[Mordoyh]

I've read over the description of the critter power Regeneration and it says that "...magical damage from weapon foci, combat spells, critter/adept powers, or other magic may not be healed through Regeneration." (SR4A p. 297)

Drain is described as "The effort of manipulating mana can exhaust or even injure a magician. As mana is a form of energy, channeling greater quantities of that energy may strain the body and mind. The effect of this strain is referred to as Drain." (SR4A p. 179). The description doesn't  state that Drain is the same as magical damage such as the Stun damage from a Stun Bolt for instance but stun damage resulting from the strain of channeling energy, akin to fatigue.

So I wonder if Drain is considered magical damage and cannot be healed by regeneration, or if it is more like fatigue and could be healed by regeneration.  Thoughts?  Opnions?  Official ruling somewhere?

Thanks!

[Walks Through Walls]

I would say it couldn't be regenerated, but it would only come into play if you had a spellcaster who got regeneration some how.

[Mordoyh]

Well I'm currently playing a shapeshifter who is a spell caster.  The question came up, but no official ruling was really made.

[Chaemera]

The honest answer is: "GM's Call". Reading over the description for Drain, it's the strain and stress of working with magic, no different from the strain and stress of carting around a bag of rabid, chainsaw wielding giant rats. Unless you took Allergy: Work, I personally wouldn't consider Drain to be magical per se, though if any of my players was a spellcasting shapeshifter, I might revisit that opinion.

[Muspellsheimr]

Rules as Written

Drain cannot be healed by magical means.

Regeneration is a test using the Magic attribute.
Regeneration is a paranormal (magical) critter power.

[Chaemera]

Good point, hadn't thought of it that way. Guess I'm too used to DnD regeneration.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Rules as Written

Drain cannot be healed by magical means.

Regeneration is a test using the Magic attribute.
Regeneration is a paranormal (magical) critter power.

Absolutely not true.

If drain is physical damage, then a Heal spell can fix it.  Stun damage can't be healed with magic, that's the limitation on Heal spells.

If you get Stun damage from Drain, then you can't heal it.  If you get Physical damage from Drain, then it can be healed, and Regeneration works just fine.

[Qemuel]

Actually that is an optional rule as per SM p.31 Tweaking the Rules:
"Normally Drain cannot be healed by magical means, only by complete rest or mundane medical attention.  For a less gritty campaign, allow damage from Drain to be healed or alleviated by magical means."


Drain, whether it is physical from overcasting or stun from regular casting by RAW is not able to be healed by magical means.  Either way, Physical or Stun, it's still drain.


Edit:  also, it specifically addresses this issue on p. 178 SR4A (last sentence under Drain heading, just above Magical Lodges):
"Neither Stun nor Physical damage resulting from Drain can be healed by magical means such as sorcery or spirit powers."

[Chaemera]

Absolutely not true.

If drain is physical damage, then a Heal spell can fix it.  Stun damage can't be healed with magic, that's the limitation on Heal spells.

If you get Stun damage from Drain, then you can't heal it.  If you get Physical damage from Drain, then it can be healed, and Regeneration works just fine.

Sorry, Gun Nut, I have to side with Muspellsheimr here:

Neither Stun nor Physical damage resulting from Drain can be healed by magical means such as sorcery or spirit powers.

It's pretty cut-and-dry, magic cannot heal Drain damage, regardless of whether it's Stun or Physical. Unless, of course, your GM uses the optional rules on page 31 of Street Magic, which does allow it:

     Normally Drain cannot be healed by magical means, only by complete rest or mundane medical attention. For a less gritty campaign, allow damage from Drain to be healed or alleviated by magical means.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Then that's another one of the many changes that slipped by me in the edition change.  I've run every edition of SR ever to come out, so I tend to skim the new book rather than reading it in depth.

[Mäx]

Then that's another one of the many changes that slipped by me in the edition change.  I've run every edition of SR ever to come out, so I tend to skim the new book rather than reading it in depth.

Might be a good idea to read the relevant rules before stating that someone post is "absolutely not true".
Just a hint.

[The_Gun_Nut]

That would require effort on my part to sift through a book!

Heavens, no!  I'll just use my outdated knowledge!  HUZZAH!

Seriously, though, I never spotted it while reading the book.  While I mostly skimmed over sections I knew (or thought I knew) well, new stuff like the new Hacking rules and gear got more attention.

Played tons of mages over the years, so I thought I knew those rules well.

[Muspellsheimr]

Because you are not familiar me, I will explain this simply. Most of those from Dumpshock will support this.


If I am unsure about a rule, I will specifically say so.
If I am referencing a House Rule, I will specifically say so.

If I say something is Rules as Written, you need to check the book before contradicting me. While I can be (& have been) wrong, it is exceptionally rare.

[FastJack]

Just because I like what Muspellsheimr says, I'll go out and say for my own posting, if I use something from the books, I'll try to post a quote of what I'm talking about. If I'm interpreting from the books, I'll (most often) include phrases such as "As I understand it", or "In my opinion" regarding how I understand the rule to work.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Because you are not familiar me, I will explain this simply. Most of those from Dumpshock will support this.


If I am unsure about a rule, I will specifically say so.
If I am referencing a House Rule, I will specifically say so.

If I say something is Rules as Written, you need to check the book before contradicting me. While I can be (& have been) wrong, it is exceptionally rare.

A little too self important is what is coming across here.  If you had posted actual page numbers to support your statement, like others did and I checked their reference and agreed with them, then I would have looked and agreed with you.  You didn't, you just assumed you were right, like I assumed I was right based on the old rules.  That you got it right was luck on your part.

Don't get snippy.  If someone contradicts you and you got the proof to back you up, supply it before whining about someone disagreeing with you.  Saying "I told you so, so never doubt me again" after someone does the work for you is not constructive.