SR4A - Nets Hits vs Hits, A question for Synner and other rule authors Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[apple]

First Question:

SR4A

as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.

and

The spellcaster can always choose to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.

What exactly does this mean? When do I have exactly choose which hits or net hits I use?

1) I can choose to use several net hits to increase the chance that my spell is not resistet in the opposed test but after the opposed test I can use less net hits for not increasing my drain.
Example: Stunbolt, magic+sorcery vs will+counterspell, 4 net hits, I choose that only one net hit is used => drain and damage only goes up by +1

2) I must choose the number of net hits used in the opposed test *before* the opposed test is made to determine my drain
Example1: Stunbolt, magic+sorcery = 8 hits, I choose only to use 2 hit, will+counterspell = 1 hit => 1 net hit, drain/damage +1
Example2: Stunbolt, magic+sorcery = 8 hits, I choose to use all 8 hits, will+counterspell = 1 hit => 7 net hit, drain/damage +7

------------------------------------------------

Second Question:
Synner mentioned that the Karma generation rules in RC will be updated for SR4A. I assume that the attribute cost for the karma generation system is increased from x3 to x5 to match the SR4A karma rules for attributes. Are other changes planed or can at least the basic races (human etc) be re-generated using the adapted karma genereration rules?

[HappyDaze]

For your first question, option 2) seems the most likely, especially for working out the Drain when multiple targets are concerned.

[Angier]

nice to see you around, apple. as you know I'm with HappyDaze. 2) seems to be the way to go.

Besides that I'd strongly recommend to release the RC errata ASAP or at least give us a post with the current stand of the karma sys version revision for the RC errata.

[HappyDaze]

as you know I'm with HappyDaze.

But it's not an exclusive relationship...

[Malicant]

2) does not make much sense to me. Both sides make their rolls at the same time, so it seems the caster can withdraw hits whenever he likes during an opposed test. If some errata or the FAQ states "Attacker FIRST! Defender SECOND!" it would be different, alas, I'm unaware of such a statement.

Regarding the second question I assume the total Karma available will be adjustet to represent the increase in cost, which would be a good reason why we have no details on that topic besides "We are working on it". If they simply adjustet the cost and leave it at that, they could have said so without referring to a future errata that will possibly take months to see the light of day.

[HappyDaze]

Actually, it makes more sense. If you're going to pull a punch, you do it beofre you know how well the other guy's going to take it, not after seeing his face deform.

[Malicant]

No it doesn't. It's an opposed test, not a test sequence. It's abstract. You the player can make decisions about what happens that your character never could. You can use Edge after the dust settles to change the outcome, for crying out loud. I really don't see how it makes more sense that attackers need to finish it up before defenders get to roll. Especially, since that is not even implicated in the rules.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I choose option 2 because I dub it the cooler answer.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Apple, You're asking if (1) you keep all hits rolled, to determine whether the spell is successful, and then decide how many you want to use to increase damage/drain? Or (2) you decide how many hits you want to keep, and hope that you have enough to hit the target at all? Is that it?

All, note that your GM can require you to make either of these choices before you learn what your opponent rolled. The first, obviously allows you to play it safe, dealing the minimum damage and drain. Damage equal to the force is still quite reasonable, and you can up it, when absolutely necessary. The second is risky. I think players will always be calculating the maximum drain they're willing and/or likely to take.

[Glyph]

I would go with Malicant and choose 1. It's bad enough that combat spells suddenly became much tougher, Drain-wise. Now you have to decide, in advance, how many hits to use? Direct combat spells are already risky enough, being an all-or-nothing deal, without forcing the mage to choose between potentially wiping himself out with Drain, or choosing a number of successes that might not be enough to do anything.

[Angier]

This sentence was already included in previous versions so it's not THAT new.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Given the wording: as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1, I would have to choose 1, since the wording implies that you have a choice to use net hits for increasing damage.

Is this actually the wording that's in the book? Is there any additional wording?

[apple]

It is a direct quote from the PDF ... and I didnt found any other relevant quote (of course sometimes I am blind).

SYL

[Zormal]

I would go with 1 just on the basis of fluent gameplay and fun.

Simply choosing how much drain you get is a lot faster than calculating the odds of the second choice.

Edit: Also... I feel that the second option might gimp direct combat spells too much.

[Glyph]

"Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target’s being on this fundamental level
with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing
basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value
of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1."

This gives the impression of fine-tuned control. Plus, while the wording might be open to interpretation, they wouldn't need to phrase it that way if it is done the #2 way. They could have simply said "as a result, every net hit also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1." So, after re-reading this snippet, I think #1 is the correct interpretation.

[Draco18s]

As a mage, I'd then overcast significantly more: and only take 1 net hit. I'm doing Force damage already, why take more drain than I need to?

[Malicant]

And that is the root of all evil, the reason why I dislike this change, at least as long as overcasting is not changed to be in line with its fluff. Well, I still would dislike it a little if overcasting is adjusted, because it screws the ratio of how force and hits affect drain and damage.

[Zormal]

Yes, overcasting definitely seems to be the 'way to go' with the new rules (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Synner]

Apple - As I understand your posting, option 1 is the correct one. Net hits are what you get after the Opposed Test is resolved. You can then fine tune the attack by controlling the amount of mana pumped into the direct combat spell (withholding net hits from the DV).

