The basic question I'm trying to answer here is this: do net hits on the spellcasting test increase drain?
First example in the corebook, on page 184 seems to say it does:

"A go-ganger is about to ride Raze down with her motorbike, so Raze casts a Powerbolt at her. He chooses Force 5 and rolls his Spellcasting 4 + Magic 5 (9 dice), and gets 4 hits. The ganger rolls her Body 3 to resist, and gets only 1 hit. The base damage of the Powerbolt is 5, increased by the net hits (3) with the go-ganger taking a final damage of 8—ouch! The Drain Code for the Powerbolt is (F ÷ 2) + 1, plus 3 from the net hits, so Raze must resist 6 DV, rolling his Willpower + Logic (he’s a mage)."

See? Drain code is F/2+1, spell F is 5 so this gives 3 DV, which is the increased by 3 (net hits on spellcasting test) to a total of 6 DV.

However, in the next example, on page 204, we read:

"A drone is hot on Sarai’s tail as she makes her way out of an Evo lab, but she’s ready to eliminate it with extreme prejudice. She casts a Flamethrower spell, sending a geyser of flame its way. She decides that a Force 5 spell will do the trick—possibly enough to destroy the drone in one shot, or at least give it a good broiling. Sarai is a hermetic magician with Magic 5 and Spellcasting 4, for a dice pool of 9. She rolls and gets 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, and 6. Flamethrower is an Indirect Combat spell, so the drone rolls its Response to avoid getting hit. It rolls 0 hits, so Sarai’s 3 net hits increase the base damage from 5 to 8. The drone has Body 3 and Armor 2, so it rolls 4 dice (Body + half Armor) to resist the spell damage. The drone rolls poorly and gets only 1 hit. It takes 7 boxes of damage, showering sparks from its charred hull. Then the spell’s secondary effects kick in as explosive rounds in its weapon begin to explode. Now Sarai has to resist the Drain. The Flamethrower’s Drain Value is (Force ÷ 2, round down) + 3, which works out to 5. She rolls Willpower 4 + Logic 3 to resist (she’s a mage), for a dice pool of 7. She rolls a 1, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, and 6 for 3 hits. That’s enough to reduce her Drain from 5 to 2."

See, here they don't add net hits (3) to the drain, which works out to 5 (F/2+3). The 3 here is from spell description and is always 3, not based on net hits.

On the other hand, a small example on page 178 seems to include net hits this time:

"Salamander has just cast a Manabolt with 2 net hits and must now resist the Drain (Drain Damage Value 3 + 2). He’s a hermetic mage, so he uses his Logic 5 in addition to Willpower 3 to resist Drain DV5. Rolling 8 dice, he gets only 3 hits, so he suffers 2 boxes of Stun damage from Drain."

Here drain is 3 but is increased by 2 (net hits I guess, although they don't say it specifically, and because we don't know the force of the spell in question, we can't check this for sure) to a total of 5 DV.

Unfortunately I can't find any paragraph (not an example) which would definitely explain the issue. I only found this:

"This describes the Damage Value the Drain causes. Drain is based on the spell’s Force; the more powerful the spell, the more exhausting it is to cast. Drain is variable, based on the spell’s Force ÷ 2, rounded down, and modified by Drain modifiers appropriate to each spell. Drain is Stun damage, unless the spell is overcast (cast at a Force higher than the magician’s Magic), in which case it is Physical damage. Note that no Drain Value can ever be less than 1."

In the grimoire section on page 203. Here they only hint at "Drain modifiers" appropriate to each spell, but spell descriptions say nothing about net hits adding to drain or not.


Now either I'm completely in the dark here or one or two of those examples have errors. For me this looks like a big difference, especially if you get like 3 net hits on the test. Am I missing something? Is it explained somewhere? I even checked the FAQ and errata on CGL pages but found nothing...

TL;DR: Can anybody tell me how do you calculate spell drain? Do you include net hits from the spellcasting test or not? Examples in the book seem to contradict themselves...

p.s. I know I'm probably gonna get banned from the forums for spamming now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

AFB-but as I recall both methods are right. However the rule to add the net hits to drain is optional. They were just not consistent with their examples.

Yep. The answer to the OP question is "No, by RAW they do not, but there is an optional rule that allows them to."

Edit: My guess is that the first example is right next to where they talk about the optional rule to illustrate the rule, and the rest are all how the real rules work.

