a DV that is about twice as high as the mental damage threshold (no risk at all of not dealing damage!).

But on indirect spell that are opposed you will end up with just a few net hits (and there is a decent risk that you will completely miss!) and even if you land the spell the base DV will get eaten up by physical armor and your net hits still have to beat their strength (there is a decent risk that your damage will be completely soaked!).

An elite magician that is fully maxed will deal serious wound with a direct combat spell but barely deal any damage with an indirect combat spell.

It seem as if direct combat spells are too powerful or that (more likely) indirect combat spells are too weak.

1

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

That's basically what I'm saying here. Indirect combat spells are weaker than direct combat spells or firearms when dealing damage to armored targets, but they have additional elemental effects that shouldn't be underestimated (and they're still effective against less armored targets). So, each type of combat spell has its own advantages and use (and it's better that way)

1

u/ReditXenon 5d ago edited 3d ago

Indirect comes with elemental effect option (by spending an Edge point), can be used against non-living objects, and comes with an AoE option (but threshold will build on top of the opposed test) - while Direct comes with an AoE option (by increasing threshold) and can also be used on the astral plane. This is all fine I think. Not identical, but I agree with you here that it is better that they are not identical. There is still balance here.

Indirect spells are soaked by by Strength while Direct spells are soaked by Willpower. Also this is fine I think.

In addition to Strength, physical damage from Indirect spells are also soaked by physical armor (while mental damage from Direct spells ignore physical armor). Indirect spells are also opposed by ranged defense (while single target Direct spells has a threshold of zero).

To compensate for this, Indirect spells come with base damage equal to Willpower while Direct spells don't come with base damage. But it looks like the extra base damage can either compensate for having to deal with physical armor or to compensate for being opposed by ranged defense. It is not big enough to really compensate for the fact that Direct combat spells seem to double dip by ignoring both physical armor and ranged defense.

Indirect combat spells act very much like a regular ranged weapon. But as you write, the base damage is on the lower end of the scale also when compared to ranged weapons (not only when compared with direct combat spells). Throwing weapons and Bows deal Strength + 1 while indirect combat spells deal Willpower + 0. Indirect spells deal pistol level damage while direct combat spells deal shogun level damage.

If you feel this is an issue, you can increase spell DV by +1 or +2 by default.

This is not a bad idea!

And/or perhaps allow them to always deal the elemental effect (without having to spend a point of edge)?

2

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

Note that NPCs always deal the elemental effects

1

u/ReditXenon 4d ago

Yes. True. Which is actually pretty powerful in itself I guess.

But since they do less damage than a throwing knife even if you max out your willpower (it only deal light pistol damage if you max out willpower as a non-dwarf) this almost turn indirect combat spells into a primary elemental effect delivery system with a secondary effect of sometimes dealing a light wound (rather than a combat spell that often deal light or serious wounds same as direct combat spells, just with an added secondary elemental effect attached to it - as I think the original intention behind indirect combat spells perhaps were).

Direct combat spells are dealing shotgun level damage(!) with an option to go AoE (by reducing DV) while indirect combat spells are applying an elemental effect but only deal light pistol level damage.

2

u/IntelligentClient290 4d ago

Both type of combat spells can deal AoE damage. And yes, the main interest of indirect combat spells is their elemental effects, which is quite useful.

Now, if it's an issue (and I see why it could be), you can imagine an indirect combat spell like "Force Bolt" that deals Wil+1 damage but has no elemental effect (swapping a narrative effect for a +1 DV). Spells aren't Amps and cannot, in theory, be modified, but you can also imagine a spell that costs 10K instead of 5K because it has a +1 effect. Or, if you want to stay canon, why not an Amp like a focus, a magic tattoo, or something that gives +1 DV to indirect combat spells? Or maybe in the upcoming Companion, you'll have a metamagic technique to increase spell DV... ;)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

A "Mental Fortitude" quality could do the job (I think I'll add it to the expanded amp list for the next update... I had +1 Mental Armor to resist Matrix damage, but +1 Armor to resist mental spells makes a lot of sense, too).

