Damage Over Time Spells ($*&% Obius)

[Tedronai]

After playing with it a bit more, I've decided that I need to have the effect end if its beaten by a defense roll.  The character can always re-allocate the energy (even into another attack), but the defender has to have some way to end the effect.

I suspect that this would make the resulting effect TOO weak.
I recommend at least requiring an action on the part of the defender to remove the effect.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I suspect that this would make the resulting effect TOO weak.
I recommend at least requiring an action on the part of the defender to remove the effect.

That's a good option.  I'll run the numbers both ways.

[UmbraLux]

I've actually found that I really like my option 2 after testing it a bit.

It's simple mechanically.  It only results in one extra roll per round, and that's on the part of the defender.  It allow for extra milage out of spellcasting without being more potent. 

It seems a lot more potent to me...if I'm reading it correctly, the caster is getting free power and a free repeated action every turn.

After playing with it a bit more, I've decided that I need to have the effect end if its beaten by a defense roll.  The character can always re-allocate the energy (even into another attack), but the defender has to have some way to end the effect.

Reallocation seems problematic.  First, if it ever does damage it shouldn't be re-allocatable at all - it's been used.  Second, if I'm getting essentially free power on subsequent exchanges there's a definite incentive to cast this.  It becomes a better option than anything else simply because the power is re-usable later.

I suspect that this would make the resulting effect TOO weak.
I recommend at least requiring an action on the part of the defender to remove the effect.

Err...now you've turned a damaging spell into a semi-optional block as well...and without paying any cost for the block.  Seems overboard to me.
-----

Have you considered using a split power model and a supplemental action by the caster to maintain on subsequent rounds? 

e.g. A Power 5, Control 5 spell is cast; the power is split over 5 exchanges at 1 per round; if defense is 3 he'll take 3 stress the first exchange; on the second exchange the caster rolls control again as a supplemental action* (with rolls this exchange at -1) and gets Control 4, if the defense is 3 again, 2 stress are inflicted.  Rinse and repeat.  I would have any one successful resistance end the spell.

*Supplemental actions normally aren't rolls.  It might be better to simply use Discipline unmodified.

[InFerrumVeritas]

It seems a lot more potent to me...if I'm reading it correctly, the caster is getting free power and a free repeated action every turn.Reallocation seems problematic.  First, if it ever does damage it shouldn't be re-allocatable at all - it's been used.  Second, if I'm getting essentially free power on subsequent exchanges there's a definite incentive to cast this.  It becomes a better option than anything else simply because the power is re-usable later.Err...now you've turned a damaging spell into a semi-optional block as well...and without paying any cost for the block.  Seems overboard to me.
-----

Have you considered using a split power model and a supplemental action by the caster to maintain on subsequent rounds? 

e.g. A Power 5, Control 5 spell is cast; the power is split over 5 exchanges at 1 per round; if defense is 3 he'll take 3 stress the first exchange; on the second exchange the caster rolls control again as a supplemental action* (with rolls this exchange at -1) and gets Control 4, if the defense is 3 again, 2 stress are inflicted.  Rinse and repeat.  I would have any one successful resistance end the spell.

*Supplemental actions normally aren't rolls.  It might be better to simply use Discipline unmodified.

Not really free power.  It's not working any differently than a block (which can be extended) except that it's attacking and not defending.  The power is spent. 

Just like how the power from a block can be reallocated (Redirecting Spell Energy YS260). 

Splitting power actually has a higher damage output than this, and requires more rolls (which slow down play).  It is better, which I don't want.

I'm also considering:
Target roll must hit defender.  If successful, it deals no stress.  Instead, on their turn they must roll against the Strength of the spell each exchange as if they were attacked. 

[UmbraLux]

Not really free power.  It's not working any differently than a block (which can be extended) except that it's attacking and not defending.  The power is spent. 

