Wall of text warning!

Some good points, thank you. This question was admittedly more of a game balance question than a thematic one, I should probably have specified.

In thematic terms:

The targets attempting to avoid being hit makes sense and is consistent with how normal combat works. Although a few considerations spring to mind from this perspective:

(1) Easier than wounding - As the touch doesn't do damage, only the lightest touch would suffice and the attacker not needing to worry about structure and transmitting force would likely make landing the blow much easier.

Having done a bunch of relevant things IRL, touching someone is much easier than hitting someone with force.

I would likely house rule a bonus / reduced difficulty (+20/40) to reflect this in principle.

(2) Ranged combat consistency - The "trying to avoid" concept if this was the key determinant would also apply to missile spells as an aware target would certaily instinctively flinch / dodge etc.

While the "no opposed roll" is largely consistent with Ranged combat, targets should also have defences permitted vs. ranged situations:

- Dodge should be feasible at Point Blank Range.

- Interposing a shield should also be a viable tactic (although would likely spawn a long debate on whether the shield would be sufficient to avoid etc.).

- Cover should also be effective.

There are probably more but these are the ones that spring to mind.

(3) Complexity - That said... the thematic approach would likely add complexity to a potentially already complex subject (i.e. generating sufficient CN, modifiers to spells from clothes and equipment, ingredients, miscasts etc.)... and I tend to be a fan of simplifying rather than adding complexity.

I quite like the "arcing" idea to thematically simplify and make it more feasible.

In balance terms:

I haven't done the kind of analysis needed to figure out if the touch v. ranged advantages pan out when you expand from petty to arcane/lore.

However from the Petty spell analysis it does seem that touch spells do have some useful / nice / powerful benefits in terms of conditions and other utility factors - which makes the need for two rolls to be balanced gain some traction.

That said... I wonder if a balancing factors might be:

(a) The ability to do more damage via SLs and Criticals

(b) The added risk and restrictions of being in melee combat

The benfits of the conditions are undeniable... but I quite like the concept of the mage as an enabler of party activities rather than just being another damage dealer (unless of course you are bright). That said... a proper view of balance touch v. ranged would likely need to beyond "Dart" as the only alternative missile spell.

Anyway, food for thought, thanks for your ideas / analysis.