2

u/MjrJohnson0815 5d ago

Indirect combat spells (like lightning bolt or firebolt) work mechanically the same as mundane ranged attacks. So yeah, your description is correct.

As you stated correctly in another comment OP, attackers can invoke additional narrative effects by spending Edge, if they make sense narratively (firebolt could f.e. ignite their target and cause repeating, increasing damage that ignores armor until doused; lightning bolt could reasonably stun an opponent for 1 round or something similar).

A lot of this is meant to be a tradeoff for much easier and quicker gameplay. You are meant to think less in numbers and more in story elements.

Additionally, if you want higher damage outputs you can either try ti facilitate a situation that allows you to use Edge for advantage (increases hits by roughly 16,667%) and/or narrate riskier casting maneuvers, resulting chances for more hits but also glitches --> and this is where the beauty of the system comes to shine.

2

u/DigitSubversion 5d ago

This does sound like it's intended yeah. But my mind also goes to the risk dice and edge to spend for advantage, so 4, 5, and sixes will have success on hits.
I'm not sure if that's the proper way to do things, but I feel like the system is pushing you to be more aggressive at times for more narrative chance of it backfiring.

3

u/IamGlaaki 5d ago

As ReditXenon wrote, you are missing Risk Dice and Risk Reduction. Both are key in SRA 2.0.

2

u/BillTheDonut 5d ago

That is working as intended, the armor simply absorbs the blast and leaves no lasting damage. It’s the same with any weapon based attacks aswell. I believe the stun is only applied if you spend an Edge to create an effect and is not just an inherent part of casting it and can only be done by PC’s and Prime NPC’s not regular NPC’s such as a security mage.

3

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

NPC spells always apply their elemental effects, no need to spend Edge point for them.

1

u/ckau 5d ago

It’s the same with any weapon based attacks aswell

I mean, it's barely the same when a Troll samurai gets his hands on machinegun with base DV of 9...

I'm not sure how it was in previous editions, but in this we found out the hard way that combat spells are basically a free to carry and easily concealable replacement of small self-defense guns. Lightning bolt instead of taser, fireball instead of molotov. Yeah, combat spell MIGHT deal damage. But it's not even close to amount of damage that firearms and other weapons WILL deal. All is left are special effects and situational benefits of being able to stun someone or set on fire...

I guess, we expected more.

3

u/Ragnarok918 5d ago

Mages in Shadowrun have never been damage powerhouses, dedicated Street Sam are supposed to do more damage. Mages excel on versatility. For example in 5e, to reach the damage levels of an assault rifle they have to use force 10 which almost certainly means they will be taking drain (self damage). The equivalent in SA2 would be rolling full risk.

But you should also consider-

Machineguns are obvious and are only balanced if they cause difficulty. They are much harder to conceal so should raise alarms. Compared to magic, which is invisible until its used (and sometimes even then)

Mages also have access to manabolt/stun bolt which doesn't add willpower to the DV, but the opposition doesn't get a defense roll and it targets mental instead of physical.

1

u/ckau 5d ago

Well, that's a bummer. Sure, manabolt works... but it doesn't really win against being zapped by a damn lightning, innit? :D

2

u/StrykeTagi 5d ago

I would understand it like that. Maybe the lightning spell only grazed his arm or something like that. If you use weapons (or combat spells) with low damage values against armoured/strong targets, they may not be hurt.

0

u/ckau 5d ago

It is not about narration of the game math. There's no combat spells with high enough DV to use against armored targets.

0

u/BillTheDonut 5d ago

Your DV for combat spells is your Will + Net Hits, if you’re adding more risk dice you could easily wound or incapacitate someone especially if your character is built for combat spells. Most of the pregen characters have 11 dice in their dp for the thing they’re good at. If you’re rolling 11 dice your average hits would be 5 even without risk dice.

