Attack spells that last more than one exchange

[Michael Sandy]

I need advice on both how to build these spells, and how to deal with them mechanically

A flamethrowing spell that causes the flame to stick to the target.  Perhaps a weapon 5 attack that lasts 2 extra exchanges.
There are other ideas for putting a continually damaging spell on the target.  Assuming the caster has a 7 control value for fire evocations, how do you figure both the initial targetting and the continuing damage.  Also, if someone wished to dispel the remaining time on such a fire spell, what would be their target difficulty?


For an item idea, I wanted to duplicate the Ghostbuster's particle accelerators.  A continuous tornado of energy.  Suppose I have a spirit spell with 5 attack, +2 exchanges.  Would that mean that for 1 mental stress I could have a 5 strength attack for 3 exchanges?


I was trying to figure out what would be the minimum power required to kill a ghoul with one spell.  17 shifts, and quite a bit more if it had any toughness.  But break it into a continuing spell that did at least 5 damage beyond defenses each round and it would inflict consequences each round, making a one mental stress to kill one ghoul spell much cheaper.

The other spell was an idea to allow the wizard to down one mook a round for several rounds for the cost of one mental stress.  Basically, the wizard would summon up the destructive energy and direct it through several exchanges.

[Haru]

I've proposed something like that for a poison rule in another thread. The problem for an evocation attack like this would be. However, you would not (at least I would not allow it) get a bonus from an attack roll, so it might or might not even be enough to take anything out.

Let's say you summon enough power to get off an attack with 8 shifts of power, the ghoul takes of 4 for his athletics, leaving 12 shifts of damage.

The same attack done over time would look like this: to get the most out of it, you would split your shifts evenly, so weapon:4 for 4 exchanges. The attack roll would only be made to see if you can land the spell, it is on his own from there on. so that would be 4 attacks at weapon 4 against endurance (+3). That would boil down to roughly 1 stress each exchange and therefore 4 stress total.

Of course you could do it another way, but this is how I would do it.

The best way to do something like this would be to stack maneuvers onto your target to tag them all for one gigantic attack to knock him out. Those maneuvers could still be described as an attack, in this case the particle accelerator, but mechanically they would not do any damage until the actual attack.

The other spell was an idea to allow the wizard to down one mook a round for several rounds for the cost of one mental stress.  Basically, the wizard would summon up the destructive energy and direct it through several exchanges.

This would simply be an offensive block, and blocks can be increased in duration without a problem. You can even put more energy into it, if you do it in an exchange, where it is still up and running.

[Michael Sandy]

I thought it would be the strength of the spell vs endurance, and if it hit would do weapon 5 damage.  That is what I don't get.  A very large chunk of a spells' damage comes from the control roll, not from the 'weapon' level of the spell.

A 5 shift spell with 5 control would do something like 6 shifts of damage vs a Great (+4) dodge.  A 5 shift enviromental damage spell would do, what, 1 shifts vs a Great endurance?

[Haru]

I thought it would be the strength of the spell vs endurance, and if it hit would do weapon 5 damage.

It is the strength of the spell, but only the part of the spell you dedicate to the weapon part. If you put some of the power aside for duration, that is no longer part of the weapon part of the spell and won't do any damage. If you do a regular attack spell, you roll your discipline for both control over the spell and attack roll. So if you do a 4 shift attack spell and you get 6 shifts on your discipline roll, your opponent would have to roll athletics (or something else, if he has a stunt) to get out of the way. Let's say he gets a +5 on his roll, leaving you with 1 shift leaving on your attack roll. That is enough for the spell to hit, doing 1 shift of stress for the attack roll and 4 additional shifts for the power of the spell. If the spell is something that does damage over time, I would allow an endurance roll for each time the damage occurs, so it would be weaponrating of the spell against endurance, not strength of the spell, because, as I said above, some of the power is dedicated to keep the spell going, not to do damage.

[Sanctaphrax]

How about this...

The caster may divide shifts of power between duration and strength. The spell then makes an attack at weapon 0 with an accuracy equal to the power each exchange until the spell ends.

For example:

Urt the fire giant wants to burn the puny mortals who swarm around his feet. So he casts a Seelie Magic evocation to light the air in his zone on fire. He's got 10 power, but he only rolls 8 on control. So he takes two shifts of backlash and divides up his 10 shifts as follows: 2 to hit a full zone, 2 for duration, and 6 for strength. So each person in that zone will suffer a Fantastic attack at weapon 0 each exchange for the next three exchanges.

