[mbisber]

Wow, I never noticed Punch before!

It's a spell to be used against a target with no actions left in the Combat Turn.

[Sphinx]

Here's how I handle touch combat spells:

Direct Touch: The touch attack is a separate test, but considered part of the spellcasting action (melee attacks are always Complex Actions, though, so you can't use reckless spellcasting with touch combat spells). Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. the target's Reaction + Intuition defense test for the touch-only attack (see p.187). Extra hits on the touch attack are good for style, maybe, but have no real benefit. If you succeed on the touch, then cast the spell: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. (Body or Willpower) + Counterspelling (if any).

Indirect Touch: Like Direct combat touch spells, the touch attack is a separate test that happens in the same Complex Action as the spellcasting test. Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. Reaction + Intuition. If you succeed, then cast the spell. Here's where Indirect differs from Direct: Indirect combat spells are resisted with a regular Reaction + Intuition defense test, but the target already had one to avoid the indirect touch spell, and failed. They don't get a second bite at that apple; they can resist with Counterspelling, but that's all. Roll Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Counterspelling (if any).

[Shinobi Killfist]

Here's how I handle touch combat spells:

Direct Touch: The touch attack is a separate test, but considered part of the spellcasting action (melee attacks are always Complex Actions, though, so you can't use reckless spellcasting with touch combat spells). Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. the target's Reaction + Intuition defense test for the touch-only attack (see p.187). Extra hits on the touch attack are good for style, maybe, but have no real benefit. If you succeed on the touch, then cast the spell: Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. (Body or Willpower) + Counterspelling (if any).

Indirect Touch: Like Direct combat touch spells, the touch attack is a separate test that happens in the same Complex Action as the spellcasting test. Roll Unarmed Combat + Agility + 2 [Physical] vs. Reaction + Intuition. If you succeed, then cast the spell. Here's where Indirect differs from Direct: Indirect combat spells are resisted with a regular Reaction + Intuition defense test, but the target already had one to avoid the indirect touch spell, and failed. They don't get a second bite at that apple; they can resist with Counterspelling, but that's all. Roll Spellcasting + Magic [Force] vs. Counterspelling (if any).

This makes some in world sense, but its kind of broken.  Odds are you are casting these at a fairly high force due to the -6 drain, getting gross hits to damage instead of net is kind of too good. Though I guess most mages aren't unarmed combat experts and getting the skill/agility is a investment.

[PiXeL01]

The problem with Direct Spells is that you just need to make a connect to the aura of the target so even a glancing hit is a fullblown hit, so it would not make sense to resist them with Reaction+Intuition+Willpower/Body, though it would be a lot easier from a mechanical point of view.
 It would just be a one roll test - (Direct Spells: Magician makes a standard spell check, target resists with only willpower/body for ranged direct spells but reaction+intuition+willpower/body for touch spells. Magician would suffer drain in both cases.
You could of course make it a two step resist check for the target: first roll reaction+Intuition, if you beat spell check no damage and no drain for the magician. Otherwise resist remainder of damage using willpower/body.

The latter I would use for indirect touch spells too, of course the damage would involve armor too

[Kiirnodel]

I agree with Shinobi, it's a little overwhelming to let the spellcasting test go (essentially) unresisted. Personally, I would either
a) allow a second dodge test to "avoid the incoming energy wave"
b) use the same result from the first dodge test, so those hits count for dodging both attack rolls
c) have an indirect touch range spell not require a separate "touch" roll, treating the specific rule that indirect spells are also the attack roll as superseding the need to make a separate roll to see if initial contact is made.

[Sphinx]

I agree with Shinobi, it's a little overwhelming to let the spellcasting test go (essentially) unresisted. Personally, I would either
a) allow a second dodge test to "avoid the incoming energy wave"
b) use the same result from the first dodge test, so those hits count for dodging both attack rolls
c) have an indirect touch range spell not require a separate "touch" roll, treating the specific rule that indirect spells are also the attack roll as superseding the need to make a separate roll to see if initial contact is made.

You make a good point. I might end up going with option (B) on this.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I feel like I'm missing something on the hesitance to give the target in effect two resistance rolls.

In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool.  That's effectively two resistance tests.

What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?

[Fedifensor]

In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool.  That's effectively two resistance tests.

What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?

