[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Per page 283 of the SR5 core rulebook, attacking with an Indirect Area Combat spells is resolved like a grenade attack.  That is, a threshold test with no possibility to dodge.

While it says the test is "like" that of attacking with a grenade except that net hits above the threshold increases the DV, it doesn't say anything about whether there's a DV dropoff based on distance from the point of origin. 

I'm of two minds on that, and can see it working either way.

A: There is a DV dropoff every meter because you resolve the attack as a grenade attack in all ways with the sole listed exception of being able to pump up the DV with net hits on the success test.
B: There is no DV dropoff every meter because the rules never say there is one; grenades suffer DV dropoff not due to the rules governing grenades but because of the rules specific to each kind of grenade.

So what's the consensus?  Is an indirect combat spell dealing full, modified by net hits DV all the way out to the very edge of the spell's aoe?  If the intent is to do A, what is the rate of DV dropoff then?

[ShadowcatX]

Spells do not have any rules saying they have a DV drop off so they would not.

[PiXeL01]

The answer is B - Because magic

[Marcus]

What PiXeL01 said.
I don't have a compelling argument other then that's the rules as I recall them, but for full discloser  the last time I saw an indirect AoE combat spell was like a month after 5th came out, and we never saw that sort collateral damage again. The End.

[Kiirnodel]

Not all grenades have damage drop-off. Flash-bangs work the same way, they have a set radius and deal a specific amount of damage to everything caught in that area.

Area Indirect Combat Spells work that way.

[PiXeL01]

Not chunky salsa either from what I understand

[Kiirnodel]

I don't think the rules specify, but I generally don't apply the chunky salsa rules to area effects that don't have the drop-off. So that would include Flashbangs and Area Indirect Spells.

[ShadowcatX]

Agreed. They fill the area that they are suppose to fill to the best of their ability but they don't blow back / chunky salsa.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'm pretty sure that strictly by RAW the chunky salsa rule should be applied to Indirect area spells as it applies categorically to grenades (as opposed to DV dropoff being done on a by-grenade basis).  However from a game-sanity point of view it makes sense that if you're not going to have a DV dropoff, you shouldn't then be using the chunky salsa rule.

[ShadowcatX]

By a strict reading of RAW, no you don't get the chunky salsa test. The "test" (for hitting) is like that of grenades. Nothing about resolving the spell is like that of a grenade. Furthermore, AoE indirect combat spells are not explosions, they are filling an area up with an element.

[Kiirnodel]

SSDR, you seem to be caught up on this idea that Area Indirect Combat Spells function like grenades. The rules only mention the rules for grenades for how the spell is placed. These spells don't function "categorically" as grenades.

 It requires 3 hits to position correctly (like a grenade), and if you do not get enough hits, it scatters (like a grenade). That's all.

[Tecumseh]

I'm going to swim upstream here and admit that I use approach A, not because the rules say so but for balance reasons.

It's already ridiculously easy for most casters to meet the threshold of 3 hits. A caster with 12 dice can do so 82% of the time, and extra dice from specializations, mentor spirits, and power foci just make it more likely (89% at 14 dice, 94% at 16 dice, and so on).

In the off-chance that the caster doesn't get 3 hits, they'll likely get 2 hits, which means a minimal (1d6 meters) scatter. Depending on the Force of the spell, that could mean that the central target is still caught within the radius of the blast, even though the caster "missed".

So, to balance the scales, I do subtract DV at a rate of 1/meter. The bookkeeping is annoying but overall I prefer it to casters firing off spells that can't miss and that can't be dodged without a Run For Your Life interrupt action and a generous amount of unused movement.

My players appreciate it because it means I'm not firing unmissable, undodgeable spells at them. It also means that Run For Your Life can help reduce DV even if the player doesn't escape the blast radius entirely. All in all it works better for us than approach B.

[ShadowcatX]

House rules are fine when everyone agrees on them, and Shadowrun is lethal enough a little bit of soft balling is probably appreciated. But that certainly isn't RAW.

[PiXeL01]

With the exception of not requiring targets to be visible to the caster, there are no indications in CRB that the effect of Indirect Area Spells is treated any different than other area spells meaning that even the area of effect of any spell the effect is the same.

The book only says “the test is like that of grenades” meaning they can scatter as described below that passage, but that is where the similarities end.

[Fraethir]

So by that, humor the new guy.

Ball Lightning, combat, indirect, physical, Area

Declare spell, declare target, declare force. Say it's 6.
Roll spellcasting. Count the hits. (say I get 4 hits). Keep all the hits, because it's lower than the Limit of the spell's Force.
Check for scatter (more than 3 hits, no scatter)
Check for hit. No dodge, but presumably "Run for your life" or similar interrupts that apply to grenades can give you a chance to reduce damage.
If you haven't reduced it, or gotten out of the AE some way, take the hit. Base DV is 6P v-6 or 6S v-6 (Damage depends on 'source or target'?) Combat spell, I'm assuming you're blowing stuff up, so base DV is 6P v-6.
If they didn't RFYL, 4 net hits, so damage is 10P v-6 to everyone hit.
You resist 5 drain. Stun if your magic is 4 or higher (your hits).
They resist 10P damage, using body+armor+nonconductivity. with -6 (to armor only, not body or nonconductivity parts of the pool).

Correct?