In SR4 under Combat Spells it says "...every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1". How does this work when using an area-effect spell and there are multiple targets each rolling their own resistance. e.g. shoot off a force 6 manaball against a party of 3, against whom you get 1, 2 and 3 net hits respectively. Do you have to resist 5 + 1 + 2 +3 drain, or do you use say the maximum (5 + 3) or mean (5 + 2)? It seems quite harmful to the caster firing off an area-effect spell into a crowd if you have to add up all the net hits separately.

First of all, IIRC the rule you cited is optional.

If you really want to use it, in your case I would use the maximum number (e.g. +3 from your example) to calculate the drain.

-CJ

That is an optional rule, so whether or not your group uses it is up to your GM.
This is what my edition of the BBB (SR4A) has to say to answer your question:


Interestingly enough, my PDF version does not list the extended explanation. It must have been a later addition. Couldn't find an official errata either, though. But when in doubt, stick with the hardcover. At least that's what I do.

The rule is indeed optional and it does specify that you only add the highest net hits used to the drain value.
This is in SR4A, though, so might have been an amendment.

The curious thing is: even in SR4A it is an amendment. My PDF version of SR4A does not have the "optional" part in it and neither the explanation for area effects. Something to consider.

Personally I think it's a terrible rule and don't use it. You pay the BP for being Awakened and knowing the stunbolt spell and having a good spellcasting rank then find that when you cast it really well you suffer exactly the same consequences as the target. Besides, you've already upped the drain by increasing the force to allow the extra hits in the first place.

Try telling the merc that the more accurately he shoots someone the more likely it is for the recoil to break his wrist and see what he has to say ...

have always assumed this optional rule was put in for GM's who want to get rid of magic as much as possible. Personally I wouldn’t bother with a mage in any form using that rule as it means you would end up casting one of two good spells and hurt yourself of limit yourself to spells that do the same damage as a light pistol to save yourself from drain.

Ok granted with a high class magic user you can do some nasty one shot knockouts but there are ways to balance that without killing them every time they get in a fight.

With the rule in play you'd be best off forgetting the combat spells altogether in favour of attribute and reflex boosting spells/powers.
Then go buy a gun like everyone else.

Well, my pdf version of the SR4A rules contains this as regular, not optional rule, and that is the way we run it.
And playing the mage character, I still find direct combat spells very useful - and even with force 5 spells hardly ever end up with more than 1 or 2 stun unresisted.
Heck, the guys who play sammy characters even think the rules are broken in favour of the magic attacks as is!

About a year ago there was a very, let's say, intense (IMG:style_emoticons/default/talker.gif) discussion about the new drain rule for direct combat spells.

For instance here or here or a discussion about spellcasting net hits.


This is the official statement concerning the changes between SR4 and SR4A. Looks like they made the rule optional after the first SR4A pdf's were released and you have an old version.

-CJ

Sweet, thanks =) Luckily, I have a later edition hardcover as well =)

the merc still must bypass armor, where the mage's only resistance is a single attribute most of the time.

The merc can shoot twice and use burst fire, the magician has to risk taking damage every time they cast a spell. It balances.

You've missed the bit about the hits-drain duality. The rule treats both the spellcaster and his target equally, despite that the target didn't blow 75 BP on being a target or an edge point on a big pile of hits.

You cast a force 5 manabolt for 5DV on the target and 3DV on you. You roll really well (and/or the target rolls really badly) giving you 3 net hits and let's say you score a couple of hits on drain resistance. Now, you need this guy to go down ASAP so you let him have it all. Result? Well, because you're really good the target suffers an extra 60% damage (5 + 3) and you suffer an extra 300% damage (1 + 3).

So he's still not dead but now more than a third of your stun monitor is crossed out (and the samurai kills three other goons before your next action). And remember – this is because you did really well.

Ok, so I'm being maybe a little facetious about this. I get the fluff (that direct combat spells involve more harmful mana-contact) and I get that they wanted something to balance them out against the indirect spells (though I think they're even enough without it) but you end up with the situation whereby a veritable master of mana is discouraged from putting this mastery into effect, choosing instead to do the same as a lesser magician would. Rolling spellcasting+magic should be about how skillfully you direct the mana towards your chosen intention, but this rule implies that the more skillfully you cast a DC spell the more difficulty you have in coping with it. Counter-intuitive I say.

They wanted to discourage overcasting direct combat spells.

Unfortunately it had the reverse effect:

Cast that stunbolt at F10, take twice as much drain (6P instead of 3S, roll resistance), use 0 net hits for damage and they take +100% damage, you take +100% damage over the F5 stunbolt with 0 hits.

Adding nethits to the F5 to reach the same damage you need to resist 8S in drain.

Here's a good example from our latest game (which we do not play this rule as required). Our combat mage cast a stunbolt at an opposing mage. He decided that it was worth it to overcast the spell to Force 12. After rolling his 18 dice for the spellcasting, he ended up with 10 hits. The Mage managed to get 4 hits on the resistance test. That gave our mage a total of 18 damage on the stunbolt. He had 5P worth of DV to cope with and still ended up with 1P damage from it. With this rule in effect he would have had 11P and would have ended up with 7P. Now granted that is nothing compared to what the other mage ended up with, but if that was the way it worked, he would never cast spells like that and would most likely switch to a different character that does not have those penalties.

But mundanes can do the same thing. I myself have. All you have to do is use the Barrett Mdl 121 with EX-EX rounds. I ended up after my attack with 12 hits and the target got no defense because of the silencer and the surprise. I also had made it a called shot to the head where there was no armor, so all he had was his body to defend against a 21P shot.

I don't think the issue is with using the rule in general. It's using the rule in relation to area effect spells where multiple Opposed Tests are taking place, thus resulting in a different number of net hits. Since only one Drain Resistance Test is made, how do you determine the modifier for that test based upon the differing net hits?

In other words, it's an optional rule that's not very well thought out. Best to either ignore it, go with the default rules, or just house rule it in any of the different ways already mentioned.

The rules cover that already. Only the highest number of net hits counts.

With the (optional) rule i think it brings the mage better into his role as more of a strategic one and not just being better than everybody else all the time. That is to save your awesome power and only use it when it really matters / is neccesary.

No. Not really.

Did they say that they wanted that? I like the change for a different reason, and that has to do with multi- rather than overcasting.

How does it effect multicasting, then? Because I don't see it.

QFT. This rule introduced a whole new mechanic. You can decide what to do with your net hits after the resistance roll. Remember that you need one net hit for the spell to succeed in the first place, but you can than decide to ignore that net hit and calculate DV and drain without it.
Nowhere else in the rules is this allowed. You can't decide to use less hits on a pistol shot after the target's dodge roll, because you need him alive...

-CJ

Multicasting permits you to multiply your positive dicepool modifiers from spec, totem, and combat spell focus.

Yes, but how does this apply to net hit usage?