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.
I thought it would be the strength of the spell vs endurance, and if it hit would do weapon 5 damage.
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 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 do not understand your post, UmbraLux.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.
Could you please explain a bit further?
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.
@MijRai: Ugh, Orbius. I don't like that spell at all. It totally shuts down the character you use it on unless they break out of it. Which isn't appropriate here, I think.
@UmbraLux: So, correct me if I'm wrong here. The wizard makes an evocation attack every round for x rounds. However, it only costs him one spell's worth of stress and the weapon rating is greatly reduced.He sets up multiple maneuvers to last a couple exchanges and, since there's little functional difference, you term the aspects as a weapon or lasting spell.
He sets up multiple maneuvers to last a couple exchanges and, since there's little functional difference, you term the aspects as a weapon or lasting spell.
Remember, Fate generally models story building and not event simulation.
It isn't possible by RAW. We're trying to fix that here.
One thing that I will say. Back when we only had the burner copy my group didn't quite have a grasp on all of the rules. We allowed attacks to be extended. It was very unbalancing.Agreed. I think I'd generally prefer to inflict 5 stress per exchange for 3 exchanges than 7 stress in one exchange.
Just a heads up.
I'd be tempted to set it up as a spray attack, splitting power between exchanges rather than targets.I would suggest this route, actually, as the power to deal damage has to come from somewhere; it's not just automatically multiplied (as was covered in earlier posts) by paying for duration.
... The problem with the multiple-round spell approach is that it is not - as I understand it - an efficient means of taking out an opponent *in this system.* The hit-point erosion method suitable for the simulationist RPGs doesn't map exactly to DFRPG: the most effective means of taking out opposition here is by stacking up Aspects and getting in a final takedown blow that exhausts the opponent's ability to soak damage with its Stress track (and, if applicable, Consequence track)...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm suggesting it because it feels like a logical extension of the existing rules, and we're trying to find a way to implement it that wouldn't be overpowered.
@Sancta we used a similar 1 shift nets you 1 duration. The specific case was a winter sponsored caster was enveloping her cane in an aura of decay so she cast the spell, and then in subsequent exchanges she rolled weapons to hit people with her cane.
That character could easily set up an 8 shift Block for the same amount of time which is still 80 shifts he's not paying for, making him all but untouchable to anything besides another wizard.
They discuss "summoning a sword with magic" in the book, which is discouraged because it's dispellable and not particularly better than real swords since they have to be summoned and have a duration purchased (they're not available on the fly when you need them) in addition to them needing to be wielded.Well, that was specifically referring to thaumaturgy, I believe, rather than Evocation. With evocation it'd be available on the fly, but wouldn't have the duration of an Evocation-made blade. Consider it like (spoilers for Changes):
The difference is that if that 8-shift Evocation Block is exceeded by its target (unlikely but possible) it will go down, and can't be Prolonged.The prolonged evocation attack would still require him to take action, though, and if he's using the attack, he's not going to be able to set up a block to defend himself, whereas if he's set up the block, he can keep attacking with impunity. As Orladdin said, actions are the most valuable resource here.
The Prolonged Evocation Attack will end if someone takes out the Wizard, but then so would the Block.
That character could easily set up an 8 shift Block for the same amount of time which is still 80 shifts he's not paying for, making him all but untouchable to anything besides another wizard. If it's unbalanced one way, how is it not unbalanced the other?
And with the 10-round block, he'd be able to do other things. With the 10-round spell, he'd still have to spend an action every turn to direct that spell and still risk missing entirely.
The prolonged evocation attack would still require him to take action, though, and if he's using the attack, he's not going to be able to set up a block to defend himself, whereas if he's set up the block, he can keep attacking with impunity. As Orladdin said, actions are the most valuable resource here.
I would suggest you do one thing. Try it. When we tried it it was very clearly unbalancing. The wizard running around with a weapon:8 for the entire conflict (didn't last long with that kind of power flying around). It wouldn't even be too hard to get a weapon:10 or 12 with extra stress or a mild consequence. So yeah, try it.I would have thought the issue would be more one of longevity than speed--I honestly haven't seen a conflict last more than three or four exchanges anyway in my experience. Were the fights any shorter than if the wizard was, instead, able to cast a Weapon:8 spell the first round, Weapon:9 the second, Weapon:10 the third, etc? If the wizard's throwing all his might into straight up attacking anyway there isn't much that's going to be standing at the end of four rounds whether it cost him one shift or 4--and once again, everyone else is going to get a turn too. If he needs 10 rounds to take out 10 ghouls, that means that he's going to have to dodge or endure attacks from whoever's left at the end of each of his turns.