I think it’s easier to accept two different tests for direct spells, because you’re doing two different things - touching the person, then overwhelming the body or mind.  For an indirect spell, you would be making two rolls to do the same thing - hit the person with the spell.  Personally, I’d make the caster of the indirect touch spell make two rolls, but use the same Defense test of Reaction + Intuition for both.  The first one would only need to get a glancing blow (a tie would be sufficient), but the second would determine net hits.


The more relevant question - what real incentive is there to cast a direct touch spell?  Sure, Death Touch is F - 6 instead of F - 3 for Manabolt, but since the minimum drain is 2 you have to cast at least a Force 8 spell to get full effect from it.  Plus, unless you have a lot of dice to roll, the extra Force isn’t going to make a difference.  It’s a bit different with an indirect spell, as Force + net hits determine damage.

[Shinobi Killfist]

In the case of a touch range direct spell, you still have to roll spellcasting + magic vs body or willpower after first succeeding on an unarmed combat + agility vs dodge pool.  That's effectively two resistance tests.

What's the big deal about getting two dodge tests vs touch range indirect combat spells?

I think it’s easier to accept two different tests for direct spells, because you’re doing two different things - touching the person, then overwhelming the body or mind.  For an indirect spell, you would be making two rolls to do the same thing - hit the person with the spell.  Personally, I’d make the caster of the indirect touch spell make two rolls, but use the same Defense test of Reaction + Intuition for both.  The first one would only need to get a glancing blow (a tie would be sufficient), but the second would determine net hits.


The more relevant question - what real incentive is there to cast a direct touch spell?  Sure, Death Touch is F - 6 instead of F - 3 for Manabolt, but since the minimum drain is 2 you have to cast at least a Force 8 spell to get full effect from it.  Plus, unless you have a lot of dice to roll, the extra Force isn’t going to make a difference.  It’s a bit different with an indirect spell, as Force + net hits determine damage.

A few things for me.

1 what you are pointing out I agree with its a too hit roll that you already hit with.  Using the dodge result for both seems to fit there to some degree.
2.  Its just too many rolls.
3.  If I'm not using the same roll, now I have to wonder is this a second attack they are dodging, are they at -1 for it being a second attack are there any other modifiers. 
4. Also I think the descriptions of how they work is a bit different. Indirect spells you are creating a bolt, explosive projectile of fire and trying to hit someone or someplace with it. With direct spells the range is determining how you are syncing the auras so you can hit it with death energy or whatever. So thematically you are creating a ball of energy in your hand and slapping someone with it, not touching them and then going okay I've got a link try and charge a fire spell into them, because you don't need a link to their aura.

As for your second point, I have a hard time justifying casting a direct spell period. But a single target ranged one, yeah force 5 gets me minimum drain and I probably wont get more than 5 hits anyways so do I need to take a touch range spell, losing range is huge on its own worth the -3 drain even before we talk about needing a separate attack roll. The direct line really seems to be set up for edge based attacks, I guess they work as finishers if the street sam shot someone for 8 boxes of damage or something. If melee attacks were simple and you consistently could get enough hits for it to matter then maybe the -6 vs -3 could make a difference for casters who like to quick cast.  It is one of the many spells/rules that didn't translate well to the new rules.

[Tecumseh]

The question about how Punch works has been coming up since 2013.

If I may, here is some clarification offered by Aaron Pavao, one of the SR5 developers. (He has both a writing credit and a Rules Committee credit on page 7 of SR5.) This is from the [SR5] Rules Clarifications and FAQ thread (page 44 if you want to track it down yourself):

2: How does the Indirect Touch spell, Punch, work?

In the specific case of a touch-range combat spell, the Spellcasting test takes the place of the Unarmed attack. So you only need to make the Spellcasting Test, which is defended against by the target's Reaction + Intuition.

Another poster followed up about a week later (on page 49) with a "did you really mean that?" post that covered some of the same balance questions that have been going back and forth in this thread, and citing the +2 touch-only attack bonus on page 187 that specifically refers to spells. Aaron confirmed that, yes, Punch is really intended to be a one-roll spell. Just Spellcasting, no Unarmed.

My personal experience is that I've played it both ways and I prefer Aaron's interpretation. I didn't like the extra rolling of the separate Unarmed attack, and I didn't find it to be unbalancing to get rid of it. But that's my preference; other GMs can and will feel differently, which is also reasonable.

