Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Jeeves on <11-08-10/1745:05>
-
I know this should be a simple question, but i hav to ask because I wanna make sure I know this.
Say i cast a spell at force 5, and get three hits. the drain fomula for the spell is f/2 +2. so five (rounded up) devided by two is three. Do I also add the three hits generated by the spellcasting roll?
I could have sworn i've seen this done somewhere in the books, and i wanna make sure.
the reason i ask is because our spellslinging characters rarely if ever seem to have to deal with drain damage.
thanks in advance.
-
Yes, on pg. 204 of SR4A is states that for each net hit on your casting roll that is applied to increasing the damage of the spell the drain goes up by one as well.
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.
However, this only applies to direct combat spells, and it has apparently been revised to be an optional rule in the latest printings of the SR4A book/PDF.
I use the rule and have no idea why it was made optional, but c'est la vie.
Furthermore, since it's an optional rule now, I see no reason why you couldn't house rule that it applies to all combat spells if you would prefer that casting spells result in sustaining a bit of drain damage more often.
-
As voydangel says, SR4A, pg. 204 lists this for direct combat spells as an optional rule in the current printing (see thread here (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1287.0)).
Personally, there are a lot of trade-offs that were brought up in that thread about direct vs indirect that I'm not convinced the optional rule should be used. I don't know whether it's necessary to put that optional rule into play.
But, to answer your question, in the RAW, without optional rules, you don't add the net hits to drain. If you think that spellcasting is over-powered at present, implement it as a house rule against direct and indirect spells, or just direct if you decide they're too good for the low drain they have.
-
I use the rule and have no idea why it was made optional, but c'est la vie.
Because it's a really bad rule that only encoureges over- and multicasting.
And because of that we raised a shit storm about it when the PDF was first realeased, which pretty quicly caused it to be made an optional rule.
-
I use the rule and have no idea why it was made optional, but c'est la vie.
Because it's a really bad rule that only encoureges over- and multicasting.
And because of that we raised a shit storm about it when the PDF was first realeased, which pretty quicly caused it to be made an optional rule.
Too right I remember that shitstorm on DS and it was pretty good to get it changed
-
Could someone give me a recap then of how this encourages overcasting and/or multi-casting? I'm not quite seeing it, and it would be nice to know what it is that I'm missing.
-
Theoretically, I can see it encouraging multi-casting. Specifically, if I risk higher drain when I apply net hits to damage, I'm less likely to want to apply net hits to damage unless I need to kill the guy.
So, if I think the two gangers have low willpower, I might as well split my dice pool and multi-cast, figuring my DP 6 will get 2 average, their probably rolling DP 3, so I'll have 1 net hit, deal my Force damage to both of them and call it a day.
If drain isn't increased by net hits, I'm more likely to focus on one guy, DP 12 = avg 4 hits, using same Willpower 3 = avg 1 hit, I'll deal F + 3 damage, enough to seriously make him think about getting a new job.
Is either situation necessarily a bad thing? No, I don't think so. Encouraging multi-casting doesn't strike me, on the surface, as a bad thing. And, frankly, I think the combat situation more than anything else will probably dictate multi-casting vs single-target. After all, if you've got a swarm of weaklings, hell yes I'm going to multi-cast! but if that's a big-ass troll coming my way, I want him down, yesterday. Increased drain or no.
-
Yea, I completely agree, which is why I don't get it apparently. Well, I guess I kinda see where it might encourage multi-casting, or possibly overcasting, but I guess my real concern is "Why is that a bad thing?" If someone multicasts, they have to resist drain twice, and if they overcast they have to resist physical drain. This is already in the rules, we know this. There are drawbacks to both, so unless the optional rule somehow changes overcast drain to stun or makes multi-cast drain only do 1/2 DV, I don't really see how this is unbalanced or needs to be discouraged. Or maybe I'm just really totally missing something big... :(
-
the reason i ask is because our spellslinging characters rarely if ever seem to have to deal with drain damage.