Example: A Magic 6 magician casting a Force 6 stunbolt at a security guard rolls 12 dice (Magic 6, Spellcasting 4, and a Spellcasting focus rating 2/Mentor spirit bonus), he gets 4 hits. The security guard now opposes with Willpower 3 and gets 1 hit. The magician is left with 3 net hits which he may chose whether or not to apply to the stunbolt's DV raising it to 9 DV. If he does increase the DV by 3 to 9, the Drain from the spell also goes from 3S (6/2, rounded down) to 6S. Had the magician overcast the stunbolt spell at Force 10, he could have chosen to raise the stunbolt's DV to 13 (or stick to 10, 11, or 12), but if he had done so the Drain would be 8P (10/2 + 3 net hits used).

In the case of area spells, the heighest number of net hits counts for Drain purposes.

I recognize the wording should have been more explicit, mea culpa, and I will attempt to get it tweaked in the print release.

[pbangarth]

What a wonderful example of how an advance PDF can help the print run! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[Malicant]

Thank you very much for clearing this up.

[Abschalten]

Example: A Magic 5 magician casting a Force 6 stunbolt at a security guard rolls 12 dice (Magic 5, Spellcasting 5, and a Spellcasting focus rating 2/Mentor spirit bonus), he gets 4 hits. The security guard now opposes with Willpower 3 and gets 1 hit. The magician is left with 3 net hits which he may chose whether or not to apply to the stunbolt's DV raising it to 9 DV. If he does increase the DV by 3, the Drain from the spell goes from 3S (6/2, rounded down) to 6S. Had the magician overcast the stunbolt spell at Force 10, he could have chosen to raise the stunbolt's DV to 13 (or stick to 10, 11, or 12), but if he had done so the Drain would be 8P (10/2 + 3 net hits used).

Wouldn't a Magic 5 magician casting a Force 6 spell be overcasting, and thus, suffering Physical drain? The example works if you make him a Magic 6 magician and make his pool 13 dice.

[Synner]

You are correct, it's been a long day and I mixed up two examples I was working on, my apologies. Fixed now.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Synner, do the authors have an official position on whether the player knows the exact number of net hits before he decides?

[Draco18s]

Doesn't matter, does it?

"I use 1 net hit." If he has 1 he gets the one, if he has 4, he gets the one. The operative word here is "net." "I use one hit" means that he doesn't know the opponent's roll, "I use 1 net hit" implies that if he has ANY net hits, he's only using one of them, how many successes the other guy got doesn't need to be known.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Ah, right. I was thinking in terms of... it being different.

[pbangarth]

Doesn't matter, does it?

"I use 1 net hit." If he has 1 he gets the one, if he has 4, he gets the one. The operative word here is "net." "I use one hit" means that he doesn't know the opponent's roll, "I use 1 net hit" implies that if he has ANY net hits, he's only using one of them, how many successes the other guy got doesn't need to be known.

That's not what Synner said. The choice of how many net hits to use is made after the opponent's roll has taken effect. The player knows how many total hits he got, knows how many net hits he has from which to choose, and therefore knows how many hits the opponent got to give him that number of net hits.

I'm not sure, now that I write this, why this matters.

[Caadium]

Yes, overcasting definitely seems to be the 'way to go' with the new rules (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I am aware that this post is probably not going to be making me any friends, but that doesn't bother me.

Let me start by saying, that this change to direct damage spells is something I was not sure about. After I sat down and did some math I've come to the conclusion that I like it. What I don't like is how it does seem to encourage people to overcast in an effort to skirt around the increased drain. That being said, I've come up with an idea that I'll be testing at my table that I think addresses this.

When overcasting a direct damage spell, each net hit will add 2 to the drain DV instead of the +1 as described in SR4A.

[Cain]

The problem is, on an overcast spell in SR4.5, you don't *have* to use any net successes for damage. So, that rule becomes pointless.

[Caadium]

The problem is, on an overcast spell in SR4.5, you don't *have* to use any net successes for damage. So, that rule becomes pointless.

RAW state, "The caster needs at least 1 net hit for the spell to take affect." (pg 195 BBB) On the next page (pg. 196 BBB) it goes on to say, "ANY net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increases the DV by 1 per net hit." (emphasis mine).

You can chose to only take 1 net hit, that was the purpose of this thread, but that can have a significant impact.

That alone takes your force 12 manabolt troll killer to a base of 8P drain (6p for spell +2p for 1 net hit). On a stunball, that force 12 overcast now has a drain of 9p base. Etc.


Some might argue that adding 2 DV to the drain is nothing, but in the group I run that risk would be huge. Since the argument is that overcasters will only use 1 net success then this number can be adjusted if it doesn't work, but for my group I don't expect any problems with it.

[knasser]

I'm not sure, now that I write this, why this matters.

Well it has the effect of giving players fine-grained control over how much damage they do which changes how we think of casting such a spell and reduces tension. If the player knows that they cast a Force 6 spell and knows that they got four net hits, then they can directly choose whether they want to do 7,8,9 or 10 points of damage. There's a lot of control there. I liken it to shooting someone with a firearm and then after having hit them, choosing how accurate you want your shot to be. I kind of like the magician choosing how hard to try without having that ability to casually fine tune the results. Adds to the drama and fits how I saw Direct Combat spells.

[Zormal]

I liken it to shooting someone with a firearm and then after having hit them, choosing how accurate you want your shot to be. I kind of like the magician choosing how hard to try without having that ability to casually fine tune the results. Adds to the drama and fits how I saw Direct Combat spells.

