What types of magic should there be in the BRCS?

[irdeggman]

Try this one instead. Since people were getting off topic or at least some said the poll was confusing. Let's see if we better capture the question here.

Please read this description since it helps explain what is going on.

For choice 1 - 3 tiers, but at the battle level it requires something special to have magic affect the battle. This would either be a separate list of battle spells or metmagiced standard one. Realm and non-modified std spells haveve no effect.

For choice 2 - 3 tiers, but similar to the 2nd ed system. That is battle magic is comprised of standard spells, realm spells and new battle spells

For choice 3 - 2 tiers, standard and realm magic. Only realm magic has an effect on battles

For choice 4 - 2 tiers, standard and realm magic. Only standard magic has an effect on battle, no special modifications required. Realm spells do not afffect battle.

For choice 5 - 2 tiers, standard and realm. Neither has an effect on battle.

For choice 6 - other. If you have another idea then list it and be specific.

[Osprey]

I voted for option 2, but I wanted to qualify that choice:

If choice #2 (Battle Magic w/ overlap of personal and realm magic) gets a significant number of votes, but the community remains fairly divided on the issue of whether or not to include battle magic at all (which seemed to be the case in the last poll), then there is another option:

Include Battle Magic as a completely optional addition (variant) ruleset. If personal and realm spells have a battlefield effect, Battle Magic isn't going to be a necessary addition, but it could be a good one for those who like the idea and system. There seems to be enough interest to at least do this, but there may also be enough votes against battle magic to insist that it is a default part of the BR campaign setting.

An Appendix section for Battle Magic might work very well.

************************************************** ****************

Whatever options are chosen, I'd also like to see a system where the Warcraft skill affects any sort of magic used on the battlefield, representing the strategic use of magic to best possible effect.

This might be something as simple as making a Warcraft check to affect the spell's DC in regard to unit Morale saves against it. This could be on a sliding scale, perhaps along the same lines as turning checks (-4 to +4). A well-placed fireball at the right moment (all of which could be summarized by a single Warcraft check) is far more devestating than a poorly placed and/or timed one.

It would be nice to improve the effects of well-placed, well-timed beneficial spells, too, but I'm less certain of how this might really work, as most enhancement spells will probably have static effects and harmless saves only.

Perhaps the modifier for beneficial spells could become a unit Morale bonus (or penalty, if poorly utilized) for the spell's duration?

Osprey

[graham anderson]

I dont seem to have the same problems as many say they have had with the old battle magic system probably because we always play very low level campaigns.

I would mention a few things I have thought about with these posts coming up.

To represent the harm caused by chanelling so much magic.

One possibility is that casting a battle spell costs an amount per level in xp along with any other costs.

Another that a spellcraft check must be made else suffer something like paralysis or con damage.

Battle spells must be memorised weakening a wizard in individual power during a battle.

I always liked the three teirs and still do but I think there should be definate risks involved. Battle magic is far to weak as it currently is so anything would likely be an improovement.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Feb 26 2005, 08:37 PM
I dont seem to have the same problems as many say they have had with the old battle magic system probably because we always play very low level campaigns.

I would mention a few things I have thought about with these posts coming up.

To represent the harm caused by chanelling so much magic.

One possibility is that casting a battle spell costs an amount per level in xp along with any other costs.

Another that a spellcraft check must be made else suffer something like paralysis or con damage.

Battle spells must be memorised weakening a wizard in individual power during a battle.

I always liked the three teirs and still do but I think there should be definate risks involved. Battle magic is far to weak as it currently is so anything would likely be an improovement.
Why would there be harm and xp cost in channelling battle magic when their is not such penalties when channelling the much greater amouns of magic involved with realm spells.

[graham anderson]

Why would there be harm and xp cost in channelling battle magic when their is not such penalties when channelling the much greater amouns of magic involved with realm spells.

Because realm spells take a month to cast along with needing leylines or sources which take even more time to prepare.

Battle magic needs to be cast very quickly on a battle field.

[RaspK_FOG]

I am pro having standard spells being capable to affect the battlefield, with the large notion that most spells would work differently if cast with the Battlemage feat or some such which would allow special entries (written for each spell separately) to play out on the field.

[Bokey]

I like option one, but I see a couple of major issues with it:

1) Sorcerers would have to pick battlespells as some of there very limited spells known slots. A sorcerer would therefore have to sacrifice useful adventuring spells in order to be effective on the battlefield, so basically you would have two different types of sorcerers- battle sorcerers and adventuring sorcerers, because they don't have enough available spells known to be effective at both.

For the same reason, I don't think option two is viable either, unless sorcerers get extra spellslots that must be spent on battlespells.

2) Requiring a feat would fix the issue, however what would be the justification? If I am a sorcerer that can cast fireball, I would wonder why my fireball wouldn't work on the battlefield until I learned how to become a battlemage. If I was out in the middle of a raging battle and saw a unit of archers forming up to rain missiles down on my position and therefore cast a fireball at the middle of there formation... only to find that they are immune because I haven't researched battlemagic. That would be ludicrious!

This same reasoning would also work for option three; why would a source holding be required to cast a fireball on the battlefield?

I agree with some of the posts from the previous thread, magic should have some effect, so that eliminates option 5.

That leaves us with option 4, which is how I voted. :unsure: Of course we will have to list how many hits a unit takes from spells, what the range in battlefield squares is, etc. I wanted to vote for option 1 (with the feat required) but I just couldn't do it.

[MorganNash]

I am very much torn between 2 and 4. I feel very strongly that standard spells should have an effect upon the battlefield but am uncertain as to how much of a (new) system for battlefield magic is required. Hmm ...

I think I'll have to go for option 2. Option 4 means losing a lot of the big stuff from the battlefield and it's just too interesting a concept to ditch. So, I'm voting for 2 and will try to lay out my opinions on how that system should work (in my opinion) if and when the vote moves the project in that direction.

It's all jolly exciting though, isn't it? ;-)

[Osprey]

1) Sorcerers would have to pick battlespells as some of there very limited spells known slots. A sorcerer would therefore have to sacrifice useful adventuring spells in order to be effective on the battlefield, so basically you would have two different types of sorcerers- battle sorcerers and adventuring sorcerers, because they don't have enough available spells known to be effective at both.

For the same reason, I don't think option two is viable either, unless sorcerers get extra spellslots that must be spent on battlespells.

Um...if Battle Spells are metamagic versions of personal spells (which is quite possible with Option 1 or 2, then a sorcerer can simply prepare battle spells in normal spell slots on the day of the battle.

This sort of Battle Magic actually gives sorcerers more power than they had before, as now their normal spells are given a whole new scale of effect - without sacrificing a single known spell exclusively for battle spells.

The main difference between options 1 and 2, as I understand it, is whether or not personal, battle, and realm spells are allowed to overlap or not.

In option 1, there is a strict delineation betweeen the 3 spell types:
personal spells = adventure scale only
battle = battle spells only (and maybe certain metamagicked personal ones? What's that about? Doesn't that pretty much ruin the simplicity of strict seperation of spells and their scales of effect?)
realm = domain scale only, no battlefield effect

In option 2, there can be overlap between all 3 levels depending on the spells cast.

I wouldn't assume, however, that the Battle Magic system will necesarrily end up being a reprint of the 2e system. I for one prefer a metamagic idea as described above, so that sorcerers don't get a raw deal and mages don't get spread even thinner in their spell research. It's bloody hard being a true mage in BR, I have little desire to make it even more challenging (like finding yet another suite of research options for them to spread through their domain actions).

Osprey

[Thomas_Percy]

OTHER

2 tiered system – standard/realm level. Standard spells have an effect on the battlefield without any modification. Realm spells have effect on battle, too. Because why not if battle takes place in the province with my source and I have a month for preparation.

I'm not an enemy of battle spells, but I see two ways to handle it:
1. As a variant rule
2. As an integral part of the system with a possibility of using it in the Sunless Citadel every other adventure.

I don't like partial solutions "I give you new power, but you cannat use in the swamps, I don't know why, but rules tell so". Every time I meet sth. like that in the game I ask DM "why", and if the only anwswer is "because it's a rule" I come back from the fictional world of rgp to the powergamers' workshop.

If player wants to use Subversion realm spell to Charm a goblin, that's his choice. My job as a rule maker and DM is trying to fereseight and balance every possibility of using of new powers.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 28 2005, 12:18 PM

In option 1, there is a strict delineation betweeen the 3 spell types:
personal spells = adventure scale only
battle = battle spells only (and maybe certain metamagicked personal ones? What's that about? Doesn't that pretty much ruin the simplicity of strict seperation of spells and their scales of effect?)
realm = domain scale only, no battlefield effect

Not really. The intent was that something had to be done in order to use a standard spell on the battlefield.

A metamagic feat (like the battle caster one) would make the spell cost more and have a longer casting time in order to increase the effect without using a higher spell slot (real similar to the spellsong feat for elves).

The point of option 1 was to lay some basic ground rules for an eventual subsequent vote - hence the TBD (to be determined) in there. Either there is a list of new spells (which would mess with sorcerers, IMO) or there is a metamagic feat required (which doesn't, IMO).

This allows a non-regent to have some spells that affect the battlefield.

[geeman]

I`m voting "Other" since I`m leaning towards a system that defines

"battlespells" as the effects of magic items that recreate the spell slots

of standard magic on the battlefield. To be as specific as possible, I`m

thinking that:



1. Many standard spells should have an effect at the "warcard" level. That

is, the effects of certain 1st-9th level spells should be reflected in

various stat changes (hits, morale, movement, whatever) on units of

soldiers over the course of the current combat.



2. "Battlemagic" is the effect of standard spells performed more times than

a single spellcaster could reasonably prepare them on his own. I think in

this context the idea can be abstracted a bit. It doesn`t really matter if

one assumes that a battlespell is an actual unique spell that rains

individual spell effects dozens or even hundreds of times upon a company of

soldiers because the spell itself has been cast using a more extensive

ritual and buckets of the appropriate spell components (per the original

battlemagic spell Rain of Magic Missiles, for instance) or if it assumed to

be the effect of a character using a magic item multiple times on the

battlefield (like expending all the charges from a Wand of Magic

Missiles.) Though that would influence the "spells known" if one were

concerned about the powers of sorcerers vs wizards. In any case, the

important things are that:



A. The effects of battlemagic are broader and more powerful than the

standard magic spells upon which they are based.



B. The costs of employing battlemagic are equated to the 3e system of magic

item creation. There should be a system of translating RP to XP for this

purpose (there should be one in BR in general IMO, for that matter) since

that seems to be a concern, and the costs should probably be noted in GB

rather than gp, but on the whole the basic idea is that even if one wants

to continue calling the battlemagic version of Magic Missile "Rain of Magic

Missiles" and assume that it is its own level of magic or if one wants to

portray the effects of a character bringing a Wand of Magic Missiles onto

the battlefield the end result is the same.



