Attack spells that last more than one exchange

[Mr. Death]

Hence "loosely interpret." And the extra shift could easily be read to mean that it's going toward keeping the energy together rather than letting it dissipate after the attack.

But all in all, if you want to read the RAW so strictly, that's fine. Nobody's going to make you do any different, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with houserules to let something happen if we find a way to have it make sense.

[Becq]

Just as a note, there is precedence in RAW for a form of DoT attacks -- via magical grapples.  (See the ever-popular Orbius spell on YS294 for more information.)  If it's possible to do block+DoT in a single attack spell, I wouldn't think that pure DoT would be that much of a stretch.

Yes, it would be a house rule, and of course it would be up to any given table to decide if it was an appropriate one.  But possibly not a bad house rule, depending on the implementation.

Edit - oops, wasn't paying attantion to the much earlier part of the thread; Orbius was already discussed.

[sinker]

One thing that I will say. Back when we only had the burner copy my group didn't quite have a grasp on all of the rules. We allowed attacks to be extended. It was very unbalancing.

Just a heads up.

[Becq]

One thing that I will say. Back when we only had the burner copy my group didn't quite have a grasp on all of the rules. We allowed attacks to be extended. It was very unbalancing.

Just a heads up.

Agreed.  I think I'd generally prefer to inflict 5 stress per exchange for 3 exchanges than 7 stress in one exchange.

That said, an alternate way to handle it that might not be quite as bad would be to allow a spell to set up an effect that uses the "environmental hazard" rules (YS325): the power of the spell would be split between hazard rating and duration, and each exchange the target would roll against the hazard rating and take damage based on the difference (no weapon rating).  Or perhaps the power could be split between hazard rating, weapon rating, and duration.

[sinker]

An easy way (though one with less player control and less RAW direction) to do that is just to maneuver and then invoke for effect, suggesting that the GM deal with the effect as a environmental attack.

[Sanctaphrax]

@CottbusFiles: There's always a reason for everything. In this case, it's probably just simplicity.

@Mr. Death: I'm not really a fan. It's complex (three cases is two too many) and it's not clear how much it costs to extend a spell for X rounds.

@sinker: What rules did you use for extended attacks?

@Becq: Sounds roughly reasonable to me. In fact, I think I suggested something similar earlier in this thread.

[Mr. Death]

I meant to keep it at 1 shift per extra round. How about making it straight up that the wizard has to roll Discipline each round to direct the attack, whatever the target is? And if the wizard decides to do something else, the energy either doesn't hit anything (if he has more duration and wants to use it in a later round) or can be released as fallout?

Something like...

Harry is minding his own business when he's beset by three ghouls. He wants to conserve his mental stress track, but at the same time he doesn't think he can hit all the ghouls in one round if he divides his attack roll. So he throws 6 shifts of power into summoning up a Weapon:4 fireball, with 2 shifts going toward duration for a three-round attack, hoping to take each out one-by-one. He rolls his Discipline to control it the first time, and rolls well, scoring a 6 to control the energy, and the first target blows its defense roll, getting only a 3, taking a 7 shift hit and going down for the count. The next round, he throws it at another ghoul, but this ghoul rolls better and takes only a 4-shift hit. In the process, though, he's taken a couple hits himself, and decides that he's going to need a shield to survive, so in his third round, he throws up a block--but since he's not directing that fireball anymore and it's on its last exchange, he agrees to let it go into the world as fallout.

The reason I divided it up between mobile targets (enemies) and stationary ones (zones, objects), is because the latter aren't moving, and to me, logically, if a wizard creates a room-wide firestorm for three rounds he should be able to just leave it where it is, indiscriminately torching whatever's unfortunate enough to be in that zone--in this way, it's treated like a block almost--while if he's trying to chase down individuals with a single, constant fireball, he should have to actively direct it.

[UmbraLux]

I'd be tempted to set it up as a spray attack, splitting power between exchanges rather than targets.

[Orladdin]

I'd be tempted to set it up as a spray attack, splitting power between exchanges rather than targets.

I would suggest this route, actually, as the power to deal damage has to come from somewhere; it's not just automatically multiplied (as was covered in earlier posts) by paying for duration.