This is just my personal preference, but I like the fine tune control. Makes for more fun.

The way I see it happening, the spellcaster breaks through the defenses of the target, and then decides how much damage to do (which affects both damage and drain). From this point of view, it seems a bit strange that the spellcaster would 'pull a muscle' when his opponent rolls badly, do more damage than intended AND hurt himself more in the process.

Not a critique, just my personal opinion. Probably not in accordance with the real fluff.

[knasser]

Not a critique, just my personal opinion. Probably not in accordance to the real fluff.

That's fine. Mine's just personal opinion, too. At least it's easy to change the system one way or another. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[HappyDaze]

I'm still going to stick with deciding how many successes to keep - and basing the added Drain off of all of these - before the target(s) resist. It feels better to me.

[hobgoblin]

why do i get the mental image of a wizboy casting a combat spell, going "huh?" and then "oh crap!" before dropping like a sack of something? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

im tempted to go with no picking, the number of net hits gets used as is, and the drain will match that.

[Malicant]

It won't feel better to the mage suffering from random drain, but that is his problem.

[hobgoblin]

hey, if one want dependable drain, use indirect spells (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Malicant]

Why not add such a random drain thingy to everything? I mean, every spell channels mana, right? So with every spell you should have the fun of not knowing if you die from using it, especially, if you use it well. Success must be punished!

[It trolls!]

I'm with Malicant on this. While this rule does something to balance DCS against ICS, it promotes overcasting even more, by PUNISHING you for not doing it in most cases.

Example: A Mage with Magic 5 casts Stunbolt against an avg. opponent, so let's assume the caster wants to score 10 boxes of damage since thats about the stun track of most metahumans.

Old rules:

Regular: Stunbolt 5 + 5 net hits: 2S drain - guaranteed 5 boxes of damage if it goes through - rest depending on luck or edge use.
Overcast: Stunbolt 10: 4P drain - guaranteed 10 boxes of damage plus any net hits you want to use.

New rules:

Regular: Stunbolt 5 + 5 net hits: 7S drain! - still depending on the same luck as in the old rules, only with more drain.
Overcast: Stunbolt 10: Still 4P drain +1 for any net hits you want to use but you're already doing 10 boxes of damage.

Before, at least with a lot of luck or edge, you could still achieve similar results as an overcast by regular casts at a lower drain DV.
Now you're even being actively penalized if you land a lucky roll and get a lot of hits, so you have even more motivation to overcast all the time.
To address this, someone in another thread proposed of going from Force/2+Mods to Force+Mods when overcasting and I think that is a pretty good houserule, at least for DCS.
If you overcast, you still get a higher base DV no matter how bad your roll is as long as the spell goes through. But if an overcasted spell is resisted, like Stunbolt 10 in my example, you still have to soak 7P drain, while a resisted regular spell only leaves you with 2S to be soaked.

[Malicant]

The best (i.e. most entertaining) argument defending those changes I've heard so far:
Overcasting is the norm, it is what you should do, regular casts are something you do rarely. That argument was straightfaced serious attempt to justify the rules changes, claiming, they balance direct combat spells, and overcasting is and never was a problem.

Seriously, WTF?

[It trolls!]

Again for the record, I did not and do not consider overcasting a problem with Direct Combat Spells nor that it is too common. So, yes, as Cain pointed out the system does now favor overcasting of Direct Combat Spells - and taking physical damage from Drain as a result.

Ok, now I think hell froze over.

[Malicant]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[BlueMax]

This is just my personal preference, but I like the fine tune control. Makes for more fun.

The way I see it happening, the spellcaster breaks through the defenses of the target, and then decides how much damage to do (which affects both damage and drain). From this point of view, it seems a bit strange that the spellcaster would 'pull a muscle' when his opponent rolls badly, do more damage than intended AND hurt himself more in the process.

Not a critique, just my personal opinion. Probably not in accordance with the real fluff.

How I have seen it for 19 or so years
Initial drain is " I am opening a big farking whole to the other plane" How big? Force big
The variable aspect "This is how much energy came through and every drop is going to cost me"

Its an odd dilemma. While it does take skill to control how much comes through the mana tap, the skill roll is only on the spellcasting. Drain is now left to a pure force of will(two stats). Ideally, the choice would be up front to streamline actions. However, the skill only comes at the front and not for drain, so man its a toughy.

I have this oddball unheard of plan, play it for 6 months before complaining with full force. Or I could just start complaining with Fool Force.

BlueMax
/ Back in my day, drain was force+modifiers none of this pansy 1/2 force nonsensne

[Shinobi Killfist]

Why not add such a random drain thingy to everything? I mean, every spell channels mana, right? So with every spell you should have the fun of not knowing if you die from using it, especially, if you use it well. Success must be punished!

Well, I heard tell that there are some German socialist types who design the game, so yeah success must be punished.

[Malicant]

Well, I heard tell that there are some German socialist types who design the game, so yeah success must be punished.

Friggin' germans, can't stand them, if something is fun, they must ruin it. Gaming and fun are exclusive concepts to most them, because fun is something you don't have, ever. Fun is an abomination to god in certain areas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

Is it racism if you are talking about your own people? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[pbangarth]

Overcasting any spell, Orgasm or Powerball, to the full limit of your power (double your Magic rating) should carry serious risk of death. This is certainly part of the fluff of SR, but does not come into the game mechanics. A magician with MAG 6 casting any spell at Force 12 should BLEED.

