According to the SR4 rulebook, "Indirect Combat spells are treated like ranged combat attacks; the caster makes a Magic + Spellcasting Success Test versus the target’s Reaction."

Does this mean that ranged defense modifiers also apply to the spell resistance test? For example, do you apply the modifiers for the defender running, the spellcaster using an area attack weapon (spell), the defender being prone, or the defender being in a moving vehicle?

First of all, with Indirect Combat spells, it isn't a Spell Resistance test at all, but pretty much a pure Defense test.

Modifiers such as you describe do indeed apply, but the majority of them are typically applied to the Attacker's roll, as opposed to the Defense test.

Incidentally, Visibility and Cover modifiers are applicable to all Spellcasting tests, not just with Indirect Combat spells.

Thank you for the reply, Fortune.

So, I guess that means that the -1 cumulative modifier for each attack previously defended against also applies, as well as if the defender is in melee combat with someone else. Yes?

Regarding those modifiers I listed, those are all ranged defense test modifiers, not ranged attack test modifiers. Or, are you saying that all normal ranged attack modifiers apply to the spell casting attempt?

In regards to Indirect Combat spells, all normal ranged attack modifiers apply.

Yes, Previous Defense and In Melee modifiers would apply.

You are correct about the Defensive Modifiers. My mistake. So, as for the other specific modifiers you listed ...

Defender Prone specifically states that the penalty doesn't apply to ranged attacks unless the attacker is very close.

Defender Running should apply.

Area Attack Weapon should probably apply, according to the description.

Moving Vehicle ... I have never even noticed this modifier, but it should apply, although it also might be reflected in modifiers to the attack test.

In short (or not (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), any of the Defensive Modifiers that would be applicable to the situation could be used.

Also, as Fortune stated, defending against an Indirect spell is not a Spell Defense test. What was not mentioned, resisting the damage if you get hit, however is. As such, it is important to note that Counterspelling will not help you with the defense, but will help you if you get hit and are now resisting damage.

Thank you again, Fortune. That changes around my understanding of Indirect Combat Spells quite a bit!

The "Defender inside a moving vehicle" modifier is on the Defense Modifiers Table on page 151 of SR4.

@Muspellsheimr: Thanks for pointing that out. That slipped my notice.

Just thought of one more question. So, since defending against an Indirect Combat Spell is essentially a ranged defense test, can you use Full Defense against such a spell?

Yes. The process is identical to getting shot at, except the attacker uses Spellcasting+Magic instead of Agility+Firearms, and the defender gets Armor+Body+Counterspelling.

Also, unlike Direct Combat Spells, I believe you can use Blind Fire rules for Indirect spells.

Fascinating. It seems to me that Indirect Combat spells are much harder to use successfully than Direct Combat spells. I'm not sure I see the advantage of them, except for the secondary elemental effects, if any.

As for Blind Fire, the SR4 book on page 195 says, "All spells have a range at which they can be cast. For most spells, the range is line of sight (LOS). If the caster can see the target, regardless of distance, it can be affected." Blind Fire means you can't see the target, so you can't cast the spell at the target. That is, unless you know of some text stating the contrary somewhere else.

It does not say Blind Fire rules can be used with single-target Indirect spells, but such spells do not have to have Line of Sight to affect a target, so common sense states you can.

And it is because of this, and the secondary elemental effects, that make Indirect spells useful. Also, please note that although it says they are resisted with half Impact, this is not always the case, such as when using some of the elemental effects from Street Magic.

No problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



Yeah thanks. I found it hiding in the table when responding to your second post. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

One more good reason for indirect combat spells: You don't have to overcome object resistance. Firebolt is much better against drones or doors than powerbolt.

That can be argued. Although you do indeed need to get 5 hits on a Power Bolt to affect a drone at all, it does not get a chance to dodge and cannot soak damage, regardless of it's attributes (unless you consider resisting the first 4 hits automatically soaking the damage).

Flamethrower, on the other hand, only needs one net hit to affect a drone, but they get a defense test, meaning you still may end up needing those 5 successes (although unlikely). After that, they get their resistance test to reduce the damage.

Both have their advantages & disadvantages.

Where do the rules say that you don't need LOS to affect a target with an Indirect Combat spell? I searched the entire SR4 and Street Magic books and can't find any reference to that.



Are you saying that a Direct Combat spell does not allow a Damage Resistance Test? I was under the impression that you still get the Damage Resistance Test; it's just that your armor does not help with the damage resistance.

I just found the following in the FAQ:



The first sentence indicates that you must be able to see the target. That is, no Blind Fire.

No Damage Resistance test with Direct Combat spells. There is only the one Willpower test (or Body for Physical) plus any Counterspelling if available. That's it.

Edit: Too many tabs! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Drek. It seems that my understanding of combat spells was way off.

