[Bradd]

First, I'm not sure how indirect touch spells are supposed to work. My understanding is that for most spells, you establish touch with an unarmed combat attack, using melee modifiers, including +2 for touch-only, you win grazes, and net hits don't matter. If you touch, you have a magical link, and you can make your spellcasting test against that target normally.

I'm not sure how that translates to indirect spells though. For those, you make the spellcasting test as a ranged attack. Does "touch" mean that you have to touch the target and make a ranged attack? To me it makes more sense to combine the two and make the spellcasting test as a melee attack. But then I'm not sure whether you should use the +2 touch-only modifier, or whether you should win grazes. My inclination is no, but I don't want to be overly harsh.

Related to this, I seem to recall that you can cast a spell through a weapon, but I don't see the rules for that, and it's not jumping out to me how you'd handle it.

[The_Gun_Nut]

About the only spell that one might toss through a weapon would be an electrical spell and a metal weapon.  I wouldn't hold onto the (very) hot metal weapon after that, though.

You're idea about the melee combat thing would work just fine.  However, the caster is still just using the normal casting procedure for touch based weapons.  Just substitute the close-combat skill (as needed) instead of any ranged combat attack roll.  Remember, the caster gets a (sorta) free melee combat attack roll as part of the spellcasting process.

[Bradd]

I talked about this with the other GM in my group, and here's what we came up with:

When you cast a touch indirect spell, make a melee touch attack just like you do with other spells, to establish the magical link. If you touch, then make a Spellcasting test with exactly the same modifiers. Use the same defense roll for both tests (i.e., defender only rolls once). If you win that test too, add net hits to Force and finish resolving normally for an indirect spell.

Does that seem reasonable?

[The_Gun_Nut]

Do you mean that the defender's hits are counted twice?  Once for each roll?

[Bradd]

Yes. Sort of like how you use one spellcasting roll for all targets in an area, or you use one counterspelling roll for all allies. In this case, you use one dodge roll for both touch and spellcasting defense.

[Walks Through Walls]

No. You make the melee test which replaces the ranged attack test that it talks about in the book. At this point you have "hit" with the spell. Then you resolve the spell using the appropriate attribute, armor or portion there of depending on the indirect spell (or none with some elemental effects) and any counterspelling that is in effect for the resisting person

[Dakka]

No. You make the melee test which replaces the ranged attack test that it talks about in the book. At this point you have "hit" with the spell. Then you resolve the spell using the appropriate attribute, armor or portion there of depending on the indirect spell (or none with some elemental effects) and any counterspelling that is in effect for the resisting person

If you are implying a simple Spellcasting test at melee rather than ranged thats incorrect.  Touch spells require a "Touch" attack with Unarmed AND a Spellcasting test per the description of RANGE under Spellcasting (Page 203 SR4A).  You make two tests, the question is if the bad guy rolls two defense rolls which seems silly for an action that takes place near simultaneously.  Adding the touch requirement to direct spells is much easier as they have no attack roll to begin with, just spellcasting vs attribute to resist.

[Bradd]

I dunno, I could see doing it the way Walks Through Walls suggests (although Counterspelling applies to the defense roll, not the resistance roll, for indirect spells). It just occurred to me that indirect spells don't follow the same rules for magical links, so they wouldn't necessarily use the same touch test to establish the link.

So then my question becomes: Does an indirect touch spell use ranged or melee modifiers? Is it a ranged "weapon" with a maximum range of touch, or is it melee? I think it's the latter, but not sure.

EDIT: I just re-read p. 204, and it looks like Indirect Spells use magical links like everything else: the spell construct "travels down the mystic link to the chosen target" just like everything else. So you need a link to cast it, which means you need a successful unarmed touch. Then the question is, does the target defend against the touch & spell separately or together?

[FastJack]

A little further down the page:

If the spell reaches the chosen target and it fails to dodge with Reaction (+ Counterspelling, if available), the target then resists damage with Body + half Impact armor. Each hit reduces the Damage Value. If the modified spell DV does not exceed the modified Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun.

[Bradd]

I was thinking that in this case, "If the spell reaches the target" means that you hit with an unarmed touch attack. It seems weird to have the target roll separate dodge tests for the touch and the spellcasting.

[FastJack]

Where are you getting the Unarmed Touch attack? The rolls are a Spellcasting + Magic Opposed test against the target's Reaction (+ Counterspelling, if available), followed by a Resistance test if the mage is successful. There's no "Attack" roll.

Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Spellcasting + Magic Success Test versus the target’s Reaction.

I think you're confusing this with Touch Attacks in D&D.

[Bradd]

SR4A, p. 203:

Some spells, particularly health spells, require the caster to touch
the intended target in order for the spell to work. To touch an unwill-
ing target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of
the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156). A tie
on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the
target (p. 63).

Establishing the magical link for a touch spell requires an unarmed attack.

[FastJack]

Ah, okay, I see what you're talking about now. Spells with the range of Touch. In that case, I'd say that the Indirect Touch spells only require you to make the Opposed Melee Test since the wording of the original Indirect Spells mentions it should be treated as a "ranged attack".

In other words, Indirect Touch spells require Opposed Melee Tests, while all other Indirect Spells require the Spellcasting + Magic Opposed Test against the target's Reaction (+ Counterspelling).

[Bradd]

So, roll Spellcasting + Magic + melee modifiers vs Reaction + melee defenses + Counterspelling? That's one of the three main approaches I was thinking of. It might not be exactly right technically, but it's a reasonable simplification.

[FastJack]

Actually, if it's a Touch attack Spell, it would be Unarmed Combat + Agility + melee modifiers vs Reaction + melee defenses + Dodge + Counterspelling to get the touch on the target. Then roll Resistance as normal.