@Orladdin: You're only thinking about the action economy, which admittedly is important but there are other important bits. Like the mental stress limitation on wizards. And weapon values over four being limited in scope. When you talk about the conjuration rules you're talking about a normal weapon:2 sword, not weapon:8.
I would suggest you do one thing. Try it. When we tried it it was very clearly unbalancing. The wizard running around with a weapon:8 for the entire conflict (didn't last long with that kind of power flying around). It wouldn't even be too hard to get a weapon:10 or 12 with extra stress or a mild consequence. So yeah, try it.
I edited my post (presumably while you were typing this response) to clarify this point. Yeah, I considered that. Whatever you get shouldn't be exceedingly more powerful than a normal object of about the same size would be, given better materials or sharpened edges or whatnot. A weapon: 8 sword would be pretty out of the question just for sanity-check sake.If you're strictly trying to imitate a real sword, sure. But given how we've seen wizards in the canon focus their energies for what are likely Weapon:5-6 effects into tight, small packages like laser beams and tiny motes of flame, you would be able to make a higher Weapon effect shaped like a sword if you had the muscle to pull it off.
I would have thought the issue would be more one of longevity than speed--I honestly haven't seen a conflict last more than three or four exchanges anyway in my experience. Were the fights any shorter than if the wizard was, instead, able to cast a Weapon:8 spell the first round, Weapon:9 the second, Weapon:10 the third, etc? If the wizard's throwing all his might into straight up attacking anyway there isn't much that's going to be standing at the end of four rounds whether it cost him one shift or 4--and once again, everyone else is going to get a turn too. If he needs 10 rounds to take out 10 ghouls, that means that he's going to have to dodge or endure attacks from whoever's left at the end of each of his turns.
Having the Weapon:8 spell flying around might be devastating for whatever it hits, but it locks the wizard into action: He has to attack with the single-target Weapon:8 spell if he wants to make use of it, he probably shouldn't be able to change it into, say, a spray attack or a zone attack without giving up the endurance of it. He gets a couple spells for free, yes, but at the cost of strictly limiting his options for those turns.
Except there's also the redirecting spell energy rule. If at any point the wizard wants to stop attacking he can simply convert the spell into a block or a maneuver. No shifts lost or anything.And just as converting a block into an attack ends the effect, you shouldn't keep the longevity of an attack if you change it into a block or maneuver. He shouldn't be able to switch it back and forth at will.
Right now you're thinking about a fight with mooks, etc. Something that isn't likely to last more than a couple of rounds. What about your big bad? The conflict that you want to last a while and seem challenging. How are you going to do that with the wizard throwing huge attacks, and the mortals dealing less than half that?The Big Bad ought to be big and bad enough that he can figure out a way to counter it--maybe he hits the caster for a consequence, and tags it to say, "And he's so rattled from the PUNCH IN THE SNOZZ that he can't keep a hold of that fireball anymore." Or the GM can throw a compel the caster's way to discourage it in some manner.
So how's this for a proposal:
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.
I'm liking this more and more. There is plausible risk for the spellcaster, and the mechanics are in alignment with both the metagame and narrative components of the proposed action. This feels like an acceptable way to do this.
Still has the problem of an unparalleled mental stress discount.Well, some mental stress discount is pretty much the point. And it's only really significant if the caster always makes the control roll, which would encourage them to keep the Weapon rating of the spell well under what their effective Discipline was if they want to make it last more than one or two rounds safely.
Still has the problem of an unparalleled mental stress discount.
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?I assumed this was a typo; is it?
Still has the problem of an unparalleled mental stress discount.
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.
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.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.
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'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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
If the character's fighting concept is revolving around the lightsaber, may I propose a different approach?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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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 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."
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."I think you read too much into a single word.
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)
No the big example of extended magic was Harry's earth volcano spell,Isn't this a temporary boost from sponsored magic?Where the narration actively describes Harry as sustaining the attack spell.(click to show/hide)
Harry's volcano spell does not make a good case for a prolonged attack spell because it was clearly intended to act as a block.
The basic issue that makes DoT potentially imbalancing is the way the stress is recorded.
That is, say a target has three stress boxes, and takes 3 stress. Only the third box is marked off. Instead, say the target takes 1 stress, three times. The first box is marked off, then the second box as the second stress rolls upward, then the third box. That's the equivalent of 6 stress! All it would take to guarantee that this character is taken out would be eight 1-stress hits (which would mark off all three stress boxes and all four consequences up to extreme, assuming the target didn't conceed before then). So that 8x1-stress DoT accomplishes what a 'normal' attack spell would require as much as 24 stress to do. It does take longer, of course, but when combined with a grapple that prevents you from doing anything during that time (ie, Orbius), then it's just a matter of running down the clock.