3. Realm magic should remain off the battlefield itself. Rather, it should

effect units, but the effects are the kinds of thing that occur off the

actual map during large scale combat resolution, either by altering the

stats/abilities of units before the battle takes place or removing units

from the battle entirely.



I might further differentiate between battlemagic and realm magic in scope

in that battlemagic might be assumed to affect units, while realm magic can

effect armies. That is, the effects of battlemagic might be limited to 1

company per battleround, while the effects of realm spells might be on as

many companies as the spellcaster wants and can afford to influence in GB/RP.



In the long run, I think handling the various types of magic like suggested

above will make for a more workable system that is balanced with the

existing rules (3e+) rules set, and is justified by both those rules and

the BR large scale combat system. What`s more, I think it`ll help things

like the transition between the adventure/character level of play and the

large scale combat level of play in that it suggests things like the amount

of damage taken by an individual character who accompanies a unit of

soldiers, and how that might be adjudicated.



Gary

[doom]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:00:11PM -0800, Gary wrote:

> I`m voting "Other" since I`m leaning towards a system that defines

> "battlespells" as the effects of magic items that recreate the spell slots

> of standard magic on the battlefield. To be as specific as possible, I`m

> thinking that:

>

> 1. Many standard spells should have an effect at the "warcard" level. [snip]

> 2. "Battlemagic" is the effect of standard spells performed more times than

> a single spellcaster could reasonably prepare them on his own [snip]

> The costs of employing battlemagic are equated to the 3e system of magic

> item creation.

> 3. Realm magic should remain off the battlefield itself. Rather, it should

> effect units, [snip] by altering the stats/abilities of units before the battle

> [snip]



The more I think about Gary`s proposal the more I like it.



#1. I am still convinced that item #1 doesn`t require a specific

treatment any more than the effects of a large/huge giant with an

enormous reach weapon and whirlwind attack requires a specific "effect"

different from the inclusion of a group of harpy heroes of equal EL

(and with equally devistating charm effects). EL/CR already

encapsulates personal "standard/conventional" power. Period.



The hero card abstraction works just fine to represent the fact that

all characters of equal level (and appropirate equipment for level)

contribute roughly the same "personal power" over the longterm of a

battle. Treating standard spells as somehow different opens a case

for individually EVERY character/monster power/ability at the

warcard level. That being said, it is certainly possible that the

HERO card bonuses may need revision.



#2 I think that I like this idea. This is a fine way to include a 2e

battlemagic feel (which is so beloved by some) in a "balanced" 3e

mechanic. It also would allow for the representation of effective

temporary increases in power (above that simply represented by

character level) for characters who are willing to expend charged

magical items (such as a wand of fireballs) to that effect. As all

such items have an XP cost (exactly to balance this power differential),

one could argue that this is a unique enough (and balanced) issue that

requires specific treatment.



#3 I agree fully.



- Doom

[Osprey]

A sinificant number of people are voting to keep personal spells off the battlefield, at least without being modified.

I am quite curious to hear the reasoning behind this. Are these votes in favor of "forget reality, let's just use a ruleset that keeps things simple and easily defined?"

I would understand if there were an argument that convinced me that normal personal spells are just too small-scale to have a significant impact on the battlefield. But a decent perusal of the PHB spell descriptions seems to defy this sort of logic. Which means players will come to the DM again and again and say, "I know what the rules say, but explain to me why my Storm of Vengeance, obliterating a 720' diameter circle area, has no effect on the battlefield?"

As a DM, the worst answer I could give is "because the rules say so. Don't argue with me."

What a load of crap - kiss my players' respect goodbye.

Blatant logic-defying rules = poor game design - no matter how much simpler they make things for game designers and DM's.

Consider carefully what you're voting for folks.

Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

I voted for keeping standard spells on the battlefield, although I'd prefer to keep realm spells away from the battlefield if possible. I don't consider transport and mass descruction to be battlefield spells though.

As I have mentioned in the previous vote, to keep Standard spells on the battlefield all you need to do is go through the player handbook and tick off any spell that could have a battlefield effect and then define exactly what that effect is. Perhaps a fireball does 1 hit of damage to a unit, a meteor storm might do 2 hits per meteor and so on.

I have already done this for my campaign and I'm sure others out there have ideas of their own. The idea that spells like storm of vengance, metor storm, or even fireball and the like don't have a battlefield effect defies logic as Osprey has pointed out.

[irdeggman]

My reasoning in keeping standard spells off the battlefield without some modification is as follows:

1 - the battle is an intermingling of 2 troops. The caster must be able to tell friend from foe and target appropriately. Hence the need for the battle caster feat. This reflects the skill and ability to focus the spell where it does the most good (either beneficial or harm) and has the least collateral effect. It would really suck if instead of giving the allies an advantage from by blasting the bad guys with a fireball the front 2 lines of allies took collateral damage.

I see part of the increased casting time (to reflect the difference in rounds between a standard round and a battle round) is used for selecting the right opening to apply the spell.

2 - Sorry Ian, but it is not quite as simple as you think it just doing a write up of the spells and how they work on the battlefield. Let's see the PHB has roughly 107 pages with triple columns of spell descriptions (mind you this is just the spell descriptions, not the individual spell lists). Subtracting 10 pages for miscellaneous artwork leaves close to 100 pages. Assuming a minimal amount of writing for each spell (at least a paragraph with effect, what the saving throw is/how it is handled, etc.) yields at least 30 pages in the present double column format (more likely 40). That does not handle any of the "new" "official" spells that WotC is publishing on a monthly basis. You know that players will want to include these also and if we don't include enough detail on how to "adjust" spells to fit it is just asking for trouble. I see this latter issue as the real sticking point. It was where 2nd ed failed miserably - by not providing sufficient guidelines for this adjustment. I forsee a lot of disagreement on how to make this adjustment for spell not written yet (can you say spell research :blink: ). I forsee a large disagreement on how to codify this process (that is guidelines for making standard spells work on the battlefield) plus then you have to account for how the various metamagic feats work on these spells.

3 - another thing to consider is game balance. There are far and away more arcane (wizard/sorcerer) spells with potential effect on the battlefield then there are divine ones - see Ian's list from before. Any system that so clearly favors a specific class (or two) is just not fair to the players. IMO - game balance is about balancing things so the players don't feel cheated.

4 - How do the standard effects of spells translate into battlefield effect? Damage - if we keep the simplified system of hits for units it makes things real difficult. Charms - how are these handled? Saving throws - will/fort/reflex? Which (if any) apply? Do we keep the simpified morale save system presently in the BRCS or determine individual saving throw types for each unit?

Part of the benefit of the 3.5 combat system is its simpicity (I know it doesn't seem that way, but once the old 2nd ed way of doing things is forgotten {as if we ever really could :lol: } it works much easier). Adding all of the above things into the battle system will start to create a "monster" IMO.

So Osprey - for those who really want to apply standard spells without modification - I say to think about what you are doing. Take a step back and look at the ramifications on the system to incorporate what you want. Are we on the verge of creating a monster that won't die? A little tweak here leads to a little tweak there and so on and so on. . .

I personally felt that the BRCS-playtest system for battle magic simplified things a great deal and aided in resolving wars quicker and eliminated the questions on what spells did what on the battlefield. I sought to further simplify things and instead it looks like it is going the exact opposite way and making things even more complicated and hard to handle. I see us on the verge of spelling out what every single spell does on the battlefield as well as how and why.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by Osprey+Mar 2 2005, 05:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Osprey &#064; Mar 2 2005, 05:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Blatant logic-defying rules = poor game design - no matter how much simpler they make things for game designers and DM&#39;s. [/b]
I agree. Completely.


Originally posted by Raesene Andu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raesene Andu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have already done this for my campaign and I&#39;m sure others out there have ideas of their own. The idea that spells like storm of vengance, metor storm, or even fireball and the like don&#39;t have a battlefield effect defies logic as Osprey has pointed out.[/b]
Can You paste this rules on this messageboard?
I&#39;m planning to do it myself, so Your work will be guideline and big help.


Originally posted by Irdeggman
the battle is an intermingling of 2 troops. The caster must be able to tell friend from foe and target appropriately. Hence the need for the battle caster feat.
A caster don&#39;t need any special feats if he is an adventurer and fights with 1d12 bugbears nad 2d6 hydras in a dungeon chamber regulary.

<!--QuoteBegin-Irdeggman@
Assuming a minimal amount of writing for each spell (at least a paragraph with effect, what the saving throw is/how it is handled, etc.) yields at least 30 pages in the present double column format (more likely 40). [/quote]
You can organize it in respect of a few typical effects on the battlefield. For example: hit, rout, charmn, fear, boost etc. and make a spell list for every effect.

<!--QuoteBegin-Irdeggman
I forsee a lot of disagreement on how to make this adjustment for spell not written yet (can you say spell research* ). I forsee a large disagreement on how to codify this process (that is guidelines for making standard spells work on the battlefield) plus then you have to account for how the various metamagic feats work on these spells.[/quote]
But it can be done and imho it must be done.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 2 2005, 08:33 PM
My reasoning in keeping standard spells off the battlefield without some modification is as follows:
In reply to this...

1. Most standard spells are not going to be cast at actual units in combat, or yes they are going to hit friendlies as well as enemies, but this is a problem with all magic cast into a combat situations even when you are dealing with a small group of PCs vs. a monster or two. To use a more modern example, an army does not fire artillary into a battle zone where its own troops are engaged in hand to hand combat with the enemy. The same would hold true with a wizard.

2. Not every spell is going to be used on a battlefield. I&#39;m not sure exactly how many spells are in the player&#39;s handbook, but I narrow my own list down to roughly eighty spells. You would probably get 10 to a page, so that is eight pages, plus a couple more to explain how to convert other spells.

OR

You could just provide rules for converting spells and then provide a few common examples (fireball, cloudkill, etc) and details on how they effect a battlefield. You might be able to squeeze something like that into five pages or so.

3. I haven&#39;t considered balance issues yet, but I don&#39;t believe that pretending wizards and sorcerers and their spells don&#39;t exist is the answer. They do, and yes they are generally more powerful spellcasters than priests, we can&#39;t change those facts.

4. I use saving throws (will/fort/reflex) with the actual values based on a unit&#39;s experience so a veteren units has a better chance of avoiding combat damage from spells than a green unit.

