[Charybdis]

Further to the quips and quibbles inherent in other forum threads regarding mages, their power levels, advancement comparisons and other game-balance issues, I'm curious to hear what other games around the world do with this rule.

In our campaigns, it's very much the standard.

How do you guys use it (if at all)?

[Chaemera]

I was considering enforcement of that optional rule, but reading this thread kind of showed how that rule can end up causing more problems than exist if you don't enforce it.

My 2¥

[Charybdis]

I was considering enforcement of that optional rule, but reading this thread kind of showed how that rule can end up causing more problems than exist if you don't enforce it.

Odd. I read that thread, but it went around in circles and didn't really address this same issue.

In my experience, this rule hasn't confused anyone.
A) Only applies to Direct combat spells (which is a pretty short list)
B) Caster chooses how many net hits to utilise (thus choosing their drain level)
C) Caster resists drain as much as possible

What problems does this rule cause?

[Loki]

My GM hates the horrors I've commited to his poor cybered NPCs with mana spells in previous editions. That optional rule is the only reason he's running fourth. That and turn to goo now only effects living tissue.    

[Charybdis]

My GM hates the horrors I've commited to his poor cybered NPCs with mana spells in previous editions. That optional rule is the only reason he's running fourth. That and turn to goo now only effects living tissue.

Fair enough, and I have a similar background. Please vote in the poll above accordingly

[Tagz]

I use a modified version of this rule.

Instead of:
(Force / 2) ± spell's mod + net hits added

We use:
((Force + net hits added) / 2) ± spell's mod

It basically modifies the spell as though you cast the spell at a higher Force, but it does not change the drain type from stun to physical if the result is above your magic score.  The caster can choose to add net hits to the damage in this way or may opt not to.

I think this little tweak helps in a few ways.

1) It helps discourage overcasting since you can still achieve high levels of damage if you hit well, whereas the RAW ENCOURAGES overcasting because adding damage from net hits is a 1:1 ratio to drain and increasing force is a 2:1.  Just more efficient to up the Force.  Sure, with the RAW ruling you'll get hit with physical when overcasting but it will be a smaller number to soak.
With the change I use it's the same amount of drain as if you overcast to a Force 8 and added no hits or if you cast normally at Force 5 and added 3 hits.  The only difference is the drain type, and I see the higher damage with a stun drain as a reward for hitting well.

2) It doesn't penalize the player nearly so badly for rolling well.

3) It still helps to reduce the power of direct spells.

[Charybdis]

I use a modified version of this rule.

Instead of:
(Force / 2) ± spell's mod + net hits added

We use:
((Force + net hits added) / 2) ± spell's mod

It basically modifies the spell as though you cast the spell at a higher Force, but it does not change the drain type from stun to physical if the result is above your magic score.  The caster can choose to add net hits to the damage in this way or may opt not to.

I think this little tweak helps in a few ways.

1) It helps discourage overcasting since you can still achieve high levels of damage if you hit well, whereas the RAW ENCOURAGES overcasting because adding damage from net hits is a 1:1 ratio to drain and increasing force is a 2:1.  Just more efficient to up the Force.  Sure, with the RAW ruling you'll get hit with physical when overcasting but it will be a smaller number to soak.
With the change I use it's the same amount of drain as if you overcast to a Force 8 and added no hits or if you cast normally at Force 5 and added 3 hits.  The only difference is the drain type, and I see the higher damage with a stun drain as a reward for hitting well.

2) It doesn't penalize the player nearly so badly for rolling well.

3) It still helps to reduce the power of direct spells.

Interesting variant, but I'm confused about its use.

1) It's a valid compromise to add net hits before dividing, I can see how that's a happy Medium. I disagree on the need for Overcasting though....

2) Who get's penalised? The mage has the option to utilise as many net hits as they think they can handle (My most painful memory was chucking in 6 net hits on an Edge-assisted Stunbolt just because the BBEG HAD to go down, or we would all die. The pain was worth it in the end, and very cinematic

3) as 1) it's a nice medium between the two. Very cool.

My current GM is ambivalent on overcasting (as am I in the GM hat). I don't see any need to encourage/discourage it's utilisation. It's just an option to exceed your limits if required....