One way to fix this would be to treat the effects of the attack specially, and actually change the impact each exchange. So the first exchange, you'd temprarily mark the first stress box. The next exchange you'd transfer the mark to the next box, and so on -- each time removing the pervious mark. Eventually, mild consequences would be exchanged for moderates, and so on. Lots of bookkeeping, and the end result is the same amound of effect as an instant attack spell of the same strength. Of course, then you're left with this question: why not just do the instant attack?
I never understood the problem with Orbius. Nowhere in the spell's description does it say that the target can't attempt to remove it, and with a block rating of 3, it shouldn't be that difficult to do so by anyone with a solid Might or Fists rating. But anyway...
I never understood the problem with Orbius. Nowhere in the spell's description does it say that the target can't attempt to remove it, and with a block rating of 3, it shouldn't be that difficult to do so by anyone with a solid Might or Fists rating. But anyway...With the spell as written in the examples section, I agree. But what about when someone casts it as two-part spell? That is, cast a strength 8 grapple without extended duration, then follow it up with an 8 exchange duration boost?
I kind of already included that in my last proposal a couple pages back.
That still doesn't address the problem of removing the mental stress limit on casting...
I honestly don't see the appeal of this. Yes, it would probably work as you proposed, but why would you want to do a spell like that? If you have to roll for the spell again, why not simply do a new spell? I'm pretty sure you'll get more firepower out like that. Even if you want to use the spell against multiple weak targets, I would rather split the spell to attack multiple targets at once than do the extended spell you proposed.Well, if you're fighting a bunch of badguys who have decent dodge rolls (like the +3 for the vampires in the example), a spray attack might have little chance of hitting more than one of them. The way I figure it, given the odds, you want at least a +1 over the target's dodging skill to ensure a hit--so Harry in the example isn't going to hit more than one vampire at a time unless he's got fate points to spend and is really lucky on the roll. But he can hit each individually.
To extend the duration of the spell, you are either going over your conviction safety limit, increasing the shifts of casting stress, or you are limiting the spells power, making it a whole lot less effective than it could be.
I honestly don't see the appeal of this. Yes, it would probably work as you proposed, but why would you want to do a spell like that? If you have to roll for the spell again, why not simply do a new spell? I'm pretty sure you'll get more firepower out like that. Even if you want to use the spell against multiple weak targets, I would rather split the spell to attack multiple targets at once than do the extended spell you proposed.
Now let's put this into a complete package. One of the issues that you have nodded at before Mr Death, is that you're attacking this whole time (no defense). So first I (being a smart wizard) throw up a ten shift block and extend it for ten exchanges. Defense taken care of, now I'm attacking. I cast my ten shift, extended duration attack. Now it is very difficult to hit me and I'm throwing around an eight shift weapon for the next six exchanges (48 total shifts). If I want to extend that I could even drop it to seven shifts for eight exchanges (56 total shifts) or six shifts for ten exchanges (60 total shifts).Fair points, but it depends on what you're fighting. In your example, before you even start attacking you're taking two mental stress hits (one for the shield, one for its duration), plus potentially backlash for the duration (since I don't think that can be a rote). After the initial attack spell is cast, that leaves the wizard one open box on the Mental track with which to cast anything else before he starts taking consequences.
I'll admit that it would be unusual that a conflict would last more than a few exchanges, but the point of the mental stress limit is that when it is important, when conflict does last a while, that the wizard peters out or kicks up the drama by taking consequences. In this case in addition to being the powerhouse that he already is he becomes the long lasting bastion of power.
I'll stop harping at this point, but I'll just say that in my games I prefer drama, and this would limit the drama.
Actually Haru this is more powerful than a single casting. Lemme give an example.
I have had characters before with 10 shift rotes (that either require backlash or fate points). If we go with the original rules I can cast a 10 shift attack four times in a conflict without taking consequences (assuming that the backlash doesn't kill me ;) ) for a total of 40 shifts.
Fair points, but it depends on what you're fighting. In your example, before you even start attacking you're taking two mental stress hits (one for the shield, one for its duration), plus potentially backlash for the duration (since I don't think that can be a rote). After the initial attack spell is cast, that leaves the wizard one open box on the Mental track with which to cast anything else before he starts taking consequences. By your math, that brings it right back down to about 48 shifts of effect.
It sounds like the problems you are voicing above are based on the misconception that backlash increases your targetting. If you aren't playing with that house-rule, this solution should be fine.