I&#39;m not overly concerned about this issue though. Yes I would like to see rules for dealing with standard spells included, but I already have my own system that I use for my games, so if it isn&#39;t included it doesn&#39;t bother me. I do think it has to a least rate a mention though, just ruling that all standard spells don&#39;t have a battlefield effect is going to cause problems IMO.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Mar 2 2005, 01:38 PM
wizards and sorcerers are generally more powerful spellcasters than priests, we can&#39;t change those facts.
Which doesn&#39;t means they are useless.
There are more clerics (and rogues, bards, experts) than wizards and sorcerers, so they can counterspell (Wand of Dispel Magic is the best) battlespells of arcane casters.

[irdeggman]

Ian, I think you already addressed my comment based on your statement saying how easy this was without realizing it. From what I gleamed from your write up – you characterized all troops with specific saves based on troop type (if it isn’t type specific it is going the wrong way IMO, armor type and whether or not mounted definitely affects reflex saves) and training of unit (e.g., green to elite). You included a write up of how each spell’s standard effect affects the unit. I have to assume that there are different effects based on what the spell does, e.g., charms, buff/debuff, damage, illusions, etc. So not only are there 10+ pages of spell descriptions necessary, there are pages of unit descriptions and more on how to handle the saving throws. Another thing that needs to be addressed is spell concentration and disruption. In the middle of battle how easy is it to disrupt the casting of a spell? If the assumption is that most spells are cast prior to engaging in melee then what about missile fire?

If standard spells are going to affect the battle without battle specific metamagic modification then what about other class abilities? Say the bard’s inspiration? Or the paladin’s aura? Can a cleric turn an undead unit? IMO these class abilities are best handled by the hero card and its effects, while not truly detailed it provides a bonus that is vague enough to cover most aspects and simple enough to allow a fairly quick adjudication of the combat.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy+Mar 2 2005, 09:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thomas_Percy @ Mar 2 2005, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Raesene Andu@Mar 2 2005, 01:38 PM
wizards and sorcerers are generally more powerful spellcasters than priests, we can&#39;t change those facts.
Which doesn&#39;t means they are useless.
There are more clerics (and rogues, bards, experts) than wizards and sorcerers, so they can counterspell (Wand of Dispel Magic is the best) battlespells of arcane casters. [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t assume that wands are as plentiful in BR as they are in other settings (Realms anyone?).

IMO characters with wands of fireball or dispel magic at the ready is just not very Brish.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy+Mar 2 2005, 06:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thomas_Percy @ Mar 2 2005, 06:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-Irdeggman
I forsee a lot of disagreement on how to make this adjustment for spell not written yet (can you say spell research* ). I forsee a large disagreement on how to codify this process (that is guidelines for making standard spells work on the battlefield) plus then you have to account for how the various metamagic feats work on these spells.
But it can be done and imho it must be done. [/b][/quote]
Are you offering to help to write this? :rolleyes:

[Ariadne]

I’m for including standard spells into battlefields and hey: I liked the “hit” system. Some arguments:

I’ve listed a small selection of “ordinary” PHB spells (no special spells of other books) and I would like to have a small reasonable comment, why those spells should NOT work on a battlefield:
Call Lightning/ Call Lightning Storm/ Lightning Bolt/ Chain Lightning
Flame Strike
Ice Storm/ Cone of Cold
Insect plague
Wall of Fire/ Thorns, Prismatic Wall
Mass: Bear’s Endurance, Cat’s Grace, Bull’s Strength
Cure light/moderate/ serious/ critical Wounds, mass
Mass heal
Creeping Doom
Earthquake
Storm of Vengeance
Blasphemy/ Holy Word/ Word of Chaos/ Dictum
Inflict light/moderate/ serious/ critical Wounds, mass
Fireball/ Delayed blast Fireball/ Meteor Swarm
Enlarge/ Reduce Person, Mass
Symbol of…
Transmute Rock to Mud/ Mud to Rock
Suggestion, mass
Hold Person/ Monster, mass
Charm Person/ Monster, mass
Shout, Greater
Horrid Wilting
Wail of the Banshee
Well, maybe I forgot the one or other spell, but I said, it’s only a selection. There are hundreds spells more than those in other books (my favorite is “Unearthly Beauty” [BoED]). I don’t see any reason, why I have to take a feat for being a “battle caster” if I’m a wizard or sorcerer. Those spells do their work, I think. It even can be seen, that a druid or cleric is nearly an equally good battle caster with the right spells at hand.

Even if it is said, that spells like Ice Storm aren’t large enough to affect the whole battlefield, a “hit” it should be. No average soldier has more than 10 hp, so even “only” 5d6 should blast a battlefield to pieces. Assume a sorcerer, a wizard and a druid casting simultaneously Ice Storm into different parts of the battlefield (and no, you don’t need “cooperative spell”, the DC should be high enough [there is no save :D ]), well I would say, show me a person (maybe apart from the general ;) ), who still is able to fight afterwards.

There might be the argument: Problem of keeping friend from foe, granted&#33; I think, most of the standard spells should be cast, before the troops meet each other (Meteor swarm for example has fitting the reach too, if I remember right). All other spells can be enhanced with metamagic to minimize friendly fire. Example: Alignment based spells&#33; Holy Word into a Goblin army will do wonder, or an “Purified Fireball” (BoED) is great, if the friendly army is in general good aligned. Same for the “evil” side say of the Gorgon: A lot of corrupted (BoVD, CD) what-evers will be perfect against “normal” foes. Other spells sort “friends/ foes” out more or less themselves: Mass Charm Monster or Mass Heal for example (all allies, all enemies or chosen by caster…).

Saves: Well, OK, another argument. Spells like Ice Storm don’t have any save to worry about. For others there can be “standard saves” integrated into battle cards (generally based on the fighter saves). The better the army, the better the saves. Maybe say ”Knights of Cuiraecen” have Fort: +6, Ref +3, Will +5 or whatever. This would be less work, than creating something more generally. If the “card” misses its save, say 80% of the soldier in that battle formation missed it and full effect&#33; Something like this…

Charms with the “hit” system? I think, treat it like confusion. 1/hit of the formation per charm does nothing or attacks their own people. 3 successful Mass Charm Monster for a 3 hit battle card and the unit is yours&#33; Maybe something this way&#33; Well, weren’t we creative all the years?

OK, one battlespell I can imagine would be very good if created: Resist Energy, mass ;)

[Osprey]

Unit Saving Throws

Units should retain a single value, Morale, for saving throws.

Jan and others have made some solid arguments for why magic could be so devestating as to cause a unit to lose half its fighting strength from a fireball - it&#39;s not the sheer casualties caused (which could only kill a small fraction of a unit&#39;s numbers, nowhere near 100 men out of a 200-man company of regulars). It&#39;s the devastating effect on morale caused by having 20 men burnt to a crisp in an instant.

When converting things from the adventure level to the battlefield, a degree of abstraction is necessary. The main difference is scale, of course - a unit isn&#39;t the same as one big creature, even if they have an EL similar of a 15th level PC.

Morale is most essentially a measure of a unit&#39;s courage, discipline, and the leadership ability of its commander. When something bad happens to a unit, including offensive magic, the morale of the unit is tested.

When a unit takes a hit of damage, it loses fighting effectiveness (-2 to attack and morale + rout check: this is using the bRCS warcard conversion system, and assuming that hit = less effective unit rule is in effect). In a regular company (2 hits), this would rarely mean 100 men were just slaughtered. It would mean that enough casualties lost due to death, injury, and desertion, and the overall demoralization of the unit, has reduced the unit to about 1/2 its original effectiveness and strength as a company.

Say a normal fireball does 1 hit of damage on a failed morale check, none on a successful morale check. Why? On a successful morale check, the unit still takes some damage, but not enough to count as a full hit (1/2 a regular company&#39;s fighting strength). The commander has rallied his men to stick together and press forward or hold firm, the troops swallow their fear and follow orders, and the unit survives mainly intact.

On a failed morale check, several things might happen: the majority of soldiers in the company become demoralized and disheartened, the commander can&#39;t keep a number of men from fleeing in terror at the sight of their comrades being incinerated, and there&#39;s a chance that&#39;s what left of the unit may flee the field entirely (rout check from taking a hit of damage).

Most standard troops will straight up fail any individual saving throws against magic. There&#39;s no question that any fireball will kill every 1st level warrior it hits, regardless of whether they individually make Reflex saves or not. The question is how much "damage" the unit takes as a whole.

Also, keep in mind that tough and more experienced units have higher morale saves already: better discipline, courage, and higher average saving throws all combine into this rating.

In the case of heroes or other important individuals within a unit, the effects on them should be determined normally. If a group of PC&#39;s or NPC&#39;s is targeted by a fireball, have them make Reflex saves normally, and take damage accordingly. This shouldn&#39;t be too difficult, since every player has extra concern for the fate of their PC, and every DM has concern for the fate of major NPC&#39;s. These sorts of characters are worth keeping track of.

Osprey

[doom]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:51:50AM +0100, Osprey wrote:

> I am quite curious to hear the reasoning behind this. Are these votes

> in favor of "forget reality, let`s just use a ruleset that keeps things

> simple and easily defined?"

> [snip] "I know what the rules say, but explain to me why my Storm of

> Vengeance, obliterating a 720` diameter circle area, has no effect on

> the battlefield?"

> [snip] Blatant logic-defying rules = poor game design - no matter how

> much simpler they make things for game designers and DM`s.



Rules exist to allow for a representation of chance with a certain

amount of willing suspenstion of disbelief. You claim that it is

unreasonable to argue that a Storm of Vengeance cast by a 20th level

caster shouldn`t immediately destroy the unit. Someone else might

claim that it is unreasonable that a 20th-level paladin leading a unit

couldn`t just charge around through the unit quickly decapitating all

of its officers (in short order) and then start in on the solider until

they rout or surrender. They are both (equally) valid positions and

the rules systems must address both positions consistently (that it,

without being blatantly logic-defying).



Even a 20th-level fighter has 5% miss chance when attacking a 1st level

adept with an AC of 8. Reasonable? It works. Likewise the power of

the "Heroes" of a unit should add to its effectiveness... but the

potential for mishap must still exist. One side has a wizard with

Storm of Vengance. Does the other side get off a volley of arrows (or

two?) before getting demolished? Do a couple of suicide scouts sneak in

and distrupt the casting? Heroes/officers from the other side? Does

an arrow strike a horse causing it to crash into the wizard as she

casts the spell? Elements of random chance should exist in all combat

(mass or individual). The unit combat rolls (or 2e card draws) take

this into consideration. Auto-results for spell effects do not. Again,

it may be the case that the Hero unit does not provide _enough_ bonus

for characters of a given level.



In short, I continue to argue that treating spells as somehow

different, unavoidable, and strictly more powerful than the combat

advantages provided by other heroes of equal power level is itself

"blatently logic-defying".



