[Qemuel]

@ Dakka:  I just find it odd that one would use reaction again AFTER being touched...  Frankly, I think a different mechanic is in order, but I'm not sure how to go about it fairly.  One of my players has the Punch spell... but hasn't used it yet.

@ 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? 

[Dakka]

^That was the way FastJack suggested^

Well, almost, he added counterspelling to the body soak roll.  I forgot to mention counterspelling at all, it would go on the opposed spellcasting test.

@Qemuel

Originally I thought to use the same roll twice for the defender, only adding counterspelling to his hits if applicable for the spellcasting test, but I liked the idea that after the touch the target breaks the link before the spell.  Makes for more tension.  If you like you can use the same roll twice on the defense side, comparing the hits to the touch attack for targeting and the spellcasting test for the dodge.

[Qemuel]

Actually when you put it that way, it made a little more sense.  A touch attack to establish the link, then while channeling the energy into your target (spellcasting), the target has the chance of breaking/lessening the link with the second reaction roll...

heh... it's funny how logic always comes into play no matter how illogical the situation/rule.  I like logic.  You can sway me any direction if it's logical.  

hmmm... I'll have to think about it some more... ultimately, it's going to be up to my players to decide (they are pretty fair when it comes to rules), but it's good to be armed with knowledge, opinions, and examples when going into rules methodology and interpretation.

[Bradd]

After weighing everything, I think I like Dakka's method the best. If the second dodge test got to be too time-consuming, I would just re-use the first roll (plus counterspelling).

[Mäx]

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.

Thats seems pretty logical, except for the +2 touch only attack in step 2.

[FastJack]

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.

[Bradd]

@FastJack: I see your point about not being able to use melee defense against a spell that you know has already "hit" you. However, that's going to make indirect touch spells more damaging than they'd otherwise be. Also, I think it might matter how solidly the attack hit you, and (re)applying melee defense would reflect that. I don't see that it's a big deal either way, though.

[FastJack]

Magic is supposed to be powerful. If a mage (most without any unarmed combat ability) manages to "touch" you, he should get the benefit of the doubt and drop you like a rock. 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. And chances are also good that if he does hit with the touch, the target might just soak most of the stun damage. So, I don't think it's too much to ask that you remove melee defense modifiers from the roll.

Let's take a look at how it may go down between the Combat Mage (SR4A, p 99) and the Street Samurai (SR4A, p 110):

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: Reaction (no mods) (6d6.hits(5)=2)

Mage got 1 Net hit on the opposed Spellcasting Test.

Combat Mage: Force 5 Punch + 1 Net Hit = 6S DV
Street Samurai: 4 (Body) + 2 (half Impact) (6d6.hits(5)=2)

Sammy takes 4S damage to their condition monitor. She's still up and the Mage is now standing right in front of her. And her Wired Reflexes means she gets two IPs before the Mage goes again.

Now, granted, the Sample characters aren't built to show this off best (the Mage doesn't have Unarmed and the Sammy doesn't have Dodge ), but still, it gives you an idea of how dangerous it is for a mage to cast this. Do we really want to nerf him further?

[voydangel]

@ 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.

Example using same stats as FJ did in his example:

Code: [Select]

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.


Code: [Select]

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)

So we can see here that yes, the punch does one more damage than a lightning bolt. But we can also see that if there was even one more hit on any roll by the Sammy (such as if he had any counterspelling helping him out), then the damage would have been exactly the same as the lightning bolt. Not to mention that its really kind of fair that the punch does a wee bit more damage since the mage is required to stand toe to toe with the Sammy in order to make the touch attack, which is generally the last place a mage wants to be in the first place.

So, to answer your question Q: the way I stated it works really well in my experience, and is quite well balanced with the effects and damage of other comparable spells. Of course, ymmv, every table is a touch different. 

[Bradd]

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.

I'm definitely not forgetting that, and I don't think it's all that hard to touch. If he's serious about touch spells, a magician's base attack pool should be similar to a melee grunt or a prime gunbunny's defense pool. Melee attack bonuses are easy to get: +2 touch-only, win ties, +2 charge, +2 superior position, +1 to +4 allies. You won't get everything every time, but it should be enough to beat normal defense regularly, full defense often.

It gets a lot easier if you can surprise the enemy, but in that case the defense rolls don't matter anyway.

[Walks Through Walls]

I know I'm late to the discussion, but I have read much of the posts and am a bit baffled about why people think that a person should get two chances to dodge away from a touch spell.

Here is what I mean and my thought process:

The mage has to touch to establish the link to cast the spell. At this point there is a touch or no spell.
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?

Yes you may do more damage this way, but just because a sammy has a high strength and can do more damage with a sword than with a gun (especially since they hit impact armor) you don't give the defender another roll to lessen damage.

[Mäx]

The mage has to touch to establish the link to cast the spell. At this point there is a touch or no spell.
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?

Your comparing apples to oranges there.
The sammy's test is to hit with his attack.
The mages first test is to see whether he can cast the spell or not and the second one is the same the sammy takes to see whether or not the attack hits the enemy.

[Qemuel]

Ah, I see the issue.

In my thinking, the physical touch attack by the mage has to happen first, otherwise the link is not established.  Then while touching the target, the spellcasting must commence as part of the same complex action.

[Walks Through Walls]

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.

[Qemuel]

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.

Logically this makes the most sense to me as well.  The rules make it... er.. complex to figure out, though.