[Shinobi Killfist]

The question about how Punch works has been coming up since 2013.

If I may, here is some clarification offered by Aaron Pavao, one of the SR5 developers. (He has both a writing credit and a Rules Committee credit on page 7 of SR5.) This is from the [SR5] Rules Clarifications and FAQ thread (page 44 if you want to track it down yourself):

2: How does the Indirect Touch spell, Punch, work?

In the specific case of a touch-range combat spell, the Spellcasting test takes the place of the Unarmed attack. So you only need to make the Spellcasting Test, which is defended against by the target's Reaction + Intuition.

Another poster followed up about a week later (on page 49) with a "did you really mean that?" post that covered some of the same balance questions that have been going back and forth in this thread, and citing the +2 touch-only attack bonus on page 187 that specifically refers to spells. Aaron confirmed that, yes, Punch is really intended to be a one-roll spell. Just Spellcasting, no Unarmed.

My personal experience is that I've played it both ways and I prefer Aaron's interpretation. I didn't like the extra rolling of the separate Unarmed attack, and I didn't find it to be unbalancing to get rid of it. But that's my preference; other GMs can and will feel differently, which is also reasonable.

Thanks, my search-fu did not find that.  It found me asking about it and discussing it way way back in time, heck it may have even been 4th edition.

[Tecumseh]

For full disclosure, Aaron's ruling directly contradicts what the book says on page 282:

Some spells require you to Touch (T) the target—if the target is unwilling, you’ll need to make an unarmed attack against the target (see Accuracy, p. 168).

In light of Aaron's ruling, some rules scholars have taken this passage to apply to non-combat spells, like Decrease Attribute or Mind Probe. But then you're in the awkward situation of using one set of rules for combat spells and another set of rules for other spell categories. But then you can contort yourself further and argue that maybe Aaron's approach makes sense for Instant spells (like combat spells) while maybe the book's approach makes sense for sustained spells like Mind Probe where you can probe once per Complex Action while the spell is sustained...

As I said before, I use Aaron's interpretation and it works well for me, but if someone doesn't like it then there's plenty of support from the book itself to ignore it.

[Reaver]

After some "deep thinking" on the issue (IE: I have been drinking);

I have to say, I think there is a need for the two stage roll for touch ranged spells. And it all has to do with the Meta of the game.

There is a running joke for a long time that Shadowrun's real name is Magicrun... And really they are not wrong. There has been a stready creep in magic power for a long while now.

This puts a little bit of a break to the meme: 'Shadowrun: There's a Spell for That.'

[Shinobi Killfist]

For full disclosure, Aaron's ruling directly contradicts what the book says on page 282:

Some spells require you to Touch (T) the target—if the target is unwilling, you’ll need to make an unarmed attack against the target (see Accuracy, p. 168).

In light of Aaron's ruling, some rules scholars have taken this passage to apply to non-combat spells, like Decrease Attribute or Mind Probe. But then you're in the awkward situation of using one set of rules for combat spells and another set of rules for other spell categories. But then you can contort yourself further and argue that maybe Aaron's approach makes sense for Instant spells (like combat spells) while maybe the book's approach makes sense for sustained spells like Mind Probe where you can probe once per Complex Action while the spell is sustained...

As I said before, I use Aaron's interpretation and it works well for me, but if someone doesn't like it then there's plenty of support from the book itself to ignore it.

The book phrases you might need to make an unarmed combat test for a unwilling target.  Might implies to me its only some spells

[Shinobi Killfist]

After some "deep thinking" on the issue (IE: I have been drinking);

I have to say, I think there is a need for the two stage roll for touch ranged spells. And it all has to do with the Meta of the game.

There is a running joke for a long time that Shadowrun's real name is Magicrun... And really they are not wrong. There has been a stready creep in magic power for a long while now.

This puts a little bit of a break to the meme: 'Shadowrun: There's a Spell for That.'

While I agree its a issue, I don't think touch spells is where its at.  It is just anecdotal but i don't think I have ever seen people use touch attack spells in 5 editions of play.

If they ever do a 6e I think they need some fundamental changes to how spells/magic works. If force is one of those sacred cows they can't slay things like the force determining how many simple actions it takes to cast the spell.  Though IMO its really spirits that break mages, the spells are nice but not game breaking.