SR4A - Nets Hits vs Hits, A question for Synner and other rule authors Options

[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.