Unnoficial magicians guide

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Jun 30 2004, 08:41 AM
It wasn't a rule in 2nd ed sorry I was wrong but it should have been how can the magicians channel the mabhaigl required it doesn't make any sense. They shouldn't have access to it if you can explain why they should I will change it otherwise I will alter it to say they cannot in the base class.

For one in 2nd ed they assumed that many standard spells affected units as written. For example Fireball, the Hallucinatory Terrain, etc. Things that affected areas were considered to have an effect on a unit (i.e., a battlefield effect).

Also there was the helpers issue. It may have required more power to get the battlefield effect for some spells (rain of magic missiles for instance) but that drawing of the power was spread over a number of people instead of asingle individual.

In the BRCS it is assumed that the battle spells are more a skill based thing and not a pure power (i.e., mebhaigl based) issue. In the BRCS it is how you use the spell that counts not the specifics of the spell. That is why there is a feat involved.

[graham anderson]

For one in 2nd ed they assumed that many standard spells affected units as written. For example Fireball, the Hallucinatory Terrain, etc. Things that affected areas were considered to have an effect on a unit (i.e., a battlefield effect).

Yes area affects affect all within that area.

Also there was the helpers issue. It may have required more power to get the battlefield effect for some spells (rain of magic missiles for instance) but that drawing of the power was spread over a number of people instead of asingle individual.

I am still very dubious it smacks of an attempt to make magicians more tempting to players. It doesn't realy fit with the idea of lesser magic.

In the BRCS it is assumed that the battle spells are more a skill based thing and not a pure power (i.e., mebhaigl based) issue. In the BRCS it is how you use the spell that counts not the specifics of the spell. That is why there is a feat involved.

That is very dubious if thats the case why can't magicians cast fireball they could just increase their skill and learn to do it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Jun 30 2004, 09:53 AM

In the BRCS it is assumed that the battle spells are more a skill based thing and not a pure power (i.e., mebhaigl based) issue. In the BRCS it is how you use the spell that counts not the specifics of the spell. That is why there is a feat involved.

That is very dubious if thats the case why can't magicians cast fireball they could just increase their skill and learn to do it.

You are confusing things here. In the BRCS the actual spell in question doesn't matter. All spells have their effects reduced to a modifier to a unit's stats (see pg 130 of the BRCS and the feat is on pg 26).

This does not mean that a magician can cast a fireball, only that he can cast a spell that has a similar effect on a unit's stats.

One of the reasons for this reduction to set effects was to reduce the amount of DM fiat required to ejudicate a game. Otherwise a DM must figure out what every possible spell (cast by any caster) can do in a battle. Have simplified/standardized game effects is also in line with 3.5.

Something else to consider is how is divine magic affected by you outlook on battle magic? Can a non-blooded cleric cast a battle spell? The concept is the same.

[graham anderson]

You are confusing things here. In the BRCS the actual spell in question doesn't matter. All spells have their effects reduced to a modifier to a unit's stats (see pg 130 of the BRCS and the feat is on pg 26).

This does not mean that a magician can cast a fireball, only that he can cast a spell that has a similar effect on a unit's stats.

One of the reasons for this reduction to set effects was to reduce the amount of DM fiat required to ejudicate a game. Otherwise a DM must figure out what every possible spell (cast by any caster) can do in a battle. Have simplified/standardized game effects is also in line with 3.5.

It is the magician casting it I have a problem with not its effects on the stats. Their is a difference between battle magic and a spell that can effect an area. I do think that the battle magic is a little weak and meny of the effects(penalties to units etc) could be duplicated with a basic spell.

Something else to consider is how is divine magic affected by you outlook on battle magic? Can a non-blooded cleric cast a battle spell? The concept is the same.

divine magic is different you do not have to be blooded to be a preist. they can cast battle spells if their gods grants them the power.

[irdeggman]

Graham I think you missing something here.

By stating spells that have an area effect work in battle but are different than battle spells is a premise that is not supported in 2nd ed BR. They were the same. There were some spells that were specifically created to have a battle effect (again see Rain of Magic Missiles) but the BoM basically had them treated the same.

Also by inserting the 'conditional' magic for priests is another stretch for 3.5, it is not the 'norm' for D&D (3.5).

If you are going to use 3.5 then use it if not then create something different, but mixing D&D systems is just asking for trouble, IMO.

Let's look at some of the 'area' spells in 3.5 (not present in 3.0) any of the mass spells - every one could reasonably be used in battle. Gosh the mass curing spells pretty much make the Cure Unit spells obsolete, how about mass invisibility, mass bull's strength, mass bear's endurance etc.?

[graham anderson]

irdeggman I think you missing something here.

A battle spell is different form an area affect spell. I have no problem with a magician casting an area affect spell battle spells are different.

Preist gain their power from the god not themselves and theirfore can cast battle spells but some gods might not allow their preists to.

Everything will go to 3.5 not three but sometimes mistakes are made. Athough there are some changes scry for example.

[irdeggman]

A battle spell is different form an area affect spell. I have no problem with a magician casting an area affect spell battle spells are different.

Yup, you are right. BoM dis specify a difference, but it didn't really have a different effect - and area effect spells were pretty much immune to being converted. One note though BoM pg 97 "This chapter describes "battle spells", a type of magic that enables wizards and magicians to draw on even a limited repertoire of spells to become avital part of any military campaign."

Preist gain their power from the god not themselves and theirfore can cast battle spells but some gods might not allow their preists to.

Yes and no. In 2nd ed (BoP pg 97) a priest who wanted to learn a battle spell had to perform independent research (just like a wizard or magician) and then he knew the battle magic spell. This was not an automatically granted spell accessable to all priests, only those who researched it (and those who learned it from someone who had researched it) could cast it. in 3.5 PHB pg 180 it also describes divine spell research, pretty much like arcane spell research and the only one who can cast the spell is the one who did the research unless shared with others.

PHB pg 32 "Instead they meditate or pray for their spells, receiving them through their own strength of faith or as divine inpiration." This is slightly different from the simple version on pg 179 of the 3.5 PHB "Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces." or the Complete Divine pg 6 "Clerics and other divine spellcasters receive their spells by praying to the deity, who bestows upon them a measure of divine power."

So there is some leeway in interpretation of how a cleric gets his spells. I read this as the deity grants the power (broadly not via specific spells), this power also translates into his other divine abilities (like turning undead) and then the cleric chooses the spells he memorizes with this power. IMO this is easier to explain why not every cleric can cast a researched spell once one cleric of the deity has 'learned' it.



So basically we will have to agree to disagree.

[RaspK_FOG]

I believe that the Magician should be able to choose from a wider range of feats, including feats that allow him to better work as a wandering mage.

[graham anderson]

I believe that the Magician should be able to choose from a wider range of feats, including feats that allow him to better work as a wandering mage.

I agree the magician should have access to a wide range of feats.