Yeah, I run into that with my group, too. With 2 magicians and an adept, so far, between the three of them, I've seen 3 points of stun damage, 2 to the adept, one to a mage. I don't know that it's such a bad thing, there's always the potential for a glitch or just plain bad roll, which can end up being crippling. But, if they constantly take drain damage, they'd stop spell slinging pretty quick.
Stun condition monitor is: 8 + half Will, round up (SR4A, pg. 71). Let's say that the average mage in the world has a Will of about 5 (it is his drain stat, for crying out loud). So, our average mage has a stun condition modifier of 11.
If he takes a point of drain every other spell, he starts seeing wound penalties after his sixth spell. If he's got 3 IP's from any source, say the Improved Reflexes spell, that's 6 seconds to a -1 penalty on all tests just because he was doing his job. And he's unconscious after 22 spells (at a spell per IP, with 3 IP's, that translates to the end of his first IP on the eighth round of combat).
Okay, that's aggressive spellcasting, but it's also low-drain spells if he's only averaging 1 drain per every other spell. And it assumes nobody ever attacks HIM.
Before you tell me that combat's over in less than eight combat turns, for that matter, keep in mind that he don't get to heal unless someone's got a med-kit (and the time) or until he rests for an hour, and then it's only a Body + Willpower.
-
Yea, that is a good point. I still don't get the reasoning behind making the rule optional from a system mechanical standpoint, but your "real world example logic" is very compelling. Maybe I will forgo said optional rule after all... hmmmmm
-
Could someone give me a recap then of how this encourages overcasting and/or multi-casting? I'm not quite seeing it, and it would be nice to know what it is that I'm missing.
Lets assume i have a casting pool of 15(magic = 6)= 5 successes on avarage dropped to 4 by their spell defence, so i can either:
Cast a force 6 stunbolt and use all net hits for damage = 10S damage and i must resist 2(6/2-1) + 4 = 6S drain
Or i cast a force 10 stunbolt and use zero nethits for damage = 10S damage and i must resist 4P drain only
Or i cast 2 force 5 stunbolts and use zero nethits for damage = 10s damage and i must resist 2S drain twice
Guess what, i'm never ever gonna use that first option, only a total idiot would.
Choice between second and third option depends on whether i think i need my full casting pool to hit them or not.
-
what Max said,
Overcasting becomes far more handy as it directly boosts the damage without raising the drain as high (yes its physical but so what for the most part).
There are plenty of ways of making it harder for mages that dont directly cause them damage for doing there job making it optional was the right call.
-
Wouldn't the overcast do 9S and the double cast do 8S since you're assuming 1 hit of spell resistance on the target? Not a big change. Upping the Force by 1 on each would right it, up the drain on the overcast to 5P and leave the double cast drain unchanged.
(Edited to reflect Max's corrections from here forward)
With optional rule that more damage=more drain, Magic 6, 15 Spellcasting Pool, 1 hit per spell resisted by target, no hits added to damage
Single Force 6 = 6S, Drain 2S
Single Force 10 = 10S, Drain 4P
Double Force 6 = 12S, Drain 3S twice (Same drain as Force 5, might as well)
Just for comparison, with damage and drain added for net hits
Single Force 6 = 10S, Drain 6S
Single Force 12 = 16S, Drain 10P (ouch!)
