Touch Spells, A little help here Options

[Lansdren]

Ok need some confirmation / explination on touch limited spells in combat as they have not come up for me before and I want to double check things before they happen.

In the event of a mage wanting to cast a touch spell they have to first make a unarmed attack

So they make the unarmed attack in the first IP and if they draw or hit they straight away make the spellcasting test to do damage (or what ever) which doesnt take up any further IPs as its all classed as one move right? they of course also have drain as normal on top

Can anyone explain this abit more clearly as I'm not sure I'm looking at it straight cause to me it looks like you are doing two complex actions in the same IP.

[Neraph]

This is actually fairly simple.

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. 146).

Underlined emphasis mine.

The strike itself is part of the Spellcasting Test, and is not a separate action for Initiative.

For example:

1) Mage wants to cast Death Touch, and has only one Initiative Pass. Mage rolls his Agility + Unarmed Combat (with a +2 dicepool for Touch Attacks), and gets 4 net successes on his target. All he needed was one net success, and the initial touch deals no damage - however, now his spell goes off and he rolls Magic + Spellcasting (+ modifiers), and deals damage and resists drain accordingly.

2) Mage wants to cast Death Touch, and has four Initiative Passes. Mage rolls his Agility + Unarmed Combat (with a +2 dicepool for Touch Attacks) and does not get any net successes. He misses his target, does not cast his spell, and does not suffer drain. Better luck next Initiative Pass.

[hobgoblin]

Iirc the RAW is somewhat unclear on what comes first, the spellcasting or the attack test.

that is, point 2 could just as well have the mage cast the spell and take drain, but fail the melee attack and so never deliver the spell effect on the target. Either of those interpretations will be valid.

[Doc Chase]

Storywise, I feel the drain being taken after the touch attack connects works better. Mechanically, I feel the same way. If the caster had to cast and take Drain beforehand, the modifiers may end up making it so he can't ever connect with the touch.

[Yerameyahu]

You could also have him take drain after the attack, hit or miss. It all depends. I assume you're intended to touch-then-cast, though.

[hobgoblin]

I just thought of something, for any other combat spell, drain is applied no matter the outcome of the actual casting.

That is, if a spell is cast but resisted (or dodged, in case of indirect spells) drain is still a issue.

as such, i would say that one could argue that one first test if the spell is correctly cast, then the melee combat test is made, and no matter the outcome of that test, drain is resisted.

[Yerameyahu]

That's true. On the other hand, you could simply say that touch spells are different; that the touch is part of the casting itself, and no touch, no casting. Any of the options we've mentioned are usable, depending on your game. I agree that the drain-related penalties shouldn't affect the touch attack, regardless.

[hobgoblin]

agree on the drain not affecting the attack test.

[Raiki]

1) Mage wants to cast Death Touch, and has only one Initiative Pass. Mage rolls his Agility + Unarmed Combat (with a +2 dicepool for Touch Attacks), and gets 4 net successes on his target. All he needed was one net success, and the initial touch deals no damage - however, now his spell goes off and he rolls Magic + Spellcasting (+ modifiers), and deals damage and resists drain accordingly.

Emphasis mine.

Actually, I recall reading somewhere (I'm AFB at the moment, so I'm not sure where) that a tie on the opposed test for a touch attack was good enough to hit. The section was referring to delivery of toxins, not spells, but it seemed to be talking about touch attacks in general.




~R~

[Glyph]

Yes. Touch spells use the rule for grazing hits, so the mage only needs to tie the defender's number of successes to deliver the spell. Page 139 on my book, not sure what page in SR4A. But it is in the general section on the combat sequence, rather than the specific melee section later.

[Shinobi Killfist]

What still seems shaky for me is touch indirect spells like I think it is called punch.

Step 1: Unarmed combat+agility at +2 dice vs unarmed+reaction(maybe +dodge or unarmed again if on full defense), lets assume a hit.
Step 2: Spell casting + magic vs ?.

For a direct spell it is vs the either willpower or body. Vs indirect it is normally vs reaction and then a body+impact(modified by AP) to resist the damage. Now since you hit with the touch do you skip the reaction test to dodge it and go straight to the resistance test?

[tagz]

Yes. The avoidance was already failed, and with a likely superior dice pool as well as defender gets dodge. The only change is that the net hits on the avoidance do not reduce the damage of the spell effect.

And yes, it would be resisted with Body + Impact armor (likely modified to ½ impact armor if using elemental effects).

[Neraph]

Emphasis mine.

Actually, I recall reading somewhere (I'm AFB at the moment, so I'm not sure where) that a tie on the opposed test for a touch attack was good enough to hit. The section was referring to delivery of toxins, not spells, but it seemed to be talking about touch attacks in general.




