Would a mage casting a combat spell while driving a bike take the -3 penalty for attacking from a vehicle? I figured that a physical manipulation spell like lightning bolt would since it's handled just like a ranged attack, but couldn't find anything about direct damage spells.

I was looking through the spellcasting rules to see there there was anything about this, but spell casting lists the only modifiers from foci, totem, spirts, and visibility.

Anyone have any thoughts?

as far as i remember there isn't any explecitly somatic componits to spellcasting so you can just look at the rivle go ganger and lightening manifests however you want to hit him flys from your eyes fingers bike(especially if your bike is a spell focus) or drops from the sky ontohis "Hog" to singe him.... you may give him the requirement to do multiple actions givin that he's driving in a combat situation unless the groups rigger can drive the bike for him or it has a good autopilot

alternately i believe it would be more appropriate to have him take a driving test and get the penalties there rather than on the magical test(s) as magic doesnt really have the range modifiers etc. It would be very appropriate to take -3 or even -5 for doing two very complicated things like that in a combat scenario (hope he doesnt have any crash tests coming .

Easiest is normally simplest... if he's a passenger no penalty... excepting possibly an astral visibility penalty for looking through the window. (astral sight is not normal sight... windows obscure but don't block vision... mage sight systems work for normal vision not astral vision).

If he's on a bike.. give him the flat -2 distraction penalty, but only if you feel it's warranted. EG: if he needs to make a vehicle control test. If he's just driving straight and level down the road... then casting something at something in front of him should be no problem.


The purpose of a GM is to not be the penultimate rules lawyer but to arbitrate things and make them move quickly and smoothly and apply appropriate dice mods (not exact... exact slows things down too much most of the time).

I know this all too well. I was just trying to get some clairification and see if anyone understood the RAW better than me.

Then I can make an informed arbitration during the game.

Is a there a penalty for being distracted while casting a spell? If so, it could apply if the vehicle is shaking.

As I understand the rules the -3 penalty for attacking from a bike definitly applies to indirect combat spells and although I can find no referance to it affecting Direct combat spells I can think of no reason it wouldn't - its an attack and you are in a vehical, I'd apply it but I'm pretty sure this is being a personal call. That and a gut impression that spell casting should be harder in such situations.
You could just as easily point out there is not targeting or attack roll so its not an "attack" to be interupted by the moving of the vehical, just a spellcasting test where you pour mana into some poor sucker till he bursts like a ballon.


What? um... more precisely - Where did you get this info on astral sight and windows? How big is the penalty? which edition and which source book? Cause I've been itching for a hard source for years.

I would give the Magician the penalty. Casting a spell requires concentration, so it has got to be more difficult while in a moving vehicle. I would also give the penalty for casting a spell while behind cover, and pretty much all the other modifiers that apply in Ranged combat.

to futher clarify - the mage will need to take the "drive bike" action seperate from the "spellcast" action in either case and unless they have multiple passes they will soon be making crash tests

Thank the gods for Autopilot then.

Autopilots can't drive bikes. They're manual control override only. (It's right there in arsenal)
Manual control override means no decker/rigger could break into the bike ever and control it, but neither can it's own computer.


No, mage shouldn't get slammed w/ a moving vehicle penalty, even using an indirect spell. The spell is targetted visually, it's not like a gun bunny trying to line up his gun sights while in a fast moving vehicle. I'll also point out gunbunny dice pools are typically far larger than mage dice pools. Also, indirect spells already have nasty drain, they don't need another penalty put on them.

Generally to keep things moving... we apply the firing from cover modifier to someone using a smartlinked gun and aiming w/ the gun cam w/o exposing themselves. Or a mage using a mirror to cast around corners.



And it's quite possible for a mage to need to make a driving test and cast in the same pass. Someone shoots at the mage, how does the mage avoid the shot in vehicular combat? An opposed check.

Page number?
With a Pilot and an Autosoft ([Ground Vehicle in question]) and a Gyro, I don't see any problem with it. I'd be very interested in knowing if the rules say something different on the matter.

Really? All Motorcycles have a Pilot Rating, so therefore, you do not have to even use the "Manual Controls" as long as you have Gyrostabilization

Keep the Faith

The GM who is the penultimate rules lawyer makes things move more quickly and smoothly because the players know they can't out-RAW him.

Indirect combat spells: Don't cast them through a window. The spell goes off at the barrier.

All other spells: If you can see it you can cast the spell. Windows however are opaque on the astral plane (Street Magic p. 114), I don't like it, but it has been this way in previous edition as well.

1) Can bikes be put on autopilot? It's not factory-issue, but you could modify a bike to do so.
2) When going into VR (or astral projection), you'll want specially designed safety belts to keep you on the bike. 2072 technology should be able to do this.
3) Indirect combat spells are pretty much treated like other attacks; you project a magical "bullet" that flies from you to the target. I'd assign the -3 penalty from firing from a moving vehicle.
4) Direct combat spells aren't really treated like a to-hit roll, so I don't think the penalty should apply.
5) Where does the "bullet" of indirect spells come from? If it's your eyes, what happens if you wear a helmet? If hands, gloves? I think it'd be sensible to ignore clothing for this purpose, but an external car window would apply, yeah.

Bonus question:
6) Would a window stop an indirect mana spell?

There are no indirect Mana Spells. And according to Street Magic Indirect Combat Spells cannot be mana based, so they cannot be designed.

Okay this one I STRONGLY disagree with.

The whole premise is wrong. The reason firearms have a penalty is because you're HOLDING a gun which is shaking like mad making it hard to aim. Spells are purely constructs of the mind, even though you're trying to fire it off. Furthermore, equipment can eliminate the -3 moving vehicle penalty by having it gyrostabilized or the like.. how do you gyrostabilize a spell?! You don't, it already is, there is no physical manifestation making it 'hard to aim'.


Now lets go to the last problem. Look at the drain codes on indirect spells. They're really high, they're really draining. And spellcasting pools are generally much smaller than gunbunny attack pools with a lot more negative mods. (visibility, background count, mage counterspelling on the other side!!). Outside of multi-casting (which is a poor choice to do w/ high drain indirect spells), you only get one 'spell' attack per pass, while you snap off two shots per pass w/ guns, or throw two grenades. The two actions are different w/ vastly different penalty sets.