End of story.

[Angier]

This is part of a certain part of fluff, not all. there exist stories where a mage casts a fireball and is knocked out by it and others where a mage casts a whole bunch of spells and goes on to ruin the day of his opposition. just because the first one is more dramatic doesn't mean it is representative for the design aims of the devs.

[Cain]

RAW state, "The caster needs at least 1 net hit for the spell to take affect." (pg 195 BBB) On the next page (pg. 196 BBB) it goes on to say, "ANY net hits scored on the Spellcasting Test increases the DV by 1 per net hit." (emphasis mine).

You can chose to only take 1 net hit, that was the purpose of this thread, but that can have a significant impact.

That alone takes your force 12 manabolt troll killer to a base of 8P drain (6p for spell +2p for 1 net hit). On a stunball, that force 12 overcast now has a drain of 9p base. Etc.

Those are the current rules. We're discussing the SR4.5 changes, which allow you to choose to use net successes for damage.

This is part of a certain part of fluff, not all. there exist stories where a mage casts a fireball and is knocked out by it and others where a mage casts a whole bunch of spells and goes on to ruin the day of his opposition. just because the first one is more dramatic doesn't mean it is representative for the design aims of the devs.

I have *never*. not in 20 years, seen a mage go unconscious from drain, and that includes the SR3 mage who threw a Force 20D spell. Not once has it happened, in my experience.

[Angier]

like I said - there ARE stories of it in the fluff. and counter-examples.

[hermit]

I have *never*. not in 20 years, seen a mage go unconscious from drain, and that includes the SR3 mage who threw a Force 20D spell. Not once has it happened, in my experience.

It did happen to my first Sr character ever, unter SR1 rules. Of course, I blew all magic pool in casting and resisted drain with only my base attribute. Hey, I was new to this, and 11 years old.

But it DID happen. I have seen it with another character too, whose player made a similar mistake. It will not happen if you know your magic and play intelligently, of course.

[knasser]

Because I haven't seen it pointed out yet (apologies if I missed it): The notion that this change is to encourage the use of Indirect Combat spells may have some merit, but keep in mind that a separate change has already made Indirect more appealing. The increase in Object Resistance has made Direct Combat spells significantly less effective against drones, vehicles, etc. The value of this change in balancing Indirect and Direct should be considered slightly less than it otherwise would have been if we keep this in mind.

[Glyph]

Don't forget that indirect combat spells have been screwed over, too. Counterspelling is used for the initial resistance instead of damage soaking, now.

The spellcaster being able to choose the net hits is the only thing left that gives the mage any hope with the new rules. Making the mage pick his number of successes beforehand doesn't add "mystery" to the game - it makes mages all but unplayable - the new rules make them virtually unplayable already, and adding that extra difficulty would be the nail in the coffin. I'm completely with Synner as far as that goes, although I still think the changes to both direct and indirect spells were ill-conceived and completely unwarranted.

[Dunsany]

I have *never*. not in 20 years, seen a mage go unconscious from drain, and that includes the SR3 mage who threw a Force 20D spell. Not once has it happened, in my experience.

Luckily for me, I guess, our experiences differ. I've seen mages fall unconscious several times, twice being my own character. It tends not to happen when the characters are prepared and everything is going well since other people can pick up the slack and the mage doesn't have to cast all that many spells and can easily get medical attention during the slow times. But when things go to hell and you have to keep casting and there's no time for a couple characters to stop and take a break drain can add up fast.

It's a lot of fun to have your position be in danger of being overrun and having to decide between one last spell to hold it off or hope that your teammates pick up your slack if you don't. I'm sorry you haven't had that experience, but I highly recommend it.

[Dunsany]

Because I haven't seen it pointed out yet (apologies if I missed it): The notion that this change is to encourage the use of Indirect Combat spells may have some merit, but keep in mind that a separate change has already made Indirect more appealing. The increase in Object Resistance has made Direct Combat spells significantly less effective against drones, vehicles, etc. The value of this change in balancing Indirect and Direct should be considered slightly less than it otherwise would have been if we keep this in mind.

I agree, and I'd be very interested in knowing what the purposes of the changes actually were. I may or may not agree about whether the changes are a "good idea", but I'd be more inclined to use them if I knew what problems the authors were attempting to fix. As far as I can tell the object resistance change will seriously harm magic's effectiveness against technology, and not just for combat spells. I'm all for indirect spells being the choice for mages who want to take out drones, but I like the fact that currently they are much better, but if you're a very powerful mage (throwing 12+dice) using a direct combat spell is an option. Not a great option, mind you, but it's there. The problem with the change, in my opinion, is that this is not the only effect of the new object resistance. It also changes how many dice a mage will need to make illusions effective against drones. This seems to make illusions next to useless given the prevalence of drones.

So, if the intent is to make indirect combat spells the go-to spell to use against technology the changes seem overbroad in response. Perhaps an increase in object resistance for "combat spells" would have been better? But perhaps the intent was to limit magic's effectiveness against technology across the board. Given this edition's changes to bring magic and technology closer together and less at odds with one another, I'd find that purpose to be a bit odd. No matter what the reason for the changes, I'd like to know them.

