Multiple Generations?

[esmdev]

Given that domain turns (4 = 1 year) can rapidly age a scion, how many people have run games long enough for this to become a factor, and if so, how do you deal with it when the PC ages into retirement/death?

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "esmdev" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:48 AM


> Given that domain turns (4 = 1 year) can rapidly age a scion, how
> many people have run games long enough for this to become a factor,
> and if so, how do you deal with it when the PC ages into retirement/
> death?

Encourage PC`s to produce heirs. Aside from allowing players to keep
playing *after* death and retirement, it can also allow low level, starting
over play when characters are mighty.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Kyrion]

If I was going to run a multi-generational game, I`d use the family rules
from PENDRAGON, which are elegant in their simplicity.

-Scott

At 10:12 AM 3/23/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "esmdev" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:48 AM
>
>
> > Given that domain turns (4 = 1 year) can rapidly age a scion, how
> > many people have run games long enough for this to become a factor,
> > and if so, how do you deal with it when the PC ages into retirement/
> > death?
>
>Encourage PC`s to produce heirs. Aside from allowing players to keep
>playing *after* death and retirement, it can also allow low level, starting
>over play when characters are mighty.
>
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Azrai]

An usual RPG is focused on playing adventures. This should also be the main focus in a Birthright campaign, so that domain turns are only an addition to the standard game. Some people like to concentrate more on the domain and strategy part, thats also ok, but than one has to leave the path of "normal" roleplaying".

In my experience a normal campaigns fills the time of 5-10 Cerilian years, thats plenty of time to go adventureing and enought to reach a major domain and strategy goal.



-----------------------------------------------
Bush kills, http://www.seankreynolds.com/

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 12:34 PM

> An usual RPG is focused on playing adventures. This should
> also be the main focus in a Birthright campaign, so that domain
> turns are only an addition to the standard game. Some people
> like to concentrate more on the domain and strategy part, thats
> also ok, but than one has to leave the path of "normal" roleplaying".

Why?

This statements seems to me to be say that BR should avoid an aspect of play
which this forum has demonstrated attracts players. The PBeM campaigns are
nearly exclusivly domain driven, and some table-top games are largely domain
driven. Surely they aren`t to be abandon by the CS.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck

This statements seems to me to be say that BR should avoid an aspect of play which this forum has demonstrated attracts players. The PBeM campaigns are nearly exclusivly domain driven, and some table-top games are largely domain driven. Surely they aren`t to be abandon by the CS.
IMO playing BR only with domain sheets is boring. It is a nice addition and opens many new adventuring ideas, but this shouldn't be a single focus. Further if you don't have the blood ability "long life" (and you aren't a half-elf or elf) you see your PC aging as if the player would be an elf... Not really satisfying!

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> IMO playing BR only with domain sheets is boring.

And I think it`s much less boring than standard D&D adventuring. To each
his or her own, as usual. Fundamentally, "only with domain sheets" is a
perfectly valid way to play Birthright -- I am strongly tempted to argue
it is the most valid -- and is the part of the Birthright rules about
which I care the most. I haven`t really posted about the draft conversion
guide`s domain rules yet, but that`s largely because I`ve been too busy
playing purely-domain-level BR with standard 2e rules (and some changes of
my own) to have the time to really delve as deeply into them as I`d like. =)

Sure, D&D adventures might be a nice addition to the main BR rulership
system, since they open some new domain action resultion ideas, but they
shouldn`t be the primary focus. You see the parallel?

To me, domain rulership is the single most important part of Birthright.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[irdeggman]

And hence results the appeal and controversy of any Birthright game. How much time should be spent on domain actions and how much should be spent on adventuring. As has been cited PBEM are almost exclusively domain based and there is a split between how many table top games are mostly adventuring and how many are mostly domain level.

When we put together the BRCS playtest version we had tried to keep both goals in mind. In Chapter 8 there is a information concerning suggestions for experience for domain actions (of keen interest to those playing PBEM games), how to "import" the domain rules into a non-Birthright setting (this was one of the considerations when the domain action costs were written strictly for GB, with RP being used as a modifier) and other things that were designed to coordinate and aid those who wished to play one type of game instead of another (domain level versus adventuring or vice versa).

This is an important issue and anything done in the "official" document needs to reflect both styles of play.:)

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ryancaveney

Fundamentally, "only with domain sheets" is a perfectly valid way to play Birthright -- I am strongly tempted to argue it is the most valid --
I didn't say I hate domain sheets, I only think they are a minor part. If you ONLY play with domain sheets tell me those things: How do your players get XP and how long do they need to reach next level?

[ConjurerDragon]

Ariadne wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1475
>
> Ariadne wrote:
>
Originally posted by ryancaveney
>
>Fundamentally, "only with domain sheets" is a perfectly valid way to play Birthright -- I am strongly tempted to argue it is the most valid --
>I didn`t say I hate domain sheets, I only think they are a minor part. If you ONLY play with domain sheets tell me those things: How do your players get XP and how long do they need to reach next level?
>
To add to this I have to say that the only Birthright games I
participate in are PBEMS - there are simply not enough players around my
area (between Bonn and Koblenz in Germany) to meet once a week and play
around a table.

And the PBEMS I have participated in (COG II of Morg and ITSOD II of
Milos) were both heavy on the domain level, with some adventuring in
between - but most actions/month were domain actions.

Even the core DMG has a variant rule to gain XP for overcoming tasks not
related to "kill orcs or other nastys". The old Birthright.Net site had
even a webpage created by a fan with XP values for succeeding at domain
actions.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> I didn`t say I hate domain sheets, I only think they are a minor part.

Whereas I think they are the primary part. Similarly, I don`t hate
adventures -- but I don`t like them as much, so I don`t focus on them.

> If you ONLY play with domain sheets tell me those things: How do
> your players get XP and how long do they need to reach next level?

They don`t have to. Level and XP are no longer strictly needed, except in
determining the exact effects of certain realm spells (e.g., do you get
goblin irregulars or stonecrown ogres from Summoning), and even that could
be straightforwardly rewritten (e.g., different RP costs per unit type).
There is no need for hp, THAC0, etc. if you never have to (there is no way
to) fight a monster. In fact, the only "character sheet" you really
require is the brief listing format from the region books: FAn; F5; Br,
minor, 24; CG. Even that`s a bit much, since bloodline score and class
alone determine regency collection; in a slightly variant rules set, no
notion of character need intrude at all, since you can just say RP = DP
and be done with it.

Ignoring XP completely, you could assign all casters a fixed level, or let
effective level be a function of the highest source/temple holding they
have, or total thereof. Example of system one: use levels as printed in
the books, and no one ever changes. Easy to use, but hard to figure out
how to introduce completely new regents. Example of system two: if your
highest source is a 7, then you cast realm spells as if you were 14th
level. I think I like this way best, though it means wizards in thickly
settled regions are even more screwed than before. Example of system
three: if you have a total of 27 levels of temple holdings, then you cast
realm spells as if you were 9th level. This tends to make biggest realms
even more powerful, and thus leads to faster and less balanced games.