Double Force 6 = 14S, Drain 5S Twice
Double Force 4 = 10S, Drain 4S twice (to take out a 10 Stun target)
Without optional rule. Hits added to damage on all examples
Single Force 6 = 10S, Drain 2S
Single Force 12 = 16S, Drain 5P
Double Force 6 = 14S, Drain 3S twice
Double Force 4 = 10S, Drain 2S twice
Am I missing something here? Again, I totally get that I might be but there seems to be at least as much encouragement to double/overcast without hits adding to Drain. There's a bigger difference in damage for a smaller difference in Drain between a single and double Force 6 spell (edit: adding hits and drain for damage with a single, not adding either for a double)
If you're trying to take out WP 4 or less, non-magical characters (ie don't need more than 10S) with the dice pool above and a Drain resisting pool of 6+ and using the optional rule then the double 6 (with no bonuse hits to damage) is optimal, agreed. Under the same parameters without the optional rule, you can use a single 6, double 6 or double 4 to about the same effect as one another. There's still a slight advantage in either drain or total damage to double casting but its not as pronounced. Then again, any time the target gets lucky and scores two resistance hits, one of those spells is stopped dead (Granted only ~5% of the time). So against most non-magical opponents with normal metahuman resistence, double casting is a more advantageous tactic with the optional rule than without but its still advantageous for both. As a player without the optional rule I'd certainly double cast just to be sure.
A Mage who can get 3-4 hits to resist drain going against someone who can resist 2-3 hits of spellcasting is going to be using a single 6 against regardless of whether or not the optional rule applies. This may or may not leave the target with 1-2 Stun left. A double cast will almost certainly be shrugged off regardless of which rule is used, so its not useful. Without the optional rule, the extra damage 6 Damage may well be worth taking some physical damage (average 1-2). With the optional rule, the Mage has a few choices. He can do roughly the same damage for either 6S or 4P (call it 3S or 1P after resistance). Alternately he can do an extra 6P damage for an extra 5P drain. If anything, that's a strong discouragement from overcasting. 2-3 Stun might seem worse then 1 Physical on a single casting but after a good night's sleep the mage will be feeling the difference, especially if he has to do this a few times.
The main difference I see is that in the case in the last paragraph, a mage not under the optional rule can single cast at Force=Magic and Damage=Force+net hits all day while the mage in a game using the optional rule is going to have a much more limited number of shots or be forced to do less damage.
-
Wouldn't the overcast do 9S and the double cast do 8S since you're assuming 1 hit of spell resistance on the target?
Nope, the spell resistance reduces the number of net hits i have, but the latter 2 examples are using zero net hits for damage so they only do force in damage.
The minimum damage an direct combat spell does is equal to force or witout the optional rule force+1 as you use the one nethit required for the spell to work to increase damage(as there's no reason not to)
-
Ah yes. Gonna redo the previous post with fixed math and revise as needed.
Previous post edited with corrected math.
-
Double Force 6 = 12S, Drain 2S twice (Same drain as Force 5, might as well)
Its force/2 round down, so that douple force 6 would be 3S twice.
Suprising that you didn't find it wierd that your douple cast has same drain value as single cast when multicasting adds 1 drain per extra spell ;)
-
OK, round down?
So Force 5 double still = 10S, Drain 2S twice but we're assuming an average of 3 hits against drain anyway, so Drain<=3 is effectively no drain.
Chart o' doom modified again. In this case conclusions remain the same. By the time Max is done with me I'll actually be able to play a 4th Ed Mage effectively.
-
I think we fixed all the obvious mistakes at least(meaning i can't find more)
And really i'm not trying to claim that there aren't encouragement for multi- and overcasting in the vanilla rules, just that using that optional rule makes it so that only a total idiot would cast one lower force spell using all possible hits for damage, when you can either multicast a pair of spell and not use the hits or overcast and not use the hits resulting in same damage and less drain to resist(the overcasting drain being P is only a problem if you can't fully resist it most of the time)
-
As a player returning to Shadowrun after a significant lapse in time. This seems like it gives the Magician/Shaman who gives the Spellcasting & Magic stats some attention the commensurate ability to toss multiple spells simulataneouly. Then mixed Magician Cyber-d types the abilities to toss a low level spell and still be able to resist the drain as well. A fully dedicated Magician/Shaman type should be able to toss some serious spells off before he gets a bad headache, where the other types need to be a more careful with the power they play with.
