Attack spells that last more than one exchange

[Mr. Death]

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.

Well, I should clarify, the lightsaber thing is one of the things he wants to do with the character, not the whole basis for it. The overall concept is to go full-wizard eventually (the character only just came into her power and has to work up from channeling first).

Another way to do the lightsaber, though, is a straight up enchanted item: Give it a Weapon:2 or 3 effect, say you roll it with Weapons, and give it a bunch of uses. In fact I think I'd suggested this route to the player in question, but he wanted the flexibility of the evocation and didn't have the item slots available for it yet anyway.

[Haru]

That kind of sounds like a "want my cake and eat it too" situation. The enchanted item solution is perfectly fine for a caster who is just coming into his power. You can't expect to get your learners permit and successfully compete at a car race through rush hour against professional race car drivers. Evocation has its limits for a reason. There are ways to get around it, like taking additional powers, but they cost refresh, also for a reason.

[Mr. Death]

That kind of sounds like a "want my cake and eat it too" situation. The enchanted item solution is perfectly fine for a caster who is just coming into his power. You can't expect to get your learners permit and successfully compete at a car race through rush hour against professional race car drivers. Evocation has its limits for a reason. There are ways to get around it, like taking additional powers, but they cost refresh, also for a reason.

I suppose there's different schools of thought. I would argue that creating an enchanted item is probably a much more involved and technical process than coming up with a particular evocation--particularly an enchanted item with a reasonably high power rating and several uses. An evocation is an expression of the imagination, and an energy sword springing from your hand is probably one of the easiest things for any of us to imagine. Most of us have been doing it since the first time we picked up a stick in the back yard.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Yes, but I think enchanted items, while more difficult to make overall, have the advantage of being something that can be worked on over time.  So a character may not have to mojo to create an energy sword out of his imagination (at least not one that lasts long enough to be useful) before the sheer power required to keep it running causes him to pass out.  However, he can slowly pour power into that stick over the course of months, casting that same spell in his mind over and over without stress or pressure.  He's creating constructs in low pressure scenarios.  Then, when the time comes, he can simply activate it.

That's why crafting is about Lore (other than for game balance) rather than conviction or discipline.  It's about how well you can create those constructs, how effectively you can store that energy.  It has far more to do with theory than how powerful you are.  That power can be built up over time (to limit, of course).

[UmbraLux]

If you don't want to spray/split attacks or use enchanted items I like Haru's suggestion of reflavoring a power. 

Flavored as a spell it needn't be static.  It gives you the mechanics, what it is to the story depends on the "spell".  A flaming sword one scene, a magical poison in another, and a self rearming trap in the next.  It's a spell, you've simply become so practiced at it that it doesn't take stress to cast.

Edit:  corrected spelling

[Mr. Death]

Like you said, months and months of work. At the moment, the character's only had about four months of actual training, a lot of which has been to learn control (she has higher Conviction than Discipline, and the first time she cast a spell she knocked out herself and both her allies in addition to the monsters she was aiming at) and to defend herself (game takes place right around Dead Beat when the vampire war really ramps up), so to me, it makes more sense that she'd be able to rein in something she already can do mostly instinctively than to create a really customized enchanted item. Plus, if you're worried about her swinging a Weapon:4 sword around the whole battle, her Conviction's only a 3, so she can't throw a ton of power into it in the first place. And, well, it's his character, and I'm a fairly generous GM in regards to finding ways to fit in a character concept so long as it doesn't utterly break the rules. (And again, the character concept is "eventually a wizard who, among her other spells, can make a magic sword" not just "magic sword user")

But anyway, the thread should be about the principles involved, rather than my game in particular. As I said, I'm gonna playtest it and see how it goes.

[Haru]

An evocation is an expression of the imagination, and an energy sword springing from your hand is probably one of the easiest things for any of us to imagine.

I got no problem with that, flavouring an evocation attack as a flaming sword is pretty cool and can easily be done. However, making it a lasting spell is not that easy. It is the difference between lifting a weight once or lifting it and holding it there for a while. Look at Harry, he is one of the strongest wizards out there, and even he has problems keeping up an evocation for long without getting exhausted.

