[FastJack]

And, we're back to this:

To touch an unwilling target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156).

[voydangel]

@voydangel
+Counterspelling on the body/willpower in a indirect spell is just straight wrong.  It's always on the reaction test to get out of the way.

And, we're back to this:

To touch an unwilling target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156).

Yes, quite right. However, that seems to systematically imply that someone with counterspelling is harder to touch, when in fact the melee attack is simply to physically touch the target to create the link, not actually transfer the magic along the link. That happens in the next "step" - according to the 'list-o-steps' that happens (all of those steps are just parts of the single complex action of casting a spell) on page 183. The trick here is that ranged spells don't roll anything in step 3 as a general rule, you just pick your target and move along to step 4. Whereas with a touch based attack, you make an extra roll in step 3 - the melee attack roll.

I know that on pg204 it says that all indirect spells are treated as ranged combat, but if its a touch based indirect spell, I think its fairly obvious that you would simply change the ranged roll to a melee roll and leave everything else the same - even if that wasn't explicitly stated. So, the only difference between casting a lightning bolt at someone and casting a touch based spell of the same type (such as "Punch"), is that your ranged attack roll is part of the spellcasting test for the lightning bolt, whereas there's a separate (extra) melee attack for the "Punch" spell just before the spellcasting test. All other rolls and aspects of the casting and resistance of said spells is identical.

At least that's what I feel the dev's intended. It makes perfect logical sense, is balanced, and fits with the "feel" of the system. imho

[Bradd]

@FastJack: Yes, they're part of the same complex action, along with everything else in the spellcasting procedure (SR4A, pps. 182-184).

1. Choose a Spell.
2. Choose the Force.
3. Choose the Targets. This is where you establish the magical link. In general, you can use sight, astral sight, touch, or (at GM's discretion) other senses. Unless you're visually targeting something obvious, you need to win an appropriate Perception test or an Unarmed Combat touch attack. If it's a touch spell, the touch attack is your only option. If you fail, then you have no magical link, no target, no spell at all.
4. Make Spellcasting Test.
5. Determine Effect. This is where you apply resistance, Counterspelling, and everything else that opposes the Spellcasting test.

"Same action" is different from "same test."

@voydangel: I agree, if I'm understanding you correctly. Unarmed vs defense in Step 3 to establish link, Spellcasting vs defense in Step 4-5 to determine effect? Dakka & I think it's a bit odd to roll the defense twice, though, with exactly the same modifiers, against essentially the same attack. Therefore, we were thinking of reusing the Step 3 defense in Step 5.

[voydangel]

@Bradd: The test in step 3 is purely to resist getting touched. Which is why in my games you don't get counterspelling for that test. Its just a straight up melee test where the caster gets +2.
In step 5 you would get your armor and counterspelling modifiers etc.

I know it doesn't quite fit with the RAW perfectly, but I really think that's what the dev's intended... which of course is completely up for debate .. lol

[Dakka]

OK, so here is the problem with THAT list (I'm full of problems today, I know).  Do step 3 and step 4 EACH get a reaction test by the target of an indirect touch spell or is one reaction test sufficient as a barrier to both tests.  Also I think you are wrong about counterspelling being restricted to step 5.  Step 5 is "you take damage" and this damage is either resisted with body + 1/2 impact (indirect) or its not (direct).  Counterspelling goes in step 4.

[voydangel]

Step 4: Make Spellcasting Test
The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers.

No resistance in this step at all.

[FastJack]

I guess my point is that there is no defense roll to #4: Spellcasting Test. You roll Defense to the Opposed Melee Test, then you roll Resistance to the Effect. My opinion is that Counterspelling could occur during Step 3 for Touch spells. But it could also be during Step 5.

[Dakka]

Step 4: Make Spellcasting Test
The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers.

No resistance in this step at all.

OK, well, that makes it a pretty useless step.  Clear cut I suppose but rolling dice in one step and finding out what they do in another step seems odd but whatever.

No where in any of the 5 steps of spellcasting is Reaction mentioned for indirect spells AT ALL.  Touching the target in step 3 is mentioned, but as far as even ranged indirect spells go they are in violation of the 5 step outline already.  There needs to be a Step 5a for direct spells (which is how its already written) and a step 5b for indirect spells.  Note that indirect spells also go against Step 5 counterspelling rules by applying it to the reaction test and not the resistance test.  When it comes down to it indirect spells are resisted by reaction as in "HOLY CRAP GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THAT FIREBALL".  Somewhere in the mix there should be Spellcasting + Magic vs (ranged or melee) Reaction + Counterspelling.