[Mikado]

What I don't understand is why they took a mechanic that did not follow any other combat mechanic in the game and changed it so it does not even follow the magic mechanic.
Seriously, what happened here?
Direct combat spells where a problem, yes. But this "solution" does not fix the problem only sweep it under the rug as it where. Fix the problem by making it so unappealing to use is not a fix.

The better solution would be to bring Direct Combat spells under the same combat mechanic as everything else. Give them a "dodge" test. Use willpower or intuition (I vote intuition) as a dodge. Like someone subconsciously shifting their aura to stop it being flooded with mana.
Thus following the dodge/resist mechanic.

Also, shifting the +2 drain modifier for "elemental" spells to direct combat spells.
Given that (most) indirect spells use 1/2 armor and direct spells negate armor switching the two make sense.

Also... using the same mechanic for healing spells uses essence loss as a dice pool modifier for the casting mage. (maybe an optional rule...) (I would add it to the "dodge" test to make math easy when casting "Ball" spells)

All of that still makes Direct Combat spells useful and brings them in line with all other combat mechanics and magic mechanics in the game. It actually fixes the problem not just cover it up.

[Larsine]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

It smelled like that over here before the SR4A was published.

Lars

[Zormal]

Now you're even being actively penalized if you land a lucky roll and get a lot of hits

I'm *so* with you on this one. Who'd want to play, if you get hurt by doing well...

Edit: Just to make it clear, this means I'm happy with the way you choose net hits (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[JoelHalpern]

In a conceptual sense, the mage gets hit coming and going on direct spells now.
On the one hand, extra success on his spell casting are either painful or of reduced value,
and on the other hand, it has always been the case that extra success on drain resistance don't do you any good at all.

It does seem strange that rolling many successes, which is normally consider a great thing, is now either irrelevant, or a good way to hurt yourself. If they wanted to up the base drain by 1, they could have just upped the base drain by 1.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

[Raizer]

Can someone help me understand this contradiction of rules?

p 183/184
Note that objects targeted by Combat spells get to
resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor
rating x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist
the damage (Barriers, p. 166).

vs. page 206

Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are treated
as Success Tests; the caster must achieve enough hits to beat the item’s
Object Resistance (p. 183). Net hits increase damage as normal (the
object does not get a resistance test).

[Mikado]

Can someone help me understand this contradiction of rules?

p 183/184
Note that objects targeted by Combat spells get to
resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor
rating x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist
the damage (Barriers, p. 166).

vs. page 206

Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are treated
as Success Tests; the caster must achieve enough hits to beat the item’s
Object Resistance (p. 183). Net hits increase damage as normal (the
object does not get a resistance test).

I think they forgot to include indirect in that somewhere...
Note that objects targeted by indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage (Barriers, p. 166).

[Caadium]

It does seem strange that rolling many successes, which is normally consider a great thing, is now either irrelevant, or a good way to hurt yourself. If they wanted to up the base drain by 1, they could have just upped the base drain by 1.

Doing the math it really isn't as bad as people think. A manabolt with 3 net successes does the exact same drain DV and damage DV as an flamethrower with 3 net successes. The difference is that the manabolt's damage is all automatic and their is no resistance roll. Conversely, the indirect spell has an elemental affect that comes into play. None of this even takes into account the situational variables that make one type better suited than the other.

If you want to say that Powerbolt is a better comparison to indirect spells because they are both based on body that is fine. For the same drain DV you are doing 1 damage DV less with a powerbolt, but it is still damage that can not be resisted. Again, all other situational variables being equal, I'd sacrifice 1 damage DV instead of letting the target roll Body + 1/2 impact armor to reduce it.

According to the rules a threshold of 3 is considered Hard. At my table, where players roll in the neighborhood of 10-12 dice on things they are good at, we are talking about 3 net hits on an average spell. I do not see it as being penalized when getting enough hits for a hard success, and increasing the damage respectively, puts you at a comparable drain value to a spell that gets a soak roll.

[knasser]

I think they forgot to include indirect in that somewhere...
Note that objects targeted by indirect Combat spells get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack; use their Armor rating x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects) to resist the damage (Barriers, p. 166).

I noticed that earlier and was confused. Until I hear otherwise I'm also assuming it's a mistake. It's big news if it isn't!

[Starmage21]

Synner, do the authors have an official position on whether the player knows the exact number of net hits before he decides?

The example makes this a moot point. Hits-resistance = net hits

[Falconer]

Here's a catch I see in here a lot of people are missing. As soon as you have any net hits, the spell is successfull, After that, it's simply a choice of how much drain do you want to risk for damage.

"Every net hit used to increase damage"

Synner's example explicitly uses the original 3 net hits to say, yes the spell worked and had effect. Then he turns around and uses none of them to increase damage. His exact words are "Which he may then choose..." I don't see a huge issue w/ this outside of the fact that SR combat spells were already somewhat gimped.

The best fireball was already an incendiery grenade. Now it's even more so. The best single target 'damage' spell already an APDS round (fired twice per round even!). Now the drain seems pretty punishing leaving only one time they're usefull... when armor is rediculously overwhelming. Oh well, maybe eventually every net hit over a firearms test will add to recoil.

[Starmage21]

It did happen to my first Sr character ever, unter SR1 rules. Of course, I blew all magic pool in casting and resisted drain with only my base attribute. Hey, I was new to this, and 11 years old.

But it DID happen. I have seen it with another character too, whose player made a similar mistake. It will not happen if you know your magic and play intelligently, of course.

