[FastJack]

This is why I put the Counterspelling in with the Dodge to the Melee attack.

[Mordoyh]

I'll give you the Counterspelling on the Spellcast test, but here's how I'd play it:

Unarmed + Agility + mods vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods.  Tie goes to caster.
Spellcasting + Magic + mods  vs Reaction + Counterspelling.  Net hits increase DV of the spell (They already had their chance to dodge the melee attack, I don't see how they can use melee defense to dodge again.)
Absorption roll if spell sucessful with DV determined by force + hits vs Body + 1/2 impact armor.
Resist Drain.

This makes the most sense to me.  The whole point of the touch is to establish the link which is required for both direct and indirect combat spells at range.  The major difference at touch range is still how the damage is resisted, direct you get no armor, indirect you do.

The spell I would like to use at touch range would be one with the Blast effect, so I can knock that Sammy on his butt.  Otherwise I'm sticking with my Death Touch.  However my Mage is built for touch spell effectiveness with Unarmed Combat 4, Agility 5, and he's a shapeshifter (which is why I put points in unarmed combat to use his natural weapons, not realizing that it would be good for touch spells).

[voydangel]

I'll give you the Counterspelling on the Spellcast test, but here's how I'd play it:

Unarmed + Agility + mods vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods.  Tie goes to caster.
Spellcasting + Magic + mods  vs Reaction + Counterspelling.  Net hits increase DV of the spell (They already had their chance to dodge the melee attack, I don't see how they can use melee defense to dodge again.)
Absorption roll if spell sucessful with DV determined by force + hits vs Body + 1/2 impact armor.
Resist Drain.

This makes the most sense to me.  The whole point of the touch is to establish the link which is required for both direct and indirect combat spells at range.  The major difference at touch range is still how the damage is resisted, direct you get no armor, indirect you do.

The spell I would like to use at touch range would be one with the Blast effect, so I can knock that Sammy on his butt.  Otherwise I'm sticking with my Death Touch.  However my Mage is built for touch spell effectiveness with Unarmed Combat 4, Agility 5, and he's a shapeshifter (which is why I put points in unarmed combat to use his natural weapons, not realizing that it would be good for touch spells).

Bold emphasis mine. - I think that 1st Reaction was supposed to be Agility, is that what you meant? or did you actually mean Reaction?

Anyway - I just don't think they should get their Reaction (or Agility or whatever) twice. Which is why I do it pretty much the exact same way as FJ except that in the above "Reaction + counterspelling" step (step 2), I skip the reaction part of it and roll just counterspelling in that step. Everything else I leave pretty much as he has it written.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Agility is for offense, Reaction is for defense.

[FastJack]

Melee Combat Summary

Attacker Rolls:	Combat skill + Agility
Defender Rolls:	Weapon skill + Reaction (parry)
	Unarmed Combat + Reaction (block)
	Dodge + Reaction (dodge)
Defender using Full Defense:	Weapon skill/Dodge + Dodge + Reaction
DV Modifiers:	Net hits
Armor Used:	Impact
Condition Monitor Used:	Physical or Stun

Just as with any other melee attack, the Defender rolls Reaction + the appropriate skill. Then, per SR4A p. 204, the Spellcasting is also opposed by the Reaction + Counterspelling.

[voydangel]

Yea, brain fart, ignore the agi comment. But I'm still not convinced you get reaction twice with a touch spell. I mean, obviously you get it once - you try to avoid getting touched. But, after that - if you're touched, you're touched, that's it. As Walks through Walls stated very nicely:

No I disagree. The first one is to see if you hit (with a touch) this then lets you cast the spell. There is no reason to see if you hit again. I hit therefore I cast the spell. How can you dodge away from something that is already touching you?

I doesn't say how well you have to touch to do damage just that you have to touch.

Let me try another analogy:

If you touch a live wire you get zapped. It doesn't matter if you brush it or grab on you get zapped. It happens in the instant you complete the circuit and you feel it. That is how I see the spell process working. You touch the victim completing the circuit and they get zapped by the spell.

I completely agree with this logic. So by said logic - you get 1 chance to avoid getting touched, after that, the only resistance is counterspelling + either body or willpower.
At least that's the way I see it.

