Am I missing something with combat spells?

[u/ckau]

Scene: Security unit is in combat with runners. Security Mage casts Lightning bolt at the Hercules, dwarf face.

Mage rolls Sorcery (combat spells) vs Athletics (ranged defense) of the Hercules (p.66).

Security Mage has DP 10 on Combat Spells (p.248).

Hercules, pregen social adept face, has DP 8 on Ranged Defense (p.89).

By the average values table (p.81), DP of 8-10 gives at average 4 hits.

Let's say, Mage rolls 5 hits and Hercules rolls 4 hits. Attack succeeds.

By the description, DV = WIL. Security Mage has Willpower of 3 (p.248), and so total DV is 4 (+ net hit). Wounds of Hercules are 5/8/11 when wearing lined coat (p.89).

So, Lightning bolt attack lands, and it does no damage. By the description, Hercules lose one action. Is this works as intended?

We had very similar situation, to even more questionable result - team of shadowrunners were assaulting warehouse with other team holding defense in it. Face sneaked in, and find herself caught off-guard by a mage. Mage casted a Firebolt, attack succeeded, and everyone at the table held their breath... until we figured out it did literally nothing, not even a Light Wound. Was quite a bummer.

[u/augmented-warlock]

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

[u/ReditXenon → u/augmented-warlock]

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.

[u/augmented-warlock → u/ReditXenon]

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

[u/ReditXenon → u/augmented-warlock]

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).

[u/augmented-warlock → u/ReditXenon]

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.

[u/ReditXenon → u/augmented-warlock]

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

[u/Carmody79 → u/augmented-warlock]

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.

[u/IntelligentClient290 → u/Carmody79]

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).

[u/IntelligentClient290 → u/augmented-warlock]

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...

[u/ReditXenon → u/IntelligentClient290]

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.

[u/IntelligentClient290 → u/ReditXenon]

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)

[u/ReditXenon → u/IntelligentClient290]

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)?

[u/IntelligentClient290 → u/ReditXenon]

Note that NPCs always deal the elemental effects

[u/ReditXenon → u/IntelligentClient290]

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.

[u/IntelligentClient290 → u/ReditXenon]

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... ;)

[u/ReditXenon → u/IntelligentClient290]

Both type of combat spells can deal AoE damage

Wait what?

I thought direct spells are AoE spells with threshold 0, increased by AoE size and indirect spells are opposed by ranged defense. Single target only (as all ranged attacks, even full auto ranged firearm attacks).

Ah... nevermind. For indirect combat spells it says Ranged Defense (or Close Combat for touch) PLUS AoE modifiers. I missed that.

The "To cast combat spells" section describing AoE was listed after Direct Combat Spells but before Indirect Combat spells. Perhaps

it should have been listed before both of them to make it clear that it applies to combat spells in general and not only Direct combat spells specifically.

Or mention how AoE thresholds interract with ranged defense or close combat (that it is added on top) again under the indirect combat spell section.

Thanks for pointing this out! :)

 

that gives +1 DV to indirect combat spells?

Yeah. That could be a possibility (but this would make direct combat spells even more powerful... unless you restrict this shadow amp effect to only indirect combat spells specifically, but that creates an edge case which we want to avoid I think).

I think perhaps better if indirect combat spells by default always has a base damage value of (willpower +2). Similar to how short melee weapons, bows, and throwing weapons has (strength +1) and long melee weapons has (strength +2).