Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Mordoyh on <11-11-10/1649:27>
-
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!
-
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.
-
Well I'm currently playing a shapeshifter who is a spell caster. The question came up, but no official ruling was really made.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Good point, hadn't thought of it that way. Guess I'm too used to DnD regeneration.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Before this turns into something bigger, everyone take a deep breath.
Muspellsheimr, you might be well known over on Dumpshock, but there's a lot of people here that don't know you. Treating everyone like they SHOULD know you may come across as arrogantly superior. You don't have a rep here, don't start off on a bad foot.
Gun, I don't think he was purposely trying to "reign" his knowledge over you, nor that he was trying to sound snippy with you. Let's just chalk up to an old hand coming to a new group and not introducing himself nor his experience with the game before jumping in on a conversation.
-
I don't think he was trying to "reign" his knowledge over me, I think he was expecting someone to know him who had never met him before. I also feel he believes a little too much in himself.
Especially since, before SR4A ever came into existence, my statement was absolutely true. Even in 4th edition, there was nothing to contradict it. On page 178, there is a single sentence of about 16 words that put this to rest, in a 370+ page book. I didn't notice this one small change and I got, after being corrected with appropriate quotes and page numbers and backing off from my previous position, a rant about how someone is almost perfect and should never be questioned.
I sincerely hope this was not his tone over at Dumpshock, because it does not bode well for his rep here from others who have also never laid eyes on a post of his before.
-
The problem with "skimming" SR4A is that there were SO many changes and alterations it could almost be Shadowrun 5th Edition.
I mean, seriously, unless you've specifically looked in the SR4A rules to confirm it, it's a bad idea to just assume what you know from the older SR4 rules holds.
-k
-
I don't think he was trying to "reign" his knowledge over me, I think he was expecting someone to know him who had never met him before. I also feel he believes a little too much in himself.
Especially since, before SR4A ever came into existence, my statement was absolutely true. Even in 4th edition, there was nothing to contradict it. On page 178, there is a single sentence of about 16 words that put this to rest, in a 370+ page book. I didn't notice this one small change and I got, after being corrected with appropriate quotes and page numbers and backing off from my previous position, a rant about how someone is almost perfect and should never be questioned.
Reshecking the rules to make sure your right is just common courtecy think to do before claiming someone else is wrong.
When someone post what the rules are, contradicting them without making sure is just rude.
-
Even in 4th edition, there was nothing to contradict it.
No magical healing of drain has always been the RAW in SR4 been a part of SR4 prior to SR4A, specifically:
, Corrected Fifth Printing[/u], pg. 167, Drain]
Neither Stun nor Physical damage resulting from Drain can be healed by magical means such as sorcery or spirit powers.
I'm not familiar with previous editions, so I can't confirm that the rule of "no magical healing of drain" is a new one. However, if it is, I agree with Gun Nut that it should have more attention than one sentence at the end of the description of Drain.
Page 52 of SR4 has a side-bar discussing major changes between SR3 and SR4. I would have liked to see a similar bar at the start of each chapter, it wouldn't be that large a footprint in a massive book.
EDITED to correct poor word choice pointed out by Mäx (http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1354.msg14944#msg14944).
-
Even in 4th edition, there was nothing to contradict it.
No magical healing of drain has always been the RAW in SR4, specifically:
Neither Stun nor Physical damage resulting from Drain can be healed by magical means such as sorcery or spirit powers.
Actually it hasn't allways been RAW in SR4, your quoting from newer then first printing corebook.
That sentence is added in in one of the erratas, can't tell witch one as they only have the newest up on the site.
Ofcource that isn't exactly point for gun nuts favor, as "i only skimmed the Anniversary edition" is atleast understandable, "I don't read errata" not so much.
-
I have the first printing of the 4th edition, which doesn't include that line.