[Haru]

The caster may divide shifts of power between duration and strength. The spell then makes an attack at weapon 0 with an accuracy equal to the power each exchange until the spell ends.

That was pretty much what I was trying to say, only I thought it would not make sense to have an attack that already hit attack again, so I thought a contest of the spells strength against endurance would be more appropriate. It does make sense for an area effect spell though.

[UmbraLux]

The existing maneuver evocation rules cover this fairly well.  Three shifts translates into one use of a +2 (or Weapon:2).  Twelve shifts would net an Air mage a Wind Blade of Weapon:2 for 4 exchanges, Weapon:4 for 2 exchanges, or Weapon:8 for 1 exchange.  Maintenance may be reduced to 1 shift per +2 per exchange if you're willing to spend a Fate point.

[Sanctaphrax]

I do not understand your post, UmbraLux.

Could you please explain a bit further?

[Michael Sandy]

That is a silly interpretation.  The rules for extending a BLOCK don't have a 8 strength block for 1 exchange or a 4 strength block for 2 exchanges.

I also have a problem with saying that an attack that can burn through a car in one round somehow only does 1 or 2 shifts of damage if done as a continuous attack instead of a direct attack.

In that example of the giant doing a continuous fire attack, I would say it would be an attack of Fantastic (+6) that did weapon 6 damage, not weapon zero.  10 shift spells are powerful, not minor nuisances.  A fantastic weapon zero spell would do zero damage at all to endurance 4, armor 2 targets, and that power in a single target spell would likely one-shot or at least do a severe consequence to anybody without toughness.

[Haru]

That is a silly interpretation.  The rules for extending a BLOCK don't have a 8 strength block for 1 exchange or a 4 strength block for 2 exchanges.

Well, nobody said something like that, but if you have a block spell with a power of 8, you can divide that power between the actual block value and the duration. So you could have:
Block: 8, Duration: 1
Block: 7, Duration: 2
Block: 6, Duration: 3
Block: 5, Duration: 4

and so forth, basically exchanging 1 shift of blockvalue for 1 shift of extra duration. That was pretty much exactly, what I was proposing for an attack spell over time. If you let the spell attack at it's strength AND be a weapon at it's strength, you are pretty much doubling its effectiveness for no additional cost, which would be too much in my opinion.

[Sanctaphrax]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the power of continous attacks under these rules. They have a number of advantages.

For one thing, you can hit more easily with them. If a spellcaster faces a guy whose defence is better than his control, he can take backlash to launch a spell that will hit him. Can't do that normally.

For another thing, each hit only fills one stress box. So if you're reduced to filling a guy's entire stress track in order to take him out, you might well do better with the continous evocation than the instantaneous one.

For yet another thing, they mess with the action economy because they can be performed ahead of time. If Urt knew that a swarm of goblins was about to attack him, he could fill his zone with fire before they even showed up. That's a huge advantage.

And finally, it's another option for wizards. Options are a form of power, even if they are generally less good than the ones you already have. So allowing this in fact makes wizards stronger.

These rules were designed deliberately to make continous attacks less effective than normal ones. They ought to be. But they should be useful sometimes, and I think that these rules satisfy that requirement.

[UmbraLux]

I do not understand your post, UmbraLux.

Could you please explain a bit further?

What's to understand?  Maneuvers create aspects, each of which provides a +2.  Maneuvers may also last multiple rounds by either using Fate or multiple maneuvers / uses.  Since there's little functional difference between a +2 from a weapon and a +2 from a maneuver, they seem an obvious fit.

[MijRai]

I suggest, if you want a multi-exchange attack spell, looking at the Orbius spell. a 'grapple' doing constant damage they can roll to avoid.

[ways and means]

Their is another way to do attack spells that last more than one exchange, you could create a lightsaber/ air sword with say 8 power and 3 duration and attack with weapons each turn, though it is pretty inefficient games mechanic wise it could help deal with stress limitation.

[BumblingBear]

Their is another way to do attack spells that last more than one exchange, you could create a lightsaber/ air sword with say 8 power and 3 duration and attack with weapons each turn, though it is pretty inefficient games mechanic wise it could help deal with stress limitation.

This is the only way I think a multi exchange attack would work.

Basically, rigging it up to where some other skill is the actual attack skill.

Another idea would be to imbue a gun with spirit so it fires bolts of force.