~R~

Some spells... require the caster to touch the intended target in order for the spell to work... One net hit is sufficient for the caster to touch the target.

Emphasis mine, and some parts edited.

This tells us that:
1) You need to touch to actually cast the spell. If your attack fails, then your Complex Action is wasted.
2) You need one net hit. "Grazing" hits don't count.

Unless, of course, they changed it in 4A. I still don't have that one to check.

[Yerameyahu]

Well, 'work' isn't necessarily the same as 'cast'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) I think there's room to accommodate a 'no-cast' OR a 'useless-cast' interpretation, depending on the game/table. I prefer the no-cast, I guess.
It really is important to have the proper version.

Some spells, particularly health spells, require the caster to touch the intended target in order for the spell to work. 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). A tie on the Opposed Melee Test is sufficient for the caster to touch the target (p. 63).

Lack of emphasis not mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Glyph]

Looks like they changed the rule to be more consistent with the grazing hits rule (which includes touch-only combat spells as one of the examples of grazing hits). Although in the basic SR4 book, grazing hits are GM discretion, so it didn't necessarily contradict itself - more of an optional rule vs. the normal rule. There seem to be a lot of these subtle little changes that didn't make it into the SR4A changes document.

[Lansdren]

Cheers guys and girls, the consensus is much as I was thinking but its nice to get confirmation on it before I run it live.


It does appear to make a hand to hand mage quite strong in some respects which is nice as it fits the concept one of the players is putting together

[Raiki]

I don't know about 'quite strong', but it is at least a nice little boost. The +2 die pool and effectively -1 threshold modifiers certainly make the concept more viable than it would have been otherwise. Just don't ever reach your hand out to touch the cyber'd up troll with the combat axe if you want to pull back anything other than a stump.




~R~

[Shinobi Killfist]

Since this is for combat spells and stun bolt is already stupidly light in drain, I don't really see the practical benefit. I think it is cool and would work well with certain concepts, but really a force 9 stun bolt is only 3 drain. Is dropping the drain to 1 really worth losing LOS range and requiring an extra test to connect?

[Yerameyahu]

Maybe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

Since this is for combat spells and stun bolt is already stupidly light in drain, I don't really see the practical benefit. I think it is cool and would work well with certain concepts, but really a force 9 stun bolt is only 3 drain. Is dropping the drain to 1 really worth losing LOS range and requiring an extra test to connect?

Possibly not, but making a character with a relatively easy Test to make (if we build for it) that allows a F12 spell to be cast with only 3 Drain that is up close and personal sounds good.

[KarmaInferno]

Plus you can do the Batman "one punch" knockdown of just about anyone.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)




-k

[Neraph]

I was thinking Vulcan Death Grip.

[Yerameyahu]

Great for a Mystic Adept with the right theme! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 'I don't want to invest all my points in Killing Hands/etc.' 'No problem.'

[Shinobi Killfist]

Possibly not, but making a character with a relatively easy Test to make (if we build for it) that allows a F12 spell to be cast with only 3 Drain that is up close and personal sounds good.

And when do you need force 12 combat spells? 1 net hit on a force 9 spell takes out virtually everyone. And relatively easy vs chumps sure, but against others not so much. Lets say 6 agility, 6 unarmed combat, specialized in touch spells, and its a touch spell. So 16 dice. a crap ton of investment to get 16 dice, but 16 dice. Street Sam 9 reaction, 4 in unarmed combat gets 13 dice. I guess that is relatively easy since you only have to tie, but it is still going to miss fairly frequently in these cases. And heck if that street sam was specialized and maybe had reach where are oyu. Almost even steven, good luck on that relatively easy test. Reaction is probably on average the highest stat o go against since the initiative enhancers help it out. Melee combat adds the skill in as defense. You just added in I'd guess around 50 BP in attributes and skills so you can be okay at delivering touch spells vs reflex monkies.

As opposed to LOS 12 dice for his 4 willpower. And putting those 50 BP into dealing with drain.

Cool, yes. I like it, and I've done it. Effective, not really.

[Raiki]

But how many sams are really going to spec their character out for unarmed combat? Even using a kitchen knife is usually more effective unless you're an adapt with killing hands, critical strike, et all.

And even for NPC gangers, what punk is going to come at you bare handed when a light pistol is so cheap you can literally find them just laying around (depending on what part of the sprawl you frequent anyway)? Failing that, even a baseball bat would be more useful.

Unless you're trying to touch some crazy cyber'd out razorboy, the opponent shouldn't be throwing out more than 10 or so dice.


Just my two (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) .




~R~