[voydangel]

It would be crippling to a mage - resisting a point of damage for every one you inflict is simply impractical.  It also goes against how combat spells have been used in all of the previous editions, and this one - as the low-Drain, no-fuss main combat option for a mage.

Indirect combat spells got hit with the nerf bat in SR4A too, though.  Previously, counterspelling was added to the damage soak test, rather than directly countering a mage's successes, so indirect spells were the better option when you were expecting heavy spell defense on your target.

So I wonder why people raised a ruckus over the changes to direct combat spells, but not indirects...

[Chaemera]

It would be crippling to a mage - resisting a point of damage for every one you inflict is simply impractical.  It also goes against how combat spells have been used in all of the previous editions, and this one - as the low-Drain, no-fuss main combat option for a mage.

Indirect combat spells got hit with the nerf bat in SR4A too, though.  Previously, counterspelling was added to the damage soak test, rather than directly countering a mage's successes, so indirect spells were the better option when you were expecting heavy spell defense on your target.

So I wonder why people raised a ruckus over the changes to direct combat spells, but not indirects...

My best guess? Because, though a "nerf", it is logical and consistent that the Counterspelling be added in the test where the actual Spellcasting occurs. Yes, keeping it with "resisting" also makes sense, from the perspective that counterspelling helps "resist" the effects of a spell. But, in my mind, it makes more sense, and is more consistent to say that Counterspelling is the act of countering spellcasting, in which case, it should directly oppose a spellcasting role.

However, I wasn't there for the pro-con arguments, so I don't know why a fuss wasn't raised (or, if raised, wasn't successful) regarding the application of counterspelling of indirect spells.

[Tyrs13]

Or how about if some one is knocked out and no traces are found as to why (Direct) they may look for Magic and find your Signature .... While a direct spell would give probable cause, He feinted from a blood clout in his brain.

Once they know its magic and have a signature well you can bet some one is going to be on the look out for you eventually.

The benefit for using Indirect spells is the subtly and stealth involved with them. Granted throwing out Force 7 Fireballs is going to stand out like a sore thumb but that has the benefit of Elemental Damage.

[Chaemera]

I was going to say, subtlety, thy name is not indirect combat spells. Those are the flashy ones by definition. Except, perhaps clout.
"Why's this guy unconscious?"
"Well, Jim, judging by the bruise, troll. Also, he's dead, Jim."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[voydangel]

I was going to say, subtlety, thy name is not indirect combat spells. Those are the flashy ones by definition. Except, perhaps clout.
"Why's this guy unconscious?"
"Well, Jim, judging by the bruise, troll. Also, he's dead, Jim."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Actually that's a really good point. Clout would look like a troll punched someone (or something similar), so the cops on scene would probably never bother or think to call the magic detective squad in to have a look around. hmmm