[Chaemera]

I might agree with your analogy, voydangel, but the RAW states pretty clearly:

Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks: the caster makes a Spellcasting + Magic Success Test versus the target's Reaction. Indirect Combat spells generate a spell construct at the point of origin (the caster) which travels down the mystic link to the chosen target (see Choose a Target, p. 183), whereupon it discharges and the effect defined in the spell description manifests.

Some spells can only be cast on targets that the caster touches - these targets do not need to be seen, but the caster must succeed in an unarmed attack to touch an unwilling target of such a spell.

So Step 3 of casting a touch spell requires an unarmed combat vs reaction test, per page 183. Okay, no one disagrees there.

But, nothing in Step 3 changes the rules on page 204 that state that the Spellcasting test (step 4) is treated like ranged combat. Therefore, by the RAW, you get your reaction twice, albiet the second time takes a -1 penalty, since you already defended against the unarmed attack (subject to the additional rules stated on page 204), now you're defending against the spellcasting.

Also note, unless on full defense, the victim doesn't add dodge to his die pool for the spellcasting opposed check, since it is handled like ranged combat. Nothing in the RAW says "treat an indirect touch combat spell like melee combat".

As to the live wire example, that's a wire, not a spell. You have to touch the person then cast the spell. It would be like if you touch a wire, then, subsequent to that, someone throws a switch and it becomes a live wire. You have the opportunity to react to the person throwing the switch.

If you don't like the analogy, then house rule it. But, the RAW itself doesn't leave a lot of room for debate. No one can point to a part of the RAW that says "for indirect touch combat spells, since the mage is already touching the target, the target may not defend themselves against the spell".

[voydangel]

Ok, I'm willing to go that route, but then that opens up a whole new can of worms... if we're treating a spellcasting test as a ranged attack, and apparently ranged combat modifiers and defense modifiers apply (such as the -1 for previously defending), do I get the +2 dice to my attack roll for being at point blank range in addition to the +2 dice for only requiring a touch? Does that also mean I get the -3 for ranged attacker being in melee combat?

[FastJack]

I actually agree with you voyd, but we're in the minority here...

[voydangel]

Well, that's good to know. It also makes me want to mention that I am not arguing to be difficult or because I don't "get it".

I just see where the rules really really need to be clarified and I enjoy the open discussion and seeing the various points of view.


Not to mention I'm looking for a job, and have done game design previously (hint hint to all the freelancers out there) lol   

[Chaemera]

Well, that's good to know. It also makes me want to mention that I am not arguing to be difficult or because I don't "get it".

I just see where the rules really really need to be clarified and I enjoy the open discussion and seeing the various points of view.

I tend to look at it the same way, though sometimes it's good to play devil's advocate (aka, being difficult).

Though I disagree a little on it needing to be clearer, just more clearly written.  But that can be said for most of what's in the SR4 books (A or non-A).

Not to mention I'm looking for a job, and have done game design previously (hint hint to all the freelancers out there) lol   

Is the pay better than electrical engineers get? 'Cause I wouldn't mind a career hop, myself.

[voydangel]

Not to mention I'm looking for a job, and have done game design previously (hint hint to all the freelancers out there) lol   

Is the pay better than electrical engineers get? 'Cause I wouldn't mind a career hop, myself.

Doubtful, but since I'm jobless atm, anything is better than nothing.

[Bradd]

Ok, I'm willing to go that route, but then that opens up a whole new can of worms... if we're treating a spellcasting test as a ranged attack, and apparently ranged combat modifiers and defense modifiers apply (such as the -1 for previously defending), do I get the +2 dice to my attack roll for being at point blank range in addition to the +2 dice for only requiring a touch? Does that also mean I get the -3 for ranged attacker being in melee combat?

The +2 touch bonus is a melee modifier, so it would only apply to your melee touch attack. The +2 point blank bonus is a ranged modifier, so it would only apply to the spellcasting test. You'd also get the -3 ranged attack in melee penalty. I'm not sure whether the target would get the -3 ranged defense in melee penalty.

