Attack spells that last more than one exchange

[sinker]

Still has the problem of an unparalleled mental stress discount.

Agreed.

A caster can create a multiple-exchange attack by devoting one shift of effect to each additional exchange. For each exchange that the attack is active, the caster must roll Discipline to maintain the hold on the spell, involving fallout or backlash as normal if he fails to make the difficulty equal to the spell's Weapon rating, regardless of whether he is attacking with the spell that exchange. If the caster is attacking using the spell energy, the Discipline roll will serve as the targeting roll as well.

The caster may not cast any new spells while the first is active. If the caster attempts a separate action while the spell is active, either the Discipline roll or the main action roll must be made at a penalty of -1, similarly to the supplemental action rules. The caster may convert the spell energy into a Block or Maneuver, but any change to the spell's parameters--including converting it into a zone attack or a spray attack--forfeits the spell's remaining longevity.

Any reason why the caster must roll against the weapon rating and not the spell's power?

[Orladdin]

Thinking about it a little more, I've come to realize it's even more elegant.  Consider:

If you use spells, you've generally got more "oomph" per action, but you're limited in the uses by the mental stress you take by casting and the risk of backlash/fallout.

With your idea, your payment for duration means that A) your spell power you buy is reduced somewhat, putting it closer in-line with mundane means of damage and that B) you're, in a way, "buying off" the extra mental stress ahead if time with those extra shifts, as well.
You still have the potential to have more power available than mundane means, but you also risk the backlash/fallout every round.

It sounds double-good.  Run with it.

Any reason why the caster must roll against the weapon rating and not the spell's power?

I assumed this was a typo; is it?

[sinker]

Additionally something that occurs to me that is a little cheesy (but not game breaking) is that on the last turn of my prolonged attack I can redirect those energies into a full attack, giving me the full power in weapon value instead of the power reduced by duration.

[devonapple]

Still has the problem of an unparalleled mental stress discount.

It does, but I felt it was mitigated by the possibility of losing control of the spell.

[Mr. Death]

I assumed this was a typo; is it?

No, I meant it as against the Weapon rating, mostly because the way I was thinking of it, that's the 'important' energy that the caster is rolling to control, while the shifts spent in duration are more passive. That, and there's the potential to add more shifts of duration (though it might be better to disallow that and stick you with only the initial shifts of duration, come to think of it). Would you roll against the total power in the spell when it was cast, or the total power left in the spell round to round? I figured it was just simpler and more streamlined to roll against the (most likely) constant of the Weapon rating.

Additionally something that occurs to me that is a little cheesy (but not game breaking) is that on the last turn of my prolonged attack I can redirect those energies into a full attack, giving me the full power in weapon value instead of the power reduced by duration.

Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant that the shifts going into duration would be lost--they're not part of the Weapon effect, they wouldn't go into the Block or Zone attack, just like how in the book's example, Ramirez turning his water block into an attack didn't get the full amount of shifts from duration (at least, if I'm remembering it correctly), and hence in the example I put, Harry's attack at the end is only Weapon:2 to the zone.

[Orladdin]

Apologies if it wasn't clear, but I meant that the shifts going into duration would be lost--they're not part of the Weapon effect, they wouldn't go into the Block or Zone attack, just like how in the book's example, Ramirez turning his water block into an attack didn't get the full amount of shifts from duration (at least, if I'm remembering it correctly), and hence in the example I put, Harry's attack at the end is only Weapon:2 to the zone.

One thing they take extra pains to call out in the manuals, though, is that as soon as a spell is used for its intended purpose, even once, it can't be "repurposed" thereafter.  Remember in the example of Remirez's shield, he can only turn it into an attack if he's not already using it to block.

[Mr. Death]

One thing they take extra pains to call out in the manuals, though, is that as soon as a spell is used for its intended purpose, even once, it can't be "repurposed" thereafter.  Remember in the example of Remirez's shield, he can only turn it into an attack if he's not already using it to block.

