Attack spells that last more than one exchange

[InFerrumVeritas]

I've given this a bit of thought and come to this conclusion.

If you're extending an attack spell (like a fireball), you can do so, but must make a new targeting roll each round.  This roll is your action.

[Mr. Death]

I kind of already included that in my last proposal a couple pages back.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I kind of already included that in my last proposal a couple pages back.

Sorry then.  I second Mr. Death's proposal in that idea. 

I'll be honest, I read about 3-4 pages and then returned to the thread later without reading the other 3-4 pages.  My bad.

[Mr. Death]

Don't sweat it. The proposal in full is here.

[sinker]

That still doesn't address the problem of removing the mental stress limit on casting...

[ways and means]

I doesn't remove the mental stress limit on casting (unlike enchanted items) it merely extends it.

[Orladdin]

That still doesn't address the problem of removing the mental stress limit on casting...

I think it does reasonably well, in theory (I'd have to see it played to be sure).

You're spending some power on duration that you would otherwise put into damage/effect.  You're going to have a power-level on the initial and continued attacks fairly in-line with other methods of doing damage, and it still requires the initial stress and all the attack rolls.

[Orladdin]

The real strengths with wizards is that they can A) hit higher numbers than anyone else and B) have more varied effects at about the same numbers as everyone else.  The downside is that it causes stress to do anything.
This solution is, potentially, a little underpowered; though I can see a couple situations where you might choose to use it. 

You're getting the same numbers as everyone else (because of spending the higher points on duration) and you're still incurring the initial stress-hit.

[Haru]

I honestly don't see the appeal of this. Yes, it would probably work as you proposed, but why would you want to do a spell like that? If you have to roll for the spell again, why not simply do a new spell? I'm pretty sure you'll get more firepower out like that. Even if you want to use the spell against multiple weak targets, I would rather split the spell to attack multiple targets at once than do the extended spell you proposed.

To extend the duration of the spell, you are either going over your conviction safety limit, increasing the shifts of casting stress, or you are limiting the spells power, making it a whole lot less effective than it could be.

[Mr. Death]

As the others said, it doesn't remove the limit so much as extend it, and let you do some more with it.

I figure, there's a couple ways to do it. Let's call a given caster's effective conviction X and the effective discipline Y, and assume they're the same. Ergo, the most power that can be put into one spell without incurring a consequence is X+3.

So say you want a Weapon:X spell, and you want it to last three extra rounds. That means you're taking a 4 shift mental hit, plus backlash if you can't roll to Y+3 as well. If the spell succeeds, you still need to roll at least Y to keep hold on the power--with three extra rounds, assuming Y=X, at least one of those rolls is going to be less than Y, meaning you're taking some more backlash. And each time you take backlash, it constrains you further--if you end up taking two physical backlash hits, counting the initial backlash for casting, anything that lays a hand on you's going to force a consequence.

Alternatively, you could go with a Weapon:X-3 spell to be perfectly safe--much less chance of having to take backlash (I figure you want it at least 2 shifts below X to be safe on the roll, 3 to be really safe), but at the cost of a much less effective spell. You might finish up the four rounds of casting without any stress besides the initial mental hit, but the spells might not have enough kick to do real damage at the same time.

Plus, in both cases, the wizard's almost certainly going to be attacked in turn, which might force a change in tactics.

It allows for longevity, yes, but only really effective longevity if you're willing to deal with a spell that's significantly less powerful than you'd usually cast, and only if you're willing and able to do nothing but attack, attack, attack the whole fight--useful in some situations, but impractical for others.

I honestly don't see the appeal of this. Yes, it would probably work as you proposed, but why would you want to do a spell like that? If you have to roll for the spell again, why not simply do a new spell? I'm pretty sure you'll get more firepower out like that. Even if you want to use the spell against multiple weak targets, I would rather split the spell to attack multiple targets at once than do the extended spell you proposed.

To extend the duration of the spell, you are either going over your conviction safety limit, increasing the shifts of casting stress, or you are limiting the spells power, making it a whole lot less effective than it could be.

Well, if you're fighting a bunch of badguys who have decent dodge rolls (like the +3 for the vampires in the example), a spray attack might have little chance of hitting more than one of them. The way I figure it, given the odds, you want at least a +1 over the target's dodging skill to ensure a hit--so Harry in the example isn't going to hit more than one vampire at a time unless he's got fate points to spend and is really lucky on the roll. But he can hit each individually.

[sinker]

I honestly don't see the appeal of this. Yes, it would probably work as you proposed, but why would you want to do a spell like that? If you have to roll for the spell again, why not simply do a new spell? I'm pretty sure you'll get more firepower out like that. Even if you want to use the spell against multiple weak targets, I would rather split the spell to attack multiple targets at once than do the extended spell you proposed.

Actually Haru this is more powerful than a single casting. Lemme give an example.

I have had characters before with 10 shift rotes (that either require backlash or fate points). If we go with the original rules I can cast a 10 shift attack four times in a conflict without taking consequences (assuming that the backlash doesn't kill me ) for a total of 40 shifts.

Now if we allow me to add duration to my attack I will cast the same 10 shift spell, but throw two of those shifts into duration. Now I have eight shifts of damage for three exchanges that I can cast four times. The first difference is that is a total of 96 shifts (more than twice the original amount). The second difference is that I'm taking stress and more importantly backlash only every third exchange. I can attack with 8 shifts every exchange for three exchanges before I even have to think about stress. That means that I will probably only have to cast this spell maybe twice.