It is similar to Orbius as you've written it...not sure that's a good thing.  Sans Orbius, blocks split power between a static effect and duration - they're ended whenever effect power is surpassed.  Attack spells on the other hand do a set amount of Weapon stress based on power and don't have a duration.  In other words each shift of power dedicated to Weapon value is only usable once.  This is why I say spells like your DoT and Orbius are getting 'free' power.

Just like how the power from a block can be reallocated (Redirecting Spell Energy YS260). 

Yes...only if unused in the current exchange.  A DoT spell is used as it attempts to attack.  If this is a supplemental action it is presumably something you could delay and redirect.  If it's automatic, I'm not sure you should have that option.

Splitting power actually has a higher damage output than this, and requires more rolls (which slow down play).  It is better, which I don't want.

Avoiding extra rolls is why I suggested using Discipline with no roll after the first exchange.  Really not sure how splitting is more powerful than an Orbius look a like...can you explain?

I'm also considering:
Target roll must hit defender.  If successful, it deals no stress.  Instead, on their turn they must roll against the Strength of the spell each exchange as if they were attacked.

Is this the damaging block model again?  Really think power should be divided between block, damage, and duration effects.  (Not doing so is the core of why I agree with Santaphrax on Orbius.)

[InFerrumVeritas]

The core difference between this and Orbius is that this doesn't ALSO block.

Orbius gives you a block and an attack while you act.  This would simply give you a weak attack over time.  That's a huge difference.

The difference between splitting the power and my suggestion is evident with a higher control roll.

Let's say we have an 8 shift spell with 8 control (pretty doable at Submerged).  We'll attack a Superb Athletics.

My option: 6 shift attack over 3 exchanges (1 standard, 2 from additional duration).  Assuming average rolls, target takes three 1 stress hits.

Your option: 8 shift attack over 3 exchanges.  Weapon rating split 3,2,3.  Control-1 (7) vs. Superb defense.  Assuming average rolls, target takes 5, 2, 5 stress. 

How is that not better?  In fact, the larger number of rounds you split it over the better it is, because additional stress is dealt with a successful attack.  If you also split the attack roll shifts (I considered this in the first post), then it's simply ineffective and pointless.

Adding a targeting roll to avoid the effect is probably the best option, but I prefer to see this as more akin to the Venomous power than the Orbius spell.  The reasoning is, again, that it's not also blocking the opponent.  I'm just not having it place an aspect (which seems pointless, really).

You're right about the redirecting the energy.

[UmbraLux]

The core difference between this and Orbius is that this doesn't ALSO block.

Orbius gives you a block and an attack while you act.  This would simply give you a weak attack over time.  That's a huge difference.

This isn't really clear...if it takes the victims action to defend it is functionally a block.  I'm not really sure if taking an action is your intent or not - both have been discussed.

The difference between splitting the power and my suggestion is evident with a higher control roll.

Let's say we have an 8 shift spell with 8 control (pretty doable at Submerged).  We'll attack a Superb Athletics.

My option: 6 shift attack over 3 exchanges (1 standard, 2 from additional duration).  Assuming average rolls, target takes three 1 stress hits.

Your option: 8 shift attack over 3 exchanges.  Weapon rating split 3,2,3.  Control-1 (7) vs. Superb defense.  Assuming average rolls, target takes 5, 2, 5 stress. 

How is that not better?  In fact, the larger number of rounds you split it over the better it is, because additional stress is dealt with a successful attack.  If you also split the attack roll shifts (I considered this in the first post), then it's simply ineffective and pointless.

I think you've misread splitting attacks (or I'm not understanding your example).  The control portion of the spell doesn't get split - just the power.  (YS251)  Power drives the effect(s) while control is just applying them.  Control doesn't become Power just because you had excess...it becomes stress caused by the superb application of power.

So a Control 8 Power 6 spell could be split over three exchanges at 2/2/2 with the first exchange being a total of 10.  Assuming Discipline 5, the second two exchanges would be 7 each.  Both the 8 and the 5s are still subject to reduction by defense before adding power.  Given a defense of 5 each exchange, the victim takes 5/2/2 stress respectively.