-
@John - Looking into it based on Magic 3, spellcasting pool 12 is on my to-do list.
Hell, I'm just glad we're working from the same assumptions. ;D
Personally, as player or GM, I'm satisfied that a Mage can fire a KO bolt with every IP. The specific method they take to get there doesn't matter to me. The question is whether or not mages can cast an effectively infinite number of those stun bolts without taking Drain.
OK, I beat up some math on multi-overcasting. Then I beat up some other math on the specifics of single force 6 vs high resistance (3 resistance hits). Those both come out much closer than I would have expected. Short form, no Mage can fire off more than a few overcasts, regardless of the rules. Single Casting @6 will take two shots to take down a target with 5-6 WIL. So an optional rule mage can opt to do less damage per shot and keep the drain low enough to shoot infinitely. A non-optional rule mage can roll some damage from the second shot over from Stun to Physical by overloading the damage track but the net result is the same. Two IP to takedown.
So if I understand the crux of the argument, its that there is no reason to take successes when taking a single IP worth of shots against a single, average target. So far, one on one, that checks out and I'm too tired to rerun everything with Manabolt, even though it isn't that complicated.
-
OK, I beat up some math on multi-overcasting. Then I beat up some other math on the specifics of single force 6 vs high resistance (3 resistance hits). Those both come out much closer than I would have expected. Short form, no Mage can fire off more than a few overcasts, regardless of the rules.
Overcasting of low drain spells like stunbolt isn't really much of a problem for well build PC mages as they can reduce the drain damage to 0 so it doesn't matter that it would have been physical damage.
And if it takes a combat mage more then one IP to take down an opponent with no counter spelling, then somethink is seriously wrong.
-
*sigh* Perhaps I ought to have taken the StunBolt instead of StunBall. It seems to me that if I am required to have LOS on any Target in order to affect said Target, I should be able then to de-select a Target from the aforementioned Target List. However I suppose that would defeat some of the conventions of spell-tossing and prehaps make the Mage too strong. I can see where that could easily get out of hand. At least now a Mage has to select his Target carefully to avoid taking out his own crew.
-
I see what you're saying and I agree on all points except one.
If you (multi)cast 2 spells at force 6 each, it does not do 12S damage. It does 6S x2, each resisted separately by the target thereby giving them a better chance to take less damage. On average, they will reduce the damage taken by double the amount you're assuming they will resist from a single cast. Which brings up the question of "why are we assuming only 1 hit to resist?" A really basic starting character is going to have at least 3 willpower and most likely 3 or more counterspelling dice allocated, which should net at least 2 hits on average - and that's a mundane. If you're target is a mage, you'd be lucky if they have only 9 dice to resist with which will net 3 on average, usually 4 when accounting for real life rolls.
Also, as a side note - you make your Spellcasting + Magic Roll first, deciding how many of those hits to allocate to adding to the DV and how many to set aside for drain resistance. Then, after you've already decided, is when they roll to resist. So if you set back all hits (or all but one) you may actually be doing very little damage with the 2 lower powered spells. So in that case, even though you are taking far less drain, you're also doing far less damage.
I suppose at this point it's just a matter of semantics, since we're looking at a comparison between over casting a spell vs multicasting the same spell at lower force, because as you said, you'd have to be dumb to use the extra hits for damage on a single spell with the optional rule in place, but I really don't agree that said optional rule encourages multi-casting. Overcasting probably, but not multicasting. By multicasting lower force spells all you're doing is giving up damage potential to reduce drain.
-
And if it takes a combat mage more then one IP to take down an opponent with no counter spelling, then somethink is seriously wrong.
Which is all good to me. The BP/Karma cost of being a good spellcaster makes that fair. Scoring a KO/kill against a less resistant target in one IP is something other experts can do, too.
