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 ), 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.



Yeah thanks. I found it hiding in the table when responding to your second post.

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!

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 ...

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. 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.

4+, not 4. I typically assign higher OR for particularly large vehicles. That little "+" there is what keeps you from powerbolting an aircraft carrier. (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...

Generally true, but if you don't consider size then powerbolt quickly destroys anything. Buildings, aircraft carriers, planets.

edit: Yeah, kind of a stupid example. My point is, the OR listed for vehicles is 4+, not 4, and I gave an example. You can pick it apart all you want, the point is as a player you shouldn't be surprised if you GM tells you that something has an OR higher than 4. People were talking like 4 was the highest OR you'd ever encounter, and that was really the only thing I wanted to dispute.

Don't you use the making holes in barrier rules for that?
The windmill would be easy to damage, but it would take a while to completely tear it down...

EDIT: Well you're right in your edit...

I don't know. SR magic has always been pretty clear that you can't target a part of a thing, just the whole thing, which would imply that no, you can't blow a small hole in a windmill, you have to inflict abstract damage on the entire thing with a direct combat spell. Which gets into all sorts of awful confusion, is a door a thing, or a part of a thing (building)? etc etc. It's a headache, and I have no good answers.

I could say the same...
Thank god we've never tried to bolt a windmill...

Not true. A spell against an object is a success test, with the OR being the threshold. You only need to get as many hits as the threshold to succeed.

"Hits represent a measure of achievement on a test. In order to succeed completely on a Success Test, you must meet or exceed a gamemaster-determined threshold with your hits. The higher the threshold, the more difficult an action is. The standard threshold is 1 (so only 1 hit is necessary to succeed), though other tests may have a threshold as high as 4" (SR4, 56).



You can target individual components, at least of vehicles.

"Called shots against vehicles follow the same rules as for Called Shots, p. 149. A third option, however, is available to the attacker if the called shot succeeds. The attacker can choose to target and destroy any specific component of the vehicle: window, sensor, tire, etc. The gamemaster determines the exact effect of this called shot, based on the DV inflicted. In most cases, the component will simply be destroyed. Shot-out tires inflict a –2 dice pool modifier per flat tire to Vehicle Tests" (SR4, 162).

In any event, I did some testing to see which type of spell really is better against a vehicle. My testing was limited, and in no way is statistically significant, but still it gives you something to consider.

I used my group's magician as the caster, who has 5 Magic and 5 Spellcasting, and no other modifiers, for 10 dice pool. I pitted him against a Bulldog van with a run-of-the-mill driver who had Reaction 3. He used Powerbolt and Acid Stream as the test spells. Neither character used Edge, to keep it simple. Against Acid Stream, the van driver just did the normal ranged defense; he did not use Evasion (full defense).

With Powerbolt, I first started him out using Force 5, but it quickly was obvious that he'd need to cast *a lot* of times to destroy the van. In the two tests I ran at Force 5, the results were as follows:

1. 20 castings to destroy the van; he took 3 Stun damage from drain.
2. 10 castings to destroy the van; he took 8 Stun damage from drain.

I stopped after those 2 tests, since even 10 castings is ridiculous. After that, I overcast at Force 9 to take down the van faster.

1. 4 castings to destroy the van; he took 6 Physical damage from drain.
2. 4 castings to destroy the van; he took 9 Physical damage from drain.
3. 4 castings to inflict 11 damage to the van, which was not destroyed; he took 11 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.
4. 2 castings to destroy the van; he took 3 Physical damage from drain.
5. 3 castings to destroy the van; he took 4 Physical damage from drain.

With Acid Stream, I used Force 7, which is was good enough to damage the van reliably, due to needing to inflict 9 DV or more. I didn't use Force 9 since the drain DV was already pretty bad (6).

1. 6 castings to destroy the van; he took 9 Physical damage from drain.
2. 3 castings to inflict 9 damage to the van, which was not destroyed; he took 11 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.
3. 4 castings to destroy the van; he took 9 Physical damage from drain.
4. 4 castings to inflict 3 damage to the van, which was not destroyed; he took 11 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.
5. 3 castings to inflict 9 damage to the van, which was not destroyed; he took 10 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.

Interestingly, the Powerbolt was more effective on the whole, despite needing to beat OR 4. I could try again with Acid Stream at Force 9 just to see, but I have a feeling that the magician would just knock himself out even faster.

If the driver had better Reaction, used Evasion, or both, then Acid Stream would be even less effective.

You're right, I'm wrong...
Now I guess I'll have to learn to live with it...

Heh, don't worry about it. If you see earlier in this thread, I was all wrong about how combat spells worked in the first place!