If I'm reading your option correctly you're taking that Control 8 Power 6 spell, adding power and control for a total of 14, subtracting one round of defense, and then splitting the remainder across subsequent rounds.  Given that defense of 5, you're splitting 9 shifts across some number of exchanges.  Haven't really figured out how you're setting up subsequent control and defense rolls yet.   

[InFerrumVeritas]

YS251:
The targeting result is also split up, and not necessarily in the same portions. If you rolled a Fantastic (+6) result to target your 5 shifts of power, you might split the power as detailed above, but make the Weapon:2 attack a Great (+4) for targeting and the Weapon:3 attack a Fair (+2).

This is a use of the Spray Attack rules on YS326.

So there's that.

I read your option as: Control 8, Power 8.  So you're attacking with a Control 8 power 3 first exchange, Control 7 (-1 for supplemental?  or did you drop that?) power 2 second exchange, then Control 7 power 3 in the third exchange.  (3+2+3=8 so power was split).  That's considerably better than my option.

In my option, you'd target the opponent.  If the targeting roll succeeds, then on their turn they'd roll defense against the power of the spell each exchange until the spell duration expires.  I'm not adding anything together. 

Round 1: Control 8 (targeting) vs. Superb Athletics.  No stress dealt as it is not an attack simply to see if the spell sticks to the target.
On the Opponent's turn that round: 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).
Round 2 (opponent's turn): 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).
Round 3 (opponent's turn): 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).

The 6 shifts comes from Power 8-2 for two additional rounds of duration.
The

[UmbraLux]

YS251:  The targeting result is also split up,

Quote please?  I'm not seeing that.  I am seeing this:  "...by splitting up your shifts of power...if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2)."  And farther down:  "This is essentially a spray attack (page 326) using magic instead of conventional weapons. “Mundane” spray attacks don’t have to split up their Weapon ratings, but they’re much less flexible than the wizardly equivalent."  Emphasis added.

...and not necessarily in the same portions. If you rolled a Fantastic (+6) result to target your 5 shifts of power, you might split the power as detailed above, but make the Weapon:2 attack a Great (+4) for targeting and the Weapon:3 attack a Fair (+2).

This is a use of the Spray Attack rules on YS326.

YS326 covers mundane spray attacks, not spells.  Mundane spray attacks don't have to split power, spells do.

I read your option as: Control 8, Power 8.  So you're attacking with a Control 8 power 3 first exchange, Control 7 (-1 for supplemental?  or did you drop that?) power 2 second exchange, then Control 7 power 3 in the third exchange.  (3+2+3=8 so power was split).  That's considerably better than my option.

Umm...how do you read that?  Those numbers are not what I put in the example.    

First exchange was Control 8 (Discipline 5 plus 3 from foci and specialties), subsequent exchanges were Control 5 with no roll and no additions since it's a supplemental action.  The 5 is simply a target for the victim's defense roll - though it does (or should) need to be capable of controlling whatever shifts of power were designated for the round.  The -1 for a supplemental action would apply to whatever roll / action the caster did take in the subsequent exchanges.

In my option, you'd target the opponent.  If the targeting roll succeeds, then on their turn they'd roll defense against the power of the spell each exchange until the spell duration expires.  I'm not adding anything together. 

Round 1: Control 8 (targeting) vs. Superb Athletics.  No stress dealt as it is not an attack simply to see if the spell sticks to the target.
On the Opponent's turn that round: 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).
Round 2 (opponent's turn): 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).
Round 3 (opponent's turn): 6-shift attack vs. Superb Athletics.  1 stress (assuming they roll 0).

The 6 shifts comes from Power 8-2 for two additional rounds of duration.
The

It's on the opponent's turn?  Does that mean it's taking their action?  You're not showing your spell Power in your examples.  Means I'm really not sure I'm following you.  I'm beginning to wonder if we're even using the basic evocation rules the same.    

