Bards, paladins, rangers and battle spells

[geeman]

At 12:24 PM 6/7/2003 +0200, A_dark wrote:

>Now, let`s talk about battlespells.

When it comes to magic on the battlefield I wouldn`t even include the
expansion of the magic system beyond the use of "conventional" spells that
are powerful enough to effect whole units. Battlemagic was an
ill-considered idea IMO that creates all kinds of loopholes and
problems. There are many types of conventional spells and magic items that
can have the kind of effect on the battlefield that battlemagic does, and
the 3e magic system does not make them very inaccessible, so adding to that
a whole new set of magic that gives _every_ spell in a spellcaster`s
repertoire the potential to be x200 (or so) more powerful than normal is a
bad idea.

Gary

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

[Mark_Aurel]

When it comes to magic on the battlefield I wouldn`t even include the
expansion of the magic system beyond the use of "conventional" spells that
are powerful enough to effect whole units. Battlemagic was an
ill-considered idea IMO that creates all kinds of loopholes and
problems. There are many types of conventional spells and magic items that
can have the kind of effect on the battlefield that battlemagic does, and
the 3e magic system does not make them very inaccessible, so adding to that
a whole new set of magic that gives _every_ spell in a spellcaster`s
repertoire the potential to be x200 (or so) more powerful than normal is a
bad idea.

Gary

I agree completely. Battle magic, for the most part, simply struck me as bad filler material that 2e books were always full of. (Not saying that 3e books aren't, but at least the 3e material has a better internal consistency and balance.) The reasoning for battle magic existing also always seemed to be rather dodgy - that spellcasters would "develop" an entirely new area of magic to deal with battles - as if their spells already didn't? And then apply a sort of quasi-industrial thinking to it - "if I can create a single fireball with a handful of bat guano, imagine what I could do with a wagonload of it!"

It would've been much better if they'd developed a few new spells that dealt specifically with battles and were at appropriate spell levels - not essentially first-level versions of meteor swarm renamed "rain of magic missiles" - which, by the way, seems a very "un-Birthrightish" concept to begin with. It's like something they got from Elminster's closet.

Wizards already have their fireballs and cloudkills and whatnot that are useful battlefield artillery spells. They do not need even bigger versions of those spells just so a 5th-level wizard can take out an army on his own.

[ConjurerDragon]

A_dark wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1701
>A_dark wrote:
>
...

>So, let`s say that we have a bard who is of sufficient level to cast the quite easy spell called Wall of Fog. Since the spell can be cast in battle, would you say that he wouldn`t be allowed to cast it in battle? The cards do not specify that a mage-cast Wall of Fog is to be treated any differently than a bard-cast wall of fog. (oh, something I forgot, I am having 2nd ed in mind throughtout this text)
>
2E Birthright had on p. 14 of the rulebook under the Bard description
that Bards have in Birthright a limited access to magic, different than
in the 2E PHB: "...They may learn spells only from the schools of
diviniation and illusion, and they can also cast spells in the school of
enchantment/charm by using ancient elven spell songs..."

Wall of Fog is from the Evocation 2E school, so no 2E Birthright Bard
can cast it, neither as conventional spell, nor as battle spell.

>So let`s say we have a 16th level bard who can cast quite many illusions divinations AND enchantments. Would you say that he cannot cast in a battle the spells: Massmorph, hallucinatory terrain or a programmed illusion?
>
Massmorph is 2E Alteration school - not available for 2E Bards in
Birthright.
...

>I personally see no reason why he should not be allowed. I do not find it at all imbalancing, mainly because bards and magicians are pretty weak classes in Birthright. As for rangers and paladins, they get spells too late in their advancement, so a 13th level paladin casting a Hammer Storm spell is not something imbalancing... especially since the oponent will usually have his own spellcaster too...
>
Hammer Storm is IMO a battle spell converted all wrong. Normally a
battle spell should be similar to the conventional spell. But Hammer
Storm is totally different from the conventional spell Spiritual Hammer:

Hammer Storm attacks ALL units in one battlefield square - Spiritual
Hammer attacks only ONE enemy, so the battle spell should also attack
only ONE unit.

>To answer an argument that had been raised regarding the mentioning of only the wizard and the magician in BOM, I would like to point that the author only mentions those two when he talks about conventional spells in battleground use, but it would be IMHO silly to tell a bard that he cannot cast the wall of fog on the battleground because BOM does not specifically mention it.
>
A bard in 2E Birthright can nowhere cast Wall of Fog - see above.
bye
Michael Romes

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

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Scott M. Baron wrote:
> Personally, I could see war-drums, pipes, etc, having an effect on the
> battlefield. The semi-spellcasting classes should have battlefield
> benefits, as well.