For games that combine both domain actions and adventures, I have used a
variety of tables which award XP for domain actions. In a particularly
simple model I`ve used, in which level is tracked only for spellcasters,
the way to gain levels is to spend RP on realm spells: in 3e language, I`d
say every RP spent on a realm spell gives you 100 xp, so going from level
N to level N+1 requires spending a total of 10(N+1) RP on realm spells.
It`s also easy to award a fixed number (500?) per realm spell, to help out
regents with smaller domains.

In any of these systems, the exact proportionality constants are easy to
tweak to taste. For example, the numbers for realm spell XP I`ve just
presented are designed for moderately rapid advancement, and caster level
equals twice holding level is inspired by max level of spell castable
equals one-half caster level.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

To add to this I have to say that the only Birthright games I participate in are PBEMS - there are simply not enough players around my area (between Bonn and Koblenz in Germany) to meet once a week and play around a table.
A pity... You realy miss things. Haven't you tried to find a group through web roll-play lists? Maybe try www.helden.de (I hope I remember it right). There must be a list of German roll players somewhere...


Even the core DMG has a variant rule to gain XP for overcoming tasks not related to "kill orcs or other nastys". The old Birthright.Net site had even a webpage created by a fan with XP values for succeeding at domain actions.
I know you may gain XP trough story goal (if you have solved a riddle for example)



Originally posted by ryancaveney
Level and XP are no longer strictly needed, except in determining the exact effects of certain realm spells (e.g., do you get goblin irregulars or stonecrown ogres from Summoning), and even that could be straightforwardly rewritten (e.g., different RP costs per unit type).
Oh Yes? Haven't your clerics ever wanted to ask questions to their god? Haven't your wizards ever wanted to create magical items? Isn't it "cool" to cast a fireball, flamestrike or firestom into an enemy unit what partly destroyes it completely without risking damage to your own units? And, and, and...

[ryancaveney]

I wrote:

> > Level and XP are no longer strictly needed,

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Ariadne wrote:

> Haven`t your clerics ever wanted to ask questions to their god?

Sure. They ask me, and I tell them what impressions, if any, they
receive. IMO, the results of communing with dieties are never
particularly clear, and caster level really doesn`t have all that much to
do with whether you can figure out what it`s supposed to mean.

> Haven`t your wizards ever wanted to create magical items?

With what purpose? If you never have to fight a monster, individual +3
swords aren`t very interesting. Items useful in battle (a whole pile of
scrolls of Cloudkill is actually the best buy I`ve yet found), and in fact
anything else they like, can be created by the Consecrate Relic realm
spell (which I`ve always made available to wizards), or homebrew versions
of the same such as Starfox`s 1 RP = 5,000 gp of purchase price formula.

> Isn`t it "cool" to cast a fireball, flamestrike or firestom into an
> enemy unit what partly destroyes it completely without risking damage
> to your own units?

Cool, yes. Necessary, no. Which was precisely my point.

In any case, the large-scale use of magic in battle (not specifically
"battle magic" as per the BoM, mind you -- a few conventional fireball
spells is plenty) renders mundane combat units entirely irrelevant. I
would honestly prefer never to have spellcasters get involved in battle at
all; when that doesn`t seem possible, I settle for just trying to minimize
it. Aelies, Queen Isaelie, Torele Anviras, Caine, the Sword Mage, the
Second Swamp Mage, the Eyeless One, the Wizard -- not to mention Rhuobhe
or the Gorgon -- all can cast 5th level spells. Thus each and every one
of them could easily make that pile of scrolls of Cloudkill, and thereby
singlehandely, trivially take out the entire army of any (every!) realm in
Anuire. Since I see really no way to balance it, I feel reduced largely
to just pretending to ignore the problem, which I tend to justify as
"every ruler has a court wizard, and they cancel each other out."

The main idea is that everything you`ve mentioned is purely a flavor
add-on. Furthermore, every one of them needs only an effective caster
level, which as I have said is very easy to calculate directly from
holding levels. Levels, XP, and everything else about any RPG system you
like, D&D or no, can be amusing -- but all that baggage is utterly
unnecessary to a purely domain level game. Sometimes I like to add that
stuff, but sometimes all that overhead is a bigger cost than benefit.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> I would honestly prefer never to have spellcasters get involved in
> battle at all; when that doesn`t seem possible, I settle for just
> trying to minimize it. Aelies, Queen Isaelie, Torele Anviras, Caine,
> the Sword Mage, the Second Swamp Mage, the Eyeless One, the Wizard --
> not to mention Rhuobhe or the Gorgon -- all can cast 5th level spells.
> Thus each and every one of them could easily make that pile of scrolls
> of Cloudkill, and thereby singlehandely, trivially take out the entire
> army of any (every!) realm in Anuire. Since I see really no way to
> balance it, I feel reduced largely to just pretending to ignore the
> problem, which I tend to justify as "every ruler has a court wizard,
> and they cancel each other out."

Read Sepulchrave`s story hour at enworld for some good examples of high
level magic in battle. Here are some links, I`ll wait.

Lady Despina`s Virtue
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....s=&threadid=762 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=762)
(Be warned: only read the first post in this first thread, then move on to
the second.)
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....&threadid=10950 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10950)

The Heretic of Wyre
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....&threadid=13733 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13733)
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....&threadid=18032 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18032)

The Rape of Morne
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....&threadid=24127 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24127)
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread....&threadid=43542 (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43542)

Actually, don`t read it now, there`s well over a good sized novel there.
:)

But read it eventually, and you`ll see the damage a single 15th-ish level
druid can do to an army, what a powerful wizard can do to even powerful
creatures, and what an epic spellcaster can do to an entire city. And
it`s a good story to boot.

My original point here, besides being a big fanboy, is the story method
Sep uses to restrain magic in battle in his world. All the wizards
ascribe to an Injunction, that none of them will use magic in political
matters (including war), on pain of eternal Imprisonment (the spell).
This is enforced by the whim of the most powerful wizards in Wyre, which
in the course of the story proves insufficient, so they move on to more
powerful enforcement of the injunction.

I`ve stolen this for my games in Cerilia- source holders and true wizards
in general have an enforced agreement not to take part in battles.
Magicians are somewhat beneath the radar, but between Aelies and a couple
of other powerful wizards, it`s fairly well followed. Their exception is
against the forces of awnsheghlien.