[InFerrumVeritas]

Quote please?  I'm not seeing that.  I am seeing this:  "...by splitting up your shifts of power...if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2)."  And farther down:  "This is essentially a spray attack (page 326) using magic instead of conventional weapons. “Mundane” spray attacks don’t have to split up their Weapon ratings, but they’re much less flexible than the wizardly equivalent."  Emphasis added.
 YS326 covers mundane spray attacks, not spells.  Mundane spray attacks don't have to split power, spells do.

That was a quote.  It's the paragraph directly after the part about splitting power.  Seriously, read the entire section.

"Instead of attacking zones, you can attack individual targets by splitting up your shifts of power. So if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2). Since you can’t make a power 0 attack, the power of the spell deter- mines how many targets you can hit: at most, a power 3 spell can be split into three power 1 attacks.
The targeting result is also split up, and not necessarily in the same portions. If you rolled a Fantastic (+6) result to target your 5 shifts of power, you might split the power as detailed above, but make the Weapon:2 attack a Great (+4) for targeting and the Weapon:3 attack a Fair (+2)."

Umm...how do you read that?  Those numbers are not what I put in the example.    

First exchange was Control 8 (Discipline 5 plus 3 from foci and specialties), subsequent exchanges were Control 5 with no roll and no additions since it's a supplemental action.  The 5 is simply a target for the victim's defense roll - though it does (or should) need to be capable of controlling whatever shifts of power were designated for the round.  The -1 for a supplemental action would apply to whatever roll / action the caster did take in the subsequent exchanges.
It's on the opponent's turn?  Does that mean it's taking their action?  You're not showing your spell Power in your examples.  Means I'm really not sure I'm following you.  I'm beginning to wonder if we're even using the basic evocation rules the same.   

I really am showing the spell power in my examples.  We are using the same evocation rules, but I don't think you're reading my posts correctly or carefully.  My example used Control 8 Power 8.  I did my best to keep it identical to yours.  It was the last sentence of my post. 

I did misunderstand about how your example was using discipline on subsequent rounds.

And no, it's not taking their action on their turn.  Just stating exactly when the stress is dealt.  Technically, it could be whenever in the exchange.

Okay, so in your example:
Round 1: Control 8 Power 8 Spell.  Power split 3, 2, 3.  Target has Superb defense (and we will assume he rolls +0 for an average).  So the target takes 6 stress this round (3 from the 8 shift attack beating the 5 shift defense, 3 from the weapon rating this round).
Round 2: Discipline 5 Weapon Rating 2.  Target's Superb defense roll still means the attack hits.  Target takes 2 stress form the weapon rating.  Caster takes -1 on his primary action this exchange.
Round 3:  Discipline 5 Weapon Rating 3.  Target's Superb defense roll still means the attack hits.  Target takes 3 stress form the weapon rating.  Caster takes -1 on his primary action this exchange.

That's still significantly better than my example.  Your version deals 6+2+3 stress versus my example dealing only 3 with the same Power and Control.  The -1 it imposes on rolls is not enough to offset this.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Green highlighting mine.

[UmbraLux]

That was a quote.  It's the paragraph directly after the part about splitting power.  Seriously, read the entire section.

Since you're quoting the same text I did, I suspect it's a difference in interpretation.

"Instead of attacking zones, you can attack individual targets by splitting up your shifts of power. So if you’ve controlled 5 shifts of power, you can attack one target with a power 3 attack (at Weapon:3) and one target with a power 2 attack (at Weapon:2). Since you can’t make a power 0 attack, the power of the spell deter- mines how many targets you can hit: at most, a power 3 spell can be split into three power 1 attacks.
The targeting result is also split up, and not necessarily in the same portions. If you rolled a Fantastic (+6) result to target your 5 shifts of power, you might split the power as detailed above, but make the Weapon:2 attack a Great (+4) for targeting and the Weapon:3 attack a Fair (+2)."