I don`t agree with this. Actually, I`d go further- battle spells are a
bad kludge, and should probably just be done away with. They were an
effort to make even low-level mages and priests a big influence on a
battlefield, even a first level wizard could cast a rain of magic missiles
down on a unit. Effectively, that 1st level spell was more powerful than
a regular area-effect spell like fireball cast by a much more powerful
wizard.

The attempt at balance was to give them a long casting time, 5 minutes
instead of the regular 1 spell/round (although a round was a minute in 2nd
edition, so it`s not that much longer). And to say "By the way, players
will want to use these in adventures as well as in battle, you should
disallow most of this, but not always." Poof, caster level restrictions
for powerful spells are pretty much meaningless. Yeah, they`re expensive,
and need a couple of apprentices and a wagon of components, but players
will come up with what`s necessary to get that stuff, and then try to
argue that they should be able to use them in adventures.

Besides, low-level spellcasters shouldn`t have a big effect on a
battlefield, any more than a low-level fighter should. You don`t see
special rules for levelled fighters to carve up a unit at a single go,
just so low-level fighter PCs can have a significant effect on a battle.
That`s rediculous. Now the Gorgon, or the High Mage Alieles, should be
able to respectively carve or blast their way through an army if they were
so inclined, and the army lacked appropriate high-level aid of its own.
Even a 10th level wizard or warrior could have a sizeable influence on a
battle, but the idea of creating a whole extra grouping of spells to
increase battlefield effectiveness is poorly conceived. If low-level
wizard regents want to have a big effect on a battle, they can do it
creatively, with low-level spells. Charm person on the enemy commander,
for example, might be a battle-winner.
--
Daniel McSorley

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

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, my opinion about the whole system is that, it seems to me as too restricting to say: "Sorry, you cannot cast this spell!" I mean, OK, you can cast a very powerful illusion or enchantment (and, unlike in 3e, enchantment was much more important), yet you cannot cast even the humble light cantrips? Come on! It would be more realistic if they had given the bard a restriction of spell levels per school of magic, or at least type (e.g., a bard can cast all evocation/invocation spells that evoke/invoke light, but do no damage, or something like that... You see what I mean.

[Kalien]

I also have a low opinion of battle magic for many of the same reasons already listed by others here, so I won't repeat them.

I am considering treating battle magic simply as standard magic with the addition of Circle Magic ability and the Co-Operative Magic feat. Essentially, both require a group of spellcasters co-operating together to improve one or more effects of a spell, whether it be area of effect, save DCs, range, or whatever. This allows spellcasters to crank out versions of standard spells that might have more utility on the battlefield but won't dictate (in most cases anyway) the course of the battle.

It ties in with the 2e idea that the realm wizard required a number of assistants and that battle magic took a while to cast, so flavour-wise it is consistent.

I haven't looked at it in detail yet though, so don't have anything concrete to post in terms of game mechanics.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 20:24, A_dark wrote:
This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:

http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1701

A_dark wrote:
Ok, first of all, I am his DM and that question and the thread are to
convinve me that he`s right :P

Secondly the issue is not about realm spells cos I am of the same opinion
as any of you that realm spells cannot be used by anyone short of a priest
and a mage.

Now, let`s talk about battlespells.

First of all, my understanding is that there are two kinds of battlemagic.
Conventional spells with battle use (eg Fireball) and researched battle
spells having a greater effect than the conventional
(eg Charm Person => Charm Unit)

The difference between the two categories is that in the battle cards
there are spells listed as being battle spells, like the aforementioned
Fireball or the Walls etc yet only in the BoM and BoP are the newly
researched spells, the expanded conventionals if you wish, mentioned.

There have already been a number of replies indicating the makeshift and
poor construction of battle spells. Quite rightly so too IMO. Battle
spells do seem to have been a poorly contrived way of combining the two
categories to form a common treatment esp. w.r.t. the war cards. The
second category (that of simple spells being "powered-up") is, as far as
I can see, meant to represent control of a greater number of casters
cooperating to cast the same spell simultaneously - or nearly so.

This means that a single character, no matter how high a level, could
not cast "rain of magic missiles", or "charm unit". But it also means
that a regent that commands a sufficiently large group of low-level
casters e.g. 20 priests, could have cast "charm unit" in unit combat -
regardless of the regents own character class(es).