The Haelynites and allied churches will not take part in battle against
the faithful, so that takes out the other big source of battle magic, and
leaves me with the historical battles I enjoy.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
>>I would honestly prefer never to have spellcasters get involved in
>>battle at all; when that doesn`t seem possible, I settle for just
>>trying to minimize it. Aelies, Queen Isaelie, Torele Anviras, Caine,
>>the Sword Mage, the Second Swamp Mage, the Eyeless One, the Wizard --
>>not to mention Rhuobhe or the Gorgon -- all can cast 5th level spells.
>>Thus each and every one of them could easily make that pile of scrolls
>>of Cloudkill, and thereby singlehandely, trivially take out the entire
>>army of any (every!) realm in Anuire. Since I see really no way to
>>balance it, I feel reduced largely to just pretending to ignore the
>>problem, which I tend to justify as "every ruler has a court wizard,
>>and they cancel each other out."
>>
>...
>But read it eventually, and you`ll see the damage a single 15th-ish level
>druid can do to an army, what a powerful wizard can do to even powerful
>creatures, and what an epic spellcaster can do to an entire city. And
>it`s a good story to boot.
>
>My original point here, besides being a big fanboy, is the story method
>Sep uses to restrain magic in battle in his world. All the wizards
>ascribe to an Injunction, that none of them will use magic in political
>matters (including war), on pain of eternal Imprisonment (the spell).
>This is enforced by the whim of the most powerful wizards in Wyre, which
>in the course of the story proves insufficient, so they move on to more
>powerful enforcement of the injunction.
>
>I`ve stolen this for my games in Cerilia- source holders and true wizards
>in general have an enforced agreement not to take part in battles.
>Magicians are somewhat beneath the radar, but between Aelies and a couple
>of other powerful wizards, it`s fairly well followed. Their exception is
>against the forces of awnsheghlien.
>
>The Haelynites and allied churches will not take part in battle against
>the faithful, so that takes out the other big source of battle magic, and
>leaves me with the historical battles I enjoy.
>
You make spellcasters something comparable to
a) dragons in the computer game Bard´s Tale IV/Dragon Tales? where each
city had a dragon who, if release in case of an attack would destroy
utterly both the attacking army and the city
B) ballistic nuclear missiles in a balance of power which no one dares
to break

That heavily restricts spellcasters and therefore I do not like it at all.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

I wrote:

>>> Thus each and every [major wizard] could... singlehandedly, trivially
>>> take out the entire army of any (every!) realm in Anuire.

Dan McSorley wrote:

>> The Haelynites and allied churches will not take part in battle against
>> the faithful, so that takes out the other big source of battle magic,
>> and leaves me with the historical battles I enjoy.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> You make spellcasters something comparable to ballistic nuclear
> missiles in a balance of power which no one dares to break

Well, yes. In terms of overwhelming, irresistable, instantaneous
destructive power, a spellcaster is exactly a tactical nuclear weapon.

Given the way the D&D magic system works, there is no obstacle at all
under standard rules to Rhuobhe Manslayer having *already* personally
killed every single human in Cerilia not directly protected by a
spellcaster of at least equal level. There would be no point in having a
conventional army at all if practical battle magic was as easy to access
as the "Fireball = R result" cards in the original rules, since even a
small number of wizards of fairly moderate level could wipe out huge
numbers of war card units in the blink of an eye, especially if you adopt
the 3e magic item creation rules unmodified. A single Wand of Fireballs
does FIFTY war card hits, which could annihilate the army of most of the
realms in Cerilia with change left over. A standard 5th level wizard in
vanilla 3e could make a bucket full of them.

Therefore, I need some way to change this in order to claim that Cerilia
exists at all in its present form. Story restrictions like "well, he just
hasn`t decided to, yet" don`t help much, because once somebody like the
Gorgon or Rhuobhe or Llaeddra or Aelies or the Magian (all W15+) decides
to do it, nothing could stop their conquest of the entire world except
one-on-one confrontations with each other. Even then, it still rewrites
the entire geopolitical structure of Cerilia almost overnight.

> That heavily restricts spellcasters and therefore I do not like it at all.

I really like spellcasters too, so I`m not happy with these severe
restrictions Dan and I have suggested, but I do feel that something like
them must be in place in order for anything remotely like medieval warfare
to exist. The issue is that, to a very great degree, equipment determines
tactics. The importance of this to the present discussion is that massed
cavalry charges with swords against a double-digit-level wizard are just
as suicidal and useless as they were against machine guns and tanks in the
World Wars. If moderate-to-high-level spellcasters are available in
military situations, the only armies that matter are those which can
survive their attacks and threaten them in turn -- that is, parties of
moderate-to-high-level adventurers, and high-HD monsters with good saves
and magical abilities. Wars would be conducted solely as D&D adventure
combats, with most efforts on both sides being concentrated on making and
defending against assassination attempts made with high-level spells.
That is a very different kind of world from the one I want to game in,
but it is the logically inevitable consequence of allowing a full-blown
D&D-type magic system to freely enter military engagements.

Therefore, something must be done.

If you limit regent wizards` effects on army units to just realm spells
like Summoning, Mass Destruction and Subversion, the game can work.
Anything beyond that, and it becomes progressively harder to avoid the
total obsolescence of conventional armies.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

I'm with Ryan on this one. In the discussion on magicians and battle magic (in a different thread) I pointed out how overpowered battle magic is. Someone like the Sword Mage could easily take out Roesone's entire army on his own.

If the rules make something like that possible, logically, why would Roesone even bother maintaining an army?

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> That heavily restricts spellcasters and therefore I do not like it at all.

Did I suggest it for you? Nope, no, doesn`t look like it. If you don`t
like it, you don`t have to use it. Have a nice day.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>I wrote:
>
>>>>Thus each and every [major wizard] could... singlehandedly, trivially
>>>>take out the entire army of any (every!) realm in Anuire.
>>>>
>Dan McSorley wrote:
>
>>>The Haelynites and allied churches will not take part in battle against
>>>the faithful, so that takes out the other big source of battle magic,
>>>and leaves me with the historical battles I enjoy.
>>>
>
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>You make spellcasters something comparable to ballistic nuclear
>>missiles in a balance of power which no one dares to break
>>
>
>Well, yes. In terms of overwhelming, irresistable, instantaneous
>destructive power, a spellcaster is exactly a tactical nuclear weapon.
>Given the way the D&D magic system works, there is no obstacle at all
>under standard rules to Rhuobhe Manslayer having *already* personally
>killed every single human in Cerilia not directly protected by a
>spellcaster of at least equal level. There would be no point in having a
>conventional army at all if practical battle magic was as easy to access
>as the "Fireball = R result" cards in the original rules, since even a
>small number of wizards of fairly moderate level could wipe out huge
>numbers of war card units in the blink of an eye, especially if you adopt
>the 3e magic item creation rules unmodified. A single Wand of Fireballs
>does FIFTY war card hits, which could annihilate the army of most of the
>realms in Cerilia with change left over. A standard 5th level wizard in
>vanilla 3e could make a bucket full of them.
>
You exaggerate a bit here. Wizards and Clerics are powerful with battle
spells. But they can´t singlehandedly defeat entire armys. Even without
the Draft 0.0 restrictions of having the approbiate feat, a skill which
is no class-skill and having access to a specially trained army unit to
support them I think not that wizards are unbalanced.

The reason is that IF you see it as normal that a wizard can use a
normal fireball to rout 100-200 peasants with pitchforks, then he can
use the same fireball to rout an army unit. The DMG describes armies as
consisting mostly out of commoners (levys?), warriors and only few
fighters of low levels. So if a wizard can take out low-level characters
in a normal adventure in D&D, because those low-level characters have
even with maxed first level hitpoints, no chance to survive his spell,
then he can do the same on the battlefield.