[Walks Through Walls]

If you get to choose how many net hits to use then it is fine. I have heard it interpreted that you roll and then soak from the successes. You don't get to choose how many you use, but just have to soak at the full number of successes.

This way it can be hard to know what force to cast a spell at as a mage. Do I cast at a high force and hope I don't roll great and have a terrible drain, or do I cast a low force and risk not getting enough successes to do anything. In my opinion a mage should have more control and understanding of how to cast a spell successfully without undo risk to themself.

However, as long as the rule is the same for character and NPC it will work out in the end.

[Charybdis]

If you get to choose how many net hits to use then it is fine. I have heard it interpreted that you roll and then soak from the successes. You don't get to choose how many you use, but just have to soak at the full number of successes.
...
However, as long as the rule is the same for character and NPC it will work out in the end.

With the optional RAW, it explicitly mentions that the mage has full control on choosing how many net hits to apply (even after the target rolls resistance test), so it's never a case of:
Oh crap! I hit really well! Now I'm unconscious!... that doesn't happen

[Tagz]

I use a modified version of this rule.

Instead of:
(Force / 2) ± spell's mod + net hits added

We use:
((Force + net hits added) / 2) ± spell's mod

It basically modifies the spell as though you cast the spell at a higher Force, but it does not change the drain type from stun to physical if the result is above your magic score.  The caster can choose to add net hits to the damage in this way or may opt not to.

I think this little tweak helps in a few ways.

1) It helps discourage overcasting since you can still achieve high levels of damage if you hit well, whereas the RAW ENCOURAGES overcasting because adding damage from net hits is a 1:1 ratio to drain and increasing force is a 2:1.  Just more efficient to up the Force.  Sure, with the RAW ruling you'll get hit with physical when overcasting but it will be a smaller number to soak.
With the change I use it's the same amount of drain as if you overcast to a Force 8 and added no hits or if you cast normally at Force 5 and added 3 hits.  The only difference is the drain type, and I see the higher damage with a stun drain as a reward for hitting well.

2) It doesn't penalize the player nearly so badly for rolling well.

3) It still helps to reduce the power of direct spells.

Interesting variant, but I'm confused about its use.

1) It's a valid compromise to add net hits before dividing, I can see how that's a happy Medium. I disagree on the need for Overcasting though....

2) Who get's penalised? The mage has the option to utilise as many net hits as they think they can handle (My most painful memory was chucking in 6 net hits on an Edge-assisted Stunbolt just because the BBEG HAD to go down, or we would all die. The pain was worth it in the end, and very cinematic

3) as 1) it's a nice medium between the two. Very cool.

My current GM is ambivalent on overcasting (as am I in the GM hat). I don't see any need to encourage/discourage it's utilisation. It's just an option to exceed your limits if required....

On #1:
Well, no NEED.  Just that the existing rule encourages overcasting.

Goal: To get 10DV to take out the guy before he can sound an alarm.

For this example we'll assume a magic of 6 and use Manabolt.  We'll leave out dice pools since they the spellcasting pool would be the same each time.  Instead we'll assume 4 net hits in both examples.  We'll also assume 4 hit's on the soak test.

Optional rule as RAW in use:
Cast at Force 6, get 4 net hits, use 4 to get our target 10DV.  The drain will be 7S. After soak it's 3S the mage receives to his/her track.
Cast at Force 10, get 4 net hits, use none to get 10DV.  The drain will be 5P.  After soak it's 1P the mage receives to his/her track.

Same DV to the enemy but the number of times you can cast the F10 one is 9 times with a full track (assuming low body score).  But that mage can only cast the F6 spell like this 3-4 times, assuming a high willpower, or choose to use it less at a lower DV to get the number of uses back to what overcasting can do.

Additionally, the lower amount of damage taken will mean less wound modifiers to take dice away from future tests.  With our example the mage takes 1/3 of a wound modifier for overcasting and 1 full wound modifier for not.

While not the worst thing in the world, this bothers me a bit both mechanically and thematically.

Mechanically it encourages overcasting because a combat mage is likely going to want to use the more damaging option that they can also use more often.  This can easily be one of the reasons that people feel mages are unbalanced in combat.  There are plenty of other factors that effect this, as it is a decision on the player's part, but many players will go this route.

