what's the big deal with overcasting? Options

[Malachi]

Except Drain is not increased by Net Hits used, but by Net Hits used for damage, and you get to choose how many you wish to use for damage.

It is entirely acceptable to achieve 1+ Net Hits, enough for the spell to take effect, and apply none of them to increasing the DV, & thus none of them apply for increasing the Drain.

Yeah, this is the part that I will not be using in my game. I'm not going to let the Magician Character adjust "net hits" after the defensive roll has been made. In my games, the Magician will have to choose how many hits to keep after the initial Spellcasting Test only. It'll be a gamble on his part as he tries to "guess" how many hits the opposition will generate (no I will not tell him the opponent's Willpower or the presence of Counterspelling if he doesn't already know) balanced by the danger of increased Drain. Any Net Hits the Magician generates are always used to increase the DV of the spell (isn't that what you're doing when you throw those dice on the Spellcasting test?) and thus will increase the Drain.

[BlueMax]

Yeah, this is the part that I will not be using in my game. I'm not going to let the Magician Character adjust "net hits" after the defensive roll has been made. In my games, the Magician will have to choose how many hits to keep after the initial Spellcasting Test only. It'll be a gamble on his part as he tries to "guess" how many hits the opposition will generate (no I will not tell him the opponent's Willpower or the presence of Counterspelling if he doesn't already know) balanced by the danger of increased Drain. Any Net Hits the Magician generates are always used to increase the DV of the spell (isn't that what you're doing when you throw those dice on the Spellcasting test?) and thus will increase the Drain.

I honestly can't understand why your way isn't the official way.

[Zurai]

In other words, you're banning direct combat spells.

[BlueMax]

e the Drain.

EDIT: Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician.

Very neat. Still uses a mechanism without looped steps (caster, target done instead of caster target castor)

[Malachi]

Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician. For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

[pbangarth]

Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician. For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

Oh... Malachi ... I LIKE this one!

This is the first alternative I've seen proposed on DS that doesn't look like a self-stimulating accountant's fantasy. There -is- the issue of not conforming to the general format of combat resolution, perhaps countered by now being more like the other broad magical function, Summoning, but it sure would give a great feel to magical combat... the flow of mana back and forth... the brains leaking out of ears that tried too hard ... the consequences of picking on someone you should have left to the sammies... I like it.

[Ryu]

Maybe choosing used hits instead of used net hits could be the punishment for overcasting direct combat spells. As a houserule for those who dislike overcasting, but want to keep direct combat spells.

[Mikado]

Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician. For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

Wow, I like this. It nerfs direct combat spells and uses a mechanic already in place instead of changing a mechanic.

[Zurai]

It's certainly a more elegant solution than the current one, that's for sure. It still does nothing for overcasting, but the developers said they weren't trying to nerf overcasting, so...

[Draco18s]

Yeah, this is the part that I will not be using in my game. I'm not going to let the Magician Character adjust "net hits" after the defensive roll has been made. In my games, the Magician will have to choose how many hits to keep after the initial Spellcasting Test only. It'll be a gamble on his part as he tries to "guess" how many hits the opposition will generate (no I will not tell him the opponent's Willpower or the presence of Counterspelling if he doesn't already know) balanced by the danger of increased Drain. Any Net Hits the Magician generates are always used to increase the DV of the spell (isn't that what you're doing when you throw those dice on the Spellcasting test?) and thus will increase the Drain.

You're still going to see more overcast spells than normal-cast. I know that in a situation where I don't know the target's willpower and the presence of counterspelling I'd choose 3 hits to use against them.

If they roll average on Average Willpower (3) and Exceptional Counterspelling (6) then they'll tie me. Underaverage roll, lack of CS or lower-than-average willpower and I'll likely have 1 to 2 net hits, making my drain managable (and the target out cold) versus using ALL my net hits on a normal-cast spell and taking 50% more drain (and the target is still standing).

[BlueMax]

You're still going to see more overcast spells than normal-cast. I know that in a situation where I don't know the target's willpower and the presence of counterspelling I'd choose 3 hits to use against them.

If they roll average on Average Willpower (3) and Exceptional Counterspelling (6) then they'll tie me. Underaverage roll, lack of CS or lower-than-average willpower and I'll likely have 1 to 2 net hits, making my drain managable (and the target out cold) versus using ALL my net hits on a normal-cast spell and taking 50% more drain (and the target is still standing).

We are all different. I want my foes down and wouldn't take the risk of limiting myself to 3, I would go as high as Drain + First Aid could fix me.

BlueMax
pushing the problem downstream

[Caadium]

Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician. For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

This is an interesting prospect and makes sense on a conceptual level. Unfortunately, I don't see this as really being enough to balance direct combat spells with indirect. In a nutshell I say this because most targets of direct combat spells have the stats to get about 1 success to resist (willpower 3 resisting a stunbolt for example). Given the low base drain this one extra success won't really slow down the full-auto stunslingers.

Conversely raising the drain by 3 or so (an average amount of net successes) has more of a chance to slow down the mage. Or, if the mage prefers he can lessen the affect of his spells so that they can keep firing on full-auto. In either case, you've successfully reduced the usefulness of Stunbolt and it's cousins to a level that is more inline with other magic.