- Doom

[Osprey]

I voted for keeping standard spells on the battlefield, although I&#39;d prefer to keep realm spells away from the battlefield if possible. I don&#39;t consider transport and mass descruction to be battlefield spells though. (Raesene)

What about unit-enhancing spells? One of the really major potential benefits of unit-targeting realm spells is their ability to cast campaign-duration enhancement spells (ex: Bless Army). These are spells with durations in weeks (War Moves) rather than 1 or a few Battle Turns for battle magic. BIG diffference.

One of the major campaign effects this has is making realm spell casters irreplacable and distinct for the potential benefits they might provide to an army. Battle casters don&#39;t need to be blooded, and as a result are limited to affecting the course of a battle round by round, but not over the entire course of a campaign.

Unit-enhancing realm spells with durations in weeks thus have a realm level effect - a military campaign (which may include multiple battles, and is measured in weeks rather than battle rounds of 10-15 minutes) is definitely a realm-scale event, a battle is not. Hence, there is a distinct seperation of powers here, even if a battle caster can duplicate the specific effects of a realm spell for a short time.


[b]My reasoning in keeping standard spells off the battlefield without some modification is as follows:

1 - the battle is an intermingling of 2 troops. The caster must be able to tell friend from foe and target appropriately. Hence the need for the battle caster feat. This reflects the skill and ability to focus the spell where it does the most good (either beneficial or harm) and has the least collateral effect. It would really suck if instead of giving the allies an advantage from by blasting the bad guys with a fireball the front 2 lines of allies took collateral damage. (irdeggman)

Thomas Percy put it well enough: "A caster don&#39;t need any special feats if he is an adventurer and fights with 1d12 bugbears and 2d6 hydras in a dungeon chamber regularly."

At the adventure scale, spellcasters are granted perfect targeting abilities. A mage can lay out a fireball at exactly the target point desired to maximize enemy damage and minimize allied damage. It seems safe to assume, then, that any spellcaster can place a targeted spell exactly where he wants to, limited only by the spell&#39;s specific parameters (range, line of effect, etc.).

Ranged spells vs. unengaged enemy units = no-brainer. The only question is whether or not the caster targets the unit to greatest effect or not. targeting engaged units is definitely trickier, but given the way the 3.5 combat system works, it should be safe to assume that generally a caster can place the spell in the same way as normal combat: the fireball is centered to the enemy unit&#39;s rear, exploding mainly over their ranks while hitting few if any friendlies.

Distinguishing friend from foe on a fantasy medieval battlefield is fairly simple thanks to bright heraldic colors for different sides, easily-distinguished block unit formations, and sometimes troops of different races.

All that being said, I do agree that a caster&#39;s overall competence in matters of war and the battlefield should have some effect on his ability to use his magic to greatest effect when targeting entire units.

I think a Warcraft check would be the best measure of how effectively a caster can target an enemy unit. A high or low check result can then modifiy the Morale save of an offensive spell to reflect that expertise (or lack thereof). When targeting engaged units with area spells, a low check result should also result in collateral damage to a friendly unit. A clueless but powerful wizard could be a bad thing for both sides...


Re. descriptive text and space in the BRCS for personal spells on the battlefield. (irdeggman)

Many spells won&#39;t need extensive description since this is already provided in the PHB, just a brief set of conversion stats for the battlefield: Range, Target, Duration, Effect, Save.

Some spells can be grouped and given one set of guidelines for general effects. Wall spells might have similar effects when used as barriers, for instance.

And some spells will need specific descriptions of their effects on the battlefield, but I don&#39;t imagine most will need more than a paragraph or two.

In general, I am in favor of keeping the list of battlefield-affecting personal spells fairly short. Yes, there will be wrangling over what should or should not affect units, but so is there wrangling over everything else that is potential BRCS material. Don&#39;t run polls on individual spells, whatever happens. :rolleyes:

3 - another thing to consider is game balance. There are far and away more arcane (wizard/sorcerer) spells with potential effect on the battlefield then there are divine ones - see Ian&#39;s list from before. Any system that so clearly favors a specific class (or two) is just not fair to the players. IMO - game balance is about balancing things so the players don&#39;t feel cheated. (irdeggman)

Game balance can be viewed with many different lenses. In this case, it seems you are looking at the battlefield and saying, "Every PC should have equal potential effect on the battlefield."

I think this is a narrow view. The reality is that different classes are better or worse at different things in the overall scheme of a campaign. Mages are especially good at area and mass-effect magics. Let them be: they pay through the nose for this by being poor at just about everything else - personal combat, practical skills, and hit points are all weak because their magic is strong. Clerics might have less dramatic army-shaking magic, but they have far better durability and personal fighting prowess than wizards ever will - especially when they strat casting personal enhancement spells (ex: Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might) to make them even more potent as fighting priests.

Mages and clerics have different spell lists because their magic is well-suited to different tasks. Clerics are the ultimate party-support casters, mages the ultimate mass destruction monkeys.

With a Battle Magic system, what will happen is that far more clerics than mages will take the feat because they will benefit the most from having their spells expanded to affect entire units. Mages will do pretty well without battle magic, and be truly devastating when casting offensive battle spells. But given the [likely] exorbitant cost of such spells, I&#39;m willing to bet most gold-hungry wizards will opt for personal spells.

If a Realm Magic system allows long-duration (weeks) unit-enhancing spells, this has the most benefit for divine caster regents (see my expanded list of divine realm spells for some examples). This provides a balance on the realm magic scale that helps clerics even out with mages, each with a potential array of realm spells that play to their individual strengths as spellcasters. Take away unit-enhancing realm spells, and it is the cleric regents who will suffer the most, not the mages.


4 - How do the standard effects of spells translate into battlefield effect? Damage - if we keep the simplified system of hits for units it makes things real difficult. Charms - how are these handled? Saving throws - will/fort/reflex? Which (if any) apply? Do we keep the simpified morale save system presently in the BRCS or determine individual saving throw types for each unit?

If you&#39;re saying "it&#39;s impossible to make a system that has precise personal-battle conversion rules," then I&#39;d say you are right. Does this mean we can&#39;t provide guidelines and examples? Not at all. I think we can create a number of fairly striaghtforward guidelines that cover most of the magic system. If we lay enough groundwork, then DM&#39;s will have a good set of tools to deal with new spells, loopholes, and player questions.

See my previous post on Morale and damage, it answers my take on your questions.


So Osprey - for those who really want to apply standard spells without modification - I say to think about what you are doing. Take a step back and look at the ramifications on the system to incorporate what you want. Are we on the verge of creating a monster that won&#39;t die? A little tweak here leads to a little tweak there and so on and so on. . .

No one said it would be easy. But it&#39;s the right thing to do if we want a battlefield system without inherent contradictions of logic. We can&#39;t change the PHB magic system, so we must intelligently address its effects on the battlefield. Making a strict "no personal spells on the field" sort of rule without exceptions is a poor solution, no matter how much work it saves and how simple it makes things.


I personally felt that the BRCS-playtest system for battle magic simplified things a great deal and aided in resolving wars quicker and eliminated the questions on what spells did what on the battlefield. I sought to further simplify things and instead it looks like it is going the exact opposite way and making things even more complicated and hard to handle. I see us on the verge of spelling out what every single spell does on the battlefield as well as how and why.

I thought the BRCS battle magic system was too vague, abstract, and frankly, boring - it took away all of the color, drama, and details of mass-scale battle magic. Plus, as a mechanical system, I felt it failed to capture the potential range of effects that creative and strategic use of magic might have, lumping it all into unit enhancement bonuses.

D&D is all about spelling every last thing out in excrutiating detail. You think 3.5 combat and magic system is simplified? I don&#39;t think it&#39;s at all simple - it&#39;s extremely detailed and mechanical, so much so that it is BY FAR the most time-consuming element of any tabletop game. As characters and villains become more powerful, this fact becomes more and more apparent. By the time PC&#39;s are hitting high levels (15+), an average, challenging combat typically takes several hours of real time to resolve, while the actual fight lasts less than a minute in game time.

Does that sound simple to you?

What 3.x did to the D&D game system was not a simplification of the rules, it was a standardization and codification of them. Instead of seemingly arbitrary rulesets, they set up standardized, modular rules that were inherently logical and non-contradictory as much as possible. By creating such a system, they allowed for further extrapolation and adaptation for almost any setting and any house rules or unusual circumstances. This is the real appeal of the d20 system, IMO, and one of the main reasons it can be so easily adapted to different settings.

Osprey

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Mar 2 2005, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman &#064; Mar 2 2005, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Thomas_Percy+Mar 2 2005, 09:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thomas_Percy &#064; Mar 2 2005, 09:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Raesene Andu@Mar 2 2005, 01:38 PM
wizards and sorcerers are generally more powerful spellcasters than priests, we can&#39;t change those facts.
Which doesn&#39;t means they are useless.
There are more clerics (and rogues, bards, experts) than wizards and sorcerers, so they can counterspell (Wand of Dispel Magic is the best) battlespells of arcane casters. [/b]
Don&#39;t assume that wands are as plentiful in BR as they are in other settings (Realms anyone?).

IMO characters with wands of fireball or dispel magic at the ready is just not very Brish. [/b][/quote]
So, clerics have Turn/Rebuke undead ability.
A kind of attack that can be used against undead and evil outsider units in the line of effect without a chance of harming engaged allies.
Evil cleric can bolster undeads too.
That&#39;s another strong side of clerics on the battlefield.
<!--QuoteBegin-Irdeggman

But it can be done and imho it must be done. [/quote]
Are you offering to help to write this? :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
I will do it, absolutely, but for a typical D&D medium-magic setting.

As I said a few times later, I doubt non-modified D&D system will work in a low-magic world. Example: high level non-spellcasters are item dependent. If I don&#39;t give them magic items they will be weaker then spellcasters and helpless in the combat with eg. demons. If I give them magic items, they will be stronger than rest of the world. If I enhance the rest of the world... I must create a setting second time in fact.

