[Mirikon]

Well, someone doesn't know how to read. Remember where I said 'different tools for different jobs'? Guess who has a better chance of shrugging off a Stunbolt, a Troll or a Mage. Now guess who has a better chance of shrugging off a Clout spell, a Troll or a Mage. You don't target the fighter's fort save, and you don't target the mage's will save. How hard is this for you to understand?

Plus, once you get past the point where you want to pussy-foot around, you have the comparison between Manabolt and Powerbolt. Try manabolting a drone. Tell me how well that worked out for you. Not so great, yeah? Now try powerbolting it. Wow, that actually had an effect!

[Kiirnodel]

Wow, read what I said. Compare two spells that have the same damage type, same valid targets. The only difference is whether they are Direct or Indirect. Physical Damage, Physical Spell. Basically create an Indirect version of PowerBolt, call it Bullet.

Why would one use this Indirect spell? Against certain targets it might have a slightly higher chance of going through, but it is guaranteed to do less damage on average.

Direct vs. Indirect Resistance

Body (+Counterspelling) vs. Reaction (+Counterspelling) + Body + half Impact

"Average Mage" -> Call it Spellcasting Pool of 12, average hits of 4

"Average Troll" -> Body 7, Reaction 3, (no Counterspelling), Impact Armor 11
Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage
Bullet F5 = 1 avg. hit to avoid -> 3 net hits, base damage 8 -> 4 avg. hits to reduce damage -> 4 damage

And that's against an enemy that has the highest chance to out-right resist the Powerbolt...

My argument isn't against the idea that different spells are used for different purposes, only the argument that Indirect Spells are inherently weaker, but still cost the same amount of drain (for otherwise identical spells).

[mtfeeney = Baron]

The point of indirect spells are to damage things indirectly.  Guys taking cover behind a wall, can I direct spell them?  Nope.  Can I use an indirect grenade-ish spell to make an explosion on the other side of the door opening, which would hit those hiding guys?  Yep.  Can I start a fire in there that would burn people?  Yep.

Will indirect hold up when compared to the exact situation where direct spells are in their niche?  Not usually, but that's not what it was made for.

[Michael Chandra]

And with single-target Indirect spells, the idea is likely to hit them with the special element. Of course that does mean indirect non-elemental single-target spells are just plain silly.

[UmaroVI]

I love how we're using the barrier rules to defend things. The fact that your taser can blast holes in concrete really drives home the sanity of the barrier rules.

Honestly, as balance goes, Direct vs. Indirect is really not that bad compared to other balance problems in SR. Single-target non-elemental indirect spells do blow, but in fairness there's only one such spell line actually printed and there's plenty of crap spells in other schools too. Other indirect spells do at least have niches of usefulness, and by SR standards that's pretty good balance.

[Mithlas]

Other indirect spells do at least have niches of usefulness, and by SR standards that's pretty good balance.

Very true. Of course, as with when I started this conversation, I can't help but wonder if there's a better balance point - maybe altering the drain codes a little, instead of slapping on additional drain due to (net) hits. Sure, some of those elemental spells have effects worth an extra die (except ones like sand...), but I would think it would be easier to shape a little mana between you and your target and let fly than to directly shove raw mana into another metahuman's aura that would naturally resist your attempt.

There are a lot of ways it could be done, I just can't come up with what specifically would be best fit for most situations. Just that I don't think it's handled all that great right not - it's not a terrible situation, just a rough edge that really should be smoothed down.

[Mirikon]

The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Keeping things simple like they are is a good thing. With the way SR is set up, this method of determining drain value is probably the best I can think of without making things needlessly complex.

[Mithlas]

True, and so that's why I was thinking that the drain system should remain essentially as-is, just raise the modifier for direct damage spells slightly and lower it for elemental. Since indirect doesn't have a noted modifier, it would stay at 0. As one option. Most others I can think of would be similar lines that use the exact same system.