But if you use it as flavour, you don't have to make the sword disappear only because he doesn't attack with it. If you do a fireball spell, the fireball appears, hits, disappears. If you say "hey, I'll do this as a "sword of fire" spell", you can have the sword of fire the entire fight, but if you attack with it, that would be a new evocation attack every time. That's the difference between narrative and mechanics. Yes, that limits the number of attacks you can do, but I think that's a good thing. It is an integral part of the wizard in my eyes.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say "don't do this, it is terrible". I just think that trying to model something like this as a prolonged attack spell is neither practical nor balanced (and trust me, I tried). If you want to go the "generous GM" way, which is something I can totally agree on, don't use my claws suggestion, simply let him do a maneuver spell, tag it for effect and he has a flaming sword (or whatever else) to work with. If the weapon rating isn't too high, it is pretty much just a very easy to conceal weapon and it is pretty cool to boot.
He could do it as a rote spell and he wouldn't even have to roll, it would just *poof* be there as he commands. Or as an enchanted item. First use per session would be free, any subsequent summoning of the sword would cost him 1 mental stress, same as a rote spell.

But anyway, the thread should be about the principles involved, rather than my game in particular. As I said, I'm gonna playtest it and see how it goes.

That's what I'm trying to do. On principle, I'm saying no, there shouldn't be any prolonged attack spells. BUT, and here is where it gets complicated, there are a number of ways to emulate a prolonged attack spell by going outside the spellslingers toolbox.

The reason I keep coming back to your game is that, as I said above, there are a multitude of ways to solve most problems. Especially with the magic system, I think it is just more practical to leave it as is and model specialised magic as reworded powers. And I don't think it is bad to say "You know, you just can't do that with magic" now and again. After all, even if you can do a lot with the dresden world magic, it can't do everything. Might even be worth a compel every once in a while.

[Mr. Death]

I got no problem with that, flavouring an evocation attack as a flaming sword is pretty cool and can easily be done. However, making it a lasting spell is not that easy. It is the difference between lifting a weight once or lifting it and holding it there for a while. Look at Harry, he is one of the strongest wizards out there, and even he has problems keeping up an evocation for long without getting exhausted.

True, which is part of why my model includes the possibility of backlash and fallout to control the attack long-term. Someone like Harry, with a lot of power but low control, would be more likely to be taking backlash each round he tries to keep a fireball aloft, and thus gets tired quickly.

But if you use it as flavour, you don't have to make the sword disappear only because he doesn't attack with it. If you do a fireball spell, the fireball appears, hits, disappears. If you say "hey, I'll do this as a "sword of fire" spell", you can have the sword of fire the entire fight, but if you attack with it, that would be a new evocation attack every time. That's the difference between narrative and mechanics. Yes, that limits the number of attacks you can do, but I think that's a good thing. It is an integral part of the wizard in my eyes.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say "don't do this, it is terrible". I just think that trying to model something like this as a prolonged attack spell is neither practical nor balanced (and trust me, I tried). If you want to go the "generous GM" way, which is something I can totally agree on, don't use my claws suggestion, simply let him do a maneuver spell, tag it for effect and he has a flaming sword (or whatever else) to work with. If the weapon rating isn't too high, it is pretty much just a very easy to conceal weapon and it is pretty cool to boot.
He could do it as a rote spell and he wouldn't even have to roll, it would just *poof* be there as he commands. Or as an enchanted item. First use per session would be free, any subsequent summoning of the sword would cost him 1 mental stress, same as a rote spell.

Well, as I said, I'm gonna test it (the game'll have three spellcasters in it from here on in, so it should see some use over a couple scenarios), and if it does turn out to be really unbalanced, I'll look into changing it and trying some of the other methods.

That's what I'm trying to do. On principle, I'm saying no, there shouldn't be any prolonged attack spells. BUT, and here is where it gets complicated, there are a number of ways to emulate a prolonged attack spell by going outside the spellslingers toolbox.

The reason I keep coming back to your game is that, as I said above, there are a multitude of ways to solve most problems. Especially with the magic system, I think it is just more practical to leave it as is and model specialised magic as reworded powers. And I don't think it is bad to say "You know, you just can't do that with magic" now and again. After all, even if you can do a lot with the dresden world magic, it can't do everything. Might even be worth a compel every once in a while.

I think where we disagree here is whether it's possible by the RAW, which is fair enough. And, as my sig indicates, I'm totally fine with using compels to rein things in--I've already had the newbie spellcaster compelled to overdo it on power and accidentally zap one of her teammates, compelling her to have some trouble holding onto an evocation in battle would be totally in line with that.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't stumble, I pirouette gracefully.

The power Haru mentioned is here.

I really don't see how one can read the RAW to get the conclusion that multi-exchange attacks are possible.