[irdeggman]

I’ve listed a small selection of “ordinary” PHB spells (no special spells of other books) and I would like to have a small reasonable comment, why those spells should NOT work on a battlefield:
• Call Lightning/ Call Lightning Storm/ Lightning Bolt/ Chain Lightning
• Flame Strike
• Ice Storm/ Cone of Cold
• Insect plague
• Wall of Fire/ Thorns, Prismatic Wall
• Mass: Bear’s Endurance, Cat’s Grace, Bull’s Strength
• Cure light/moderate/ serious/ critical Wounds, mass
• Mass heal
• Creeping Doom
• Earthquake
• Storm of Vengeance
• Blasphemy/ Holy Word/ Word of Chaos/ Dictum
• Inflict light/moderate/ serious/ critical Wounds, mass
• Fireball/ Delayed blast Fireball/ Meteor Swarm
• Enlarge/ Reduce Person, Mass
• Symbol of…
• Transmute Rock to Mud/ Mud to Rock
• Suggestion, mass
• Hold Person/ Monster, mass
• Charm Person/ Monster, mass
• Shout, Greater
• Horrid Wilting
• Wail of the Banshee
Well, maybe I forgot the one or other spell, but I said, it’s only a selection. There are hundreds spells more than those in other books (my favorite is “Unearthly Beauty” [BoED]). I don’t see any reason, why I have to take a feat for being a “battle caster” if I’m a wizard or sorcerer. Those spells do their work, I think. It even can be seen, that a druid or cleric is nearly an equally good battle caster with the right spells at hand.

Yup sure did – how about bless? It has a blast radius of 50 ft – larger than a fireball. Or prayer – blast radius of 40 ft.


Most of these spells would have a severe problem due to duration. When measured in standard rounds the times for a battle round don’t equate very well. For simplicity let’s say a battle round is 10 minutes. A combat round is 6 seconds that means there are 100 combat rounds in a single 10 minute battle round. Most of the buff spells (bear’s endurance, cat’s grace, etc.) last 1 minute per level. A 10th level caster could get these spells to last for a whopping single battle round.

Another is the range of the spell. For example call lightning range 100 ft + 10 ft/level – so a 10 level druid could reach a distance of 200 ft. How much space does a unit take up? Where in the friendly unit is the druid located? If he is not surrounded by protectors he is dead. Call lightning also has the duration issue going against it 1 minute/level so a single battle round for duration. Call lightning storm ahs a longer range so that probably isn’t an issue, duration is though. Lightning bolt affects those in a straight line stating at the caster’s fingertips and going out 120 ft – oops there goes the allies. Chain lightning affects too few target – one primary target plus one secondary target/level ( a 10th level caster can obliterate 10 opponents)

Flame strike - too short a range and small area of effect. 10th level caster can reach 200 ft away and affect a 10 ft radius. Half the area of effect of a fireball affecting approx 25 individuals.

Cone of cold – how close is the caster? Range is 40 ft. Caster is dead but first he kills his allies in front of him.

Insect Plague – Range and coverage is good, duration is too short – 10th level caster gets about 1 battle round.


Wall spells – range is too short – 10th caster can reach out 200 ft.

Mass cure spells – while I think they can sufficiently target those who need it the most, others don’t. Range must be the unit the caster is in (10th level caster can reach 50 ft away) and number affected is 10. The range prevents the inflict spells from being effective, basically the caster is up front and personal when casting (and soon to be dead because of this – 50 ft away)

Creeping doom – range is too limited the maximum distance of any swarm is 100 ft from the caster.

Earthquake lasts for 1 combat round. While range and area of effect are good enough, the immediate effect – stopping those affected from moving or attacking for 1 combat round is negligible. The other effects, e.g., falling into fissures in the ground are interesting and likely would work.

Fireball spells have pretty much been beaten to death and are the most logical ones to use on the battlefield.

Meteor swarm – pretty much the same as fireball, except wider area of effect.

Symbol spells – range 0. Dead caster – also takes 10 minutes per spell to cast (1 battle round). If set as a trap the night before than any creature moving within 60 ft will set off the symbol.

Transmute spells have too short a range (10th level caster can reach out 200 ft)

Suggestion, mass – back to the too few affected (per the masses on the boards) also the range is awful short – 10th level caster can reach out 200 ft. Now the other factor is that those affected must be able to hear and understand the suggestion, kind of hard in the heat of battle, trumpets and all.

Mass holds – duration is too short. A 10th level caster can get the spell to last 10 combat rounds, not even a single battle round.

Shout, greater – after taking down the caster’s allies in front of him, he is dead. Range is a 60 ft cone.

Horrid Wilting seems to fit all criteria for effect on the battlefield, range, area of effect, etc.

Wail of the Banshee – range is too close. An 18th level caster (minimum to cast) can reach out a total of 65 ft – 25 ft + 5 ft/2 levels) and affect 1/level – total of 18. Also affects all creatures in area, including allies. So after caster kills his allies the foes close unopposed and kill him.




Even if it is said, that spells like Ice Storm aren’t large enough to affect the whole battlefield, a “hit” it should be. No average soldier has more than 10 hp, so even “only” 5d6 should blast a battlefield to pieces. Assume a sorcerer, a wizard and a druid casting simultaneously Ice Storm into different parts of the battlefield (and no, you don’t need “cooperative spell”, the DC should be high enough [there is no save ]), well I would say, show me a person (maybe apart from the general ), who still is able to fight afterwards.

We were talking about a single caster here right and not a group of casters? That changes things dramatically if there is a group of spell casters doing their thing.




There might be the argument: Problem of keeping friend from foe, granted&#33; I think, most of the standard spells should be cast, before the troops meet each other (Meteor swarm for example has fitting the reach too, if I remember right). All other spells can be enhanced with metamagic to minimize friendly fire. Example: Alignment based spells&#33; Holy Word into a Goblin army will do wonder, or an “Purified Fireball” (BoED) is great, if the friendly army is in general good aligned. Same for the “evil” side say of the Gorgon: A lot of corrupted (BoVD, CD) what-evers will be perfect against “normal” foes. Other spells sort “friends/ foes” out more or less themselves: Mass Charm Monster or Mass Heal for example (all allies, all enemies or chosen by caster…).

Well here it looks like some rationalization is being made to try and make the spells fit into the battlefield. If spells are cast prior to the battle, then what about missile fire? Shouldn’t archers and artillerists be able to make their attacks before the initiative order is started? They have ranges that are if not as good at least in the ballpark of the spells so that they can attack prior to the actual battle too. And this should have a chance of disrupting the spell being cast shouldn’t it? Using the time difference between a combat round and a battle round (6 seconds vice 10 minutes) there are approximately 100 combat rounds in a single battle round. That means a wizards could discharge his entire repertoire of spells before the battle has even started. No balance issues here.




Saves: Well, OK, another argument. Spells like Ice Storm don’t have any save to worry about. For others there can be “standard saves” integrated into battle cards (generally based on the fighter saves). The better the army, the better the saves. Maybe say ”Knights of Cuiraecen” have Fort: +6, Ref +3, Will +5 or whatever. This would be less work, than creating something more generally. If the “card” misses its save, say 80% of the soldier in that battle formation missed it and full effect&#33; Something like this…

Not really that easy since every unit type has different advantages as do different cultures, and training.


Charms with the “hit” system? I think, treat it like confusion. 1/hit of the formation per charm does nothing or attacks their own people. 3 successful Mass Charm Monster for a 3 hit battle card and the unit is yours&#33; Maybe something this way&#33; Well, weren’t we creative all the years?


Range for charm spells – 25 ft + 5ft/2 levels and the opponent must be able to understand the caster. I think this puts the opponents too close for any real effect here. An 18th level wizard can reach out 65 ft and affect 36 hit dice worth of creatures (twice caster’s level). If a unit has 200 individuals then the first casting gets the closest 36 (maybe) and while the caster is talking to them the rest move up and kill him. 36 aren’t going to be able to even slow down 167.

[OsricIlien]

Wow, this is a very convoluted question. I voted on option 2, I think that PHB spells have a place on the battle field.

However I think Duane has a point with the limit on durations and range of certain spells. Part of how I have been leaning of fixing that is to allow for Battle spells that replicate certain spells on the battelfield. Some spells will not work well as they are written in the PHB some will. The one&#39;s that can be used should be allowed to. However they should have the same time limit of the rest of the battle. Wizards should not be able to cast 100 spells during the time one battle round occurs.(or some such amount) One spell per caster per battle round.

[Osprey]

In short, I continue to argue that treating spells as somehow
different, unavoidable, and strictly more powerful than the combat
advantages provided by other heroes of equal power level is itself
"blatently logic-defying".

- Doom

Mages are quite different from a heroic melee fighter, which are quite different from a rogue or bard or cleric. Spells are a very different form of power than combat prowess or sneak attacking. I hesitate to lump all spells together, as they are incredibly diverse within themselves. This apparent with the sorcerer, whose particular selection of spells known has a dramatic impact on their battlefield effectiveness. A stealth/illusion/enchantment focused sorcerer might be a devestating political and espionage character, but would be woefully out of place on a battlefield. An equal-level sorcerer who is focused on mass-effect spells and metamagic feats would be far better on a battlefield, yet both technically have the same EL/CR.

EL/CR take into account characters&#39; net total utility as adventurers, not as battlefield personas. Skills and other non-combat functions play into these power ratings, which is one of the reasons I don&#39;t think the CR system translates as smoothly as you would have us believe.

That, and I think the particular powers and abilities of heroes should matter. See sorcerer example above. Also, consider a fighter who chooses a majority of battlefield-affecting feats: Whirlwind Attack, Cleave and Great Cleave, Improved Overrun, and the whole range of tactical feats from Complete Warrior...compare this to the dedicated "max. damage" sort of fighter, who&#39;s all about uber-specialization, power attacking, and other sorts of abilities designed to inflict maximum punishment on powerful individual opponents.

If character classes were a bit more standardized, I think there would be more justification for your stance: "All characters of equal level are of approximately equal power on the battlefield." It might be nice to believe this to be so, I just think it ignores all of the very relevant details that could [and should, IMO] make a big difference in mass combat situations.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

D&D is all about spelling every last thing out in excrutiating detail. You think 3.5 combat and magic system is simplified? I don&#39;t think it&#39;s at all simple - it&#39;s extremely detailed and mechanical, so much so that it is BY FAR the most time-consuming element of any tabletop game. As characters and villains become more powerful, this fact becomes more and more apparent. By the time PC&#39;s are hitting high levels (15+), an average, challenging combat typically takes several hours of real time to resolve, while the actual fight lasts less than a minute in game time.

Detail is only spelled out because of rules lawyers, like us. D&D combat is explicitly a vague and abstract. That is one of the arguments and topics of discussion dating back to 1st ed. I agree with the robustness of the d20 mechanic and despite what some people think when 4th ed does come out I believe it will still be a d20 mechanic but some things will be changed, the spell system and armor for example. But I do believe most things will only be changed in a minor way because of the strength of the d20 system itself.


Does that sound simple to you?

Compared to 2nd ed, yes. We used weapon speeds and I can tell you for a fact that combat lasted longer using that system then the present one. The main reason the present system takes so long is basic familiarity with it and not due to the system itself. Add to that the fact that on a monthly basis there are literally 20+ new things to consider (feats, spells, prestige classes) from WotC and other sources.


