Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Pieter Sleijpen
    Guest

    Time and Magic (The power of ma

    An important thing about battle spells is that it can only be cast in a
    battle that involves at least 200 people (so the fighting must have
    started and the spells can only be cast on units on the battlefield).
    That is an awfull lot (in my campaign at least). But I agree that these
    spells can be dangerously powerfull as my players found out when a 'mass
    sanctuary' was used against them. I do like the idea of certain battle
    spells though, it will make priests and mages very valuable in battles
    on both sides. The fact that battle spells existed, actually made my
    game very enjoyable. Temples get a lot more involved in politics,
    because no regent would want to start a war without the backing of a
    temple. The regent would need the priests for the dispel magics and
    simular spells. Before that my players ignored temples more or less (I
    know that some realm spells are rather good). Not to mention the fact
    that PC's actualy have a central role in battles: defend their own
    spellcasters, while trying to assassinate or capture the mages and
    priests of the other side. This last fact is also a good power limit on
    battle spells. No sane spellcaster will remember many battle spells,
    since the assassins sent out to kill them will not be in large groups.So
    the spellcaster needs a lot of personal spells.
    Secondly you as a DM have got full control over battle spells and it
    would not be unfair to rule certain spells out. Limiting the duration of
    any spell to the length of the battle might be a very logical one.
    Afterall the spell is fueled by the battle itself.
    Thirdly and most importantly: how many spellcasters are there in the
    world and how many actualy want to risk their lives on a battlefield?

  2. #2
    gingerprince
    Guest

    Time and Magic (The power of ma

    >An important thing about battle spells is that it can only be cast in a
    >battle that involves at least 200 people (so the fighting must have
    >started and the spells can only be cast on units on the battlefield).
    >That is an awfull lot (in my campaign at least). But I agree that these
    >spells can be dangerously powerfull as my players found out when a 'mass
    >sanctuary' was used against them. I do like the idea of certain battle
    >spells though, it will make priests and mages very valuable in battles
    >on both sides. The fact that battle spells existed, actually made my
    >game very enjoyable. Temples get a lot more involved in politics,
    >because no regent would want to start a war without the backing of a
    >temple. The regent would need the priests for the dispel magics and
    >simular spells. Before that my players ignored temples more or less (I
    >know that some realm spells are rather good). Not to mention the fact
    >that PC's actualy have a central role in battles: defend their own
    >spellcasters, while trying to assassinate or capture the mages and
    >priests of the other side. This last fact is also a good power limit on
    >battle spells. No sane spellcaster will remember many battle spells,
    >since the assassins sent out to kill them will not be in large groups.So
    >the spellcaster needs a lot of personal spells.
    > Secondly you as a DM have got full control over battle spells and it
    >would not be unfair to rule certain spells out. Limiting the duration of
    >any spell to the length of the battle might be a very logical one.
    >Afterall the spell is fueled by the battle itself.
    > Thirdly and most importantly: how many spellcasters are there in the
    >world and how many actualy want to risk their lives on a battlefield?
    >
    >


    Has anybody considered the effects shown in War, when the Mages seem
    to age considerably from casting battle spells? This was quite an
    interesting concept, I thought and could be used to prevent munchkinism
    amoung PCs.

    Nick

  3. #3
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    Time and Magic (The power of ma

    On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, gingerprince wrote:

    > Has anybody considered the effects shown in War, when the Mages seem
    > to age considerably from casting battle spells? This was quite an
    > interesting concept, I thought and could be used to prevent munchkinism
    > amoung PCs.

    Damn, now I'm going to have to get that book, too. So far I've only ever
    seen it is hardcover. Anyway: was this permanent aging, or a sort of
    temporary aging, perhaps a temporary loss of CON points that could be
    recovered with sufficient rest?

    Mark VanderMeulen
    vander+@pitt.edu

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Time Hop, Mass (Power)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 09:04 AM
  2. Time Regression (Power)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2007, 10:24 PM
  3. Time Hop (Power)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2007, 10:23 PM
  4. Time and Magic
    By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-29-1998, 12:04 AM
  5. Time and Magic, part II
    By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-27-1998, 01:56 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.