However he can´t do it as you describe with entire armies. Considering
the time it takes to produce magical items in Cerilia (was it weeks
instead of 3E core days?) and that a wizard regent has as any regent
other things to do than magical item creation, and considering the
raritiy of wizards then you will not have suddenly a dozen wizards
wielding fireballs and annihiliating the whole allied army of Boeruine,
Avanil and Ghoere ;-)

I would go so far as to say that it suffices to have the spellcasters
make a spellcraft check DC 15 for defensive casting to get their
battlespell off as requirement to cast it. If not casting defensively
they are pincushions if even 1st level warriors, but 100 of them take an
AoO at them. Protection from Arrows will not protect from such a hail of
arrows. And again: There are not such many magical items in Cerilia than
in other worlds. Even wizards will not have a dozen magical items, like
amulets of natural armour, rings of protection, cloaks of protection and
whatever. More likely they will have only a few, or even one powerful item.

>I really like spellcasters too, so I`m not happy with these severe
>restrictions Dan and I have suggested, but I do feel that something like
>them must be in place in order for anything remotely like medieval warfare
>to exist. The issue is that, to a very great degree, equipment determines
>tactics. The importance of this to the present discussion is that massed
>cavalry charges with swords against a double-digit-level wizard are just
>as suicidal and useless as they were against machine guns and tanks in the
>World Wars. If moderate-to-high-level spellcasters are available in
>military situations, the only armies that matter are those which can
>survive their attacks and threaten them in turn -- that is, parties of
>moderate-to-high-level adventurers, and high-HD monsters with good saves
>and magical abilities.
>
There are ways even for normal army units. How long does it take to cast
a battle spell? One full round? Then the wizard already can be
surrounded on three sides by cavalry units, can´t he? And any area
effect affects only 1 battlefield area, so the attacking army would
simply spread out (which it does anyway as the draft allows only 1 unit
per square). So the massdamage that a fireball does to a stack of 10
army units at once is no more.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> I would go so far as to say that it suffices to have the spellcasters
> make a spellcraft check DC 15 for defensive casting to get their
> battlespell off as requirement to cast it. If not casting defensively
> they are pincushions if even 1st level warriors, but 100 of them take an
> AoO at them.

You can`t take an AoO with ranged weapons. They can ready an action, I
suppose, but then they`ll get whacked from the side by the army the wizard
is there to support. Not to mention most units don`t carry bows at all.

> Protection from Arrows will not protect from such a hail of arrows.

It might. If he`s 600 feet away (minimum range for a fireball), all enemy
archers have what, a -10 range penalty to hit? They`re only hitting on a
20. That`s 5 of them by averages, Protection from Arrows stops 10
points/spellcaster level, so minimum 50, he`s safe from at least one
volley, probably 2.

Invisibility is 2nd level and will protect him utterly. Improved Invis is
what, 3rd, so is Flight, and they`re even better. Shield is 1st. I`ve
played a sorceror in Dragonstar, where your average mook carries a gun or
laser that does 3d6 damage/hit or better, and you don`t worry about them
much once you hit 3rd level spells or so. Arrows are much less worrisome
than lasers :)
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>I would go so far as to say that it suffices to have the spellcasters
>>make a spellcraft check DC 15 for defensive casting to get their
>>battlespell off as requirement to cast it. If not casting defensively
>>they are pincushions if even 1st level warriors, but 100 of them take an
>>AoO at them.
>>
>
>You can`t take an AoO with ranged weapons. They can ready an action, I
>suppose, but then they`ll get whacked from the side by the army the wizard
>is there to support.
>
Right. However that means that the wizard has brought an army with him
as the draft 0.0 rules.
As I understood the other poster had the opinion that a wizard could
singlehandedly defeat an enemy army.

>Invisibility is 2nd level and will protect him utterly. Improved Invis is
>what, 3rd, so is Flight, and they`re even better. Shield is 1st. I`ve
>played a sorceror in Dragonstar, where your average mook carries a gun or
>laser that does 3d6 damage/hit or better, and you don`t worry about them
>much once you hit 3rd level spells or so. Arrows are much less worrisome
>than lasers :)
>
Invisibility and Flight are problems. In COG II while it lasted where
the variant rules by Travis Doom in effect which limited Invisibility to
Camouflage (+10 to Hide) and did not allow any flight but levitation or
polymorphing.

In that case the Army he faces better have brought a spellcaster
themselves to cast a dispel magic on him after using detect
invisibility or true seeing.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Eosin the Red]

>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

>>I would go so far as to say that it suffices to have the spellcasters make a spellcraft check DC 15 for defensive casting to get their battlespell off as requirement to cast it. If not casting defensively they are pincushions if even 1st level warriors, but 100 of them take an AoO at them.
<<<Snip>>>>

Michael -

Some of this is just not a realistic interp of the rules. Any wizard worth his salt makes a defensive roll on anything but a 1 by 5th-6th level.

Long Range spells from Aelies go how far? 400+ (40*16)= 1,040. The Widen spell feat or other variants ensure that even by 11th level, the players in my group called my Mage "The Orbital Platform of Death" and I didn`t bother to fly. I did not bother with Defense and I only had 2 magic items (though one was a Ring of Wizardry). My 11th level AC never crested 14 - becuse if you are a wizard and an 7-8th level character gets up on you, the game is over (unless you are one of the buffed polymorphing nighthag/XXX monsters that eat fighters for lunch). My defense was leveling anything that moved with death and destruction. My DCs were absurd (25 for a Fireball) and of course I cranked out 2 or so each round. That pretty much chews up an entire Unit - a double widened stinking cloud is retardedly effective in mass combat.

I really liked the idea of a Wizardly armistice - but it does rely on independant enforcement. Who wants to go tell the Swordmage the summoning of some foul beast to support Ghoeres invasion in Roesone is illegal and that he is going to have to be whipped? When the enforcement is thrown on other wizards, especially PC wizards, it gets really, really interesting politically on amongst the traditionally non-involved wizards.

This armistice also jives with what we have seen in the books - Michael Roele didn`t summon his court mages - he summoned his knights. Gaelin Mhoried - was betrayed by Bannier but it was the armies of Ghoere that gutted Mhoried, not battle magic. Bannier nuked a castle and created a bridge, he did not sling spells at the massed troops, but assuredly could have if the situation called for it.

Consider this yoinked!!

Eosin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> As I understood the other poster had the opinion that a wizard could
> singlehandedly defeat an enemy army.

I still do. Eosin`s phrase "the Orbital Platform of Death" really sums it
up quite nicely. Wizards are either total pushovers (really low levels),
or just way too strong for any number of normal soldiers to beat (moderate
levels and up).

> Invisibility and Flight are problems.

Exactly.

> In that case the Army he faces better have brought a spellcaster
> themselves to cast a dispel magic on him after using detect
> invisibility or true seeing.

Which is what I said in the beginning: to prevent wizards making armies
completely irrelevant, you have to assume either that they can`t act at
all, or that they cancel each other out.