What 3.x did to the D&D game system was not a simplification of the rules, it was a standardization and codification of them. Instead of seemingly arbitrary rulesets, they set up standardized, modular rules that were inherently logical and non-contradictory as much as possible. By creating such a system, they allowed for further extrapolation and adaptation for almost any setting and any house rules or unusual circumstances. This is the real appeal of the d20 system, IMO, and one of the main reasons it can be so easily adapted to different settings.

Yes and no – see above for my discussion (and agreement) with the strength of the d20 mechanic.


As a DM, the worst answer I could give is "because the rules say so. Don&#39;t argue with me."

What a load of crap - kiss my players&#39; respect goodbye.

Blatant logic-defying rules = poor game design - no matter how much simpler they make things for game designers and DM&#39;s

How did your players respond when 3.5 drastically changed the spells from their 3.0 versions? Did your players’ respect fall because of the rules changes? Most notably affected was the haste spell – it specifically was rewritten to eliminate the casting of 2 spells per round since that was unbalanced. IMO the exact same logic applies when trying to explain why standard spells should operate differently on the battlefield.


At the adventure scale, spellcasters are granted perfect targeting abilities. A mage can lay out a fireball at exactly the target point desired to maximize enemy damage and minimize allied damage. It seems safe to assume, then, that any spellcaster can place a targeted spell exactly where he wants to, limited only by the spell&#39;s specific parameters (range, line of effect, etc.).

And here is a common misconception based on the use of grid maps. The character knows exactly the effects of his spell as least as far as randomness will allow, I agree with that. That is to say a wizard who knows fireball knows that it affects a radius of 20 ft and does damage in the range of XXXX and that he can cast it up to YYY distance away. But the character does not automatically know how far away his target is. The caster “You point your finger and determine range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst.”

Characters don’t come with laser range finders and many people, myself included, have been eyeballing the grid maps to determine a range that best works. Sometimes players start to visibly count squares prior to casting instead of being stealthy about it. The grid map is not actually there – which is something people like to conveniently forget when performing casting spells or using ranged weapons for that matter. Measuring distances has long been a point of contention in games I’ve played in for years. Generally we don’t have problems when a player says he is trying not to hit his allies with a fireball, as long as he isn’t trying to actively maximize the effect – that is trying to fit in as many opponents as possible without hitting any allies. Basically the character either does the most damage or minimizing risks to his allies. Again, this is something that relies on house-rules to adjudicate.

[Azrai]

Magic is exceptional in Cerilia and it creates strong effects also in battles. The 2. Edition rules worked fine so I would leave them.

A special battle spell system would maybe be illogical.

[Osprey]

And here is a common misconception based on the use of grid maps.
I don&#39;t think this is a misconception at all, it&#39;s the natural consequence of using grid maps in the first place. You can&#39;t expect players not to count the 5&#39; squares right in front of their eyes. And thanks to the 3.x &#39;one man per 5&#39; square&#39; rule, it&#39;s fairly impossible to play a tactically-detailed combat without a grid.

So yeah, I think it&#39;s fair to assume that spellcasters end up having precise control of their spell targeting in 3.5 D&D.

If they did not want this to be the case, they could have used grenade-type rules instead (ranged touch attack, miss = random scatter).

[doom]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:17:14AM +0100, Osprey wrote:

> ------------ QUOTE ----------

> In short, I continue to argue that treating spells as somehow

> different, unavoidable, and strictly more powerful than the combat

> advantages provided by other heroes of equal power level is itself

> "blatently logic-defying".

> - Doom

> -----------------------------



> Mages are quite different from a heroic melee fighter, which are

> quite different from a rogue or bard or cleric. Spells are a very

> different form of power than combat prowess or sneak attacking. I

> hesitate to lump all spells together, as they are incredibly diverse

> within themselves. [snip]



> That, and I think the particular powers and abilities of heroes

> should matter. See sorcerer example above. Also, consider a fighter who

> chooses a majority of battlefield-affecting feats [snip]



I agree that the particular powers and abilities of heroes _should_

matter, but there is no metric by which to measure such effectiveness.

Again, I have no problem "measuring" the effectiveness of combat

oriented spellcasters so long as the combat effectiveness of other

types of mass combat oritented characters are given equal

consideration. Would you agree that it is a problem if all a wizard

needs to do is to have "fireball" in his spellbook (a very minor cost,

overall) in order to provide a significant advantage over a mass combat

specialized fighter of equivalent level?



> If character classes were a bit more standardized, I think there

> would be more justification for your stance: "All characters of equal

> level are of approximately equal power on the battlefield." It might be

> nice to believe this to be so, I just think it ignores all of the very

> relevant details that could [and should, IMO] make a big difference in

> mass combat situations.



I have no disagreement in principle. In reality, however, there are to many

variables to make a "detailed" system. CR/EL is good enough for XP award, it

should be good enough for determining mass combat bonuses. That being said,

the EL system does allow for some DM "fudge factoring" based on situation.

It would probably be very appropriate to make the effective level of a court

intrigue oriented bard one or two levels less than his actual Character Level.

Likewise, the warmage might have a bump or two in effective contribution to

a battlecard over the run-of-the-mill ranger. These sorts of calls would be

easy enough for a DM to make on a character by character basis without adding

additional levels of complexity overall.



- Doom

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 3 2005, 05:10 PM
If they did not want this to be the case, they could have used grenade-type rules instead (ranged touch attack, miss = random scatter).
I think that creating new redundant rules to make life of mages more difficut is not a good idea.
Spellcasters have enough difficulties at battle.
Concentration DC
10-Vigorous motion (on a moving mount, taking a bouncy wagon ride, in a small boat in rough water, belowdecks in a stormtossed ship).
15-Violent motion (on a galloping horse, taking a very rough wagon ride, in a small boat in rapids, on the deck of a storm-tossed ship).
5-Weather is a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet.
10-Weather is wind-driven hail, dust, or debris.

And don&#39;t forget about sad thing, that spellcaster as a most dangerous "weapon" on the battlefied is a primal target for archers, crossbowmen and various "commando" groups equiped with flaying mounts, magical items, nets etc.

[Ariadne]

Yup sure did – how about bless? It has a blast radius of 50 ft – larger than a fireball. Or prayer – blast radius of 40 ft.
Errr, yes. Those two spells should be included too, naturally…



Most of these spells would have a severe problem due to duration. When measured in standard rounds the times for a battle round don’t equate very well. For simplicity let’s say a battle round is 10 minutes. A combat round is 6 seconds that means there are 100 combat rounds in a single 10 minute battle round. Most of the buff spells (bear’s endurance, cat’s grace, etc.) last 1 minute per level. A 10th level caster could get these spells to last for a whopping single battle round.

Another is the range of the spell. For example call lightning range 100 ft + 10 ft/level – so a 10 level druid could reach a distance of 200 ft. How much space does a unit take up? Where in the friendly unit is the druid located? If he is not surrounded by protectors he is dead. Call lightning also has the duration issue going against it 1 minute/level so a single battle round for duration. Call lightning storm ahs a longer range so that probably isn’t an issue, duration is though. Lightning bolt affects those in a straight line stating at the caster’s fingertips and going out 120 ft – oops there goes the allies. Chain lightning affects too few target – one primary target plus one secondary target/level ( a 10th level caster can obliterate 10 opponents)

Flame strike - too short a range and small area of effect. 10th level caster can reach 200 ft away and affect a 10 ft radius. Half the area of effect of a fireball affecting approx 25 individuals.

Cone of cold – how close is the caster? Range is 40 ft. Caster is dead but first he kills his allies in front of him.

Insect Plague – Range and coverage is good, duration is too short – 10th level caster gets about 1 battle round.


Wall spells – range is too short – 10th caster can reach out 200 ft.

Mass cure spells – while I think they can sufficiently target those who need it the most, others don’t. Range must be the unit the caster is in (10th level caster can reach 50 ft away) and number affected is 10. The range prevents the inflict spells from being effective, basically the caster is up front and personal when casting (and soon to be dead because of this – 50 ft away)

Creeping doom – range is too limited the maximum distance of any swarm is 100 ft from the caster.

Earthquake lasts for 1 combat round. While range and area of effect are good enough, the immediate effect – stopping those affected from moving or attacking for 1 combat round is negligible. The other effects, e.g., falling into fissures in the ground are interesting and likely would work.

Fireball spells have pretty much been beaten to death and are the most logical ones to use on the battlefield.

Meteor swarm – pretty much the same as fireball, except wider area of effect.

Symbol spells – range 0. Dead caster – also takes 10 minutes per spell to cast (1 battle round). If set as a trap the night before than any creature moving within 60 ft will set off the symbol.

Transmute spells have too short a range (10th level caster can reach out 200 ft)

Suggestion, mass – back to the too few affected (per the masses on the boards) also the range is awful short – 10th level caster can reach out 200 ft. Now the other factor is that those affected must be able to hear and understand the suggestion, kind of hard in the heat of battle, trumpets and all.

Mass holds – duration is too short. A 10th level caster can get the spell to last 10 combat rounds, not even a single battle round.

Shout, greater – after taking down the caster’s allies in front of him, he is dead. Range is a 60 ft cone.

Horrid Wilting seems to fit all criteria for effect on the battlefield, range, area of effect, etc.

Wail of the Banshee – range is too close. An 18th level caster (minimum to cast) can reach out a total of 65 ft – 25 ft + 5 ft/2 levels) and affect 1/level – total of 18. Also affects all creatures in area, including allies. So after caster kills his allies the foes close unopposed and kill him.

Time too short, range too close. Yes, good argument&#33; But you forget, that I only counted the “for battlefields” usable spells (offensive spells). Most spells are available from 12th to 17th character level, so any spell will last min. one combat round. Call lightning: Yes, it might last only one round, but you must take the damage times 10 and over the complete battlefield (10 rounds and you can call lightning every “normal” round).

Another thing is, I never mentioned any protection spells, a caster might have cast on him personally. An “ordinary” druid, who can cast creeping doom will do it wild shaped into a falcon (or whatever he prefers, maybe a finch or air elemental at higher levels) from above the battlefield (range say 50 ft., allies in the way: zero). Yes he needs a feat for casting spells in wild shape, but that’s a very low prize for SUCH an advantage. A cleric of this level in troubles has still the option to “recall” himself home. If a wizard can cast meteor swarm or wail of the banshee I’m pretty sure, he can cast fly/ overland flight, Improved Invisibility, Stoneskin, Teleport/ Greater Teleport/ Dimension door or even prismatic sphere as well (and don’t forget contingency/ chain contingency). Maybe it’s some kind of uncool flying invisible over the battlefield throwing fireballs, but hey, it’s save&#33; For the duration: If you have more of those spells at hand (for example as a sorcerer) or even with magic items you can do it longer than one round. If you only have “overland flight”, don’t throw your fireballs on the archer battalion, if you don’t have DR or “Protection from arrows” as well ;) &#33; Next thing is, that “Extend spell” or “Widen spell” might get really useful here…

Casters dead? Well, maybe, more for sure not (oh yes, concentration should be maximized out and combat casting is a good choice too). 100% guarantee for being unharmed: No, but I can say, with the right preparation there is a very good one.