Okay, so I was curious and did another test run with Acid Stream at Force 9 just to see how it stacks up compared to Powerbolt at Force 9.

1. 3 castings to inflict 1 damage to the van; he took 15 Physical damage from drain and killed himself.
2. 3 castings to destroy the van; he took 10 Physical damage from drain and was knocked out.
3. 4 castings to inflict 14 damage to the van; he took 10 Physical damage from drain and was knocked out.
4. 3 castings to destroy the van; he took 13 Physical damage from drain and was knocked out. In fact, his overflow was maxed.
5. 3 castings to destroy the van; he took 4 Physical damage from drain.

I'm not sure if it was just the luck--or unluck--of the dice, but this time he was knocked 3 out of 5 times, killed himself once, and survived nearly unscathed only once. On the bright side, he took out the van 3 times and nearly took it out a 4th time.

Still, I'm convinced that Direct Combat spells are still better against most objects and vehicles.

How do the comparisons stack up if you're aiming at combat drones like the lynx or doberman instead? with the lower body, but still OR4, I'd guess that the elemental effects would fare better.

On the plus side, Indirect spells can benefit from the Called Shot rules, allowing you to specifically target subsections of a vehicle. So, you could cast Acid Stream at its tires, forcing a crash test; or a Lightning Bolt at its antenna array, shorting out its electronics systems.

Against vehicles, however, I seldom use anything but lightning-based indirect spells. The secondary effect means that even if you don't take out the vehicle all at once, you still cripple it. With systems shorting out left and right, you can mess up a vehicle without having to destroy it.

You're probably right. I didn't think about things with lower Body; my bad. Maybe later in the day when I get another moment of free time, I'll do some tests against these drones.

I was referring specifically to targeting parts of things with direct combat spells. I apologize if my post somehow left it unclear that I was talking about magic.

Ahh, now there's something I didn't consider, too. It looks like I'd better give lightning bolt to my magician NPC! How reliable is it to do this? Vehicles resist with Body + Armor. In my Bulldog Van example, that's 18 dice!



Ahh, sorry, my misunderstanding.

No problem. I kinda figured.

I agree that lightning is the best bet for indirect combat spells because of the secondary effects. Acid is useful out of combat, but that depends on your ability to talk your GM into zany schemes. As in: "C'mon, I can totally melt through that."

The trick is to combine a lightning bolt with the called shot rules. Now, instead of getting Body + Armor, the subsystem only gets Armor x 2 to resist, and many subsystems have no armor. Someone else will have to let me know if the Armor rating is also halved for this test. At any event, rather than shoot the whole vehicle and hope you fry something critical, aim for what you want and try to short it out. You can probably force a Crash Test, at the very least.

The tertiary effects are pretty important with Indirect Spells. Even if a lightning bolt does minimal damage to a drone, for example, it's still going to apply negative dice modifiers to the bot for a couple turns until its systems can compensate. Likewise, even a low-Force fire spell to the wheels is going to melt down the rubber so long as it hits. (Unless it's a smart tire, or run-flat)

Aonther point to keep in mind; while corporate security is briefed on magical threats and ways to deal with them, actually seeing a guy on your compound throwing fireballs at your buddies is going to be a pretty serious morale breaker until the properly trained High Threat Response teams show up. Indirect spells are flashy and alarming to the untrained. GMs can potentially make security teams make composure tests for shell-shock.

Ranger: Subsequent to your testing, it occurs to me that maybe it's supposed to be really tough to destroy a step van. With mundane weapons you need to invest in some pretty pokey gear to take out a van (rocket launchers, Anti-vehicle rounds etc.)

If you do compare direct and indirect spells vs drones, let us know what you find.

Okay, I did some tests against a Doberman, since it's the middle of the road drone. All default stats.

Powerbolt Force 9
1. 3 castings to inflict 9 damage to the drone, which was not destroyed; he took 10 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.
2. 7 castings to inflict 0 damage to the drone, which was not destroyed; he took 10 Physical damage from the drain and was knocked out.
3. 3 castings to destroy the drone; he took 6 Physical damage from the drain.
4. 5 castings to destroy the drone; he took 7 Physical damage from the drain.
5. 4 castings to destroy the drone; he took 7 Physical damage from the drain.

After that first test with Force 9 and seeing how high the drain was, I tried it again but at only Force 5.

Powerbolt Force 5
1. 3 castings to destroy the drone; he took 2 Stun damage from the drain.
2. 5 castings to destroy the drone; he took 0 Stun damage from the drain.
3. 3 castings to destroy the drone; he took 0 Stun damage from the drain.
4. 10 castings to destroy the drone; he took 5 Stun damage from the drain.
5. 5 castings to destroy the drone; he took 0 Stun damage from the drain.

