Electric Arc

[Killer Cyborg]

An interesting spell.
It seems like it was intended to compensate somewhat for a mage's slow casting time.
Unlike most offensives spells, the spell lasts an entire melee and allows the caster to make repeated blasts (one per attack) for that time.

From the RUE Eratta thread:

Electric Arc works differently from most other attack spells, though.

I believe that the core of a full re-write of the spell for RUE would be:

"This spell, when cast, fires an electric arc at a target. If the caster retains any available attacks after this spell is cast, then additional electric arcs may be fired, one per available attack, until the end of the melee round."

This retains the flavor of the spell, without dramatically departing from the way other direct-fire attack spells operate.

If a spellcaster has six attacks, and they cast this spell as their first attack, that's six electric blasts.

That would be a good way of doing it, but it doesn't seem like that's how it should work.
The only part of the RUE description that is blatantly wrong is where the description says it takes 2 attacks to cast.

But discussing the spell made something occur to me:

How would this spell work in a TW gun?

Sure, it would work however the GM wanted it to... but the nature of the spell makes it seem like it could create a gun with an effectively huge payload.
Say you make a Fire Bolt gun that can hold 20 charges.
That's the equivilant of 20 castings at 1 blast each.

An Electric Arc gun, on the other hand, that held 20 charges would hold 20 castings, which would be something like 60-80 or more blasts!
Sure, the damage is kind of low, but that's still pretty nice...

[finn69]

or they could b used as powersource spells for electric generators/engines.

[RainOfSteel]

Once again, it winds up coming down to, which way does the GM want it to work.

Lightning Arc appears to work the same way (it is not re-written for RUE).

4d6 MD + 2 MD/lvl
1 melee/lvl
30 PPE
100 ft/lvl (not too shabby)
+4 to strike @ 100 ft
+1 to strike @ Max ft

6th lvl Mage w/6 attacks/melee

My system:

36 attacks @ 600 ft @ 4d6 MD + 12 MD.

KC's system.

35 attacks @ 600 ft @ 4d6 MD + 12 MD.

Still seems pretty good, either way.

[grandmaster z0b]

One of the TW guns from FoM can shoot bursts and uses the spell "Ballistic Fire" as one of it's main sources of power. Ballistic Fire works similar to Electric Arc in that the one spell creates multiple attacks, maybe these spells could allow TW guns to burst fire?

[Killer Cyborg]

One of the TW guns from FoM can shoot bursts and uses the spell "Ballistic Fire" as one of it's main sources of power. Ballistic Fire works similar to Electric Arc in that the one spell creates multiple attacks, maybe these spells could allow TW guns to burst fire?

Good point.

Also, how would that gun break down under the new TW rules?
And do the rules even cover making PPE-Clips (and weapons that use them)?

[khorne]

I think there's a mistake... the LIGHTING ARC (8 level) is WAAAAY too powerful for its level... also, if you read the description you will discover that, according the example, it was meant to last 4 rounds
(first round MAX 3 attacks - total 15 attacks)

Each attack would inflict AT LEAST 20 M.D.!!!

[grandmaster z0b]

For an 8th level spell it seems perfectly balanced.

[Tor]

Too bad the burst rules time slipped away or that would make a nice machine gun!

Do you mean if Electric Arc were built into a TW device?

[dragonfett]

An interesting spell.
It seems like it was intended to compensate somewhat for a mage's slow casting time.
Unlike most offensives spells, the spell lasts an entire melee and allows the caster to make repeated blasts (one per attack) for that time.

From the RUE Eratta thread:

Electric Arc works differently from most other attack spells, though.

I believe that the core of a full re-write of the spell for RUE would be:

"This spell, when cast, fires an electric arc at a target. If the caster retains any available attacks after this spell is cast, then additional electric arcs may be fired, one per available attack, until the end of the melee round."

This retains the flavor of the spell, without dramatically departing from the way other direct-fire attack spells operate.