[Edit] Unless you're playing at a very high refresh (refinements). I guess that wasn't specified.
Actually Haru this is more powerful than a single casting.In terms of added stress I agree, but wearing something down over its stress track can become a tedious job. I've seen that when I sent a beast with supernatural toughness + hulking size at my group. The most effective way to take something out is to aim higher than the stress track and force it to take consequences or forfeit. And you can do that more effective if you pool your resources into one brutal attack.
I'll stop harping at this point, but I'll just say that in my games I prefer drama, and this would limit the drama.Which is a statement I totally agree with.
It is just way more interesting to throw a frozen turkey at a vampire than barraging it with drumsticks for half an hour.
Backlash may be physical or mental stress.I'm aware, but I was assuming the wizard in question is taking it as Physical stress, since the point of prolonged attacks is to conserve mental stress. Anyway, taking the backlash as mental stress only further reduces how many spells he can cast.
As for the rest the one thing I've been thinking about this whole time is what if the wizard has no friends. The place where this gets really imbalanced is when the wizard is alone against multiple enemies. Normally this would be a situation where the wizard would get shafted (and rightly so), but when you add duration to your attacks suddenly he is still very viable in these circumstances.Viable, but still vulnerable. Above all, remember that for every action the wizard takes, each of his opponents gets one as well. A handful of maneuvers is all it'll take for even that 10-shift block to get beaten down.
In terms of added stress I agree, but wearing something down over its stress track can become a tedious job. I've seen that when I sent a beast with supernatural toughness + hulking size at my group. The most effective way to take something out is to aim higher than the stress track and force it to take consequences or forfeit. And you can do that more effective if you pool your resources into one brutal attack.Amen to that, though I have a story where wearing that one guy down was still dramatic and satisfying for the whole group. They had no idea what his Catch was (even though one of the group had it the whole time, he was engaged with someone else on the other side of the battlefield), and managed to fill nearly every single stress box he had by the end of it. Finally bringing the beast down that way proved to be one of the best sessions we had, like a race to finish him before he blew someone up.
I'm aware, but I was assuming the wizard in question is taking it as Physical stress, since the point of prolonged attacks is to conserve mental stress. Anyway, taking the backlash as mental stress only further reduces how many spells he can cast.
Amen to that, though I have a story where wearing that one guy down was still dramatic and satisfying for the whole group. They had no idea what his Catch was (even though one of the group had it the whole time, he was engaged with someone else on the other side of the battlefield), and managed to fill nearly every single stress box he had by the end of it. Finally bringing the beast down that way proved to be one of the best sessions we had, like a race to finish him before he blew someone up.Hmm, did you try your prolonged spells rule in that fight? In my fight, both spellcasters (one PC one NPC) where on their last leg, the warden even started using his sword. If you can't beat something like that with a well placed blast, it really comes down to a death of a thousand tiny cuts. Admittedly, my monster was defeated by a weapon:2 gunshot that rolled all the way up, but the group had just formed and maneuvers/declarations etc. was too new to really be a big part of the fight.
LMAO, that needs to go in your sig, Haru. Awesome.done ;D
Hmm, did you try your prolonged spells rule in that fight? In my fight, both spellcasters (one PC one NPC) where on their last leg, the warden even started using his sword. If you can't beat something like that with a well placed blast, it really comes down to a death of a thousand tiny cuts. Admittedly, my monster was defeated by a weapon:2 gunshot that rolled all the way up, but the group had just formed and maneuvers/declarations etc. was too new to really be a big part of the fight.This was actually not in a Dresdenverse game, it was in an adaptation of the rules I made for a Mega Man X setting, so there were no wizards to be found. Plus this was a couple months ago, before I came up with that proposal. Mostly they were making due with Weapon:2 buster shots (which could be charged for more kick, to a point) and Weapon:3 melee attacks.
For me it boils down to this: A wizard can throw around weapon:10+ spells, but he can't do that for very long, while others can only get weapon:2 or 3 guns but they can shoot a whole lot longer. That's why Harry carries a gun or wardens also carry swords.
Mostly, this rule idea came from two things: looking at the books, where Harry ends up in long fights but still keeps casting way more than four spells, and that it didn't make sense to me that even the highest level wizards, like Ebenezer, could only throw four spells around in a battle before he started taking consequences, even if he was holding back on the power.
And this proposal is definitely much better than my initial idea to give spellcasters longevity (which was that they would be able to cast without the mental stress at all, provided the spell's power was half of their effective Conviction, rounded down).