Agreed. Once the mage gets into the hands of intelligent players who are capable of doing math, the chance for knocking yourself out from drain reduces considerably. You dont see mages knock themselves out from spells because when they get close to the edge THEY STOP CASTING!(and that usually means they do nothing for the rest of the run that involves risking drain).

I started playing Shadowrun in the initial days of SR2 because my parents bought a box of game books from someone they knew when I was first getting into D&D & Battletech at the age of 10 or 11 (bout 15 years ago). That box had SR1 in it, and I started asking around and soon found out SR2 was the game. I was a kid then, and pretty unoriginal so I played Decker/Mage combos non-stop and quite a few of them died after going KO from the drain from spellcasting.

I STILL to this day dont bother with conjuring spirits. I keep a F4 usually on hand to help me out in a pinch because SR4 allows that to be the case without spending hard-earned cash on an unbound spirit.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Thematically speaking...

I'm channeling energy through my body, and using it to hurt someone. How much energy? Force. How much do I hurt that guy? If I can hurt him at all, it's Force. Beyond that, it depends on my success test. How much does that energy hurt me, in the process? Let me make another roll.

Enter SR4A. Now why would a better-cast spell do more potential damage to me? Because if I cast it better, I get more energy than I had originally intended.

It kinda makes sense. But other spells that depend on raw energy for effect should have the same mechanic. Like armor, barrier, fling... and indirect combat spells.

[Glyph]

Thematically speaking...

I'm channeling energy through my body, and using it to hurt someone. How much energy? Force. How much do I hurt that guy? If I can hurt him at all, it's Force. Beyond that, it depends on my success test. How much does that energy hurt me, in the process? Let me make another roll.

Enter SR4A. Now why would a better-cast spell do more potential damage to me? Because if I cast it better, I get more energy than I had originally intended.

It kinda makes sense. But other spells that depend on raw energy for effect should have the same mechanic. Like armor, barrier, fling... and indirect combat spells.

But even then... the amount of raw energy you're channeling is your hits, not your net hits. You don't take more Drain from casting better - you take more Drain from affecting the target better.

[Mercurian]

The way I see it, thematically speaking, the total hits are the process of of casting the spell against the target. The target resists, reducing the amount of energy that reaches it. The net hits are the strength of the mystic conduit between the caster and the target, establishing how much mana the the mage can potentially send down the link.

Like Wind, it seems to me that this would make sense for any spell that relies on pure power.

I don't know if that makes sense. Trying to cram a post in between phone calls/customers is kind of a pain... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[pbangarth]

Intuitively, it would make sense if the Drain of a spell were directly linked to the Force, and be left at that straight across the board. But it isn't. There are many qualifiers that modify the Drain, both up and down. A perusal of those qualifiers suggests that the more one tries to control the flow of mana through his own aura/person, affecting factors such as area, material, permanence, etc., the more the mana affects them, in the form of Drain (See p. 163, Street Magic - Drain Modifiers Table).

In this respect, the SR4A modification to Direct Combat Spells falls directly into line with the philosophy behind Drain modifiers. Unfortunately, the modification stretches the broader paradigm of Shadowrun: the Dice Pool represents how good you are at a task and hits represent how well you perform the task. The Drain rules have walked the line between these two guiding principles of Shadowrun for a long time. If one takes exception with the SR4A modification to Drain, then all aspects of Drain should be re-examined, particularly those that make Drain higher if more control is exerted on the flow of mana.

[Falconer]

I've had a little time to think this over. And I can see why they're doing this. But at the same time, this is far too extreme as well. The problem is they've 'fixed' the extreme cases as best I can tell, but in the process destroyed most any capacity for low-rating magic users to even think of trying these spells. (god forbid you use edge to increase net hits to increase damage! now as it stands any use of edge there pretty much necessitates using it again on your drain soak). And my problem here is the extra damage comes at 1:1 w/ extra drain.

As anyone who's played chars w/ only a magic of say 4, operating in a typical background count of 1.... okay now I'm already operating at Magic3, and all my spells already have their force increased by 1 for drain purposes. Stated again, casting at force3, already invokes force4 drain in these fairly common areas. Please correct me if I have any of that wrong.

I think a far better solution would have been to continue the above model. Any net hits MAY (not must, not min 1) can be used to increase the force of the spell. This would effectively increase the drain by 1 per 2 net hits (as well as make the old saw of, I cast at force 5 just so I get 5/2==2 drain less relevant as now net hits could and would increase that reliably and w/ a little bit of unpredictability).

Another catch in here is this. Astrally, the only combat spells you can use are direct combat. So any magician worth his salt still really needs one, maybe two in his arsenal.

[Dakka Dakka]

In the case of area spells, the heighest number of net hits counts for Drain purposes.

Synner, does that mean that in case of area spells you

a) always have to suffer the maximum drain according to your net hits, no matter how many you use to increase the damage to each target in the area?

or

b) you can choose the extra damage for each target in the area of effect, but the highest number applies to the drain?

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

I've had a little time to think this over. And I can see why they're doing this. But at the same time, this is far too extreme as well. The problem is they've 'fixed' the extreme cases as best I can tell, but in the process destroyed most any capacity for low-rating magic users to even think of trying these spells.

Nah - they've created new extreme-case problems.

My current example is Skippy the janitor - Body 1, being in the AOE with a couple drones you really, really need to take out NOW. Pretty much an automatic +6 to the drain...even though he's an incidental target.