So, let`s say that we have a bard who is of sufficient level to cast
the quite easy spell called Wall of Fog. Since the spell can be cast
in battle, would you say that he wouldn`t be allowed to cast it in
battle? The cards do not specify that a mage-cast Wall of Fog is to
be treated any differently than a bard-cast wall of fog. (oh, something
I forgot, I am having 2nd ed in mind throughtout this text)

The issue of Cerilian bards not being able to cast "wall of fog" has
been dealt with. However, it may be that you allow it in any case (I do
if the caster is blooded of sufficient strength for example).



So let`s say we have a 16th level bard who can cast quite many
illusions divinations AND enchantments. Would you say that he cannot
cast in a battle the spells: Massmorph, hallucinatory terrain or a
programmed illusion?

Such spells are meant as powerful "battle" spells and as such should
fall into the realm of battle magic.

I hope that so far I`ve managed to convince people that bards can
cast battle magic, since some of the spells used in battle are the
conventional spells and nothing more.

So how about him researching an actual battle spell? Is there something
prohibiting him from doing so? Since he can research a normal spell for
his own perusal, why should he not be allowed to research based on his
Charm Person spell the Charm Unit spell.

I personally see no reason why he should not be allowed. I do not find
it at all imbalancing, mainly because bards and magicians are pretty
weak classes in Birthright. As for rangers and paladins, they get spells
too late in their advancement, so a 13th level paladin casting a Hammer
Storm spell is not something imbalancing... especially since the oponent
will usually have his own spellcaster too...

A paladin regent with 20 priest helpers all of 3rd level could have
"Hammer Storm" cast in battle, although he himself may or may not
actually participate in the casting.

To answer an argument that had been raised regarding the mentioning of
only the wizard and the magician in BOM, I would like to point that the
author only mentions those two when he talks about conventional spells
in battleground use, but it would be IMHO silly to tell a bard that he
cannot cast the wall of fog on the battleground because BOM does not
specifically mention it.

So my conclusion is that the fact that the semi-spellcaster classes were
not mentioned specifically is (yet another) omission from the BR designers
and not an intention they had. I am willing to listen to arguments why
they shouldn`t cast spells, but arguments, not just personal opinions,
cos everyone is of course entitled to his own opinion :) but that
wouldn`t make me change my mind :)

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

[A_dark]

Erm, i think my point was missed because of my mistaken reference to spells that bards cannot cast.... So let me put the matter again...

Let us assume that in your campaign you allow Battle Spells. A bard can cast a programmed illusion on the battlefield producing an F result. He can do this alone, since the conventional spells used in battle require only one man.

A bard can get a couple of acolytes and helpers (who may not need be spellcasters.... my understanding is that he will do the invocation and the chanting and the helpers will manipulate the material components, read some texts and stuff, but they not need be spellcasters themselves) to cast a Battle Spell, like the Charm Unit. Even if he cannot research it himself, can he not find a mage's Battle Spell Spellbook and learn the spell from it?

Also, nobody said that the Battle Spells could be used in normal situations, due to the need to have helpers, the longer casting times etc...

Finally, I am talking about 2nd edition here and I am not interested in 3rd ed stuff, like the feat Battle Magic or anything like it :)

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...

As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people...

Anyway, my point is that I cannot understand why should bards be unable to cast a shatter spell, but be able to cast other, powerful spells from the schools of enchantment, illusion and divination? Really now, aren't divinators a DM's worst fear?

Finally, I like the idea of Battle Magic, but it should have been worked a bit (just like with the arcane spell failure for wearing armour, as opposed to people not being able to cast spells because of wearing armour). For example, the spell time could increase geometrically as the spell effectiveness increases numerically, effectively generating a cap for the increase of effectiveness of spells!

[ConjurerDragon]

RaspK_FOG wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1701
>RaspK_FOG wrote:
> Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...
>
Because he needs two hands for his musical intstrument?

>As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people...
>
And makes Rjurik Bards impossible who need to be lawful according to the
Rjurik Highlands book - but one can simply assume that the setting rule
overrides the PHB.

>Anyway, my point is that I cannot understand why should bards be unable to cast a shatter spell, but be able to cast other, powerful spells from the schools of enchantment, illusion and divination? Really now, aren`t divinators a DM`s worst fear?
>
Because Birthright is unique in that not all arcane spellcasters can
cast all spells. Only blooded Mages (=True Wizards) can cast all arcane
spells, other Mages (=Magicians) and others are VERY limited in their
spellselection. Giving a Bard a wider access to arcane magic than the
unblooded Magician would be counter-intuituive.
bye
Michael

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