From the RAW there are a few ways to represent the greater endurance we see in the later books. One of them is an increased number of spellcasting consequences. This would be the wizard who draws himself dry so much he starts to get an increased ability to do so.I forget, were there stunts that gave more mental consequences for just that? Because offhand, I can only think of increasing Mental consequences through the skill increases, and most games you're not going to get a wizard with 7 in Conviction.
Another way is actually to segment conflicts. When Changes came out a bunch of people asked Fred "Wait, how the hell were Harry and the other wizards able to cast so much in such a short time?" His response was that there were actually several scenes in that conflict, separated by short pauses for Harry to catch his breath, so to speak.I was thinking about that, but those scenes struck me more as an example of the discussion Billy and Dresden have in the margins in regard to stress going away after a scene, unless circumstances have it where you're going right from one fight to another. The big fight in Changes struck me more as that than actually giving Harry breaks.
I know neither of those are necessarily the kind of endurance you're looking at, but I would look at increasing the number of spells that they are capable of casting through the expenditure of resources (I.E. Refresh) rather than attempting to make all casters capable of greater endurance by changing the core rules.I think it still works out that way--you're still bound by your effective Conviction and Discipline, after all, so if you still want any power in your prolonged spell, you've got to pay for it with higher initial stress and less duration. Someone with higher Conviction (i.e., higher spent refresh) is going to have significantly increased endurance for equal spell power than someone with lower Conviction.
I forget, were there stunts that gave more mental consequences for just that? Because offhand, I can only think of increasing Mental consequences through the skill increases, and most games you're not going to get a wizard with 7 in Conviction.
I was thinking about that, but those scenes struck me more as an example of the discussion Billy and Dresden have in the margins in regard to stress going away after a scene, unless circumstances have it where you're going right from one fight to another. The big fight in Changes struck me more as that than actually giving Harry breaks.
I think it still works out that way--you're still bound by your effective Conviction and Discipline, after all, so if you still want any power in your prolonged spell, you've got to pay for it with higher initial stress and less duration. Someone with higher Conviction (i.e., higher spent refresh) is going to have significantly increased endurance for equal spell power than someone with lower Conviction.
The way I look at it, if you have two casters who're pumping out Weapon:4 spells round after round, someone with an effective conviction of 8 ought to be able to do it easier than someone with an effective conviction of 4. The less experienced/powerful wizard ought to be huffing and puffing after four rounds of that, while the big badass wizard should still be good to go.
With the RAW, they'd take exactly the same stress if the newbie is casting at normal power and the badass is casting Weapon:1 spells, and that just seems off to me.
I think you're simply underestimating casters. Like I've said I have thrown 10 shift rote spells as a chest-deep caster with no advancements in spellcasting (all of my spare refresh went into holy powers). It's not tough for a low level caster to be throwing around powerful effects. Yeah it's true that there isn't a huge difference as you go up from there, but I think I'd rather give more powerful wizards some form of toughness (extra mental stress) that they have to pay for than apply something like this to the lower level casters.If you can throw around a 10-shift rote without taking a Consequence, it means your effective Conviction and Discipline must be 7 or higher (mostly through Focus Items, I assume). If you're able to pump out more power, with much higher control, than Dresden himself at Submerged level, you're not really what I'd term a "lower level caster" :P. When I refer to caster ability levels, I'm talking about their effective skill ratings, rather than spent refresh, since that's what the real effect in a fight is.
Yeah, I didn't mean that there were actual breaks, but that the GM went "Ok, I'm going to end the scene there. Everyone clear your stress and advance the healing on consequences. The next scene starts right at the end of the last."This works best if the kind of conflict changes (like from a fight to a chase or vice versa). Even if you just do some mid-fight smacktalk, that could be enough to justify clearing stress.
With the RAW, they'd take exactly the same stress if the newbie is casting at normal power and the badass is casting Weapon:1 spells, and that just seems off to me.Yes, actual evocations will only get you so far, which is actually in line with the novels. Harry is often enough (especially in the first books) winded after 2 or 3 evocations. You have a lot of choices to make as a wizard when using your refresh. You could create a myriad of enchanted items, so you would have almost no worry of running out of mental stress/spells, but at the cost of power. And with the danger of bringing a bag of knifes to a gun fight, if you prepared the wrong spells. Then again, you could put aside some potion slots for just such an occasion.
Or you go a completely different route and engrave some of your spells in stone a.k.a. you buy them as a power, which costs the most, but it is going to make them most effective. Breath weapon for fireball spells for example. They are only weapon:2, but they don't cost any mental stress either. You could even argue, that it would be reasonable to only make it a -1 power if you already have evocation.