@voyd - With two hits against an opponent with WIL<=3, your target will get the hits to resist entirely once out of every 15 shots. So 14:15 you're doing Force*2 damage total for much lower drain. (based on adding hits for damage for a Force 6 and not adding them for a double Force 6 with optional rule in play)
-
Yea, I suppose that's true statistically speaking. I dunno. I guess my real beef is that Drain is supposed to be the mechanic that balances mages against the rest of the character types. The idea is that the only thing preventing a mage from one-shotting one of two npcs per IP is the risk of drain. So since it seems to be set up so that mages almost never need to worry about drain (via the RAW), then they instantly become the most powerful character in the game from a damage dealing perspective. Now, I know that this optional rule isn't the cause of (or saving grace) of this problem, and I know there's no magic bullet solution to it. It's a game mechanics balance problem.
I guess it all stems from the fact that I actually disagree with the quote:
And if it takes a combat mage more then one IP to take down an opponent with no counter spelling, then somethink is seriously wrong.
I personally would like to see a mage be roughly the same "power level" as other damage dealers in the game. In my opinion a mage should take down a target in roughly the same time as it takes for a guy with a gun to do the same job. I understand that mages are rare and magic is powerful, and it all makes sense from a fluff perspective, but from a game balance perspective it just rubs my fur the wrong way a wee little bit.
So, really in the end, You are right, But I guess what I'm really looking for is some way to either A) make Drain 'do its job' as intended (nerf mages a little so they aren't insanely OP killing machines), or B) reduce the damage dealing effectiveness of direct combat spells. But, that's all about the house rules I guess.
-
I actually agree on Drain. I'd like to see (for example) minimum Drain after resistance roll=1. The optional, unfortunately, just causes mages to cast smarter, not less, to avoid Drain.
Mages do compare to other damage dealers. Yes, they can take down a heavily armored opponent with relative ease but not so much with a heavy Counterspelled opponent (either a mage or someone protected by one). By comparison a good starting character gunslinger of the adept or sammie variety can take down a lightly armored opponent (Mage) with relative ease and has more trouble against people with inhuman Body/Armor combos. Mages ignore armor, gunners ignore Counterspelling. So the mage and the sammie can take each other out in one IP but generally can't take out a carbon copy of themselves (although they both come close enough to do it in two IP). The gunslinger's net damage drops lower by a bit than the Mage's when comparing physical damage instead of stun (stick'n'shock) but remember that a Mage is probably 100+BP into that mana bolt while the gunslinger is considerably less invested. Cyberwear is cheap relative to bonuses, guns are cheap and smartguns don't even require an implant.
In a game where the proportion of Mages to normies is reflected in the baddies the players face (1%), a Mage becomes extremely powerful. On their own turf, though, they even out with other Mages.
-
Yea, that's pretty spot on the mark. I suppose maybe if there were some way to enforce that population/rarity gap in game it might balance it out.
I guess I'm just being whiny because I recently got invited into a new group as a "new" player in an existing game, and the entire group is composed of mages and adepts, who collectively can take just about anything out.
Maybe they should just cost more BP to take the qualities during character creation, that would make them at least a little more rare.....right? :P
-
If a GM can't think of a way to make them regret leaving a 4-man astral signature a mile wide, he's not trying very hard.
Let's see. . . cities might have laws regarding "proper" and "licensed" magical use (with your astral sig "on file", thank you) and seriously track down people who are powerbolting without a license.
Magical group dedicated to ensuring their magical supremacy in the area.
Security using a basic watcher spirit to go "oh shit, I see 2 power foci and a sustaining foci at 10 o'clock!" thus calling in the anti-mage goon-squad. (Remember, half the stuff a mage can do. . . shows up through walls from a mile away to an astral watcher.
So, really, Darwin and the GM should have an effective time keeping the population at 1% (or, at least, really low Edge) if it becomes a problem in your game.