It took almost the same number of castings as at Force 9, since a Doberman is disabled after taking 10 damage, which a Force 5 spell does in 2 successful castings. The Force 9 could disable the Doberman in 1 casting if I got 5 or more hits, but that's pretty hard to achieve.

Acid Stream Force 5
1. 2 castings to destroy the drone; he took 6 Stun damage from the drain.
2. 3 castings to destroy the drone; he took 10 Stun damage from the drain.
3. 5 castings to destroy the drone; he took 6 Stun damage from the drain.
4. 2 castings to destroy the drone; he took 5 Stun damage from the drain.
5. 2 castings to destroy the drone; he took 4 Stun damage from the drain.

Clearly fewer castings on average, although the drain was kind of bad. Still, this does show that--as others guessed--against weaker vehicles or drones, the elemental spells are more reliable at inflicting damage, but at the trade-off of more drain.

So, depending on your situation, that'll determine which type of spell to cast. If you have all day, then use the Direct Combat spell regardless of the target's Body and Armor. If you need to kill the vehicle or drone *now*, then use the Indirect Combat spell if the target has low Body and Armor. But, if the target has high Body and Armor, then Direct Combat spells are still the way to go overall.

So, it seems like the balancing factor on ID combat spells would be how often you apply their special effects. Lightning systems, Acid melting tires and/or degrading armor, that sort of thing. GMs that want them to be an attractive alternative would check for that frequently, even when the spell fails to inflict normal damage.

Edit: Since the F5 Acid Stream did more damage, but more drain, would it be more appropriate to compare F5 Power Bolt to F3 Acid Stream?

I could retry with Force 3 Acid Stream. However, the reason I chose Force 5 is so that the Acid Stream was almost guaranteed to do *some* damage. Remember that against vehicles and drones, if the attack's DV does not exceed the vehicle's or drone's armor, then no damage is done.

With Force 3, yes, the drain will be less, but many more castings will fail to do any damage. The Doberman has 6 Armor, so that means Acid Stream needs to do at least 7 points to damage the drone. Getting 2 net hits generally wasn't a problem in my tests, which is why I went with Force 5.

Edit: Actually, a Force 3 Acid Stream can never do any damage to a vehicle or drone that has Armor 6, unless you use Edge. Force 3 means 3 base DV, +3 hits maximum, for a maximum modified DV of 6. So, Force 3 is not possible in this case.

Good point about the cap on hits - I had forgotten that part.

So the only places ID spells will really shine will be

1. Hitting things you can't see (i.e. aiming the blast above the wall to hit those guards hiding behind the wall)
2. Elemental effects

Based on this I'll probably check for elemental damage more often, even when the normal damage roll is 100% resisted ("You take no damage from the acid stream, but you hear your armor sizzling and bubbling from the attack - reduce B/I of your jacket by 1 each")

So, for reference what are all the different elemental effects? Weren't they cateloged in SM?

Fire - Starting secondary fires. Cooking off ammo. Melting plastic
Shock - Disorientation as per tazer. Shorting out electrical systems. Bypassing metal armor [?]
Light - Glare penalties. Damaging optics.
Water - Knock down. Shorting out electical systems.
Blast - Knock down.
Acid - Melt tires. Degrade armor.
Metal - [?]
Sand - Precision machinery jams.

Don't forget, armor is halved versus elemental effects, so you can get away with a lower Force.

Is that true for ANY elemental effect spell? I thought that was just for the 'electrical' elemental attacks.

[edit]...So this would mean that you could theoretically damage a doberman (armor 6 halved = 3) with a force 2 (with 2 net successes) elemental spell?

Remember that total spell hits are capped by force, not net hits. To get two net hits on a force 2 spell the spell resistance check can't produce any successes.

However, I believe that the targets armour is always halved by the application of elemental spell effects.

It's true for any Elemental spell. BBB, p 196:


So, said Doberman would lose half its armor versus an Acid Stream.

It should also be pointed out that Electrical effects could potentially take out a vehicle much more easily. If the vehicle soaks all the damage, but fails to achieve more successes than the attack did on a Body + Armor test, it still shorts out and shuts down. At the very least, this can force a crash test, and should turn it into a sitting duck for your next shot.

The Armor is typically halved for Elemental Effects, but if I recall correctly there are some that treat Armor differently, such as Sound, which totally disregards Armor. The individual descriptions of each Elemental Effect should have the specific details.