One possible way to model how well they cancel things would be to come up
with some sort of overall effective level for all the casters on each
side, then do an opposed test at the beginning of the battle to determine
a single modifier which would be applied to every roll (or stat!) for the
rest of the (conventional) combat. This seems fairly close to the
description of battle magic in Simon Hawke`s "War" novel. If levels are
matched (Sword Mage vs. Caine), they mostly cancel but things could go
either way if one gets lucky. If they are grossly mismatched (Rhuobhe vs.
Harald Khorien), it`s gonna be real ugly for the magically weaker side.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> Invisibility and Flight are problems. In COG II while it lasted where
> the variant rules by Travis Doom in effect which limited Invisibility to
> Camouflage (+10 to Hide) and did not allow any flight but levitation or
> polymorphing.

(whine) But that heavily restricts spellcasters and I do not like it at
all. (/whine)

If you want medieval battles, you have to limit spellcasting in battle
somehow, you`ve now admitted as much.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Eosin the Red wrote:
> I really liked the idea of a Wizardly armistice - but it does rely on
> independant enforcement. Who wants to go tell the Swordmage the
> summoning of some foul beast to support Ghoeres invasion in Roesone is
> illegal and that he is going to have to be whipped? When the
> enforcement is thrown on other wizards, especially PC wizards, it gets
> really, really interesting politically on amongst the traditionally
> non-involved wizards.

If you want it independantly enforced, check out the story hour I posted
above. In the fifth thread, the wizards use epic cooperative magic to
bind an extraplanar entity into enforcing the Injunction on the wizards of
the continent. In Cerilia, this could be a powerful shadow world entity,
or even an outer planar creature, with really powerful magic to pierce the
shadow world and bind it.

If you like the idea of wizards politicking about it, you can do without
an enforcer :)
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Eosin the Red]

Daniel Wrote:
> If you want it independantly enforced, check out the story hour I posted above. In the fifth thread, the wizards use epic cooperative magic to bind an extraplanar entity into enforcing the Injunction on the wizards of the continent. In Cerilia, this could be a powerful shadow world entity, or even an outer planar creature, with really powerful magic to pierce the shadow world and bind it.
>
> If you like the idea of wizards politicking about it, you can do without an enforcer :)

I think the independant method fits my tastes more. It gives a needed (IMO) dimension to the wizards. You could even tie it into the SW with mass casualties from magic weaking the curtian between the SW and Cerilia. This still allows for a no-holds-barred stuggle against someone like the Gorgon. Additionally, it also allows mages, like the Swordmage, to disregard the simple minded rules of the CoS.

I will take a look at those story hours. I only read a couple (Byzantium on the Shannon was my favorite) but I hear that some are quite good.

I really need to get WAR but I have not been able to find it anywhere.

Eosin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trevyr]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of Ryan B. Caveney

> One possible way to model how well they cancel things would be to come up
> with some sort of overall effective level for all the casters on each
> side, then do an opposed test at the beginning of the battle to determine
> a single modifier which would be applied to every roll (or stat!) for the
> rest of the (conventional) combat. This seems fairly close to the
> description of battle magic in Simon Hawke`s "War" novel. If levels are
> matched (Sword Mage vs. Caine), they mostly cancel but things could go
> either way if one gets lucky. If they are grossly mismatched (Rhuobhe vs.
> Harald Khorien), it`s gonna be real ugly for the magically weaker side.


One way to handle this might be with a sort of parma magica effect,
if anyone remembers the old Ars Magica game. A parma can be thought of as a
magical shield, intended to deny the enemy the opportunity to attack your
side. Each round you have the choice of empowering your parma by casting a
spell into it, or attacking the other side by trying to cast a spell through
the opposing parma.

This idea can quickly get pretty complex. You can keep track of the strength
of a parma by recording the total number of levels of spells cast into it:
your spells strengthen it, spells from the opposite side reduce it. If you
really want to be complex, you can keep track of the spell levels of
different schools cast into it. This gives it some flexibility and adds a
strategy component, but starts becoming a bookkeeping chore.

I can also imagine the shielding effect working in a number of ways. It
might function as a sort of variable-strength Spell Resistance, or it might
just completely block all spell effects until the parma is brought down. It
might even allow effects to "leak over the top" of the effect when a spell
with more levels than the parma is cast. (This makes most sense when
school-specific spell levels are tracked--for example, if you can psych your
opponent into focusing his parma on conjuration, and then hit her with a
high level illusion, you might be able sneak some effect over, and get at
least some result. To accomplish this would seem to require a limit to the
total number of spell levels that a parma can hold.)

One of the things I like about this system is that it can potantially
balance the `powerful mage/weak army` configuration with a `powerful
army/weak wizard` arraingement. If the weak wizard simply focuses on
maintaining his parma, he may be able to hold out long enough for the
stronger army to rout the weaker one.

You might also divide the magical labor between wizards and priests. Wizards
can cast spells, but priests can counter with the parma (maybe call it an
aegis, instead). This arraingement has the additional benefit of potentially
explaining why elven true casters didn`t plow through the Adurian refugees
when they first arrived on Cerilian shores (because they had already
developed the aegis system against Azrai`s necromancers).

Either system would take some thought and refinements to make workable.

Mark V.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Eosin the Red wrote:

>>>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>>>
>>>I would go so far as to say that it suffices to have the spellcasters make a spellcraft check DC 15 for defensive casting to get their battlespell off as requirement to cast it. If not casting defensively they are pincushions if even 1st level warriors, but 100 of them take an AoO at them.
>>>
><<<Snip>>>>
>Michael -
>Some of this is just not a realistic interp of the rules. Any wizard worth his salt makes a defensive roll on anything but a 1 by 5th-6th level.
>
I have reread the defensive casting, and found it not to be simply DC 15
but DC 15+ spell level.

>Long Range spells from Aelies go how far? 400+ (40*16)= 1,040. The Widen spell feat or other variants ensure that even by 11th level, the players in my group called my Mage "The Orbital Platform of Death" and I didn`t bother to fly. I did not bother with Defense and I only had 2 magic items (though one was a Ring of Wizardry). My 11th level AC never crested 14 - becuse if you are a wizard and an 7-8th level character gets up on you, the game is over (unless you are one of the buffed polymorphing nighthag/XXX monsters that eat fighters for lunch). My defense was leveling anything that moved with death and destruction. My DCs were absurd (25 for a Fireball) and of course I cranked out 2 or so each round. That pretty much chews up an entire Unit - a double widened stinking cloud is retardedly effective in mass combat.
>
That opens the question about how large is a battlefield area? We know
that an entire army unit fits into one, and that spellcasters can cast
battlespells into the next square, but I do not remember to have read a
more detailed size.

Mmmh, "even by 11th level"? Not many wizards do exist in Cerilia who
have reached that level. There is only a handful of those in Cerilia,
and I mean they ought to wield powers that demand the respect they deserve.

But to an army unit of 1st level commoners or warriors most 11th level
characters spells death, not just wizards - an 11th level fighter could
cleave/great cleave/combat reflex his way through them and with only a
non-magical full plate and non-magical large shield would have an AC of
20 from armour alone. He would just need some more rounds.