Expect hamster balls glued to combat drones as direct AOE combat spell inhibitors.

[Draco18s]

Expect hamster balls glued to combat drones as direct AOE combat spell inhibitors.

No. Rocks. Small rocks.

[Dakka Dakka]

Hamsters are actually better, assuming they have a BOD of 1. One die is better than a threshold of 1. In 2/3 cases the net hits on the hamster are equal to the hits on the spellcasting test and not hits -1. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[knasser]

Nah - they've created new extreme-case problems.

My current example is Skippy the janitor - Body 1, being in the AOE with a couple drones you really, really need to take out NOW. Pretty much an automatic +6 to the drain...even though he's an incidental target.

Expect hamster balls glued to combat drones as direct AOE combat spell inhibitors.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Oh, I can so see that in a game...

Player: "WTF ? Why does that Steel Lynx have hamsters glued to it?
*casts spell*
Player: Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! *explodes*

[Draco18s]

Hamsters are actually better, assuming they have a BOD of 1. One die is better than a threshold of 1. In 2/3 cases the net hits on the hamster are equal to the hits on the spellcasting test and not hits -1. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

Touche. I was thinking an empty hamster ball with an OR of maybe 2 (plastic/maufactured).

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Nah - they've created new extreme-case problems.

My current example is Skippy the janitor - Body 1, being in the AOE with a couple drones you really, really need to take out NOW. Pretty much an automatic +6 to the drain...even though he's an incidental target.

Expect hamster balls glued to combat drones as direct AOE combat spell inhibitors.

But that doesn't necessarily add to the drain. It doesn't even reduce the damage to your intended targets.

Three people in AOE - one resists with four hits, another with three and Skippy gets none. You cast at F6, and rolled six hits. Everyone will take at least six damage, and your head doesn't explode. Now, how many net hits do you want to use? You could say none, and you roll your easy drain test. But you have up to 6. You have to take out the two high-threat targets, and you were hoping for ten damage. The GM didn't tell you how many hits each target rolled, but you're hoping no more than two, because you haven't been rolling very well on drain tonight. You say you'll use four. Your drain level is upped by 4. You only had two net hits against the first, so he takes 8 damage. The second takes 9. Skippy nearly explodes, due to 10 damage.

If Skippy wasn't on the scene, the damage to the other two targets wouldn't have changed. If the GM told you how many net hits you had on each target, you would have chosen the same damage/drain level as if Skippy weren't on the scene.

Here's how I plan on playing it. The GM doesn't tell you how many hits you got, but after you declare, he tells you the max drain you take, based on the max net hits you had. In other words, you don't know how many net hits you got, but you can't take more damage than you got net hits. This has the disadvantage of letting you do more damage/drain than necessary when a low-WPR bystander/target is in the AOE. We'll see how it goes.

[Draco18s]

Except that it has been very clearly stated that the mage knows how many net hits he has so he can choose to apply them for more damage or not. None of this blind bidding crap.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Except that it has been very clearly stated that the mage knows how many net hits he has so he can choose to apply them for more damage or not. None of this blind bidding crap.

Okay, I guess I missed that part. Doesn't really change anything, except that worst-case scenario I mentioned at the end. But it's not really blind bidding. You know how much damage you want to inflict. You know what minimum is (force). Tell the GM "I hope I rolled 4, because that's how many I intend to apply." She replies, "sorry, you only got one."

[Draco18s]

Okay, I guess I missed that part. Doesn't really change anything, except that worst-case scenario I mentioned at the end. But it's not really blind bidding. You know how much damage you want to inflict. You know what minimum is (force). Tell the GM "I hope I rolled 4, because that's how many I intend to apply." She replies, "sorry, you only got one."

Blind bidding does fail though, say Force 10. "I don't want to apply any net hits to damage" vs. "I take no hits to counter his resistance."

IE the first one does damage for no increased drain, the second says that you have to choose how many of your hits you'll pit against the other guy: choose too few and the spell might fizzle, choose too many and you might kill yourself all based on how well the other guy rolled.

[Cain]

Apparently, net successes used to determine if you hit or not are independent of net successes used to increase damage.

Let's say you throw a F6 manabolt, and get 4 successes. Your target rolls 2 successes. You have affected your target with two net successes, that you may choose to apply to increase damage (and thus, Drain). You can choose to apply zero successes to damage, and your spell still takes full effect.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

I'd rather like to see one of the devs confirm that for AOEs though - it doesn't seem to be spelled out in the rules, and the comments are all over the place.

So: mage has 5 hits on an AOE spell, targets have 1, 3, and 4 hits...how much is his drain increased?

Can he say 0 net hits for damage and hit all of them for force damage and standard drain, or does he have to say 4+ to affect all of them?

[cndblank]

Since a Mage is pumping Mana in to the target, I think it is more like a samurai walking his SMG fire in to a target and then determining if he is going to keep pumping rounds in to the target or conserve ammo.

I mean all a person has to do to convert a short burst in to a long burst is keep holding the trigger down physically or mentally. The reason you use short bursts is it is easier to keep on target and conserves ammo.

So once a Mage has linked up with his target and cast the spell, the question is does he keep pumping Mana in for a fraction of a second more than needed to cast the spell and pay the piper in the form of higher drain or does he cut it off and keep the drain under control.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Blind bidding does fail though, say Force 10. "I don't want to apply any net hits to damage" vs. "I take no hits to counter his resistance."