Now let's put this into a complete package. One of the issues that you have nodded at before Mr Death, is that you're attacking this whole time (no defense). So first I (being a smart wizard) throw up a ten shift block and extend it for ten exchanges. Defense taken care of, now I'm attacking. I cast my ten shift, extended duration attack. Now it is very difficult to hit me and I'm throwing around an eight shift weapon for the next six exchanges (48 total shifts). If I want to extend that I could even drop it to seven shifts for eight exchanges (56 total shifts) or six shifts for ten exchanges (60 total shifts).

I'll admit that it would be unusual that a conflict would last more than a few exchanges, but the point of the mental stress limit is that when it is important, when conflict does last a while, that the wizard peters out or kicks up the drama by taking consequences. In this case in addition to being the powerhouse that he already is he becomes the long lasting bastion of power.

I'll stop harping at this point, but I'll just say that in my games I prefer drama, and this would limit the drama.

[Mr. Death]

Now let's put this into a complete package. One of the issues that you have nodded at before Mr Death, is that you're attacking this whole time (no defense). So first I (being a smart wizard) throw up a ten shift block and extend it for ten exchanges. Defense taken care of, now I'm attacking. I cast my ten shift, extended duration attack. Now it is very difficult to hit me and I'm throwing around an eight shift weapon for the next six exchanges (48 total shifts). If I want to extend that I could even drop it to seven shifts for eight exchanges (56 total shifts) or six shifts for ten exchanges (60 total shifts).

I'll admit that it would be unusual that a conflict would last more than a few exchanges, but the point of the mental stress limit is that when it is important, when conflict does last a while, that the wizard peters out or kicks up the drama by taking consequences. In this case in addition to being the powerhouse that he already is he becomes the long lasting bastion of power.

I'll stop harping at this point, but I'll just say that in my games I prefer drama, and this would limit the drama.

Fair points, but it depends on what you're fighting. In your example, before you even start attacking you're taking two mental stress hits (one for the shield, one for its duration), plus potentially backlash for the duration (since I don't think that can be a rote). After the initial attack spell is cast, that leaves the wizard one open box on the Mental track with which to cast anything else before he starts taking consequences.

Also, the thing about multiplying the shifts is a little misleading in that it doesn't stack directly--once you factor in armor, blocks, and other defenses, there's plenty of badguys who can certainly weather several 8-shift attacks before they have to take any kind of consequence. Something with Endurance at 3, Supernatural Toughness and decent defenses can take three 8-shift hits. Something with Hulking Size or Mythic Toughness can take even more. Point is, if you're fighting anything big, you're probably better off just throwing all the juice into a bigger attack. If you're fighting something smaller, you could stomp them equally well whether you're using prolonged attacks or not.

Maybe not long enough for the 10-shift block to wear down, but certainly long enough to act against you, either by maneuvering to get through the block, pulling some kind of indirect attack, or attacking one of the wizard's allies that isn't protected by that shield.

[Orladdin]

Actually Haru this is more powerful than a single casting. Lemme give an example.

I have had characters before with 10 shift rotes (that either require backlash or fate points). If we go with the original rules I can cast a 10 shift attack four times in a conflict without taking consequences (assuming that the backlash doesn't kill me ) for a total of 40 shifts.

It sounds like the problems you are voicing above are based on the misconception that backlash increases your targetting.  If you aren't playing with that house-rule, this solution should be fine.

[Edit] Unless you're playing at a very high refresh (refinements).  I guess that wasn't specified.

[sinker]

Fair points, but it depends on what you're fighting. In your example, before you even start attacking you're taking two mental stress hits (one for the shield, one for its duration), plus potentially backlash for the duration (since I don't think that can be a rote). After the initial attack spell is cast, that leaves the wizard one open box on the Mental track with which to cast anything else before he starts taking consequences. By your math, that brings it right back down to about 48 shifts of effect.

Backlash may be physical or mental stress.

As for the rest the one thing I've been thinking about this whole time is what if the wizard has no friends. The place where this gets really imbalanced is when the wizard is alone against multiple enemies. Normally this would be a situation where the wizard would get shafted (and rightly so), but when you add duration to your attacks suddenly he is still very viable in these circumstances.

I think I can see where our differences lie. You look at this as a cool little option that can make things interesting. I am looking at it from the view of the powergaming wizard who takes advantage of every inch you give him. Honestly if you don't have a player like that, then you probably don't have much to worry about and this is totally something you could do.

It sounds like the problems you are voicing above are based on the misconception that backlash increases your targetting.  If you aren't playing with that house-rule, this solution should be fine.

[Edit] Unless you're playing at a very high refresh (refinements).  I guess that wasn't specified.

Actually I pulled this exact character at chest deep and without any refinements. I don't play that backlash increases the targeting. It's fairly irrelevant because if we use the same stats for both examples then I will miss exactly the same number of times either way (since I'm using backlash both times to make up for my high power).

[Haru]

Actually Haru this is more powerful than a single casting.

In terms of added stress I agree, but wearing something down over its stress track can become a tedious job. I've seen that when I sent a beast with supernatural toughness + hulking size at my group. The most effective way to take something out is to aim higher than the stress track and force it to take consequences or forfeit. And you can do that more effective if you pool your resources into one brutal attack.

Which kind of brings us to this:

I'll stop harping at this point, but I'll just say that in my games I prefer drama, and this would limit the drama.

Which is a statement I totally agree with.

It is just way more interesting to throw a frozen turkey at a vampire than barraging it with drumsticks for half an hour.