I've got the errata for all the books, but unless something comes up in game that specifically calls for that kind of information then I don't bother checking. For example, I had actually forgotten that the newest form of the regeneration power can heal stun damage. In that case my first statement about not healing stun damage was wrong.
Regeneration has gotten some serious changes throughout the editions (I'm using this as an example). Did I read each book cover to cover to see each change? Not really, I skimmed through each one, stopping to focus only on things that were relevant to the game I was running. Occasionally, my players would run into something with regeneration, and that was important to know about, so I know how it changed through the editions. In the first and second editions, if you didn't outright kill the thing with regeneration (taking it to Deadly damage and beyond, and it rolling a 1 to fail the regenration check) then at the end of the Combat Turn ALL DAMAGE WAS REMOVED. This started changing in the third edition, making it heal a certain amount of damage per combat turn (something like its Essence or Magic rating in boxes) and making it more killable (still rolled to see if it outright died, though). This damage included any Physical damage from drain, and overcasting a spell for physical damage instead of stun damage was a viable, and even suggested, tactic for any spellcaster, let alone one with regeneration.
The point I'm making about all this is that I have played, and run, every single edition of SR since its release in 1989. As new rules come out, I only look at the things that are specifically relevant to the game I'm running (decking/hacking has changed so much with each edition I have to read the chapter anew each time). This sometimes means that, if I don't notice any large changes as I peruse the chapters, then I assume that it is the same as previous editions. This is a timesaver on my part, and also introduces error to my knowledge base (details, its all in the details). It means that I sometimes, in error, I state things as fact. My shelves are bursting with SR rulebooks and sourcebooks, so I sometimes take for granted the knowledge I have on the subject.
The best thing that anyone can do in such a situationis the same as what Chaemera did: quote the page number for me to see the detail. As the old man around here, my information is vast, but not necessarily up to date. Politely point out where I was wrong, and I'll back off. Get rude, and I'll dig in.
-
Even in 4th edition, there was nothing to contradict it.
No magical healing of drain has always been the RAW in SR4, specifically:
Neither Stun nor Physical damage resulting from Drain can be healed by magical means such as sorcery or spirit powers.
Actually it hasn't allways been RAW in SR4, your quoting from newer then first printing corebook.
That sentence is added in in one of the erratas, can't tell witch one as they only have the newest up on the site.
Ofcource that isn't exactly point for gun nuts favor, as "i only skimmed the Anniversary edition" is atleast understandable, "I don't read errata" not so much.
Fair enough, I should have said "was RAW before SR4A", didn't think to consider which printing of base-SR4 I had. Mea culpa.
-
I was not lording my superiority. I was explaining how I work for future use, based on past experience.
Most often, I will not provide a quote because I am away from books, and so cannot provide an exact quote or page reference.
I often cannot provide a quote later for someone who has questioned me, as I rarely visit the forums anymore & often will not even be aware of it.
Another thing to note about me - if I claim something is Rules as Written, additional emphasis is placed on as Written. I do not care how blatantly obvious the intent of a rule is. I do not care if developer input or FAQ has 'clarified' it. I am talking about the written functionality of the rule regarding the most recent printing/errata.
I will often include developer clarifications (if any) to the intended functionality, but that does not in itself change RAW.
-
This still implies that your word is infallible even without quoting a page number for reference. This is the attitude I had a problem with. If you had said something to the effect of "I can get the page for you later, I'm not near the books right now" that would have been more than acceptable (who has the books with them all the time?).
You didn't do that. You complained that I should know that you are correct as a standard courtesy. This comes across as very, very arrogant, and is entirely the wrong message one should send.
-
After revisiting my thread and seeing the hostility being passed around, I'm locking my thread. I will mention on Catalyst game site FAQ it definitively states in clear language and in no uncertain terms that Regeneration cannot heal drain and that drain is considered magical damage. For me, this clarification in the FAQ overrides RAW as it is from the developers.
Thanks to all who provided intelligent discourse.