If a spellcaster has six attacks, and they cast this spell as their first attack, that's six electric blasts.

That would be a good way of doing it, but it doesn't seem like that's how it should work.
The only part of the RUE description that is blatantly wrong is where the description says it takes 2 attacks to cast.

But discussing the spell made something occur to me:

How would this spell work in a TW gun?

Sure, it would work however the GM wanted it to... but the nature of the spell makes it seem like it could create a gun with an effectively huge payload.
Say you make a Fire Bolt gun that can hold 20 charges.
That's the equivilant of 20 castings at 1 blast each.

An Electric Arc gun, on the other hand, that held 20 charges would hold 20 castings, which would be something like 60-80 or more blasts!
Sure, the damage is kind of low, but that's still pretty nice...

Both spells originally appeared in Federation of Magic before low level spells only needed one combat action to cast, as opposed to the original RMB's magic combat rule of two spells per round (level 1-6), 1 spell per round (level 7-10), or one spell every other melee round (level 11-15).

Something that I just realized is that the Lightening Arc spell says that it take two attacks to cast, JUST LIKE ELECTRIC ARC!. As a matter of fact, how long it takes to cast is described using the exact same words for both spells.

As far as the supposed original intent of Lightening Arc only lasting 4 melee rounds, I think they were basing that off of a 4th level caster, or must really like the number four. The reason I am taking a guess that they were assuming for a level 4 caster is because most Hand to Hand forms gain an extra attack at level 5 and so would have 3 attacks left after casting the spell.

I know not all mages get a Hand to Hand style with their OCC skills, but all of the ones that I am aware of get the option of picking it up with their Related skills, or at the worst with their Secondary skills (as per RUE rules concerning Secondary skills). Why am I mentioning this? Because I don't know any PC that would make a character that doesn't have at least Hand to Hand Basic as that doubles your abilities in combat.

[Killer Cyborg]

Good ressurection.
This topic seems to be still relevant, and was never really adequately discussed, IMO.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Looking in the FoM where Lighting Arc was 1st published I don't see where you get the spell only lasting 4 melee rounds...

I see no such limitation written into the text.


It appears that both of the spells, Electrical Arc and Lighting Arc, where written limit their potency because normally a spell's duration is counted from it's activation, not from when the mage starts casting the spell.

And FoM is Pre-Rue.....where a mage as per canon can only cast two spells per melee round. As such, if you follow one path of thought, each magic casting takes up half the mage's APM. Which accounts for both spell equating casting the magic with 2 APM from a mage with a total of four APM. So if the example had be of a less common Mage with 6 APM then the spell would of taken up 3 of the mage's APM to cast.

[dragonfett]

Looking in the FoM where Lighting Arc was 1st published I don't see where you get the spell only lasting 4 melee rounds...

I see no such limitation written into the text.


It appears that both of the spells, Electrical Arc and Lighting Arc, where written limit their potency because normally a spell's duration is counted from it's activation, not from when the mage starts casting the spell.

And FoM is Pre-Rue.....where a mage as per canon can only cast two spells per melee round. As such, if you follow one path of thought, each magic casting takes up half the mage's APM. Which accounts for both spell equating casting the magic with 2 APM from a mage with a total of four APM. So if the example had be of a less common Mage with 6 APM then the spell would of taken up 3 of the mage's APM to cast.

This is from Federation of Magic, Second Printing, page 144, second paragraph of the spell:

Each lightening blast counts as one melee attack/action and is limited by the spell caster's total number of attacks. This means that a character with four attacks per melee round use up two attacks to cast the spell and fire once. This leaves two more electrical attacks that melee round, but in the next three melee rounds the character can fire up to four times. In addition, the character my vary or combine attacks. That is to say, a sorcerer with four attacks may elect to fire once, cast another spell, and draw and fire a weapon or perform a skill, and so on.

