[RHat]

If you've got the Drain pool to get away with it, multi-casting high Force combat spells is gonna do a lot of damage.  Which is part of why my combat druid has Increase Intuition.

[Valnar]

Fun fact: my older printing of the German version of Street Magic had indirect spells defended with reaction only and the damage reduced by body + half impact + counterspelling.

This always was what we considered to be the correct (and most logical) ruling and it actually made indirect spells kind of useful against targets who couldn't dodge, especially if they had a counterspelling magician on their side.

And they usually did, at least whenever I was playing my Mystic Adept. Those enemy Magicians would also usually have Absorption (and therefore Shielding) as well, which eventually led to me spamming high powered indirect spells on my last run, because they were the only thing that I figured had any chance of actually getting through and dealing some damage.

Now I had a friend look into his more recent reprint of Street Magic, and apparently they corrected it to be reaction + counterspelling for defense and body + half impact for damage again. A shame, really, because it took away one of the very few use cases of indirect spells. Gonna talk about reverting to the old Street Magic ruling with my GMs, which will also be the ruling I use whenever I GM a game.

[Mithlas]

I don't see a big difference between those. Either way, you have Direct resisted by Body/Willpower + Counterspelling versus indirect resisted by Reaction + Body/Willpower + Counterspelling, plus half impact armor and whatever relevant protective modifiers are built into the armor, the only difference is the grouping of when those rolls are made.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

The difference is that the reaction only makes it easier to hit someone with an indirect spell.  Afterward, counterspelling helps reduce the direct damage, although it'd have no effect on the elemental effect.

[Valnar]

Exactly, you hit them more easily, potentially getting more net hits which will in turn add to the damage of the spell. It's actually quite a game changer and made combating other Spellcasters more interesting, because you had some tough decisions to make. Do I just try to throw a Stunbolt, running the risk of pretty much just wasting my action because it will likely dissolve into thin air? Or do I go for a Lightning Bolt, for a better hit-chance and an elemental effect, albeit at a lower damage value and higher drain?

[Simon Le Bonbon]

Interesting thread: I have played my first magician for a few months now, and she has recently learned her first elemental spell. After careful thinking, I chose Acid Stream for her: she has used it so far to destroy obstacles, vehicles, bodies and all kinds of evidence. I chose the spell because I thought fire or lightning might set things on fire, and that´s a bit too high profile for my taste: acid does the job just fine.... and has a little Exorcist-style touch which suits the character fine
Otherwise she has used Stunbolts, Powerbolts and Stunballs to drop enemies because of their low drain: next combat spell for her will probably be Toxic Wave for same reasons I chose Acid Stream.
I think the basic drain rules work just fine: a wise magician learns different kinds of spells for different situations, it would be foolish not to.

[Neal Allen]

Wow, read what I said. Compare two spells that have the same damage type, same valid targets. The only difference is whether they are Direct or Indirect. Physical Damage, Physical Spell. Basically create an Indirect version of PowerBolt, call it Bullet.

Why would one use this Indirect spell? Against certain targets it might have a slightly higher chance of going through, but it is guaranteed to do less damage on average.

Direct vs. Indirect Resistance

Body (+Counterspelling) vs. Reaction (+Counterspelling) + Body + half Impact

"Average Mage" -> Call it Spellcasting Pool of 12, average hits of 4

"Average Troll" -> Body 7, Reaction 3, (no Counterspelling), Impact Armor 11
Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage
Bullet F5 = 1 avg. hit to avoid -> 3 net hits, base damage 8 -> 4 avg. hits to reduce damage -> 4 damage

And that's against an enemy that has the highest chance to out-right resist the Powerbolt...

My argument isn't against the idea that different spells are used for different purposes, only the argument that Indirect Spells are inherently weaker, but still cost the same amount of drain (for otherwise identical spells).

Hold on.  Unless I'm incorrect, direct spells don't add the spell's force to damage, so they're -always- gonna deal significantly less damage.  At least until soak.
Corebook, Pg. 283, Direct Combat Spells:
"When your direct combat spell is successfully cast, it inflicts a number of boxes of damage equal to your net hits on the opposed test."

This means that in your example, Kiirnodel:
Powerbolt F5 = (12 spellcasting dice vs. 2-4 willpower) = 3NH = 3DV.  That's terrible.
Bullet F5 = (12 spellcasting dice vs. 6-9 Rea+Int) = 1-2 NH = 6-7DV.  They may soak that, but AP is ridiculously awesome at Force (-5 in this case).  They'd have to have 17 arm+body in order to make it equal final damage to indirect. 

[Xenon]

You are replying to an 8 year old thread....

Direct Combat Spells are only opposed by one attribute (Body or Willpower). Typically making them easier to land than Indirect Combat Spells (which are avoided by a combination of Reaction + Intuition).

Direct Combat Spells originate from within the target which mean that once the spell connect there will be no soaking at all. Armor is not part of the equation. Indirect Combat spells, however, will also be soaked once they connect. And in this edition you can get 30+ soak right out of the gate...

Direct Combat Spells come as Mana variants which mean you can use them on the Astral Plane against wholly astral entities. Indirect Combat spells can only target the physical plane.

It is also not immediately obvious who the responsible magician is or where the Direct Combat spell was cast from. While Indirect Combat Spells are immediately obvious and will lead a trail of elemental effects from the responsible magician all the way to the intended target.

The advantage of using an Indirect Combat Spell is that Force is added to the base Damage Value. But since Force is not part of the DV of Direct Combat spells you can instead cast them at a rather low Force and set the limit with Reagents or break the limit with Edge.

Another advantage with Indirect Combat Spells is that you don't have to actually "see" your target (you can Blind Fire). But since you don't need a direct line of fire from your body with Direct Combat Spells you can instead target via reflections, via endoscopes or mage goggles without exposing yourself at all.

edit; fixed a few typos.

[Neal Allen]

You are replying to an 8 year old thread....

Haha yeah so wouldn’t it be hilariously infuriating if I played my fav ed. of my fav game wrong this whole time?

Yes, I understand the intricacies of Direct vs. Indirect but my confusion is thus:
Kiirnodel inferred that Force is added to base DV on Direct spells
“Powerbolt F5 = 2 avg. hits to resist -> 7 damage”

And despite the many replies, nobody has ever corrected them.  Which, since it is a huge factor in he difference, would have warranted immediate attention, IMO.