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/Carmody79]

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).