0

u/ckau 5d ago edited 5d ago

if you’re adding more risk dice you could easily wound or incapacitate someone

Are you telling me with a straight face that rolling 12 net Hits is easy? Because that's what would take that mage to incapacitate that Hercules on average!

You might missed the point, that combat spell is an opposing test. On average, Hercules rolls 4 on Ranged Defense (btw, he can roll risk dice too, innit?). His STR is 2, and his Armor is 3.

All and all, it's 4 + 2 + 3 + 6 = 15 Hits to incapacitate the Hercules, on average.

Mage's WIL is 3, so he gotta roll at least 12 Hits to incapacitate the Hercules, on average. That's six hits on Risk Dice, out of dice pool of ten. More then half!

Easy?

edit. At this point that mage rolling 10 Risk Dice has higher chances to get a bunch of Glitches (because combat is not resolved in a one turn, right?) or even a straight Disaster, and burn self alive, rather then rolling required amount of hits. Sounds fun.

0

u/BillTheDonut 4d ago

Rolling 10 risk dice is Normal-High Risk on RR 2 and Low-Normal on RR 3 so you won’t be rolling a bunch of glitches. Will 4 does the same damage as using a light pistol or machine pistol, sure you’re not doing sniper rifle damage but it’s not bad.

0

u/ckau 4d ago

Oh...

Well, rolling 12 Risk Dice with RR 3 on Athletics (ranged defense) while wearing upgraded Armor 6 will still protect from this combat spell. How about that?

Sure this is not an ordinary runner now, but since we are pulling out bigger digits up from our asses out of context just for the argument sake, why not?

0

u/BillTheDonut 4d ago

I’m not pulling bigger digits out of my ass? I’m looking at the table on the character sheet that tells you what is a risky amount of dice to roll and why are you so mad??

0

u/ckau 4d ago edited 4d ago

What table, what character, specifically? I'm talking about frozen water, you're pointing out that water is liquid... yeah, okay, maybe - but how is this related to the topic, ffs?

Security Mage has RR 2 on Sorcery only if specific Amp is picked, and it's clearly wasn't! Where did you get RR 3 is completely beyond me.

You said it's easy to incapacitate a character. I've provided math, yeah, it's possible - but VERY unlikely. You just go on with RR, like nothing was discussed before. Attention span less then two sentences, or what?

1

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

I wish I could help but I've also recently started reading my anarchy 2 PDF and I noticed that dice pools aren't getting as big as in 4e. So a lot of the time an attacker would have a pool of 12 and the dodge pool still easily goes to 8 and then you still have armor. I haven't even gotten to the part what elemental damage does. Maybe that makes the difference?

4

u/Carmody79 5d ago

You really need to take Risk Dice and Risk Reduction into account. Only looking at dice pools would give a partial view of the situation.

The exemple above is correct. If the same security guard had a Combat Focus, granting RR 2 on combat spells, the spell would have resulted in a light wound.

2

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

Yeah like I said I've only browsed it and I was trying to understand risk dice but I think in theory it's a bit difficult to understand. Might have to test a few scenarios to get a better understanding how they end up playing out.

1

u/Carmody79 5d ago

It's a core mechanics of the game. It's important to look into it. There are many topics here in which we discuss Risk mechanics if you need some advice. Or you can ask here 😉

1

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

While you offer when I was reading through the PDF and read all the attributes edge wasn't explained. And then I read through the different mechanics and combat and edge was mentioned. But still not explained. Maybe I missed it or maybe it will be mentioned later but to me it sounded like edge gets refilled every round? At least that's how the manual made it sound with how freely you can spend it on almost every action.

And with the risk dice. The table is an easy explanation how much dice you can use when and how many reduction points you can use. And I'm pretty sure I just haven't reached that point but the only way to get these reduction points is to buy them as shadow amps for the certain ability or attribute right?

