Magic Drain Test |
Magic Drain Test |
Mar 29 2004, 03:40 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 17-March 04 Member No.: 6,166 |
Can somebody tell me in a very simple logic on how do we test for magic drain after casting a spell...and does the level of damage affects the drain test.
Especially those manabolt and similar combat spells.. Thks! |
|
|
Mar 29 2004, 04:03 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
halve the force of the spell, then add the drain modifier. resist using Will + Spell Pool + any Sorcery/Conjuring dice you held back. for damaging and healing spells, the base Drain Level equals the Damage Level you're causing/curing.
|
|
|
Mar 29 2004, 04:15 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
Tutorial on spellcasting Drain Codes.
Examine the most basic combat spell with the simplest drain code, Manabolt. Its drain code is "+0(Damage Level+0)". To calculate the drain for a Force 6 manabolt, you start by dividing the force in half (round down) and then add the first modifier. (6/2) + 0 results in a target number for resisting drain of 3. The damage level for Manabolt drain is the same as the Damage Level you picked when casting the spell, not shifted up or down (the "Damage Level + 0" part of the drain code). So if you cast a Force 6 Serious Damage Manabolt, you resist 3S drain. Rolling Willpower (and perhaps part of your Spell Pool) you'll need Six dice at 3 or better to take no damage, which can be accomplished with 9 dice about half the time. Safer to use 10 or 11 dice. At force 5, you would resist 2S drain, because of the rounding down. This would require six dice of 2 or better, which can often be accomplished on 7 dice, but safer to use 8 or 9. Many beginning magicians will only cast Manabolt for Moderate Damage, to make it easier for them to resist the drain. In the short notation I use on my character sheets, I call this a "+0 +0" drain code. Consider Stun Ball, which is -1(DL+1) . The magician will have to roll 2 or better for his drain test for any force from 1 through 7 as long as he casts it at Serious base damage or less. At force 7 here's the calculation: (7/2) round down is 3, minus 1 is 2. The Drain Level is one level higher than the damage he's trying to do to the target. So a 7S Stun Ball will have 2D drain. A 1S Stun Ball will have -1D drain, but you'll still need eight 2s to take no damage. In the short notation I use on my character sheets, I call this a "-1 +1" drain code. If you cast Stun Ball at Deadly, the drain code indicates you have to resist one level higher than Deadly. A special rule handles this: for each level it tries to go above deadly the TN is instead raised by 2. So a 7D stunball will have a 4D drain , and a 3D stunball will have a 2D drain code. An example of a tough drain code is Increase Reflexes+3, with a +3D drain code. Cast at force 1 the drain is 3D. |
|
|
Mar 29 2004, 05:09 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 17-March 04 Member No.: 6,166 |
:D Many Thanks Chummers!
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 01:23 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 413 Joined: 20-November 03 Member No.: 5,835 |
:notworthy:
You guys answered the question I had been meaning to ask. Thanks, OurTeam! =D |
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 03:31 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
An alternative to this rule is to overflow from stun to phyiscal. For example. I cast a force 6 Stun Ball at Deadly. My magic rating is 6 so the drain is stun. However, the final drain code is 2(D+1). This could be made to translate into 2D stun and 2L physical. Then, the character must roll 2 successes to reduce the physical drain to 0 first, then any additional succeses reduce the stun drain. If this spell were cast in such away as to cause physical drain, you could use the overdamage optional rules, but more often than not, I increase the power rating as described by OurTeam above. EDIT: You should know, this is something I've done to cut down on the usage of the ----ball spells in games. I had far to many people coupling them with expendable spell foci and totally and irrevokably removing my competition with the ----ball spells. Maybe not the most devious way to do so, but it actually balanced things out well. YMMV This post has been edited by Dashifen: Mar 30 2004, 03:38 AM |
||
|
|||
Mar 30 2004, 03:54 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
er, wouldn't it be easier to just have the competition stop gathering in convenient, ----ball-sized groups?
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 06:30 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 409 Joined: 9-March 04 Member No.: 6,140 |
There should be some kind of bonus for having modified target numbers below 2. Like, for every point the modified TN is below 2, you get one automatic success on the drain test.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 06:39 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
The advantage of a drain target number below 2 is when you cast while already sustaining one or more other spells. When Spellcasting, there is a +2 penalty for the success test and the drain test for each spell you are already sustaining. For example, "Invisibility, Elf-only" would be easier to cast on 3 Elves, one after another, than a regular Invisibility spell.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 06:43 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
right. the total TN can't go below 2. so, sustaining/multiple-casting/astral perception/whatever mods can be ignored.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 07:00 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
nit: astral perception doesn't give a penalty to either spellcasting or drain tests.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 07:23 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
doesn't it? i thought it gave a +2 TN to all tests.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 07:30 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 28-August 03 Member No.: 5,551 |
+2 TN for all purely physical actions. (Although damage resistance isn't affected even if your physical body gets punctured by a wholly physical bullet.) And since both magical actions and damage resistance tests bypass the penalty, drain resistance definately does too.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 08:13 AM
Post
#14
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
gah, didnt know i could hold back sorcery dice to help in drain, and i definetly didnt know i could split conjuring the same way that one seems to be able to split sorcery...
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 08:21 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 28-August 03 Member No.: 5,551 |
By the rules, you can't set aside sorcery dice to help against drain. You can virtually do this, since spell pool dice can go either way, but pure sorcery has nothing to do with it.
Conjuring, on the other hand, you can do this for. Probably because while the sorcerers have spell pool as a swing, conjurers have *only* their conjuring dice to roll. |
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 08:31 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
er, huh. i thought you could, but now that i look for a page reference, i can't find any.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 01:36 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
I did that too. |
||
|
|||
Mar 30 2004, 01:56 PM
Post
#18
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
looks like i need to read over the basic magic rules, again. how many moresmall things did they mess with?
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 10:44 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
42
|
|
|
Mar 30 2004, 11:48 PM
Post
#20
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
thanks ourteam, that somehow makes sense ;)
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th November 2024 - 12:37 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.