[irdeggman]

Call lightning affects one or more 5 ft wide by 30 ft vertical strikes. That is each lightning bolt will hit a single creature (i.e., 1 - 5 ft square) not the entire battlefield. There is a limit of a total of 10 bolts so only 10 cretures can be destroyed, regardless of the level of the caster.

As I pointed out many many of these spells affect a cone or direct line from the caster forward - hence they will either damage freindly units "protecting" the caster or force the caster to leave a swath of open space between him and his target.

Remember the point was to have standard spells working non altered (that is no special modifications to them.) Yes the caster can take feats to make things better - but you didn&#39;t ask that question you wanted to get an explanation of why the standard spell wouldn&#39;t work on the battlefield - which is what I supplied. If "special" circumstances are to be used, e.g., flying, invisible caster, special protective wards, etc. things are way different.

So if using the modifications you have suggested I am assuming that Elminster is the wizard taking on the army. :rolleyes:


Now as far as teleport, dimension door and the like - as written in the BRCS these spells cause a trip through the shadow world - so that is another whole risk issue here.

Combat casting and concentration won&#39;t save a wizard from being overrun by an army they only keep him from losing the spell he was casting. And if the wizard is functionng in normal cmbat rounds (i.e., can cast 100 spells per battle round) then the army should be moving in normal combat rounds too and will close the distance so quickly the wizard&#39;s head will be torn from his body. Remember the cone and straightline effect spells I pointed out earlier? They will reduce the protection put in front of the caster.

[Osprey]

If "special" circumstances are to be used, e.g., flying, invisible caster, special protective wards, etc. things are way different.

But for a mid-level or higher spellcaster these effects can become quite ordinary aspects of the caster&#39;s spell repetoire. Wizards can always scribe a few extra spells before the battle just to make certain they have enough backup for things like invisibility, fly, dimension door, etc.

Teleporting may be risky, but it&#39;s a lot less risky than facing entire companies of soldiers while alone.

You may not like the thematic quality of flying invisible wizards hurling death from above, but unless you&#39;re willing to edit all of these "high magic" spells (i.e., spells with dramatic, highly visible supernatural effects) out of the Birthright setting, we must accept that casters can and will use whatever spells most benefit them in a given situation.

One of my PC&#39;s, an arcane trickster with a wand of fireballs, did exactly what several folks have hypothesized: he had Improved Invisibility, Stoneskin, Fly, and a high-charge Wand of Fireballs. If you&#39;re firing a fireball per round while flying at 60&#39; per round, no archer unit will have the reflexes to adjust and guess where you are in the air. Truth is, even if they&#39;re trying, only a stray arrow here or there has even a chance of hitting you, and stoneskin or just protection from arrows will pretty much negate this problem.

What does that leave? Enemy heroes/villains/monsters, esp. enemy spellcasters.

What I did IMC was to allow personal magic to be really devestating when used in smart ways (another character had Imp. Invis, a Staff of Frost, and Dimension Door...brrr, the damage done was atrocious). Basically, I decided most troops really have little to no recourse against invisible, mobile spellslingers...leaving it to enemy NPC&#39;s and nasty creatures to be the real challenges, which could then be resolved as a "zoom in" personal combat within the battle (as I do for all hero vs. hero encounters on the battlefield).


BTW, before the wrangling over what spells should, could, or should not affect the battlefield, let&#39;s not waste our energy and instead agree on a few common parameters, like the size of a unit, grid size, typical battlefield ranges, and the actual duration of a battle turn. Once those basics are done, we will have set some firmer foundations to do some constructive discussion and debate as to what should work how. OK?

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Osprey,

We need to add to the list whether or not we are conducting personal level actions (i.e., combat rounds where all actions are individual) or battle system (where rounds are longer comprising of many smaller individual actions that have a cumulative effect which is reflected in the abstract total action). If all actions are personal then there are approx 200 individual actions being conducted by a unit (charging, attacks, readied actions against apellcasters, etc.).

I guess it is just easier for me to handle a rare arcane magic setting becasue of all the years of playing Dark Sun - where casting arcane magic drew the life out of surrounding things, first plants and then eventually sentients for the higher level/powered spells. Casting took longer and was harder becasue the world was basically a desert and there weren&#39;t many plants (due to the over/mis-use of arcane magic in the past) and alost all arcane casters were "considered" evil by the general populace and forced to keep theri skills "hidden".


It does seem like those making the strongest argument for using standard spells (unmodified) on the battlefield are those playing a Forgotten realms-version of Birthright though. ;) Where PCs fly while invisible and wield wands of fireballs routinely.

[MorganNash]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 4 2005, 10:34 AM
It does seem like those making the strongest argument for using standard spells (unmodified) on the battlefield are those playing a Forgotten realms-version of Birthright though. ;) Where PCs fly while invisible and wield wands of fireballs routinely.
From my point of view (as someone who considers the Forgotten Realms as the least impressive of all of the D&D settings - it&#39;s just too "squeaky-clean, elven, high-magic, nobody-gets-muddy, everybody-rides-dragons" for me), I would sum up my feelings thus:

The 3.5 rules make it relatively simple for a Wizard to fly around, turn invisible and lay the smackdown with a wand of fireballs. It is purely an expenditure of some moderate amounts of GP and a relatively small outlay of XP (one decent adventure and you&#39;ve won back your investment).

As stated by others, there is no necessity in the "adventuring" aspect of D&D 3.5 for a wizard to be "battle-trained" before he can use his spells in a fight. Consequently, I see no reason why a Wizard in BR should not be able (according to the rules) to fly around invisibly and immolate large portions of a battlefield. If that Wizard character wishes to expend the XP, GP and time to create 20 wands of fireball, he can do it. The rules say so - adventure to gain XP, spend it on wand, adventure to gain XP, etc. If that Wizard plans to be part of an invasion in two years time, it seems a pretty obvious plan. I don&#39;t, personally, like it but the 3.5 rules make it possible and this is all about the 3.5 rules.

However, I also accept that this should probably not be standard activity in a large-scale BR battle. Arcane magic is relatively rare and it would alter the flavour of the game-world to have every battle affected quite so easily by standard magic spells and items. So then ... to prevent standard magic spells and items from having a significant effect on the battlefield, does there need to be an amendment to the core rules of magic to prevent this in the BR game-world?

I also perceive (rightly or wrongly) a difference of view amongst the people on the forums (fora?) concerning the "Battle system" itself. I was initially looking at it from the viewpoint of a wargamer who wants to see it all played out, with every manoeuvre and action catered for in the rules and the tactical flair of the commanders playing a crucial role (not to mention some role-playing&#33;). But the "battle system", I think, isn&#39;t really about that - it&#39;s about producing a fairly quick method to determine the outcome of a battle given the troops on the ground.

Perhaps, then, the actions of a high-level Wizard (or whatever) could be simulated by the use of a "hero card" or somesuch? Something that can be weighed against the strengths of a unit of soldiers. Perhaps the whole concept of rules for spells that affect the battlefield is unnecessary? If you want detail, just play out the battle using the 3.5 rules with all of the role-playing and colour that you like - if you want it quick and easy, treat the Wizard like a simple set of stats as with all of the units present.

Dunno - probably just stating the obvious here or missing a vital point. Thought that it was worth saying, though. I am still very undecided on this whole issue.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3010

>

> irdeggman wrote:

> Osprey,

>

>We need to add to the list whether or not we are conducting personal level actions (i.e., combat rounds where all actions are individual) or battle system (where rounds are longer comprising of many smaller individual actions that have a cumulative effect which is reflected in the abstract total action). If all actions are personal then there are approx 200 individual actions being conducted by a unit (charging, attacks, readied actions against apellcasters, etc.).

>

>I guess it is just easier for me to handle a rare arcane magic setting becasue of all the years of playing Dark Sun - where casting arcane magic drew the life out of surrounding things, first plants and then eventually sentients for the higher level/powered spells. Casting took longer and was harder becasue the world was basically a desert and there weren`t many plants (due to the over/mis-use of arcane magic in the past) and alost all arcane casters were "considered" evil by the general populace and forced to keep theri skills "hidden".

>

>It does seem like those making the strongest argument for using standard spells (unmodified) on the battlefield are those playing a Forgotten realms-version of Birthright though. ;) Where PCs fly while invisible and wield wands of fireballs routinely.

>

I would suggest to make a distinction between army units and PC´s or

"named" NPC´s.

Army units are cannonfodder which moves as a unit on the battlefield in

formation and, in the course of the longer battleround, can inflict hits

on other units. As these are all relatively unimportant peasants they

deserve nothing more. They are still an important element to win a

battle between armys, but the individuals in those army units are not

the focus of the interest.



If PC´s however and important NPC´s are on the battlefield, they should

have a role that is more decisive. Either as part of a group of

adventurers for lowlevel casters and warriors or casting spells in battle.



You could make everything personal, even the actions of 100 NPC archers

- but what would be the fun of that? Then you could as well roll dice

for one of the 50 knights horses bite attack ...

bye

Michael

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3010

>

> Osprey wrote:

>

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>If "special" circumstances are to be used, e.g., flying, invisible caster, special protective wards, etc. things are way different.

>-----------------------------

>But for a mid-level or higher spellcaster these effects can become quite ordinary aspects of the caster`s spell repetoire. Wizards can always scribe a few extra spells before the battle just to make certain they have enough backup for things like invisibility, fly, dimension door, etc.

>Teleporting may be risky, but it`s a lot less risky than facing entire companies of soldiers while alone.

>You may not like the thematic quality of flying invisible wizards hurling death from above, but unless you`re willing to edit all of these "high magic" spells (i.e., spells with dramatic, highly visible supernatural effects) out of the Birthright setting, we must accept that casters can and will use whatever spells most benefit them in a given situation.

>

>One of my PC`s, an arcane trickster with a wand of fireballs, did exactly what several folks have hypothesized: he had Improved Invisibility, Stoneskin, Fly, and a high-charge Wand of Fireballs. If you`re firing a fireball per round while flying at 60` per round, no archer unit will have the reflexes to adjust and guess where you are in the air. Truth is, even if they`re trying, only a stray arrow here or there has even a chance of hitting you, and stoneskin or just protection from arrows will pretty much negate this problem.