-
Yea, like I said, I was invited to this other game, so I don't have a lot of say in the matter. I have never had a problem like this in any of the games I've ever run, but seeing it up close and personal is a real eye opener as to just how powerful mages can be when left unchecked. I just couldn't believe it when I heard the words "Yea there are 3 mages and 2 adepts in the party." I was like "uuhhhhh" :o :-\ And it doesn't help that he just kinda rolls with it... oh well - not my problem I guess.
Although it makes me wonder just how I would handle the issue if it were my game... I still would like to see the rules revised so that drain "did it's job" as it were. Or nerf direct combat spells, or something, I dunno. :P
-
Although it makes me wonder just how I would handle the issue if it were my game...
Sammie with a smoke grenade, thermo vision, ambidexterity and two cherry blossom storms with smartgun and stick'n'shock. As Sun Tzu said, "attack where your enemy is weak and you are strong". Block a Mage's line of sight with something that doesn't block yours.
Also remember that being a Mage/Adept doesn't just cost 10/5 BP. It costs another 40-65 to buy up Magic to 5 or 6 and three Karma a spell. So even the Adepts are spending the equivalent of 450,000 nuyen in gear. Add ten spells for the Mage and 5 BP for being a Mage instead of an adept and you can buy 35BP in positive Qualities with no negatives or some very powerful contacts. Taking Magic up to 6 costs another 25 BP on top of that.
The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see the drain rule be that spells with Drain 0 or 1 are resisted as Drain 1 (ie one hit on drain resistance=no drain taken) but anything higher is resisted as normal and always causes a minimum of 1 Drain. As it is, mages can cast low to mid level spells literally all day, once or twice per IP and never get tired. At minimum Drain take = 1, they can still cast many many spells in the course of a day but they do have to take a breather now and then. It makes their "clip" comparable to most SA guns or to guns using burst.
-
If you (multi)cast 2 spells at force 6 each, it does not do 12S damage. It does 6S x2, each resisted separately by the target thereby giving them a better chance to take less damage.
There is no resistance test for direct combat spells, either the caster has net hits left after the targets spell resistance test and the spell does force+nethits damage(or just force if that optional rule is used, as using those net hits for damage isn't smart) or the caster doesn't have any net hits left in which case that spell does nothing.
-
If you (multi)cast 2 spells at force 6 each, it does not do 12S damage. It does 6S x2, each resisted separately by the target thereby giving them a better chance to take less damage.
There is no resistance test for direct combat spells, either the caster has net hits left after the targets spell resistance test and the spell does force+nethits damage(or just force if that optional rule is used, as using those net hits for damage isn't smart) or the caster doesn't have any net hits left in which case that spell does nothing.
Ok, wrong wording. It should have read: "If you (multi)cast 2 spells at force 6 each, it does not do 12S damage. It does 6S x2, each opposed separately by the target thereby giving them a better chance to take no damage."
Which actually strengthens my argument, because that now means that by multicasting, you're increasing the odds of your spells doing nothing, rather than just reducing their damage potential.
But like I said before, I completely see how this would encourage overcasting, but not really multicasting. I just see low force spells negated too often to view them as a really big threat against anyone other than a grunt ganger. But then, my players and I know that spells hurt and don't skimp on the willpower or counterspelling, so we average more than 1 net hit to resist/oppose spells usually. ;)
-
But, if you're die pool before multicasting is 12 (fairly typical), and their die pool to resist is 3 (also typical), then multi-casting, your two die pools are 6 each against 3 each. On average, you'll hit with both (average 2 hits, vice average 1 hit). Yes, occasionally, you'll get bad rolls, or they'll get good rolls and you'll do none.
However, if you have the larger die pool, more rolling always benefits you in the long run. More often than not, rolling 6 against 3, you'll hit with both and do 12S damage. And even so, your odds of getting one of those two to be successful are high enough that you'll still get 6S most of the times you don't get 12S.
Part of you're wording (resisting), by the way, was correct. It's just that with the optional rule, since most casters won't choose to risk the extra drain, if you don't completely resist the spell, you take 6S per spell.