[Mirikon]

No, I'd leave it as it is. Indirect spells don't have a higher drain than direct ones because they're indirect, but because they are Physical spells instead of Mana ones, and Physical spells have the higher drain because, in part, they can affect things Mana spells can't. Likewise, elemental effects get the +2 because the majority of them can seriously ruin your day with the -half AP and secondary effects. Increased utility = increased drain.

[Icy]

By RAW:
Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body. At our table, we do not use this rule for balance reasons, but if you take the exact wording of aiming direct spells, then this is what you get.

You can of course use assensing to see your targets aura (which pervades the clothing by a few centimeters) and then cast your direct spell at him with no vision penalty. Still, this will use up an action to activate assensing and is a bad idea in combat situations since you cannot cast a spell in the same initiative pass.

Indirect spells are not that handicapped. Just shoot them at your targets and watch'em go.

[Mason]

Let's compare apples to apples. Clout vs. Stunbolt.

Both are ranged, single target, Stun damage spells.

Clout is an Indirect, Stunbolt is Direct.

By that definition, Clout is thus dodged by Reaction (like a ranged attack), and then also resisted by Body + half Impact.

Stunbolt is resisted by Willpower, done. Oh, and look! costs 1 less drain!

Explain to me how that is balanced...

It isn't. Clout sucks.

Now, elemental effects, that can be really good. For example, Fire. Quote from SR4 on Fire damage below.

Fire Damage: Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only protects against it with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating to the armor value.
Objects hit by a Fire damage attack are at risk of catching fire. Make a damage resistance test using the item’s Armor x 2 (see Barriers p. 166), or just Armor if they are vulnerable to the effect (flammable material vs. fire, for example). The gamemaster should use her discretion as to which objects in the area are worth rolling a test for; most effects can simply be improvised. The gamemaster also decides which items have caught on fire and will continue  to  burn—as  a  rule  of thumb, any item with a (modified) Armor rating less than the Fire DV has caught fire.
If an object is on fire, note the original Fire DV inflicted—this is the Fire damage rating. At
the end of each subsequent Combat Turn, the gamemaster decides whether the fire has grown, shrunk, or stayed the same, depending on the item’s flammability, efforts to put the fire out, environmental conditions, etc.; adjust the Fire damage rating accordingly. If the rating is reduced to 0, the flames are put out. In any other case, make another damage resistance test against DV equal to the adjusted Fire damage rating. Continue in this way until the fire diminishes (nothing burns forever—but the fire may also spread to nearby items).
The  exact  secondary  effects  of  Fire  damage  on  items  are  determined  by  the  gamemaster.  Wood  and  paper  are  likely  to  be  consumed; common plastics and fabrics melt; while fire-resistant fabrics and metals scorch but otherwise remain unharmed by normal flames. Damaged electronics may short-circuit and cease to function while weapons  lose  their  integrity  and  are  likely  to  misfire  or  fracture. Ammunition and explosives may explode.

Net effect? IIRC, plascrete has an Barrier Armor rating of 8, or maybe 12. This means a Force 6 Fireball from a possible starting SR mage could, after AP -half, have 6 base DV vs. 6 modified Armor, and thus set all plascrete in the AOE ON FIRE! Sure, a Force 6 Fireball is 8 Drain, but you can destroy BUILDINGS with that! And then it maybe spreads to others!

For taking down the opposition, nothing beats Direct spells. But Indirect spells WITH elemental effects do more than just hit the target, so remind the GM of that whenever you use one!

[Zilfer]

Let's compare apples to apples. Clout vs. Stunbolt.

Both are ranged, single target, Stun damage spells.

Clout is an Indirect, Stunbolt is Direct.

By that definition, Clout is thus dodged by Reaction (like a ranged attack), and then also resisted by Body + half Impact.

Stunbolt is resisted by Willpower, done. Oh, and look! costs 1 less drain!

Explain to me how that is balanced...

It isn't. Clout sucks.

Now, elemental effects, that can be really good. For example, Fire. Quote from SR4 on Fire damage below.