>This armistice also jives with what we have seen in the books - Michael Roele didn`t summon his court mages - he summoned his knights. Gaelin Mhoried - was betrayed by Bannier but it was the armies of Ghoere that gutted Mhoried, not battle magic. Bannier nuked a castle and created a bridge, he did not sling spells at the massed troops, but assuredly could have if the situation called for it.
>
Perhaps. However the Court Mage of Mhoried was no true wizard as I
understood - why should he have desired the bloodline of the Mhorieds -
as a wizard he would have to have one already? Why did he have to use a
source in the Shadowworld? Because the Gorgon lend him some power to use
- I assumed him to be only a Magician and only to be able to do what he
did by the power the Gorgon lent him.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>As I understood the other poster had the opinion that a wizard could
>>singlehandedly defeat an enemy army.
>>
>I still do. Eosin`s phrase "the Orbital Platform of Death" really sums it
>up quite nicely. Wizards are either total pushovers (really low levels),
>or just way too strong for any number of normal soldiers to beat (moderate
>levels and up).
>
>>Invisibility and Flight are problems.
>>
>Exactly.
>
>>In that case the Army he faces better have brought a spellcaster
>>themselves to cast a dispel magic on him after using detect
>>invisibility or true seeing.
>>
>Which is what I said in the beginning: to prevent wizards making armies
>completely irrelevant, you have to assume either that they can`t act at
>all, or that they cancel each other out.
>
I did not say bring a wizard, but a spellcaster. Magicians and Clerics
are more numerous than wizards, so it should not be a problem to counter
a very strong wizard with a Magician.

>One possible way to model how well they cancel things would be to come up
>with some sort of overall effective level for all the casters on each
>side, then do an opposed test at the beginning of the battle to determine
>a single modifier which would be applied to every roll (or stat!) for the
>rest of the (conventional) combat. This seems fairly close to the
>description of battle magic in Simon Hawke`s "War" novel. If levels are
>matched (Sword Mage vs. Caine), they mostly cancel but things could go
>either way if one gets lucky. If they are grossly mismatched (Rhuobhe vs.
>Harald Khorien), it`s gonna be real ugly for the magically weaker side.
>
My opinion about wizards, TRUE wizards as the only true spellcasters as
compared to those who are either limited (Magicians are more specialized
wizard/rogues) or fighter/spellcasting clerics is that they deserve to
be powerful spellcasters.

A figher regent, or guilder or cleric temple owner can execute their
power by hiring an army as their extended arm - a wizard needs to be
personally strong to counter this.

However I also dislike 3E "generic" clerics who can cast nearly all
spells except their 2 domains which differ - I did much more like the 2E
approach which made them limited spellcasters - why should they not be
as they wear armour without penalty?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>Invisibility and Flight are problems. In COG II while it lasted where
>>the variant rules by Travis Doom in effect which limited Invisibility to
>>Camouflage (+10 to Hide) and did not allow any flight but levitation or
>>polymorphing.
>>
>(whine) But that heavily restricts spellcasters and I do not like it at
>all. (/whine)
>
I meant that banning wizards from the battlefield and taking their
ability to cast battle spells from them is heavily restricting them.
The Invisibility and Flight restrictions are not that harsh and a wizard
can be powerful despite them.

>If you want medieval battles, you have to limit spellcasting in battle
>somehow, you`ve now admitted as much.
>
I did not say I wanted medieval battles, that was another poster. If one
wants medieval battles, then however I wonder why to have spellcasting
characterclasses at all? ;-)
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Eosin the Red]

Hey Michael (PS are you going to play in Tims PBeM?)

> I have reread the defensive casting, and found it not to be simply DC 15 but DC 15+ spell level.

Defensive casting is pretty much a joke after 5-6th level. Anybody who has played a wizard will verify this. I don`t even get the feat combat casting any more because it is rendered useless.

>>>Long Range spells from Aelies go how far? 400+ (40*16)= 1,040.

> That opens the question about how large is a battlefield area? We know that an entire army unit fits into one, and that spellcasters can cast battlespells into the next square, but I do not remember to have read a more detailed size.

We are mixing apples and oranges. Talking about can a wizard do X and then changing back into a war card scenerio. Using 3e rules MY interp of wizard spells is - personal/short is 1 hex, medium is your hex plus any surronding hex, and long range is Adjacent +1.


> Mmmh, "even by 11th level"? Not many wizards do exist in Cerilia who have reached that level. There is only a handful of those in Cerilia, and I mean they ought to wield powers that demand the respect they deserve.

That is a good point - the majority of listed wizards are 10th level with Isaelie, Aelies, Doeseire, and perhaphs 2-3 others being in the 13-16th range. The most likely culprits are in battle Caine, Toerele, The Eyeless One, Either swamp mage, or the sword mage. I will 100% concur that 11th level wizards should not exist buy the bucket full - but when talking about battle regents many of them do land in the same ball field with a few notably below (Khorien, Aglondier) and a few above.


> But to an army unit of 1st level commoners or warriors most 11th level characters spells death, not just wizards - an 11th level fighter could cleave/great cleave/combat reflex his way through them and with only a non-magical full plate and non-magical large shield would have an AC of 20 from armour alone. He would just need some more rounds.

I agree that the fighter is powerful but when he wades into combat he gets 5-6 attacks on him per round. Assuming that each needs a 20 to hit and that the damage is 3.5 per hit after 1 hour of combat our valient fighter will have taken around 200 hit points of damage. Assuming he kills 4 combatants a round he will have decimated 4 units (800) of levy or irregualrs (elite troops will have higher melee and do him in quicker). There is some equity in this but the mage gets away - the fighter dies. The destruction by the mage is rapid and total, and may route the rest of the army.

But there is a very valid point that high level tweaked fighter-types can be just as inappropiate as spell casters.



>>>> I assumed him [Bannier] to be only a Magician and only to be able to do what he did by the power the Gorgon lent him.

Hmmm, he 100% had sources, that much I know. I could see that you could make that arguement but I think he was a wizard. He did teleport and use several realm spells as well as magic jar.

Eosin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Eosin the Red wrote:

>Hey Michael (PS are you going to play in Tims PBeM?)
>
No, I play only in one game at a time due to lack of playing time and
currently it´s only ITSOD II for me.

>>I have reread the defensive casting, and found it not to be simply DC 15 but DC 15+ spell level.
>>
>Defensive casting is pretty much a joke after 5-6th level. Anybody who has played a wizard will verify this. I don`t even get the feat combat casting any more because it is rendered useless.
>
That depends on the DC. Defensive Casting is for casting without
proviking an AoO. "Combat Casting" gives +4 to the check.
I would rather like to have spellcasters make Concentration checks with
higher DC´s on the battlefield and require them to take Combat Casting
(it sounds as if it allows to cast battlespells anyway) instead of
making a warcraft check and require them to take a newly invented feat
which is ONLY useable for battle spells.

A while ago I mentioned already that my opinion is that to check if a
spell works as it is intended would require a Spellcraft check. Be it to
work undisturbed, or to avoid to hit friendly units I see Spellcraft as
the skill to check. To require Warcraft which is not a class-skill for
spellcasters (in addition to the feat and the specially trained and
therefore weaker military unit) is over-balancing wizards.
...