Okay, so now that makes me wonder even more why anyone would ever use an Indirect Combat spell. Even with secondary elemental effects for Indirect Combat spells, it seems to me that Direct Combat spells are by far more powerful. With Indirect Combat spells, the target gets a chance to defend against the spell, then gets a chance to resist the damage. With Direct Combat spells, the target only gets Body or Will--and no armor--to resist, and no other tests or modifiers. The drain is also less for Direct Combat spells. Hmm.

well, the advantage of indirect combat spells is: you can actually hit people behind cover. that is something, direct combat spells can never do.

plus the myriad of possibilities, creative mages have with the elemental effect. though they're combat spells, these things can be quite usefuls in a lot of situations. the least is lighting candles on the diner with the mages girlsfriend ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Sure, I can see that there are some select situations in which having an elemental effect is better. I'm just thinking about it from the pure damage perspective, though, in which case it seems to me that you can dish out a lot more--at least instantaneously--with a Direct Combat spell.

I know what you mean Ranger. The advantages of direct spells over indirect spells are vast, compared with their respective disadvantages. Still, elemental effects are handy, and has been stated, you can typically inflict damage more reliably on inanimate materials.

I'll have to run some trial spellcasting tests against various objects to see for myself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Direct Combat spells have to overcome object resistance, which admittedly can be a little tough against drones and vehicles, and anything else of similar complexity (threshold 4). However, Indirect Combat spells allow a defense, then damage resistance. Plus, if the damage doesn't exceed the armor of the object, then no damage is inflicted. Seems iffy to me, assuming the caster is trying to keep his drain to manageable levels. Of course, if the caster doesn't care and goes full Force, then I can easily see that Indirect Combat spells would indeed more readily inflict damage.

Time to go roll some dice and see for myself...

As I recall indirect spells halve armour, and some elemental effects (I'm thinking acid right now) can arguably weaken materials still further for subsequent attacks, although the judgement on that falls to the GM. With direct spells it's all or nothing.

Let's say the caster is attacking a Mercury Comet, which has 10 Body and 6 Armor.

If the caster casts powerbolt (Direct), he needs 4 or more hits to damage the car due to object resistance. 12 dice pool an average, and a mininum Force of 4. Might as well make it 5 due to rounding. Thus, base 5 damage, possibly more based on net hits. Drain of 3 (5/2 + 1 = 3). If the spell succeeds, the car takes the damage, no damage resistance.

If the caster casts acid stream (Indirect, elemental), 1 net hit is sufficient, which is opposed by the driver's defense test. Assuming average stats for the caster and the driver, the caster will probably hit with 1 or 2 net hits. The Force required varies with the caster's perception of the driver's skill. Let's say Force 3, assuming the caster wants to keep drain low. Unless the driver has Reaction 6 or more, 3 max hits for the caster seems reasonable. Thus, 3 base damage. Drain of 4 (5/2 + 3 = 4). If the spell hits, first the spell must do 7 or more damage to even damage the car. "If the attack’s modified DV does not exceed the vehicle’s modified Armor, no damage is applied" (SR4, 161). The car then resists the damage using Body + half armor, or 13 dice. That's a tad over 4 damage resisted on average.

In this example, I find it hard to say that Indirect Combat spells are more reliable. But, I also have a hard time saying that Direct Combat spells are reliable, too, since the 4 threshold is pretty high.

Now, if the caster decides that he doesn't care about taking drain and casts the acid stream spell at a higher force, such as 7 to guarantee overcoming the Comet's armor, then for sure I would agree that the Indirect Combat spell is better. That would be 6 drain to resist, so the caster would probably take some drain. But, I guess if it stops the car, then why not?

If the caster is being chased by someone in a GMC Bulldog Step-Van--a not unreasonable vehicle to see commonly used by a Shadowrunner's enemies--that's Body 16 and Armor 8. So, now the acid stream must be cast at Force 9 to guarantee damaging the van if it hits. Of course, a caster with a high dice pool can get away with a lower Force to hope the net hits increase the modified DV to at least 9. On the other hand, with damage this high, the caster is more guaranteed to be able to do *some* damage on a hit, since the van's 20 damage resistance dice (16 + 4 = 20; 4 due to half armor) will only resist 6 or 7 damage on average.

So, I don't know; seems pretty close to me. But again, I need to do some tests to see for myself in a more realistic simulation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

4+, not 4. I typically assign higher OR for particularly large vehicles. That little "+" there is what keeps you from powerbolting an aircraft carrier. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (well, that and the spirits no doubt magical guarding it) My rule of thumb is to add 1 to the original OR for every 5 full points of body. Drones are still typically OR 4, but a citymaster would be OR 7.
Of course, I can not stress the YMMVness of this, since there is absolutely no guideline for when or how to apply that little "+", but it's there and can make a huge difference in your direct vs indirect combat spell calculations at some tables.

Actually, you need to cast it at force 5, beating the OR of 4 and 1 for actually hitting, needing a DP of 15 on average...


OR is about technological intricateness, not massiveness...
A windmill would have a low OR despite being massive, for example...