Thematically, I don't just don't like the idea that overcasting is something that happens all the time, and mages looking to deal damage fast will often use the overcasting option with frequency.  Also, I don't like the idea that a mage casting spells within his/her capabilities tires and exhausts faster then one that casts beyond his/her abilities.  And since hits are capped by spell Force it seems only natural to think that the usage of net hits falls within the mage's capabilities.

Anyhow, that's my take on it.  YGMV

[Charybdis]

Goal: To get 10DV to take out the guy before he can sound an alarm.

For this example we'll assume a magic of 6 and use Manabolt.  We'll leave out dice pools since they the spellcasting pool would be the same each time.  Instead we'll assume 4 net hits in both examples.  We'll also assume 4 hit's on the soak test.

Optional rule as RAW in use:
Cast at Force 6, get 4 net hits, use 4 to get our target 10DV.  The drain will be 7S. After soak it's 3S the mage receives to his/her track.
Cast at Force 10, get 4 net hits, use none to get 10DV.  The drain will be 5P.  After soak it's 1P the mage receives to his/her track.

Or, secret option C.

Use an Indirect combat spell (Any single target elemental version will suffice),.

RAW for Force 6 spell with 4 net successes on Spellcasting and 4 on Drain means:
- Damage = 10DV (Check) with added secondary elemental effects applying from the spell (Knockdown, Incapacitation etc depending on elemental effect)
- Drain = 6S (2S after Soaking), vs the 3S in your example above.

No overcasting. Same Damage. Less Drain. Standard Rules.

Thematically, I don't just don't like the idea that overcasting is something that happens all the time, and mages looking to deal damage fast will often use the overcasting option with frequency.  Also, I don't like the idea that a mage casting spells within his/her capabilities tires and exhausts faster then one that casts beyond his/her abilities.  And since hits are capped by spell Force it seems only natural to think that the usage of net hits falls within the mage's capabilities.

I concur, but again Indirect Combat Spells tick all your boxes here....

[Tagz]

I thought the point of this discussion was direct spells and the optional rule to increase drain from using net hits.  Indirect spells not having that mechanic shouldn't really be an arguing point, though I understand your point.  I too love indirect spells and and am considering a house rule drain reduction.

That said, it still is more total drain then overcasting that manabolt, but we're comparing handguns to grenades.

[Charybdis]

I thought the point of this discussion was direct spells and the optional rule to increase drain from using net hits.  Indirect spells not having that mechanic shouldn't really be an arguing point, though I understand your point. 

Well, yes. But you were advising that you needed the variant you're using to perform the required damage without overcasting. I just wanted to note that there's already a RAW option to meet those requirements, without a houserule

That said, it still is more total drain then overcasting that manabolt, but we're comparing handguns to grenades.

Well, yes, but it's back to Stun drain rather than physical. So it's:
1) more pain (so not as many shots before falling unconscious), but less recovery time
... vs ...
2) Less pain (so can stay in the fight longer), but longer recovery time
...or....
3) Bit of both. Take a rank or two of Damage compensation, then alternate Stun and Physical drain to ignore wound modifiers for as long as possible   ...then sleep for a week!

[Chaemera]

What problems does this rule cause?

As noted in the thread, it's not that it creates confusion. It's that once you stack up the drain, it becomes heavily advantageous to split your dice pool and multicast vs single casting and you end up experiencing less drain, rather than more, by hitting a person twice with Force 5 and not adding any of the hits to damage than if you cast it once at force 5 and did add the hits to damage.

The math of this is shown in this post, here. It also explains how overcasting becomes cheaper and less painful (read, less Drain) than casting lower force, spending edge, and adding in net hits to damage.

[Charybdis]

....
it becomes heavily advantageous to split your dice pool and multicast vs single casting and you end up experiencing less drain, rather than more, by hitting a person twice with Force 5 and not adding any of the hits to damage than if you cast it once at force 5 and did add the hits to damage.

The math of this is shown in this post, here. It also explains how overcasting becomes cheaper and less painful (read, less Drain) than casting lower force, spending edge, and adding in net hits to damage.

This same splitting mechanic applies on all spells though. Instead of a F5 Lightning bolt, send down 2xF3's. Your base damage starts at 6 (instead of 5) and your max successes can be 6 (instead of 5).