[ProfessorCirno]

Congrats on your spell where your spellcasting roll has literally no effect at all and it does absurd amounts of damage and is almost entirely unblockable, thus making it superior to every other possible option else in the game?

I'm sticking with "the spell is super confusing as written, breaks a dozen rules and design guides at best, ignore it."

[ZeldaBravo]

I shouldn't have been write that. Let me try to redeem myself and break down the Spellblades to you.

First of all, what can we say about these spells after reading the description:

MANABLADE
Type: M        Range: Special
Duration: S  DV: F – 2

POWERBLADE
Type: P          Range: Special
Duration: S   DV: F – 2

Spellblades are a product of a failed line of research
by MCT. Attempts to create a sustained damaging con-
nection of energy failed to yield the desired results, but
they resulted in a maintained extension of a spell, based
on the formulas for Manabolt and Powerbolt.

Spellblades are sustained spells with 'special' range. It is assumed that they are Combat type spells (they originate from Manabolt and Powerbolt formulas).

A Powerblade operates on
the same principle as a Powerbolt or Powerball, affecting
physical objects, capable of parrying and resisted by ar-
mor. A Manablade works like a Manabolt or Manaball,
bypassing armor and capable of affecting spirits, but un-
able to parry physical attacks or damage objects.

Here we can clearly see that the writer confuses Direct/Indirect spells and Mana/Physical spells. This is most likely the reason behind the lack of the Direct/Indirect entry in the description. However, If we carefully read the write-in about Powerblade/bolt/ball...

A Powerblade operates on
the same principle as a Powerbolt or Powerball, affecting
physical objects, capable of parrying and resisted by ar-
mor.
(emphasis mine)

...it becomes quite clear that the writer had Indirect spells in mind when talking about Powerblade, while Manablade is Direct.

So the full description should be something like

MANABLADE
Combat
Direct
Type: M        Range: Special
Duration: S  DV: F – 2

POWERBLADE
Combat
Indirect
Type: P          Range: Special
Duration: S   DV: F – 2

Done!
It's not hard at all and not gamebreaking.

I'm sorry for being sarcastic and bitter before but sometimes I just can't help myself.

[falar]

Congrats on your spell where your spellcasting roll has literally no effect at all and it does absurd amounts of damage and is almost entirely unblockable, thus making it superior to every other possible option else in the game?

The number of hits not mattering is odd, but this is certainly not the only place where that's the case. Detox is a "did you get a hit" spell.

As for absurd amounts of damage - I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Since it's a Force-dependent spell for damage, you can't pull the old Force 1 + Reagents/Edge trick to get decent damage - you have to cast it at Force 6 to get 6 damage. Which means, to get an "absurdly high damage" you practically need to overcast it, which means more drain.

Secondly, it's not really absurd because you end up needing to do more to do the damage. Unlike a spell, which requires good Magic and good Spellcasting, good Willpower and good Drain Attribute, you now need some Magic, some Spellcasting, good Willpower, good Drain Attribute, good Agility, and good Clubs/Blades. Remember, they can't dodge a Stunbolt, but they can dodge a Manablade. You have to invest a lot more to make it good.

Thirdly, since you can't use the Low Force + Reagents trick, you'll need a good sustaining focus or you'll be pulling sustaining penalties as well.

I think it's a stylistic spell with upsides and downsides. Until I see it in play, I can't judge whether it's balanced or not.

[ZeldaBravo]

Thirdly, since you can't use the Low Force + Reagents trick, you'll need a good sustaining focus or you'll be pulling sustaining penalties as well.

I think it's a stylistic spell with upsides and downsides. Until I see it in play, I can't judge whether it's balanced or not.

It is underpowered IMO. It is Sustained, Range 1 spell with F-2 spell. Compare spellrblades and Punch/Death touch. F-6 drain (vs F-2 Power/Manablade), Touch range (+2 DP vs -1 to enemy's pool of Power/Manablade). Spellblades have two merits: you can parry weapon foci, and a Powerblade looks cool (you probably cannot see a Manablade). A steep price for +4 drain and sustaining penalty.

[falar]

Like I said, until I see it in play, I can't actually judge. To me, it feels a bit lackluster as well, but I'd have to see it in about ten combats versus ten combats with a "balanced" other spell to really be able to judge. I do think it could take a buff in the drain department, but that's as much as I'd be willing to house rule without extensive testing.

[Strange]

Thirdly, since you can't use the Low Force + Reagents trick, you'll need a good sustaining focus or you'll be pulling sustaining penalties as well.

I think it's a stylistic spell with upsides and downsides. Until I see it in play, I can't judge whether it's balanced or not.

It is underpowered IMO. It is Sustained, Range 1 spell with F-2 spell. Compare spellrblades and Punch/Death touch. F-6 drain (vs F-2 Power/Manablade), Touch range (+2 DP vs -1 to enemy's pool of Power/Manablade). Spellblades have two merits: you can parry weapon foci, and a Powerblade looks cool (you probably cannot see a Manablade). A steep price for +4 drain and sustaining penalty.

It's sustained, however, so you don't have to keep casting it.  Not saying that helps a whole lot, but it is a benefit.  I don't think that makes up for the difference, though.  I would still rather do Stunbolt or Punch spells every round.

[Lucean]

Secondly, it's not really absurd because you end up needing to do more to do the damage. Unlike a spell, which requires good Magic and good Spellcasting, good Willpower and good Drain Attribute, you now need some Magic, some Spellcasting, good Willpower, good Drain Attribute, good Agility, and good Clubs/Blades. Remember, they can't dodge a Stunbolt, but they can dodge a Manablade. You have to invest a lot more to make it good.

Since there is literally no dependance on net hits, why would you need more than 1 skillpoint in Spellcasting? Using a fetish reduces drain by 2, so F6 is already at the minimal drain of 2. Being able to ignore armor with Manablade F6 is more than enough, if you're ok with two hits for knockout.
WIL and BOD are stats that every runner needs, so there shouldn't be any special emphasis only because of Adept Spell.

So what is needed in addition to a more traditional Adept focusing on melee? 1PP, 2 karma (spellcasting 1), 2000 ¥ (fetish) and you lose 2 dice on your attacks, until your second Initiation with Adept Centering.
What do you save? Reliance on STR which can be a lot more but should at least about equal to the investment above.

[falar]

Since there is literally no dependance on net hits, why would you need more than 1 skillpoint in Spellcasting? Using a fetish reduces drain by 2, so F6 is already at the minimal drain of 2. Being able to ignore armor with Manablade F6 is more than enough, if you're ok with two hits for knockout.
WIL and BOD are stats that every runner needs, so there shouldn't be any special emphasis only because of Adept Spell.

So what is needed in addition to a more traditional Adept focusing on melee? 1PP, 2 karma (spellcasting 1), 2000 ¥ (fetish) and you lose 2 dice on your attacks, until your second Initiation with Adept Centering.
What do you save? Reliance on STR which can be a lot more but should at least about equal to the investment above.

This does not equal absurd to me.

But, like I said, if you have several sessions of play with the spell in use, you know better than I do. Until I see it in play, I cannot really pass judgement.

[Lucean]

Well, since I don't want to jump the StarWars-Hype-Train and have problems with the thought of manifested mana that ignores non-living matter I'll happily watch from afar.