The rules listed after the spell categories (Combat, Detection, Health, Illusion, and Manipulation) are all category specific and override certain aspects of the spellcasting process.  Detection spells, for example, have rules for secondary targets within the new sense's rage.  IMO "Indirect spells are resisted by reaction" is a combat spell category rule change to the basic spellcasting rules.

So, following the 5 steps, you would
1)Choose a spell
2)Determine Force
3)Establish Link (Touch attack goes here)
4)Use Magic + Spellcasting
5)Determine Effect (Reaction + Counterspelling goes here as well as Body + 1/2 impact soak roll for indirect spells)

Which brings me back to does the target roll his defense twice, once against the touch and once against the spell?  Dodging the touch attack makes the spell worthless, but being touched would he get ANOTHER reaction roll to dodge the spell (knock the hand away) or would you simply add counterspelling on top of what was rolled.

[FastJack]

I think the problem is thinking that a Resistance Test is an Opposed Test. The Spellcasting test sets the effect, then the Resistance test lowers the effect, much like the Damage Soak reduces the damage inflicted by weapon/attack.

The target only gets the single Defense test in the Opposed Melee test for Touch attacks, Defense/Dodge test in the Opposed Ranged attack for non-touch Indirect Spells. If it's a Direct spell, there's no attack roll since the spell is targeting directly as long as the mage can see him.

[Dakka]

Except for direct spells at range touch.  They still require a melee touch attack.  Its the range touch thing that is screwing everything up.  Otherwise you just follow the steps on page 204 for indirect spells and you are fine (which adds counterspelling to the reaction test and is opposed to spellcasting + magic).

[FastJack]

Right, Direct Touch still requires the melee touch attack.

[Bradd]

For comparison's sake, here's how I would handle spellcasting with a sense other than vision or touch (based on the FAQ guidelines for casting when blind):

1. Choose spell.
2. Choose force.
3. Choose targets. Since you don't have a target in plain sight, you must first succeed at a Perception test to establish the magical link.
4. Roll the spellcasting test.
5. Determine effects, accounting for resistance, counterspelling, and other defenses.

In this case, I think it's pretty clear that the targeting test is completely unrelated to the spellcasting test: different skills, different modifiers, etc. There's no confusion between dodging a touch and dodging a spell. Now for touch spells, just substitute an Unarmed attack for the Perception test, and you have spellcasting with the sense of touch.

As for why they call out steps 4 & 5 separately, I figure it's just because step 5 is a bit complicated and varies a lot, whereas all spells have the Spellcasting roll in common, so it's simpler to just get it out of the way.

[Qemuel]

I followed the line of discussion throughout this thread finding points to agree with, disagree with, and get confused by.     I thought I had it figured out, but toward the end, I think I got muddled in all the details.
o.O

What was the consensus on how to handle indirect touch spells such as Punch?  And would someone be willing to give an example?  Pretty please?  

[Dakka]

It's not explicit, BUT what I finally decided on is to treat it exactly as an indirect touch spell, namely add a touch attack in step 3 "Choose Targets".  As you read there's not a lot of clarity or consensus but here's where I'm at.

Touch attack vs target with Unarmed + Agility + mods (including +2 for touch only attack) vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods.  A graze is sufficient to land the spell.
Spellcasting test at melee with Spellcasting + Magic + mods (including the +2 from touch only attack) vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods.  Net hits increase DV of the spell
Absorption roll if spell sucessful with DV determined by force + hits vs Body + 1/2 impact armor.

A more strict interpretation of RAW would make the middle step a ranged attack after a successful touch attack.

[voydangel]

I don't mean to argue with Dakka, he's very knowledgeable, and that's one way to do it if you're so inclined. However, we do it differently at my table, and I will "steal" his example lines to highlight the differences between his way and mine.

Touch attack vs target with Unarmed + Agility + mods (including +2 for touch only attack) vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods.  A graze is sufficient to land the spell.
Spellcasting test at melee with Spellcasting + Magic + mods (including the +2 from touch only attack) vs Reaction + Melee Defense + mods vs counterspelling. Net hits increase DV of the spell.
Absorption roll if spell successful with DV determined by force + net hits vs Body + 1/2 impact armor.

*Note that these steps are specifically for "Punch", an indirect touch based spell. If this were for any other other type of spell, it would be a different set of steps.

Unfortunately, as Dakka said, the RAW is a bit vague on the particulars of this scenario, so I don't think there is one singular "correct" way to interpret the RAW atm.