IE the first one does damage for no increased drain, the second says that you have to choose how many of your hits you'll pit against the other guy: choose too few and the spell might fizzle, choose too many and you might kill yourself all based on how well the other guy rolled.

Draco, I don't get what you are talking about. You can't choose too few, letting the spell fizzle. You can only choose not to use net hits to increase damage. If you roll more hits than an opponent, the spell affects him. Period. It does damage equal to force. Now how many of those net hits do you want to use to increase damage/drain? Pick a number: 1 through the number of net hits you rolled against the target. That's add it to the force. For an area spell, you pick a number from 1 to the maximum you rolled against any opponent, and the damage done to each opponent is equal to Force plus either the number of net hits you rolled for that opponent, or the number you chose, whichever is lower.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Apparently, net successes used to determine if you hit or not are independent of net successes used to increase damage.

Let's say you throw a F6 manabolt, and get 4 successes. Your target rolls 2 successes. You have affected your target with two net successes, that you may choose to apply to increase damage (and thus, Drain). You can choose to apply zero successes to damage, and your spell still takes full effect.

You are correct, except for one thing. Net hits used to determine if you hit are not net hits. Only after you have succeeded, and you total them up, do they become net hits. But that's just a technicality of wording.

I'd rather like to see one of the devs confirm that for AOEs though - it doesn't seem to be spelled out in the rules, and the comments are all over the place.

So: mage has 5 hits on an AOE spell, targets have 1, 3, and 4 hits...how much is his drain increased?

Can he say 0 net hits for damage and hit all of them for force damage and standard drain, or does he have to say 4+ to affect all of them?

The answer is apparent once you actually roll the dice. According to your example, you have 4, 2 and 1 net hits. If you say you want to use 1 net hit to stage up the damage, then it's obvious what happens, right? Now let's say you want to use 4 net hits to stage up the damage. The first target takes 4 more DV, right? Sure. But what about the third guy? You only had one net hit on him. It doesn't make sense to say you did 4 extra damage when you only had one net hit against him, so he only takes 1 extra. But you chose 4, and you did 4 extra damage to the first guy, so that's how much drain you take.

Synner did say on page 1 of this post...

In the case of area spells, the highest number of net hits counts for Drain purposes.

[Draco18s]

Draco, I don't get what you are talking about. You can't choose too few, letting the spell fizzle. You can only choose not to use net hits to increase damage.

I give up on you. Because I was pointing out the difference between the previously posted understanding (wrong)* and the correct way (correct). You just told me that the post I made saying what the wrong way was was in fact the wrong way.

No.

Shit.

I think that's what I said.

*Or at least my interpretation of the words in the post

[wind_in_the_ston...]

*shrug*

[TheOOB]

I've personally always liked the idea that even for a magician the quickest and easiest way to take out a target is a bullet to the head. I think magicians where too versatile, too powerful before, and I like this along with the object threshold rating. You hire a street sami for combat, you hire a mage to turn your team invisible, implant a suggestion in the guards mind, or see whats going on past the next door.

[Glyph]

I've personally always liked the idea that even for a magician the quickest and easiest way to take out a target is a bullet to the head.

Bah, you've just seen Wizards too many times. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Draco18s]

Bah, you've just seen Wizards too many times. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

That movie is wacked out. Of course, the creator WAS on LSD at the time...

[Dunsany]

I've personally always liked the idea that even for a magician the quickest and easiest way to take out a target is a bullet to the head. I think magicians where too versatile, too powerful before, and I like this along with the object threshold rating. You hire a street sami for combat, you hire a mage to turn your team invisible, implant a suggestion in the guards mind, or see whats going on past the next door.

Then perhaps we simply have two very different view of what Shadowrun is. In my view, the game is designed so that every "problem" has many solutions. You don't just hire a street samurai for combat, you hire a combat specialist. Whether that specialist happens to be a magician, adept, street samurai, or some combination of these easily recognizable "classes." You hire a medic for healing and you hire an infiltration specialist to sneak into places. Whether these people heal and sneak around with technology or magic is up to the character and the group. Since working together and supporting others with magic and technology usually ends up making someone better at their chosen role. What's the problem with that?

[Dakka Dakka]

My opinion exactly. The Runner's Companion seems to say the same. There are are essays about the different roles in a team and most have one mundane and one awakened build suggestion.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

The answer is apparent once you actually roll the dice. According to your example, you have 4, 2 and 1 net hits. If you say you want to use 1 net hit to stage up the damage, then it's obvious what happens, right? Now let's say you want to use 4 net hits to stage up the damage. The first target takes 4 more DV, right? Sure. But what about the third guy? You only had one net hit on him. It doesn't make sense to say you did 4 extra damage when you only had one net hit against him, so he only takes 1 extra. But you chose 4, and you did 4 extra damage to the first guy, so that's how much drain you take.

There's plenty of GMs out there that will say if you "use one net hit" that you'll only hit someone with less than one resist hit. There are also a number that will rule it as above (that's certainly how I'm leaning.)

Which is why I noted that the comments about how this is supposed to work are all over the place and asked for a Dev to state the rules-as-intended clearly. Synner's one-line answer didn't address which targets would be struck, only that the drain from an AOE is always worst-case for the mage, given the struck targets and "net hits" used.

I don't really want to see opinions rehashed (yet again) over this, I'd like a actual official answer.