The caster's Spellcasting + Magic is resisted by the target's Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus Counterspelling (if available).
Emphasis mine.
-
What the rat with the chainsaw said. ;D
At 12 dice split to 6 vs 3 to resist, the target will generate two or more hits once out of every 15 times, more or less.
-
What the rat with the chainsaw said. ;D
At 12 dice split to 6 vs 3 to resist, the target will generate two or more hits once out of every 15 times, more or less.
Thats why my combat mages have around 12 dice per spell if casting 2 spells.
-
I don't know, landing 14 out of 15 double casts at Force+1 is pretty impressive to me. Then again if the same fellow has to resist a three hit spell, he's going to do it about 1% of the time.
-
What the rat with the chainsaw said. ;D
At 12 dice split to 6 vs 3 to resist, the target will generate two or more hits once out of every 15 times, more or less.
Thats why my combat mages have around 12 dice per spell if casting 2 spells.
Is that possible at character creation? Or are you referring to experienced characters?
-
What the rat with the chainsaw said. ;D
At 12 dice split to 6 vs 3 to resist, the target will generate two or more hits once out of every 15 times, more or less.
Thats why my combat mages have around 12 dice per spell if casting 2 spells.
Is that possible at character creation? Or are you referring to experienced characters?
Best I've gotten playing thought experiments with mage char-gen is as follows:
Magic 6, Spellcasting 6
Base pool: 12
Combat Spellcasting Focus +3
Specialization (Combat Spells) +2
So that's 17 dice un-split.
See here (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1229.0) for various opinions on when to add foci or specialization dice to splitting dice pools. My opinion, based on the RAW remains that both would be added after splitting, so for two spells:
6+3+2 = 11 dice each.
If you prefer to use the FAQ approach, vice the RAW it instead becomes:
17/2= one spell DP 9, one spell DP 8.
Please keep in mind that I'm not skilled at Min-Maxing characters, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who can get the FAQ interpretation up to 12 DP each.
-
What the rat with the chainsaw said. ;D
At 12 dice split to 6 vs 3 to resist, the target will generate two or more hits once out of every 15 times, more or less.
Thats why my combat mages have around 12 dice per spell if casting 2 spells.
Is that possible at character creation? Or are you referring to experienced characters?
Well the first post should say combat spells, not just spells.
And thats quite easily possible, 12 is even little low as both of the characters i'm prefferring to are mys-ads:
Magic 2 + spellcasting 4 = 6/2 = 3 + spec 2 + mentor 2 + combat spellcasting focus 5 = 12 dice per spell for 2 spells
and
Magic 4 + spellcasting 4 = 8/2 = 4 + spec 2 + mentor 2 + power focus 4 = 12 dice per spell for 2 spells
-
What about spells where Force isn't really an issue, like Armor, or Increase Reflexes? They both have DV of F/+x, but they rely on the number of Hits on the Spellcasting test. How do i calculate Drain here, because I'm a bit lost.
-
What about spells where Force isn't really an issue, like Armor, or Increase Reflexes? They both have DV of F/+x, but they rely on the number of Hits on the Spellcasting test. How do i calculate Drain here, because I'm a bit lost.
Umm, just like every other spell, you divede the force by 2(round down) and add the modifier to that to get the drain value.
And remeber while those spells effect is measured by the amount of hits you get instead of force used the force still limits the amount of hits you can get.
-
Thanks. I suspected that much, but i couldn't find the rule anywhere in SR4A.
-
Thanks. I suspected that much, but i couldn't find the rule anywhere in SR4A.
Pages 181 to 184 explain spellcasting and relevant rules pretty well
-
Yeah, but i couldn't find that specific rule (Force limiting Hits).
-
Yeah, but i couldn't find that specific rule (Force limiting Hits).
Page 182, under tittle Force beginning of the third section 8)