>But there is a very valid point that high level tweaked fighter-types can be just as inappropiate as spell casters.
>
Or approbiate if you wish to have heroic characters who are able to do
such heroic stuff ;-)
The 2E "heroic fray" allowed heroes to slaughter low-level enemy in the
dozen and army units are lowest-level enemys.

However we agree that
a) Highlevel characters are rare in Cerilia, and high-level true wizards
even moreso;
B) Highlevel characters other than wizards would be able to defeat one
or more army units alone just as wizards, only slower.

Consider the say 9th level Lord of the Realm who uses his money to field
an army, in addition to his personal 9 levels of Aristocrat (Lord) or
Fighter. The 9th level Wizard can´t afford to field an army, only his
personal power matters. In a balanced game for players if both meet on
the battlefield, the Wizard with his personal power and the Lord with
his army then I, personally would say both should be able to be equally
strong. In COG II where I played Torele Anviras we had some extensive
discussions about battle magic (especially with the brililiant player of
Ghoere) ;-)

>>>>>I assumed him [Bannier] to be only a Magician and only to be able to do what he did by the power the Gorgon lent him.
>>>>>
>
>Hmmm, he 100% had sources, that much I know. I could see that you could make that arguement but I think he was a wizard. He did teleport and use several realm spells as well as magic jar.
>
Perhaps through the use of shadow magic like Azrais necromancers or the
lost?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Shade]

>You make spellcasters something comparable to
>a) dragons in the computer game Bard´s Tale IV/Dragon Tales? where each
>city had a dragon who, if release in case of an attack would destroy
>utterly both the attacking army and the city
>B) ballistic nuclear missiles in a balance of power which no one dares
>to break
>
>That heavily restricts spellcasters and therefore I do not like it at all.
>bye
>Michael Romes

Ok Michael,

Then how can you explain why the Gorgon hasn`t already killed Mhoried`s
entire army with spells? Gorgo is a level 16 wizard - he can memorize a
bunch of Abi-Dalzim`s Horrid Wiltings, Delayed Blast Fireballs, Cloudkills
and Ice Storms every day. Combined with teleport without error, fly, and
improved invisibility, I bet he could easily take out 15 units in the span
of a week with hit and run tactics.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 07:03, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> That is unlogical to me. When a class is in mid- to highlevel (wizards
> are certainly not too strong at low levels) so much more powerful than
> the other classes, then why is that not balanced out in the core rules?

Yes, precisely! I`ve wondered exactly that since the first day I ever saw
a D&D rulebook, more than twenty years ago. Who would design a game that
was so obviously, hideously unbalanced? I still don`t understand.
Because no-one had got past 4th level when the game started. And wizards
were limited to 11 levels not 20 or 25 or unlimited.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:26 PM 4/2/2003 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Yes, precisely! I`ve wondered exactly that since the first day I ever
>>saw a D&D rulebook, more than twenty years ago. Who would design a game
>>that was so obviously, hideously unbalanced? I still don`t understand.
>
>Because no-one had got past 4th level when the game started. And wizards
>were limited to 11 levels not 20 or 25 or unlimited.

There certainly were characters of those levels early in the game`s
development. In retrospect it seems obvious that certain things were
horribly imbalanced in early version of the rules--not just in D&D but in
other game systems too. To a large extent I think that`s just the nature
of the game being in its infancy, but I get a different impression whenever
I go back and read some of those old texts gathering dust on my
shelves. Many things were intentionally vague, and others were articulated
to a ridiculous degree. I think that reflected the biases of the early
designers who had their own interests and ideas that bled into the
rules. In the same way that several folks in the BR community have
expressed the view that blooded characters _should_ be out of balance with
the rest of the campaign setting, I think a similar kind of thinking went
into much of the early game`s development. Certain characters were meant
to be out of balance with others. Magic is probably the most obvious
example of that in the game, but there are several other things that could
be cited.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 07:10, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> One thing I`ve done in the past is limit wizards to casting true
> spells of a level equal to their source in the province. This makes
> them homebodies, keeps down the carnage, and gives me the feel I like.
> Outside their native range, a wizard is reduced to lesser magic,
> divinations and illusions mostly, like a magician.

Simple, elegant and highly effective. I like it a lot!
I would also do the same thing to priests by temple holding.


Ryan Caveney

I find it interesting (and no little strange) that D&D has come around
full circle in its development. Battle spells were the first use of
wizards and EHPs (although more at that time from the point of view of
such being monsters - antagonist NPCs).

BR Battle Magic was/is (IMO) over-powered, and, I don`t believe it was
even necessary given the advantages true wizards enjoy on the
battlefield. D&D is no stranger to large battles, although they went out
of style for many years. This example (from an original D&D supplement)
involves forces around the 1300-1500 strong with a number of specials
thrown in. This would be about 6-7 units per side in a BR battle. Magic
is highly effective, but not devastating. A fireball spell takes out
only 13 hobgoblins - but its use had potential morale implications for
the unit and units nearby.

Now Ryan, here is why you should come into the age of next generation
mail readers: I could embed a scanned graphic of some original works I
have - cutesy little army formations, elven spearmen, sub-commander
necromancer, fire giants, orc archers ... etc etc

Appendix C of Swords and Spells (Gary Gygax,, &copy; 1976 TSR Games), a D&D
supplement dedicated to all swords & sorcery gamers, past, present and
future, has an example of game play.

(part listing)
FORCES OF THE EVIL HIGH PRIEST
Unit troop armor wpn spec total
value val val val
The Evil high Priest (CO, 12th level) 30 160 --- 850 1040
Necromancer (sub-CO, displacer cloak) 25 --- --- 580 604
6(60) hobgoblins (elite, polearms) 450 360 60 --- 870

... (on the third turn)
At the beginning of the following turn the EHP is surprised to see a
fire ball crashing into the ranks of his hobgoblins, for the deceptive
fellow (a wizard) has completely ignored the cloud kill .... The
hobgoblins take over 20% casualties, but their morale remains good.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>...
>
>>A regulation to limit wizards in Birthrigh exists already. They earn
>>no GB from their source holdings as the only class, while all others
>>do from their approbiate holdings.
>>
>True -- but as I have said repeatedly, the domain level is not the
>problem. Wizards are actually the weakest class on the domain level IMO.
>The problem is the adventure level. There, high-level spellcasters are
>all-powerful. If adventure actions can have any influence on the domain
>level, however, then to the highest-level spellcaster go ALL the spoils.
>A single weekend spend invisibly whispering charm spells into the right
>ears could result in every single regent in Anuire investing their entire
>domains to High Mage Aelies in one fell swoop. Unless every regent has a
>magical defender as good as he is, Aelies can reach over and take control
>whenever he wants. Thus, IMO, at the very least we do need Chamberlain
>Dosiere to be an ancient and powerful wizard -- then HE could enforce the
>magical cease-fire, and maybe even keep the Gorgon out.
>
Charming, as you already mentioned in the "Llaedra incites civil war in
Urga-Zai" suggestion will not work as I see it and not here.
Charm spells do not last long. After they wear off the victim is aware
of what has happened.
Even if Llaedra would not use Charm Person (1 hour/level) but Charm
Monster (1day/ level) and use Extend Metamagic (if she has the feat) it
would last only 36 days or roughly one month - while anyone can use
Sense Motive to detect that the goblin king or whomever she charmed is
acting not in his best interest but being charmed (Sense Motive DC 25 p.
73 PHB).