I think the and modified by Drain modifiers appropriate to each spell part refers to that some Drains are (F/2) + 3 or (F/2) +1, etc.
As for extra dice, I suppose the question of whether it is raw or not has been answered, but if you think about it, it makes no sense to add extra drain for more hits. A gun doesn't use more bullets if you roll 5 hits as opposed to 3.

Okay, maybe the optional rule is in some add-on book, because I can't find it in the corebook. And if you look closely, two examples (first and third I listed) on totally different pages indicate that you add the hits to drain. There's only one example, in the middle, that doesn't indicate adding hits.

So taking this into account I would guess there's an optional rule not to add the hits to drain, but it's not described in the book either.

From what I see in the book, the net hits add to the drain value only for direct combat spells (e.g. the Manabolt or Powerbolt). Flamethrower, as an indirect combat spell, would not have increased drain from net hits.

Also, it appears to be a core (not optional) rule.

The right answer is: Since SR4A DIRECT COMBAT spells add the net hits to their drain code. It's as simple as that.

The reason is many people thought those spells to be overpowered so yeah..we are where we are now.

Good, let's see them try to overcast now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

As a side note: Mr. Mage, I'm not sure how relevant the working of firearms can be to the working of magic. Kinda different. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Overcast and double cast, who needs net-hits-for-damage when you're throwing around more raw damage?

Hmf, multicasting *mumble mumble*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

My point is more based on the mechanics of the game rather than how each part may or may not be similar. It just doesn't make sense to me to penalize someone for having good luck with their rolls but not penalize someone else for having the same luck.

I can see that, but I think the fact that they're very distinct is a mechanical issue, not a fluff one. Magic is different (better). Besides, can't the caster choose how many hits to use? Or am I just thinking of Technomancers… :/

They can choose how many net hits they use for damage. Its unclear if you need to spend any, but IMO you don't. You have net hits (so the spell works) you're just not using them to do more damage.

Right, so the extra Drain is 100% player-chosen. That hardly constitutes a penalty for having the same luck. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's more like *allowing* someone to add net hits to a Toxin attack.

IIRC It's only a non optional rule in the first version of the PDF, the updated version as well as the printed version have it as optional.
Unless my memory is completdly failing me, in which case fell free to ingnore this post.

-glitch-

My understanding of RAW:

For direct spells, (optionally) add the net hits to the Drain Value. ((Note that this favors casting spells like Stunbolt at a very high force.))
For indirect spells, never add net hits to Drain Value.

As well as multi-casting, as your drain-per-spell is easier (2 F5s is (almost) the same as 1 F10, but is stun, and you resist twice) and you don't need a wad of dice for net hits.

Which is why it's a cheesy munchkin tactic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Mostly i think the power of direct damage spells comes from the targets inability to armor up against it, unless they happens to be a mage.

A indirect spell on the other hand has to fight the armor worn by the target (on top of being possible to dodge). Only times indirect really makes sense is vs vehicles (or other highly processed objects) and hitting people out of sight (area effect).

But if you multi-cast your spells is less likely to hit? The average caster has 12-16 dice in casting, and (at least at my table) much closer to 12 (or even 10) than 16. Splitting that to two stacks of 6 (or two stacks of 5) makes it much less likely that your spell won't just be flat-out resisting, especially if you're dealing with either any penalties on your end or counterspelling on their end.

It's not *100%* cheese, yes. Thank god. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) However, you're ignoring the incredibly-abusive 'I stack mods *after* splitting' trick, with Specialities and Mentor Spirits and all that. They're not throwing 5 dice per spell, I'll tell you that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

What? Why would it be so UNLIKE its direct analogue, dual-wielding?

That is bullshit. The dice pool is formed before hand of Attribute + Skill + Specialties + Mentor + Foci and THEN divided. Not the other way around. It says as much in the rules just by saying "you split the dice pool".

… That's ("I stack mods *after* splitting") how dual-wielding also works. They're both vicious little exploit-monkeys. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Luckily, negative mods are also doubled, so things like range or recoil, or Visibility, really cut down on the dual-pistol abuse.

What negative mods affect multicasting? Not Visibility (Astral Perception is perfect super-vision)… and that's all there is.

Thanks Mäx. I pulled out the hardcopy and you are correct.