No. You make the melee test which replaces the ranged attack test that it talks about in the book. At this point you have "hit" with the spell. Then you resolve the spell using the appropriate attribute, armor or portion there of depending on the indirect spell (or none with some elemental effects) and any counterspelling that is in effect for the resisting person
If the spell reaches the chosen target and it fails to dodge with Reaction (+ Counterspelling, if available), the target then resists damage with Body + half Impact armor. Each hit reduces the Damage Value. If the modified spell DV does not exceed the modified Armor, Physical damage is converted to Stun.
Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Spellcasting + Magic Success Test versus the target’s Reaction.
Some spells, particularly health spells, require the caster to touch
the intended target in order for the spell to work. To touch an unwill-
ing target, the caster must make a normal unarmed attack as part of
the Complex Action of spellcasting (see Melee Combat, p. 156). A tie
on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the
target (p. 63).
Also on pg 203, it explains that a standard melee attack is required as part of the complex action of casting when using touch based spells.This is why I put the Counterspelling as part of the Opposed Melee test.
@FastJackThe net hits mean nothing on the Opposed Melee test. Since you're looking to just touch to target to establish the magical link for the spell, extra hits won't increase that link's strength. Also, the Unarmed Combat makes perfect sense. Otherwise, you'd have a mage with Magic 6 + Spellcrafting 6 easily touching a Street Samurai.
I SUPPOSE allowing counterspelling vs unarmed makes sense in that context, however ranged indirect spells don't use throwing to make contact (or something similar) they use spellcasting. It seems unfair to force not only the training of an additional skill but also the application of the enemies skill to to weaker of the two skills. Also what becomes of the net hits on the unarmed combat test? Are they added to the spellcasting test? To the eventual spell DV?
Counterspelling is used to interrupt other spells, either as they are being cast (counterspelling) or while they are sustained (dispelling).
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
+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:Quote from: SR4A, p 203To 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).
Step 4: Make Spellcasting Test
The Spellcaster rolls Spellcasting + Magic, modified by foci, totem bonuses, bound spirits, and/or Visibility modifiers.
Quote from: SR4AStep 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.
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.Thats seems pretty logical, except for the +2 touch only attack in step 2.
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.
@ Voydangel: Actually, I think I like your method a little better, but it seems it may allow for much higher damage (though I haven't tested the numbers). What has been your experience at the table?It does tend to allow for slightly higher damage, but no more than any other spell. It seems to be right in line (damage wise) with pretty much any other combat spell.
Cast Lightning Bolt at force 5:
Combat Mage: 5 (Spellcasting) + 5 (Magic) (10d6.hits(5)=3)
Street Samurai: Reaction Test (no mods) (6d6.hits(5)=1)
Mage hits the Sammy (Net 2).
Combat Mage: Base DV = 7 (Force 5 + 2 net hits)
Street Samurai: 4 (Body) + 2 (half Impact) (6d6.hits(5)=2)
Sammy takes 5P damage to their condition monitor.
Cast Punch at force 5 (my method):
Combat Mage: 0 (Unarmed) + 4 (Agility) + 2 (Touch) - 1 (Defaulting) (5d6.hits(5)=1)
Street Samurai: Reaction Test (no mods) (6d6.hits(5)=1)
Mage got lucky and was able to touch the Sammy.
Combat Mage: 5 (Spellcasting) + 5 (Magic) (10d6.hits(5)=3)
Street Samurai: no counterspelling. (hint: "hire a mage")
Mage got 3 Net hit on the opposed Spellcasting Test.
Combat Mage: Force 5 Punch + 3 Net Hits = 8S DV
Street Samurai: 4 (Body) + 2 (half Impact) (6d6.hits(5)=2)
Sammy takes 6S damage to their condition monitor.
(thanks to FJ for the framework here)
I think most people here are forgetting that the first step in this process is for the mage to hit the target with a physical touch. Chances are good that he'll miss with the touch.
The mage has to touch to establish the link to cast the spell. At this point there is a touch or no spell.Your comparing apples to oranges there.
spell is cast and successes noted to stage damage
The spell is cast and resisted with appropriate stat, armor if applicable and any counterspelling and damage is assessed.
Now let's look at a sammy with a sword.
Sammy swings and hits. At this point you don't get another dodge roll to lessen the damage before you go to your body w/ armor roll
So why should you get a second roll against a spell?
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'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.
Bold emphasis mine. - I think that 1st Reaction was supposed to be Agility, is that what you meant? or did you actually mean Reaction?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).
Melee Combat SummaryJust 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.
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
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.
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.
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".:P
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 ;D
Not to mention I'm looking for a job, and have done game design previously (hint hint to all the freelancers out there) lol ;D
Is the pay better than electrical engineers get? 'Cause I wouldn't mind a career hop, myself.
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?
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.
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)...
In my groups we run it in 2 steps as well, but slightly differently than FJs 2 steps.
We go:
1) Establish Magical Link: Standard melee combat test. (Unarmed Combat + Agility vs Defense test) The attacker/caster gets +2 dice because only a touch is required as per SR4A pg. 159.
2) If the melee touch attack succeeds: Spellcasting + Magic vs. Body/Willpower + Counter-spelling (and some armor and other random stuff if applicable to the spell). To determine spell effectiveness/potency.
This is fairly directly explained on pg. 183 where in Step 3: "Choosing a target", it mentions that if its a touch spell you must succeed in a melee attack vs the target to create the link. Then in step 4 you make your casting test, then step 5 the target resists.
Also on pg 203, it explains that a standard melee attack is required as part of the complex action of casting when using touch based spells.
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.
You know, it's funny that you should mention that you might use my house rule, because I just had a friend of mine stop by, one of the math geek players of mine, and we were talking about this thread.
We rehashed the various options (points of view/interpretations) and kind of concluded exactly your previous point (the one about the RAW keeping things somewhat balanced). And then discussed it, for like an hour. lol
So basically, while you were looking up the way I run it at my table, and rethinking possibilities, I was (we were) doing the same, and we came up with nearly exactly what you just said about drain and why touch spells are weaker. Our explanation was slightly different, but amazingly similar: "Everything about touch based spells (dice pools to resist etc) should be the same because the reduced drain is offset by the need for a touch attack."
However, we are still in agreement over here that there shouldn't be any "ranged combat modifiers" applied to any of the tests when dealing with a touch spell. It just doesn't make sense in this context, so we will not be applying the -1 for previously defending, -3 for being in melee, etc. to the "Spellcasting + Magic + mods vs Reaction + Counterspelling" step.
edit: can you provide a link to your "felt die-roller thingy" on amazon or some such, I've actually been looking for such an item unsuccessfully.