ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on August 09, 2012, 01:57:41 PM
-
I've got a couple of scenarios coming up where I'd like the BBEG BCV that I've set up to be able to significantly hinder the entire party. One of the ways I was thinking of doing it would be to use zone wide DoT spells. His minions (ghouls and Reinfields) would keep the party from simply targeting him with everything they've got by providing dangerous distractions.
I was thinking of a couple ways of doing this. (Yes, I know its been discussed before under Prolonging Attacks, etc, but I haven't found these specific solutions).
Option 1: Treat them as spray attacks, over multiple rounds rather than multiple targets. Thus, you'd split the spell's power and targeting (control) over multiple rounds.
How it compares to a standard attack: This allows for multitasking and playing with the action economy. It can, essentially, for a character to defend multiple times per round. However, it is significantly less effective against an equal opponent because the attack roll has to be split. It’s an interesting option, but a sub-optimal one is most cases.
Option 2: You set the power as an attack roll. So the spell wouldn't have a weapon rating, simply a number to defend against. This could then be prolonged by putting extra shifts into duration.
How it compares to a standard attack: This allows for a much stronger attack over multiple rounds. The worry here is that it is mitigating the stress limits Wizards have. However, while it would hit reliably, I don’t know that it would actually deal a great deal of stress.
Comments? Suggestions? Things I'm likely missing?
EDIT: Did some math. Let's say we have a character with Control 8, Power 6 attacking a character with Superb Athletics.
Option 1 wouldn't be effective.
Option 2. Wizard casts 8 shift spell. Legendary Weapon 0 attack. Athlete takes 3 stress. Wizard extends for 6 rounds. Athlete takes 3 stress per round (on average).
Standard: Wizard casts 8 shift spell. Legendary Weapon 8 attack. Athlete takes 11 stress. Wizard casts 6 shift spell. Legendary Weapon 6 attack. Athlete takes 9 stress.
With option 2, you're gaining one extra stress over a very long time.
-
You could go at it with the skill replacement option from thaumaturgy + some type of sponsored magic (even self sponsored, but you'd need thaumaturgy at evocation speed). Then it would just be a might replacement spell, and the rest would be using the usual grappling rules. Maybe adding a number of shifts if you want to emulate strength powers for additional stress.
So you could make a 4 shift might replacement spell and add 2 for "inhuman strength", so your target would have to go against a strength of 5 and you could inflict 2 shifts of damage per exchange. Though that might be a bit much, a high level wizard should easily be able to muster up +6 shifts to emulate mystic strength, and that will get deadly real quick.
If you keep to the simple might replacement, you will still get to slow them down quite a bit. And you can use high numbers to split them into multiple grapples, that should be ok. Though your wizard will need to repeat that spell every exchange, so he might run out of mental stress boxes real quick.
Edit:
One other idea, that might be a bit strange, but bare with me:
You could do a thaum-evo spell that replaces a resources roll to "hire some goons". Those goons can take the form of tentacles, clouds of smoke, whatever, that grapple the characters. And they should be able to keep up a grapple longer, without the sorcerer having to spend more power.
Edit2:
You could also create zone borders, that need various skills to cross, and if the threshold is not met, the character in question will have to take the remaining shifts as physical stress. The zone borders represent the various minions running around, trying to stop the PCs. The Players could try to eliminate some of the borders from afar. Imagine the final scene being split into something like a chess board, and you have your zones. They don't have to be quite that straight lines, but you get the idea. You might want to create some markers to indicate where everything is, depending on the size you chose for the scene.
Since large numbers of mooks can become pretty tedious to roll, you could have the players dodge against a fixed number if they are standing in a zone that has a "minion border". Increase that value by 2 for each border that is covered in minions.
-
The system is simply not suited to DoT-like effects.
-
There's been discussions about things like this before. I came up with what I think is a decent proposal for this sort of thing (albeit somewhat untested) here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25872.msg1311911.html#msg1311911
-
I don't know if iwould agree that it doesn't work at all. I think it just needs to be kept very simple. Balancing aside, I would probably just work an aoe dot that works similar to the venom/poison upgrade the the claws power.