Well, the book specifies that it can't have been used to block that turn, so that shouldn't limit the ability to change an attack, since it's something the caster has to do, and he's only got one action a round. A block might be used as a block several times between a caster's turns, but unless some mook rushes headlong into a hovering ball of flame of his own accord, it's impossible for the attack to have been used as an attack between turns.

[devonapple]

One thing they take extra pains to call out in the manuals, though, is that as soon as a spell is used for its intended purpose, even once, it can't be "repurposed" thereafter.  Remember in the example of Remirez's shield, he can only turn it into an attack if he's not already using it to block.

I'm with Orladdin on this one - I think it definitely applies to this case, which is itself outside of the RAW. I feel we are already outside the RAW enough with this without mis-applying the spell repurposing technique as well.

[Mr. Death]

I'll have to check again, because I distinctly remember the text making the distinction that it could only be converted to an attack if it hadn't been used as a block in that particular exchange, rather than "even once".

[Orladdin]

I'll have to check again, because I distinctly remember the text making the distinction that it could only be converted to an attack if it hadn't been used as a block in that particular exchange, rather than "even once".

Yeah.  I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.  It'd be worth checking on, in any case.

[sinker]

Mr Death is right by RAW. Here's the quote, emphasis added:

In those circumstances, you have an option—
you can reuse the spell energy from an effect
you currently have active, spending the shifts on
another evocation without having to roll another
spell. This is subject to some limitations:

• The spell must have been maintained
  from a previous exchange into the
  current one.
• The spell must not have been used
  already for its original function in the
  current exchange.
• You must be able to describe how the
  energy could plausibly be redirected.

As for whether the shifts of duration could be used, the book is unclear... But that is what the example seems to imply since it says Ramirez' shield has a "current strength is four shifts. He still has another exchange of maintenance." Later it turns that into a weapon:4 attack (the rote has a total strength of six).

[Mr. Death]

In that case, it's at least clear that he's not turning it into an attack for the full strength of the spell--so it's either that it's just the weapon or Block strength that can be converted or it's the Weapon/Block strength plus whatever shifts in duration are remaining at that point. I'm personally leaning toward the former, though. For what it's worth, what does it say in the spell examples section for how Ramirez typically casts it?

[sinker]

It's a six shift block with no duration or additional targets...

[Mr. Death]

Darn the vagueness of the RAW. I'm starting to wonder if they're doing this on purpose...

That said, I went to take another look at the prolonging spells section while I had the book out, and it opens with

Sometimes, it behooves a wizard to maintain a
spell effect for an indefinite length of time, especially
when the effect is a block or maneuver.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have put an "especially" there unless you could prolong a spell effect that isn't one of those two types--and given the mechanics for evocation counterspells (i.e., having to cast it against a specifically assessed spell), it would seem to imply that attack spells could, in fact, be prolonged according to the RAW.

[Haru]

Thanks. Like I said, my game's got someone who wants to do the lightsaber thing, so I'm gonna playtest it there and see how it goes.

If the character's fighting concept is revolving around the lightsaber, may I propose a different approach?
Give the character channeling (fire) and claws. Since you probably want more than weapon:2 for you sword of fire, let's borrow from Incite Emotion's "Potent Emotion" and make it weapon:4 for 2 points of refresh.

Now you attach a custom power to the double claw power, refunding you 1 refresh, so you end up with a cost of -3 refresh for the whole package again. The custom power is basically human form, but you need to cast a spell to activate the powers that are attached to it. If Sanctaphrax is stumbling in here again, he can probably post a link to the entry in the custom powers list, I was unable to find it.

So what will happen is, the character casts the "Sword of Flames" maneuver on himself and tags it to activate the reworded claws power. From then on, he can use the Sword of flames like any other weapon, it will only go away if he wills it away (or maybe someone counters the spell). That way you won't have to deal with additional casting stress, duration and all that would be involved if you try to tailor it around the actual magic skills.

Darn the vagueness of the RAW. I'm starting to wonder if they're doing this on purpose...

I believe they do. It is the systems greatest strength and greatest weakness at the same time. Often enough you can create the same effect in a lot of different ways, and what seems to be the direct approach at first doesn't always have to be the best.