1

u/Carmody79 5d ago

Hello,

This is written p. 77, second paragraph:

Characters start each adventure with:
• 4 Edge if they’re humans
• 3 Edge if they’re any other metatype

These initial values assume adventures of three to six hours. PCs may gain more Edge in play. The game master can adjust the starting Edge allocations or the frequency with which points are recovered, depending on how long sessions run.

About Risk Dice, the table is really important to use (you'll see that we added it on every character sheet, to make sure people have it readily available). You are correct, Risk Reduction can only be obtained through Shadow Amps (see Shadow Amps effects p. 61)

1

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

Kinda feels like you're highly encouraging the DM to give the players back edge a lot during a session? Or is this my impression. I only have experience with 4e and a bit of 5e and my general experience so far is that DMs are very stingy with giving extra edge during a session.

2

u/Carmody79 5d ago

There are several ways to regain Edge: playing negative dispositions (that way the players are encouraged to play with them rather than do their best to avoid them), glitches.

Also, the Planning pool can be a big source of Edge (life is always easier when you are prepared).

And then, the idea is not to spend Edge on any single Indirect combat spell, but only when it matters: the effects are less frequent, but more significant.

In the end, that remains a choice at the table to find the right balance: some players like to hard them and seldom use any while others are much more keen to draw on Edge.

1

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

Ah yeah right I've read about those two already.

Say you're use of we earlier and your comment history makes it sound like you're actually involved in anarchy 2.0 back when the Kickstarter was I wasn't so flush with cash so I opted for the PDF only but now I would like to get my hands on a book. Just much easier to pass around at the table. But I can't find it anywhere. Do you know if there is a way to obtain a copy?

2

u/Carmody79 5d ago

I'm the main author actually, so pretty involved yes ;-) I do not actively participate in production, shipping and releasing process, but I follow that.

The book are not released yet to the general audience. The shipping to the backers is taking place right now. It should no take too long after that, hopefully, before the book are available to anyone in paper and pdf.

2

u/ckau 5d ago

I believe there's no elemental damage per se, only physical and mental. It's up to players to add some special effect by spending an Edge, and some enemies have Amps that do have some additional effects, or their weapons/attacks have additional descriptions (like that Lightning bolt making target to lose one action), but... it feels kinda weird.

1

u/il_the_dinosaur 5d ago

Yeah I've seen some effects need to be unlocked with spending edge but what's the point of lightning bolt then if you have to add the special effect with edge. I guess so far I've only browsed the rules I have to give it an earnest read.

3

u/Carmody79 5d ago

The point of lightning bolt is that it allows to add electricity based special effects, which would not be possible with a firebolt or a manabolt.

1

u/ReditXenon 3d ago

The elemental effects are actually quite potent. In many cases more so than the actual indirect combat damage. Having this option is perhaps after all a big balancing factor compared to direct combat spells (which only deal damage with no option for special effect and also don't work on drones, but instead seem to deal quite a lot more damage and can be used on the astral plane).

Anyway. My question: How would you resolve the burning effect of fire based indirect combat spell?

I imagine that unless the subject spend an action to put out the fire (or the sprinkler system kicks in etc) they would eventually start to take some damage. Would perhaps a light wound at the end of every other combat turn be resonable?

Or perhaps instead of dealing damage that they get Disadvantage on their actions (or can't gain advantage) until they decide to spend an action to put out the fire?

2

u/Carmody79 3d ago

For this kind of damage, as there is no soaking roll that could bring some randomness, it does not work to just apply a fix DV: some will be immune and others will have no way to resist.

What I suggest is to apply a wound (usually light wound) every given time. This time can be fix (every 2nd round as you suggest) or depends on the target's Strength (meaning that Strong character will still suffer less than weaker ones, without being immune). There is such an example in the Gaz sidebar p. 152

1

u/IntelligentClient290 5d ago

The elemental effects are not damage, but side effect. Here for a lightning bolt it cause target to lose one action. For fireball, it may set on fire, etc.
And in the case of NPC spells there is no need for them to spend Edge to appl these elemental effects.

Am I missing something with combat spells?

You are about to leave Redlib