In the meantime I have thought about your problem with the Urga-Zai
goblins ruling a realm next to Llaedra and not being extinct by now. I
came to this insight:
You are right, the goblins can´t survive if Llaedra chooses to scry for
the next goblin, teleport there and Meteor Swarm and repeat this every
day. As a suggestion I would say that Llaedra does not even know Meteor
Swarm because it would hurt trees - she has a comparable spell that lets
pine needles rain like in Iron Throne. No goblin or goblin party can
stand before her wrath.

Solution:
Llaedra= US airforce, can strike where and when she likes and has
superior recon capability with Scrying
Goblins= vietcong to have a comparable situation.

So, as only the Thurazor goblins are mentioned to have forsaken their
mountain lore to do timber cutting, I assume that Urga-Zai is an
underground realm. The goblins live in caves and caverns. Roughly hewn,
narrow passages and living quarters under the earth. Lines of lead and
other ores prevent scrying under the earth (as the DMG hints by having a
lead lined door prevent detection spells). Teleporting into that
situation would mean a high risk to either materialize in stone or to be
directly in a melee. Meteor Storm or Fireball would hurt you in close
quarters as well.

Goblins ascend to the surface only in the night, where their darkvision
beats the low-light vision of the elves. They use the trees as living
shields to avoid being targeted by spells based on fire (fireball,
meteor swarm).

That would mean that Llaedra might very well control the surface of
Urga-Zai from morning to evening, but that the goblins rule from dusk
till dawn by being able to tunnel where they want to strike (like the
goblins did in the novel greatheart into Sielwode.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary wrote:

> At 11:26 PM 4/2/2003 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>> Yes, precisely! I`ve wondered exactly that since the first day I ever
>>> saw a D&D rulebook, more than twenty years ago. Who would design a
>>> game
>>> that was so obviously, hideously unbalanced? I still don`t understand.
>>
>> Because no-one had got past 4th level when the game started. And wizards
>> were limited to 11 levels not 20 or 25 or unlimited.
>
> There certainly were characters of those levels early in the game`s
> development. In retrospect it seems obvious that certain things were
> horribly imbalanced in early version of the rules--not just in D&D but in
> other game systems too. To a large extent I think that`s just the nature
> of the game being in its infancy, but I get a different impression
> whenever
> I go back and read some of those old texts gathering dust on my
> shelves. Many things were intentionally vague, and others were
> articulated
> to a ridiculous degree. I think that reflected the biases of the early
> designers who had their own interests and ideas that bled into the
> rules. In the same way that several folks in the BR community have
> expressed the view that blooded characters _should_ be out of balance
> with
> the rest of the campaign setting, I think a similar kind of thinking went
> into much of the early game`s development. Certain characters were meant
> to be out of balance with others. Magic is probably the most obvious
> example of that in the game, but there are several other things that
> could
> be cited.
> Gary

Right. As I understood Ryan, no character, not even the Gorgon might be
so powerful as he is currently with his wizard levels, because if he
would be we can´t explain why he has not already taken over the world.

If we however weaken him so much that we do no longer have to explain
this, then we lose the dramatic tension of the evil, scheming
overpowerful enemy - something that in Lord of the Rings is brilliantly
done in my opinion. Noone, not even the elfs in Middleearth are capable
of defeating Sauron in the 3rd age or even have a chance of
succeessfully attacking him at the Barad-Dur. The only way to defeat him
is to destroy the large part of his power he stored in his ring.

What remains would be rulers of nearly equal power, where none is so
much more powerful than his neighbours that he could easily conquer them
by personal power alone.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:

> I find it interesting (and no little strange) that D&D has come around
> full circle in its development.

In some ways, yes. I am more a wargamer than a roleplayer anyway -- in
fact, my favorite Gary Gygax design is the board game "Alexander", about
the battle of Gaugamela and at one time published by Avalon Hill.

I am disappointed that the modern version of "Chainmail" has chosen the
Warhammer 40k-ish scale of one figure = one soldier, rather than the
larger unit scale of the original Gygax "Chainmail", but at least I have
BattleSystem.

> Battle spells were the first use of wizards and EHPs

Indeed -- wizards grew out of the artillery rules.

> BR Battle Magic was/is (IMO) over-powered, and, I don`t believe it was
> even necessary given the advantages true wizards enjoy on the
> battlefield.

I agree completely. It does make a nice thematic connection between BR
and something like the MicroProse/SimTex computer game Master of Magic,
and there is some logical basis for imagining a level of magic between
adventure magic and realm magic; but it makes the already most powerful
battlefield weapon even more potent, which is a really bad plan for
anyone who worries at all about balance.

> Now Ryan, here is why you should come into the age of next generation
> mail readers: I could embed a scanned graphic of some original works I
> have - cutesy little army formations, elven spearmen, sub-commander
> necromancer, fire giants, orc archers ... etc etc

You can embed the graphic if you like (but perhaps in a private email, to
prevent overloading folks who have slow download speeds and/or pay for
connection time/size), and I`ll view it in a separate program. =)
Are these pictures of minis on a table, or drawings?

> Appendix C of Swords and Spells (Gary Gygax,, &copy; 1976 TSR Games), a
> D&D supplement dedicated to all swords & sorcery gamers, past, present
> and future, has an example of game play.

This I would really like to see... we should talk more offline.

> Unit troop armor wpn spec total
> value val val val
> The Evil high Priest (CO, 12th level) 30 160 --- 850 1040
> Necromancer (sub-CO, displacer cloak) 25 --- --- 580 604
> 6(60) hobgoblins (elite, polearms) 450 360 60 --- 870

OK, so if I`m reading this right, the 12th-level priest is the equal of 72
of his elite hobgoblin soldiers. That`s probably about the right order of
magnitude, though I`d claim there has been some inflation over time of the
number of hobgobs a "12th-level" caster could take out.

> The hobgoblins take over 20% casualties, but their morale remains good.

Which is not that far off from the BR war card result -- this is just an H
result (the hobs probably have 3 hits, and even elites should usually
break and run when they take over 60% casualties), rather than an R; but
perhaps they have the "ignore F and R from magic" caveat that a number of
BR warcards do (which seems common for elite units of temple regents).


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Their [d20 Middle Earth] rule was that you can`t take two
> consecutive levels of the same spellcasting class.

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. Yes, I remain very
interested in all the variant magic systems others are working on, but in
terms of bang for the buck this tiny little rules change wins hands down,
and if I had to pick a 3e system to use tomorrow, this would be it. I`d
even be tempted to go further and say no more than half your class levels
can be from spellcasting classes...


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.