>

>

As an arcane trickster I assume that he had not had the feat to create

the wand himself? Then in Birthright he would likely have had no wand as

Wands of Fireball are not for sale everywhere, nor to be found in

treasure as often as their market price is higher. Just a curious

question as I´m not that familiear with 3.5 rules: I know that a

spellcaster casting a spell would have to roll a concentration check not

to lose the spell under unfavourable circumstances, e.g. violent motion.

Is fast flying such a motion and would the use of a magic item underly a

similar restriction?

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Nope using a wand is a simple action, it is a spell trigger item. In fact using a wand in melee doesn&#39;t even generate an Attack of Opportunity. It does however take a standard action to do.

[Ariadne]

It does seem like those making the strongest argument for using standard spells (unmodified) on the battlefield are those playing a Forgotten realms-version of Birthright though. ;) Where PCs fly while invisible and wield wands of fireballs routinely.
Better say: Those who understand the BR setting as a standard PHB magic system and no bloodline empowered middle age simulation :D

Well, I’m far away from liking FR (meeting an 20th level wizard at every corner, Yeah&#33; How realistic&#33;), but I’m of the opinion, in a fantasy setting there must be some kind of magic to make it “cool”, “interesting” or simply out of normal. That’s why I prefer a setting, where you CAN get resurrected, IF you find a cleric, who can do it (normally only, if a PC plays a cleric, but so what) and naturally I see at least every PHB spell as “normal” and “available”, if a PC or NPC has the fitting character level. If I want to have a middle age simulation, I can go to those different middle age meetings and need not to play roleplay… ;)

I played Dark Sun too for some time, and I didn’t have a problem to play an elf preserver/ rogue (Arcane Trickster). If your bluff check is maximized out, it’s hard to be detected. And if? Well: Teleport, Dimension Door and Improved Invisibility are a good choice here too… ;)

And to use Teleport, Improved Invisibility and Fly you needn’t to be Elminster ;)

[Osprey]

As an arcane trickster I assume that he had not had the feat to create
the wand himself? Then in Birthright he would likely have had no wand as
Wands of Fireball are not for sale everywhere, nor to be found in
treasure as often as their market price is higher.

Higher market prices for magic items isn&#39;t default for BR, just an optional variant in the BRCS.

Just because wands are rarer and not commonly for sale doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s impossible to ever lay your hands on one. If the PC can&#39;t make one, there are certainly mages throughout Cerilia who could. This is only a 3rd level spell, after all, meaning only a 5th level wizard is needed to make one. The character was around 13th-14th level at the time, as I recall.

I say only in a relative sense. There may not be thousands of true mages kicking around in Cerilia, but those that do exist seem to be moderate-high level more often than not.

This particular PC was a graduate of the Royal College of Sorcery, as well as a professional burglar. Acquiring expensive and unusual items, especially magical ones, is a specialty of his. He had the connections to at least be able to try and commission a lesser magic item from a RCS mage once in a blue moon - paying a hefty fee, of course (about 2 x market price IMC). I do believe he got a few very useful wands there.

The Wand of Fireballs, however, was taken off the corpse of a felled mage...it might have been the Sword Mage&#39;s in fact, if memory serves me.

Expendable items really don&#39;t seem all that awe-inspiring and WOW in effect...because you know they&#39;re just going to burn out and become useless, so why get attached?

I tend to believe that staffs, being so expensive and useful, should not be burn-out items, but rather I allow them to be recharged by someone who could make the staff in the first place (proper caster level and spells, Craft Staff feat) - they pay 1/2 the normal creation costs and time to recharge an expended staff.

This also allows staffs to be much rarer items because old burnt-out ones don&#39;t need to be replaced periodically - and it creates great incentive for a PC to take that Craft Staff feat (which PC casters almost never take in my experience - they just cost too much to make if non-rechargable).

[irdeggman]

Speaking of recharging magic items - Unearthed Arcana had a house Rule on rechargin magic item (pg 159) basically the caster recahrgin it had to meet all rerequisites, pay an up front 10% of the items price and then calculate a % of the remaining cost to recharge based on how many charges were left. Pretty much if there was less than 10% of the charges left it was better to craft a new one,
pretty good house rule by Andy Collins.

[Osprey]

I know that a spellcaster casting a spell would have to roll a concentration check not to lose the spell under unfavourable circumstances, e.g. violent motion.
Is fast flying such a motion and would the use of a magic item underly a
similar restriction?

Well, in the example I gave, he was using the fly spell. That means he has a fly speed of 60&#39;, allowing him to fly 60&#39; as a move action, plus execute a standard action. Gaining a fly speed in 3.5 means you gain an alternative form of mobility as if it were natural (more or less) - for the spell&#39;s duration. If this sort of movement forced a Concentration check just to move, the spell description would surely mention it. "Fast" flying would be a hustle (x2) at 120&#39; per round - which would allow either a charge at the end or be a full-round action in and of itself. So if he moves that fast, it precludes any magic item/spell use anyways.

Most every magic item except scrolls are "quick and dirty" types that require very little on the user&#39;s part, usually just a standard action that doesn&#39;t provoke Attacks of Opportunity - which means they don&#39;t require total focus or Concentration checks to use successfully.

Concentration checks don&#39;t come into play all that often unless it is regular for spellcasters to always be under extenuating circumstances (casting during thunderstorms, while being attacked or threatened, in the middle of a roll in the hay...some bards I&#39;ve seen, man... :lol: ). Or if you have a really harsh DM who thinks a Concentration check is like a standard skill check just to get a spell off at any sort of speed. Ouch.

[Green Knight]

I voted "Other" using the following assumptions:

1. Magic-users are no more effective overall than other characters of the same level. And if they are, then it is perhaps the magic-users that need fixing...remeber that DnD is a dungeon-crawling-hack-and-slahs type game, and characters are balanced for that, not for fighting battles.

2. I don&#39;t want hundreds of little priestlings casting stupid game-breaking battle spells. Don&#39;t get me wrong, because I really like battle spells, but the system needs fixing.

So I end up wanting a system where:
1. Character level magic doesn&#39;t have specific effects on the battlefield.
2. Realm magic affects things both on and off the battlefield
3. Battle spells could be 0-level realm spells. This makes it a viable option for regents, but keeps it out of the hands of the masses.

B

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Green Knight@Mar 8 2005, 02:23 AM
I voted "Other" using the following assumptions:

So I end up wanting a system where:
1. Character level magic doesn&#39;t have specific effects on the battlefield.
2. Realm magic affects things both on and off the battlefield
3. Battle spells could be 0-level realm spells. This makes it a viable option for regents, but keeps it out of the hands of the masses.

B
Basically what you wanted was the following and not "other":

3. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (only realm spells affect the battle)

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll. Here are the results:

1. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level. (Battle magic is different – either separate spells or metamagic std ones {TBD}. Realm and unmodified std spells have no effect on Battlefield) [ 8 ] [30.77%]
2. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level. (Similar to the 2nd ed system with std, realm and special battle spells affecting battle) [ 10 ] [38.46%]
3. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (only realm spells affect the battle) [ 0 ] [0.00%]
4. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (standard spells have an effect on the battlefield without any modification. realm spells have no effect on battle.) [ 5 ] [19.23%]
5. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (no spells affect battle) [ 0 ] [0.00%]
6. Other – please be as specific as possible [ 3 ] [11.54%]
7. Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]


I&#39;m going to post a follow-up poll with the top 2 choices to see how things fall when there are fewer choices to make.

[geeman]

At 04:44 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

]

>I`m going to post a follow-up poll with the top 2 choices to see how

>things fall when there are fewer choices to make.



That seems like a very reasonable way to handle the results of the

polling. A poll with as many options as possible becoming what is,

effectively, a run-off kind of election sort of thing. In the absence of a

clear victor the options with the fewer votes are eliminated so that those

who voted for a less popular option can still get a voice in the final

result and the choices can be more clearly delineated.



I`d also suggest that either before a polls is started there should be some

discussion of the issue in order to get as many of the possibilities as

possible outlined for the poll, or anything more than a few votes for

"Other" should trigger a rewrite of the poll automatically since it seems

as if "Other" votes by definition are about things not expressed in the

existing options that should be part of it. If the "Other" voter then

posts a viable choice for the poll then it would seem logical to assume

that the poll itself is incomplete and should be revisited.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Mar 14 2005, 02:00 PM
At 04:44 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

]

>I`m going to post a follow-up poll with the top 2 choices to see how

>things fall when there are fewer choices to make.



That seems like a very reasonable way to handle the results of the

polling. A poll with as many options as possible becoming what is,

effectively, a run-off kind of election sort of thing. In the absence of a

clear victor the options with the fewer votes are eliminated so that those

who voted for a less popular option can still get a voice in the final

result and the choices can be more clearly delineated.



I`d also suggest that either before a polls is started there should be some

discussion of the issue in order to get as many of the possibilities as

possible outlined for the poll, or anything more than a few votes for

"Other" should trigger a rewrite of the poll automatically since it seems

as if "Other" votes by definition are about things not expressed in the

existing options that should be part of it. If the "Other" voter then

posts a viable choice for the poll then it would seem logical to assume

that the poll itself is incomplete and should be revisited.



Gary

There have been ample opportunities for people to express their opinions regarding "other". That is why I say be as specific as possible and keep thepolls running for at least 2 weeks.

As far as when "Other" becomes a large percentage, that does indeed trigger a "new" poll. I believe that is what will end up happening with the duration of a round poll since "other" is currently running rather high in the results.


I only consider the results definitive when there is a clear majority result in the poll. That is one option is more than twice the number of the next closest.


I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at least I believe I have been.

That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for editior in chief was run.

[geeman]

At 08:14 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>There have been ample opportunities for people to express their opinions

>regarding "other". That is why I say be as specific as possible and keep

>thepolls running for at least 2 weeks.

>

>As far as when "Other" becomes a large percentage, that does indeed

>trigger a "new" poll. I believe that is what will end up happening with

>the duration of a round poll since "other" is currently running rather

>high in the results.



As has been recently pointed out, people are not going to sift through all

the posts in order to find one that might present a viable "Other" option,

and it`s not reasonable to expect one person to devise a poll that covers

all those options just out of the blue. Instead, they`ll vote for the

options presented. Either some discussion before the poll, or redoing the

poll when a new option is presented are going to create polls that are

complete.



>I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at

>least I believe I have been.

>

>That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for

>editior in chief was run.



Well, I`m afraid that`s a pretty good example of not interpreting a poll

very well. That particular poll had nothing to do with interpreting the

results of other polls. It`s easier (and more sensible) to interpret the

results of that polls as people indicating that they would like someone (no

other person was listed as an option) to continue working on an

update. That`s not the same as saying that the poll results have been well

devised and accurately interpreted.



Gary