Fire Damage: Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only protects against it with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating to the armor value.
Objects hit by a Fire damage attack are at risk of catching fire. Make a damage resistance test using the item’s Armor x 2 (see Barriers p. 166), or just Armor if they are vulnerable to the effect (flammable material vs. fire, for example). The gamemaster should use her discretion as to which objects in the area are worth rolling a test for; most effects can simply be improvised. The gamemaster also decides which items have caught on fire and will continue  to  burn—as  a  rule  of thumb, any item with a (modified) Armor rating less than the Fire DV has caught fire.
If an object is on fire, note the original Fire DV inflicted—this is the Fire damage rating. At
the end of each subsequent Combat Turn, the gamemaster decides whether the fire has grown, shrunk, or stayed the same, depending on the item’s flammability, efforts to put the fire out, environmental conditions, etc.; adjust the Fire damage rating accordingly. If the rating is reduced to 0, the flames are put out. In any other case, make another damage resistance test against DV equal to the adjusted Fire damage rating. Continue in this way until the fire diminishes (nothing burns forever—but the fire may also spread to nearby items).
The  exact  secondary  effects  of  Fire  damage  on  items  are  determined  by  the  gamemaster.  Wood  and  paper  are  likely  to  be  consumed; common plastics and fabrics melt; while fire-resistant fabrics and metals scorch but otherwise remain unharmed by normal flames. Damaged electronics may short-circuit and cease to function while weapons  lose  their  integrity  and  are  likely  to  misfire  or  fracture. Ammunition and explosives may explode.

Net effect? IIRC, plascrete has an Barrier Armor rating of 8, or maybe 12. This means a Force 6 Fireball from a possible starting SR mage could, after AP -half, have 6 base DV vs. 6 modified Armor, and thus set all plascrete in the AOE ON FIRE! Sure, a Force 6 Fireball is 8 Drain, but you can destroy BUILDINGS with that! And then it maybe spreads to others!

For taking down the opposition, nothing beats Direct spells. But Indirect spells WITH elemental effects do more than just hit the target, so remind the GM of that whenever you use one!

Take it with a grain of salt however I'll just mention that I've survived multiple castings of F12 Lightning Balls. I've done it multiple times usually not in a row almost killed myself when I did it in a row. No initation just my skill and edge. xD

generally I think 3-6 DV to myself but to the opposition probably anywhere from 18DV to 30 DV (depending on the roll and if that roll was edged) If that was a Fireball.... I wonder what kinds of things it could have melted.... O.O'

[Dr. Meatgrinder]

By RAW:
Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body. At our table, we do not use this rule for balance reasons, but if you take the exact wording of aiming direct spells, then this is what you get.

Note that full body armor does not (emphasis mine) "conceal" the person withing and prevent them from being targeted.

[Falconer]

Mason... another good example of that is hitting a drone with a flamethrower spell... and watching it's ammo magazines or fuel tank explode.

Similarly people insist on doing the comparison vs living targets... where object resistance doesn't apply.

As soon as you toss in high object resistance (and my personal view is object resistances aren't high enough in game).   People keep going with OR 5... when the book actually says "OR 5+".   Now suddenly that direct spell is a very dicey matter... which proceeded with people going on when I pointed out that it would work just over half the time (barely...) so they insisted on making the comparison that it would always work!  (rather than only work have the time and do half the damage on average).

But once you start tossing OR into the mix... those elemental spells become rather good at the upper end.

[Mithlas]

Fringe already pulled out one quote, but here's something from the core book:

Direct spells, this includes direct combat spells but also many others, cannot hit what you can't see. So if a guy is covered by a full body armor with helmet you cannot hit him (you could hit his armor though). If you play by the book, then even normal clothing would still provide a defense modifier for cover as it covers large portions of the targets body.

Incorrect.

...it channels mana through the target to create a specified effect (thus Direct Combat spells bypass armor, because they affect the target from within).

Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.

Everything in the book says that if you're an obvious target (ie full armor suit) then you can be targeted, be it by guns or spells. If you want protection from line of sight, you need to be inside a vehicle (a proper one, not the Iron Will, which is ambiguous in whether it protects from LOS attacks because it doesn't actually say it's enclosed). Even indirect combat spells can target the person - indirect just doesn't bypass armor.