And here it is...this isn't correct.  Not by my reading at least.

 - The Discipline roll is the attack / targeting / control action.  Power (from Conviction, foci, & specialties) is the effect. 
 - The target's defense roll subtracts from the Discipline roll. 
 - - If the result is less than 0 it's a miss. 
 - - If the result is 0 the Power driven effect is applied. 
 - - If the result is over 0 those excess shifts are converted to stress.  See the example on YS251, it specifically states "4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value". 
 - Each of the three sections on YS251 specifically states they're splitting up "Power".  It begins with the sentence just before #1:  "The shifts of power allocated to the spell may be split up as follows:".

Power is allocated (including any splitting for multiple targets, zone coverage, or duration) and then it's controlled.  Extra control in the attack contribute directly to stress due to accuracy of a well cast spell.  They don't become power.  (If they did power might suddenly be higher than your control roll which would invoke backlash or fallout.)

@Second post - Yes, note the differentiation between power and control.  They're split separately in the example, not lumped together.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Since you're quoting the same text I did, I suspect it's a difference in interpretation.
And here it is...this isn't correct.  Not by my reading at least.

 - The Discipline roll is the attack / targeting / control action.  Power (from Conviction, foci, & specialties) is the effect. 
 - The target's defense roll subtracts from the Discipline roll. 
 - - If the result is less than 0 it's a miss. 
 - - If the result is 0 the Power driven effect is applied. 
 - - If the result is over 0 those excess shifts are converted to stress.  See the example on YS251, it specifically states "4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value". 
 - Each of the three sections on YS251 specifically states they're splitting up "Power".  It begins with the sentence just before #1:  "The shifts of power allocated to the spell may be split up as follows:".

Power is allocated (including any splitting for multiple targets, zone coverage, or duration) and then it's controlled.  Extra control in the attack contribute directly to stress due to accuracy of a well cast spell.  They don't become power.  (If they did power might suddenly be higher than your control roll which would invoke backlash or fallout.)

@Second post - Yes, note the differentiation between power and control.  They're split separately in the example, not lumped together.

What?!  In the second paragraph, they are explicitly splitting TARGETING.  That's why the Weapon 2 attack has Great targeting and the Weapon 3 attack Fair targeting.  They had Control 6 Power 5.

I think I figured it out.  MY PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTENDED DURATION ATTACK IS NOT THE STANDARD EVOCATION RULES.  THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING A HOUSE RULE.  That is, I know normally Power=Weapon Rating and Control=Attack Roll.  Yes.  That is how evocation attacks normally work.

What I am proposing is that for a special effect attack you treat attacks more like blocks.  That is, the control roll HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK.  The attack is a Weapon 0 effect.  It simply compares the defense roll to the POWER-DURATION of the spell each exchange.  I fully understand that this is not how evocation normally works.  That's why this is a house rule.

[UmbraLux]

What?!  In the second paragraph, they are explicitly splitting TARGETING.  That's why the Weapon 2 attack has Great targeting and the Weapon 3 attack Fair targeting.  They had Control 6 Power 5.

Yes, I agree.  Not sure how it's relevant - your examples appear to use one number instead of one each for control and power.  Afraid I can't follow them when I don't know how each is being used.

I think I figured it out.  MY PROPOSAL FOR AN EXTENDED DURATION ATTACK IS NOT THE STANDARD EVOCATION RULES.  THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING A HOUSE RULE.  That is, I know normally Power=Weapon Rating and Control=Attack Roll.  Yes.  That is how evocation attacks normally work.

What I am proposing is that for a special effect attack you treat attacks more like blocks.  That is, the control roll HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK.  The attack is a Weapon 0 effect.  It simply compares the defense roll to the POWER-DURATION of the spell each exchange.  I fully understand that this is not how evocation normally works.  That's why this is a house rule.

Shrug, I was attempting to discuss options not piss you off.  I'll wander away...