-
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.
Tactically, it wears down an enemy's resources (defense enchanted items, fate points, etc). However, it's a sacrifice of potency. I like that it makes the characters make a choice between taking the stress and being slowly worn down and sacrificing their defensive resources.
It is more like thaumaturgy than evocation, but that doesn't seem to hurt anything.
-
One thing that needs to be taken into account in these evaluations:
Many instances of small amounts of stress is actually far more dangerous to a character capable of taking consequences than is a small number of instances of large amounts of stress.
It only takes eleven instances of one point of stress to guarantee a taken-out result against a character without 'tanky' powers built on any skill tree capped at Superb. Most such characters will be taken-out significantly before that.
-
It seems to me that if you modify Orbius by requiring that the Wizard use his action ("concentrating") to inflict the stress (otherwise it's just a normal block), then it ought to be reasonably fair. I think the major problem was that it allowed for fire-and-forget grapples that quickly wore foes into the ground for a single action commitment, which this tweak solves.
-
I had an idea while reading on how to fix spells like these.
Lets say somebody does a Damage over Time spell on a 4 stress track guy.
In round 1 he does 1 stress, marking XOOO on the track.
In round 2 he does 1 stress, and doesn't mark anything down on the track yet.
In round 3 he does 1 stress, marking XXOO on the track.
In round 4 he does 1 stress, and in round 5 he does 1 stress and in round 6 he does 1 more stress.
Finally he marks down XXXO on the track.
This change (that dot spells dont effect stress until it has filled that box's capacity) would make it much more reasonable. You'd need a relatively powerful Dot with a long duration to do anything more than hold somebody still.
-
I had an idea while reading on how to fix spells like these.
Lets say somebody does a Damage over Time spell on a 4 stress track guy.
In round 1 he does 1 stress, marking XOOO on the track.
In round 2 he does 1 stress, and doesn't mark anything down on the track yet.
In round 3 he does 1 stress, marking XXOO on the track.
In round 4 he does 1 stress, and in round 5 he does 1 stress and in round 6 he does 1 more stress.
Finally he marks down XXXO on the track.
This change (that dot spells dont effect stress until it has filled that box's capacity) would make it much more reasonable. You'd need a relatively powerful Dot with a long duration to do anything more than hold somebody still.
This adds a lot of unnecessary bookeeping of a "secondary" stress track for each DoT you have active on you, then, and generally means DoTs will stop being useful after three turns, since the next amount of exchanges before you take damage again is generally outside of the typical duration of DFRPG combat..
-
Personally I would stick with thaumaturgy for this type of spell. I'd model it after something like the mind fog spell only instead of disorienting the victims it causes them a certain amount of harm while they are in it. None of that fill in one box every X rounds either. That is waaaay too complicated and annoying. >:(
A thaumaturgy spell that effects a relatively small area and has a simple effect would not take long to cast for a competent spell caster. Especially if said caster has ghouls, zombies and such to run interference for him.
The spell would just make a Weapon:X attack at the end of each turn against all creatures in the zone(s) affected.
-
There's been discussions about things like this before. I came up with what I think is a decent proposal for this sort of thing (albeit somewhat untested) here:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25872.msg1311911.html#msg1311911
If I had to GM something like DoT, I think I'd probably use this approach. Use the spell attack roll sans Weapon value. Mr. Death, have you used this approach in a game since you posted that? How did it go?
-
If I had to GM something like DoT, I think I'd probably use this approach. Use the spell attack roll sans Weapon value. Mr. Death, have you used this approach in a game since you posted that? How did it go?
While I've told my players this house-rule would be in effect, none of them have taken advantage of it as yet. At least, not enough to really get a good feel for it, anyway. For the most part, they pretty much always go with single-round spells.
-
On paper, option 2 sounds good.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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. :-[
-
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
-
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. :o
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. :-\
-
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. :o
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.
-
(http://s17.postimage.org/vbwphfobj/Screen_Shot_2012_08_11_at_11_47_22_PM.png)
Green highlighting mine.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...