[Chaemera]

Ok, I'm willing to go that route, but then that opens up a whole new can of worms... if we're treating a spellcasting test as a ranged attack, and apparently ranged combat modifiers and defense modifiers apply (such as the -1 for previously defending), do I get the +2 dice to my attack roll for being at point blank range in addition to the +2 dice for only requiring a touch? Does that also mean I get the -3 for ranged attacker being in melee combat?

The +2 touch bonus is a melee modifier, so it would only apply to your melee touch attack. The +2 point blank bonus is a ranged modifier, so it would only apply to the spellcasting test. You'd also get the -3 ranged attack in melee penalty. I'm not sure whether the target would get the -3 ranged defense in melee penalty.

What Bradd said, is, per the RAW, how you would treat it. Including the -3 ranged defense in melee penalty (he is in melee, albiet with the caster) for the defender. Until an errata comes out, that's exactly how it's spelled out in the book. If you don't think it works that well, house rule it. Me, I'd ignore the "ranged in melee, point-blank range" type modifiers to the spellcasting roll (in fact, I'd ignore just about every modifier that wouldn't logically apply, such as if the defender were strapped down or they're standing in high background count). But, if you don't give him the Reaction roll against the Spellcasting roll, you've just upped the power a lot for something they meant to be slightly less effective than casting at range. Namely, every single hit he gets is a "net hit" that carries through to damage.

I love touch spells in your game, voyd. It isn't too expensive to get Agility 4 as an elf, plus Unarmed 4 (specialty in touch attacks)*, I now have a 12 die pool to hit (and all I have to do is match). And now he only gets counterspelling (as a mage, or if he keeps a mage in his pocket) to negate my Spellcasting roll? Which also wouldn't be hard to twink out pretty well, Not that I'd need to, he doesn't get a real defense against this roll. If you let me have custom-fitted armor, I'd marry you.

The rule is written not because it "makes sense" but to keep things somewhat balanced. Could they have said a touch indirect combat spell is resisted as a direct combat spell? Sure, though it would blur the line between the spell categories. They could also get rid of touch indirect combat spells, since they treat indirect combat magic as a ranged attack (seems pretty incompatible, ranged melee?). They didn't do either of these things, so you need some way to reduce the insanity.

* If you assume that I picked up Elf for reasons beyond unarmed combat, the BP cost for this one portion is 38 BP, not too expensive if I'm going to focus on combat magic. Come to think of it, go mystic adept, leave the Agility at 2 and pick up a few points of Agility Boost. Of course, at that point, I might as well go full-adept, get killing strike and elemental strike, point is, there are a lot of ways to quickly and cheaply get your DP up there if you feel like it.

[voydangel]

Wow, so, based on that...

using the book Mage (pg.99) upgraded to 6 magic, 6 spellcasting 4 counterspelling & 3 unarmed to cast a touch spell (like punch) vs a mirror/clone of himself:

1. Mage attempts melee attack with his 6 + 2 for only needing to touch target = total 8 dice. Target resists with Reaction + unarmed for a total of 7 dice. Lets just say the attacker gets 1 net success for the purposes of this example.

2. Mage makes a spellcasting check - which is treated as a ranged combat attack. He rolls 12 (Magic + Spellcasting) + 2 (Point blank) -3 (ranged attack while in melee) for a total of 11 dice. The defender defends with Base pool of reaction + counterspelling -3 for being attacked "at range" while in melee -1 for being attacked previously in the combat round bringing us down to only 4 dice to defend. So lets assume the attacker gets a net of 3 hits here.

3. resist damage blah blah blah....

I'm not worried about whether or not it's easy or hard to pull off the attacks, my point here is that it just doesn't make sense to be adding all these extra (ranged combat) modifiers to the spell process when its a touch (melee) attack. I find it really hard to believe that the writers intended what is obviously a "melee attack" to be treated as a ranged attack....

Also, I've already stated how I run it in my games, and it's not how you describe it, the way I run it has been working for me and is very very balanced and fair according to my players, a few of which are math geeks, so I'm not too worried about house rules. However, I would have to disagree with your assertion that the rule is written as it is to make the game balanced, mainly because it is actually rather unbalanced as written - in the favor of the defender. Well, that's my opinion anyway, I guess we'll (hopefully) see when the errata comes out (one day)...