I'm not certain that Mr. Death's proposal is bad, but I would genuinely worry about it's balance. Fights in my PbP game don't always get resolved within 4 rounds. The most recent one was about 7 rounds long. The one before that ended halfway into the first round. And the one before that was about 11 rounds long.

[Mr. Death]

I really don't see how one can read the RAW to get the conclusion that multi-exchange attacks are possible.

Well, I'm referring to the section I quoted before: "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."

If it meant that only blocks or maneuvers could be prolonged, it wouldn't make sense for the "especially" qualifier to be there. It'd be like saying, "Fire can be dangerous, especially when it's hot." It implies that attacks can be prolonged too, since prolonging a counterspell doesn't really make any sense, given a counterspell is rolled against a particular assessed spell effect, and if it works, well, there's nothing left for it to counterspell.

And looking at the canon, (spoilers from Changes):

(click to show/hide)

Harry appears to do exactly this, maintain spell energy and move it from one target to another, when he pulls his fireball-freeze trick against the Red Court grunts when his team first arrives near Chichen Itza: He sends out a fireball that hits one mook, then takes that energy and sends it toward another, freezing the first, etc. You could argue it's simply a spray attack, but Murphy is shooting each mook as it's frozen, before the next one's hit. Her being able to take action, and the longer process of Harry frying/freezing each goon in succession, implies that it's a chunk of spell energy with a lot of duration that he's moving about manually.

[UmbraLux]

Well, I'm referring to the section I quoted before: "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."

If it meant that only blocks or maneuvers could be prolonged, it wouldn't make sense for the "especially" qualifier to be there. It'd be like saying, "Fire can be dangerous, especially when it's hot." It implies that attacks can be prolonged too, since prolonging a counterspell doesn't really make any sense, given a counterspell is rolled against a particular assessed spell effect, and if it works, well, there's nothing left for it to counterspell.

I think you read too much into a single word. 

Counterspelling, while a separate issue, might well be used for multiple exchanges.  Suppressing a thaumaturgy spell such as a ward for example.  Even if you can't take the whole spell out, you might suppress it for a time.  Actually, I think this is RAW for evocation spells...I'll have to look it up.

Though I do think that's a separate issue. 

[Haru]

And looking at the canon, (spoilers from Changes):

(click to show/hide)

Harry appears to do exactly this, maintain spell energy and move it from one target to another, when he pulls his fireball-freeze trick against the Red Court grunts when his team first arrives near Chichen Itza: He sends out a fireball that hits one mook, then takes that energy and sends it toward another, freezing the first, etc. You could argue it's simply a spray attack, but Murphy is shooting each mook as it's frozen, before the next one's hit. Her being able to take action, and the longer process of Harry frying/freezing each goon in succession, implies that it's a chunk of spell energy with a lot of duration that he's moving about manually.

See, that's what I mean when I say you are mixing narrative and mechanics.

(click to show/hide)

I see two ways this goes down. First of: yes, a spray attack. Those vampires are not really there as a threat, they are a mook welcome committee, so they will probably fall over if you looked at them too hard. Since they don't attack before Harry can take them out, that is entirely possible. Murphy putting a bullet into them is just the taken out narrative, it has nothing to do with an action.

If the vampires simply are too afraid to act, giving Harry the opportunity to act, I still don't see the need for a prolonged spell. Harry shoots fire at the first vampire, taking it out. Next exchange, he tags the consequence he inflicted in the process to fuel the next spell, explaining this by taking the heat away from the vampire, freezing it solid. The freezing part isn't part of the attack any more, it is part of the next attack as a tag on an aspect. The vampire that gets frozen has already been taken out in the initial attack, and since he is taken out you can narrate the taken out result as you please. Rinse and repeat. Each of those fireball attacks is a single spell though.

[ways and means]

No the big example of extended magic was Harry's earth volcano spell,

(click to show/hide)

Harry summons a massive fissure of fire in the ground which continues to burn for quite some time when fighting ghouls in a basement in White Nights.

Where the narration actively describes Harry as sustaining the attack spell. 

[UmbraLux]

No the big example of extended magic was Harry's earth volcano spell,

(click to show/hide)

Harry summons a massive fissure of fire in the ground which continues to burn for quite some time when fighting ghouls in a basement in white night.

Where the narration actively describes Harry as sustaining the attack spell.

Isn't this a temporary boost from sponsored magic?

And we know he had all kinds of boosts at CI.

[ways and means]

(click to show/hide)

I think he hell-fired it if I can remember right.

I think he had sponsored magic at the time but as sponsored magic has the same mechanics as normal evocation that doesn't change anything.