[Jeeves]

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.

[voydangel]

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.

[Chaemera]

As voydangel says, SR4A, pg. 204 lists this for direct combat spells as an optional rule in the current printing (see thread here).

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.

[Mäx]

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.

[Lansdren]

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

[voydangel]

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.

[Chaemera]

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.

[voydangel]

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...

[Chaemera]

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.

[voydangel]

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

[Mäx]

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.

[Lansdren]

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.

[Nomad Zophiel]

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.

[Mäx]

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)

[Nomad Zophiel]

Ah yes. Gonna redo the previous post with fixed math and revise as needed.
Previous post edited with corrected math.