[Draco18s]

We are all different. I want my foes down and wouldn't take the risk of limiting myself to 3, I would go as high as Drain + First Aid could fix me.

Granted, sometimes you'd go for all the successes available. But if the situation is more or less under control and not This Guy Needs to Die NOW then you'd be a little more conservative. If you KNOW that there's no mage giving counterspelling you could even say that you only take 2 successes (one for getting resisted by willpower, the other goes to Net).

[pbangarth]

This is an interesting prospect and makes sense on a conceptual level. Unfortunately, I don't see this as really being enough to balance direct combat spells with indirect. In a nutshell I say this because most targets of direct combat spells have the stats to get about 1 success to resist (willpower 3 resisting a stunbolt for example). Given the low base drain this one extra success won't really slow down the full-auto stunslingers.

Conversely raising the drain by 3 or so (an average amount of net successes) has more of a chance to slow down the mage. Or, if the mage prefers he can lessen the affect of his spells so that they can keep firing on full-auto. In either case, you've successfully reduced the usefulness of Stunbolt and it's cousins to a level that is more inline with other magic.

But remember that the opposition successes are added to the regular Drain in this scheme. So even a little bit of push back starts to hurt. And the bit about every target in a crowd pushing back... yeah! Suddenly those Indirect Spells look a LOT better.

[Caadium]

But remember that the opposition successes are added to the regular Drain in this scheme. So even a little bit of push back starts to hurt. And the bit about every target in a crowd pushing back... yeah! Suddenly those Indirect Spells look a LOT better.

For single target spells this is an average of 1 hit to resist. As I said, that isn't much of a change and is probably not limiting enough. On the other side of that, if every hit from every target in an area of affect direct damage adds to drain then that is probably too much.

As I said, I like the concept a lot. I just don't see it as the solution that the new rules are going for.

[BlueMax]

Granted, sometimes you'd go for all the successes available. But if the situation is more or less under control and not This Guy Needs to Die NOW then you'd be a little more conservative. If you KNOW that there's no mage giving counterspelling you could even say that you only take 2 successes (one for getting resisted by willpower, the other goes to Net).

I should be clear, we ain't ever got drek under control. Its "go go go" till only we be booming.

BlueMax
Not a smooth operator once he hears a boomy go.

[kzt]

This is an interesting prospect and makes sense on a conceptual level. Unfortunately, I don't see this as really being enough to balance direct combat spells with indirect. In a nutshell I say this because most targets of direct combat spells have the stats to get about 1 success to resist (willpower 3 resisting a stunbolt for example). Given the low base drain this one extra success won't really slow down the full-auto stunslingers.

Until they run into a teamwork counterspell. That plus will can generate serious dice. Then they use edge. And Mr Overcasting's head explodes.

[Cain]

Yeah, it's an excellent idea, but it doesn't address what happens with multiple-target spells, such as StunBall.

[Malachi]

Yeah, it's an excellent idea, but it doesn't address what happens with multiple-target spells, such as StunBall.

For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Here's a thought: instead of Net Hits that changed the DV, why not have the increased Drain based on the number of hits the Opponent rolled on their test? This would be similar to how Drain is calculated for Summoning Tests. It also has the nice mechanic that the Magician isn't getting "punished" for success, it's more of a "negative feedback" situation from the Opponent. The Magician is channeling a ton of Mana and trying to "jam" it directly into his Opponents aura, the Aura "pushes back" on some of that mana and (having no other place to go) it slams back into the originating Magician. For area affect you could use either the highest hits achieved by any opponent, or the total of all hits achieved by all affected by the spell... though the latter may be too punishing for Area Effect spells.

Wow, I really like it. I'd go with highest in the AoE not combined. But it limits direct combat spells and it gves the variability and randomness I think magic needs.

[Shinobi Killfist]

For single target spells this is an average of 1 hit to resist. As I said, that isn't much of a change and is probably not limiting enough. On the other side of that, if every hit from every target in an area of affect direct damage adds to drain then that is probably too much.

As I said, I like the concept a lot. I just don't see it as the solution that the new rules are going for.

Personally I'm not worried about single target spells. I can pretty much guarantee a street sam will drop at least one guy every phase he acts in. A long burst from a SMG just ends people, and that is with no drain. Its the near free suped up grenades I have a problem with.

[Wasabi]

Someone else posted in another thread about adding a -1 to the success test for each point of overcasting. I think thats a pretty elegant solution personally...

[Caadium]

Someone else posted in another thread about adding a -1 to the success test for each point of overcasting. I think thats a pretty elegant solution personally...

In other words something akin to: Overcast spell lvl - Magic rating = number of hits required to successfully cast the spell

Or, in practical terms, a force 12 stunball cast by someone with magic 6 would need 6 hits to even be considered to successfully cast?

[Draco18s]

In other words something akin to: Overcast spell lvl - Magic rating = number of hits required to successfully cast the spell

Or, in practical terms, a force 12 stunball cast by someone with magic 6 would need 6 hits to even be considered to successfully cast?

No. Where did you come up with that?

The actual idea was:

Magic + Spellcasting - (Force - Magic, min 0) = Dice Pool.

[Caadium]

Oops. For some reason I misread that. He said -1 to overcasting, and I translated that to -1 hit. A good sign that it's bed time.