Now this is from the RMB, Third Printing, page 165, left column, second to last paragraph:

Spell are usually low level invocations taking the form of a chant or mantra, require minimal potential psychic energy (P.P.E.) and can be performed quickly. Two low level spells (levels one through 6) can be cast per melee (15 seconds). The higher levels of magic are more complex and require more time. One spell per melee can be cast from seventh through tenth level magic. One spell per two melees (30 seconds) for levels eleven through fifteen. Some spells can be cast as a ritual.

Now that same information is reiterated on FoM, 2nd printing, page 127, right column, roughly halfway down the page under the sub-heading Magic Attacks Per Melee.

Why is that important? Because Lightening Arc is level 8!!! Which by the rules as written (and reiterated just several pages prior) takes 15 seconds to cast. Mages could cast two spells per melee, so long as they were from 6 or lower.

Now I do want to take a second to point out a particular line from the description of Lightening Arc, the one that I underlined. It says that it takes two actions to cast and fire once. That implies that once the spell is cast it automatically discharges one blast. And the wording is exactly the same for the spell Electric Arc.

It now is clear to me that the main reason the wording for these two spells is messed up is due to excessive copying and pasting.

[Tor]

So if the spell normally takes half the time to cast, perhaps it should take 1 melee action instead of 2 per the new rules, instead of 1/2 melee instead of full melee.

[dragonfett]

So if the spell normally takes half the time to cast, perhaps it should take 1 melee action instead of 2 per the new rules, instead of 1/2 melee instead of full melee.

Which spell are you talking about?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Both E Arc and L Arc spell out exactly how many APM it takes to cast for a mage with four APM. (Even if what the text says runs contrary to how most spell durations last.) Which is the starting APM for most mages with a h2h. However you want to house rule how many APM it takes if the mage has more or less then four APM is up to you.

Duration: One Melee round per level of experience.

Re-iterates: I don't know how you peeps are getting that it lasts ONLY four melee rounds.

Since obviously the mage in the example was level 4.

[dragonfett]

Both E Arc and L Arc spell out exactly how many APM it takes to cast for a mage with four APM. (Even if what the text says runs contrary to how most spell durations last.) Which is the starting APM for most mages with a h2h. However you want to house rule how many APM it takes if the mage has more or less then four APM is up to you.

Duration: One Melee round per level of experience.

Re-iterates: I don't know how you peeps are getting that it lasts ONLY four melee rounds. Since obviously the mage in the example was level 4.

Thank you drewkitty! That's the point that I have been trying to get across after I saw someone else saying it only lasted four melee rounds.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Personally I would drop the nonsense about the casting time being a part of the spell's duration. But those two spells are very specific about how things work in canon for those two spells with their durations.

[Tor]

I think the reason we want to house-rule is that the spell's description was written during the original casting rates (making it faster) but that it wasn't updated to be faster than the newer rates, just equal or maybe slower?

[grandmaster z0b]

Good ressurection.
This topic seems to be still relevant, and was never really adequately discussed, IMO.

Yes and oddly timed considering I commented on this back in 2005 and have only just returned.

[dragonfett]

Good ressurection.
This topic seems to be still relevant, and was never really adequately discussed, IMO.

Yes and oddly timed considering I commented on this back in 2005 and have only just returned.

HE'S A TEMPORAL RAIDER!!!

[Vrykolas2k]

"Unlimited POWER!!!"

[grandmaster z0b]

Good ressurection.
This topic seems to be still relevant, and was never really adequately discussed, IMO.

Yes and oddly timed considering I commented on this back in 2005 and have only just returned.

HE'S A TEMPORAL RAIDER!!!

"Unlimited POWER!!!"

Hehe I wish

Actually I'm a GM which is pretty close to unlimited power.

Back to the question at hand; I think the casting time is yet another oversight when they printed RUE and copy-pasted stuff. I would ignore the casting time listed in the spell and just go with the casting time as per the level.