Alternatively, I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way.  Why deal a spike of damage early and additional turn after turn?  This system is better suited to use aspects for things.  Spend a few turns applying maneuvers like "Oh, No! I've Caught Fire" and "HOLY SHIT, I'm On Fire" and "I'm Burning! OH Woe Is Me!" and then just tag them all with an attack spell on the final round?  Thematically it's the same, and doesn't deal with the "nickel and dimeing" of stress that doesn't fit this system (as devonapple pointed out:)

... The problem with the multiple-round spell approach is that it is not - as I understand it - an efficient means of taking out an opponent *in this system.* The hit-point erosion method suitable for the simulationist RPGs doesn't map exactly to DFRPG: the most effective means of taking out opposition here is by stacking up Aspects and getting in a final takedown blow that exhausts the opponent's ability to soak damage with its Stress track (and, if applicable, Consequence track)...

[Edit:]
... unless, of course, this is being suggested because people are trying to get all that damage for only one mental stress...?  Which, of course, would be overpowered.

[Mr. Death]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm suggesting it because it feels like a logical extension of the existing rules, and we're trying to find a way to implement it that wouldn't be overpowered.

[Orladdin]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm suggesting it because it feels like a logical extension of the existing rules, and we're trying to find a way to implement it that wouldn't be overpowered.

Ok, well, an alternate implementation to make it feel more real is a perfectly good reason.  Mechanical feel is a great meta-flavor in a game.

Why don't we look at the costs related for doing it with aspects or some other method that works mechanically, and then use those costs as a guideline...?  Like, "It costs N mental stress and N+1 actions with a power-X spell to do it with aspects, so how can we price/spec another implementation keeping this in mind?"

[sinker]

I think UmbraLux's way sounds the least unbalanced to me.

Here's the thing Mr Death, because of how the evocation rules work, anytime you try to extend an attack spell (without paying for every shift) it becomes unbalanced, and here's why: The prolonging spells rule.

Consider your current suggestion (I'm not perfectly clear on it so feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong). I have a wizard that can pull 8 shifts without taking extra stress (pretty good, but totally doable at submerged). On the first exchange I throw a 9 shift spell, weapon:8 with a turn of duration, filling my second stress box. On the second exchange I extend the duration with an 8 shift spell, giving this spell 10 total exchanges (the first, plus the 1 in the original spell, plus and filling in my first stress box. I have a weapon:8 spell, every turn, for ten turns. That's eighty shifts that I have paid 2 stress for.

Even if you can't prolong the spell the problem is that you will always get extra shifts that you haven't paid for. A nine shift spell can actually give you 16 (8x2), 21(7x3), 24(6x4) or 25(5x5) shifts depending on how you extend it.

@Sancta we used a similar 1 shift nets you 1 duration. The specific case was a winter sponsored caster was enveloping her cane in an aura of decay so she cast the spell, and then in subsequent exchanges she rolled weapons to hit people with her cane.

[Mr. Death]

That character could easily set up an 8 shift Block for the same amount of time which is still 80 shifts he's not paying for, making him all but untouchable to anything besides another wizard. If it's unbalanced one way, how is it not unbalanced the other?

And with the 10-round block, he'd be able to do other things. With the 10-round spell, he'd still have to spend an action every turn to direct that spell and still risk missing entirely.

[Orladdin]

@Sancta we used a similar 1 shift nets you 1 duration. The specific case was a winter sponsored caster was enveloping her cane in an aura of decay so she cast the spell, and then in subsequent exchanges she rolled weapons to hit people with her cane.

This seems supported in the rules and in balance.  You still need to roll every time and (more importantly) to spend an action every time to make the attack.
[Edit] The important thing to remember here is that you don't just get to add weapon bonus to the cane, you have to purchase a whole weapon bonus that is higher than the cane from zero.  It probably shouldn't be unrealistically higher than something the size of the cane could get naturally given better materials or sharp edge or whatnot, either, just for realism purposes.  But this isn't the specific mechanic we're discussing here, so I'll drop it for now.



They discuss "summoning a sword with magic" in the book, which is discouraged because it's dispellable and not particularly better than real swords since they have to be summoned and have a duration purchased (they're not available on the fly when you need them) in addition to them needing to be wielded.

Whatever other flavor we come up with in here (or elsewhere, for our own games) the important thing is to keep it relatively balanced with other choices.  Actions, being the most valuable resource, should be maintained.

Personally, the "summon a ball of fire and then hit someone with it over and over again" isn't unbalanced in theory, it just has to be carefully spec'd/balanced in practice.

[devonapple]

That character could easily set up an 8 shift Block for the same amount of time which is still 80 shifts he's not paying for, making him all but untouchable to anything besides another wizard.

The difference is that if that 8-shift Evocation Block is exceeded by its target (unlikely but possible) it will go down, and can't be Prolonged.

The Prolonged Evocation Attack will end if someone takes out the Wizard, but then so would the Block.