Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    What Jonathan Ingram described does not favor mages
    on the battlefield. But I like it that way. If anyplace is the special
    preserve of warriors, its the battlefield. If a mage wants to take the risk
    of such a place to hurl a fireball, or a lightning bolt, fine. But There
    ought to be a sense that the mage is out of his element, not a super-unit.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

  2. #2
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Jonathan Ingram wrote:

    > Since the best a low level mage can hope to do is one or maybe two Rains of
    > Magic Missiles, you have to wonder why any regent would go to the expense
    > of paying for the components and support cost of even a mere magician on
    > the battlefield. Why not simply pay for an extra unit of archers?
    >
    > It's true that even a lowly magician could also contribute defensive magic,
    > but even magicians are uncommon in Anuire.
    >
    > Obviously, a blooded mage can make a big difference with realm magic, but
    > blooded mages capable of casting significant realm magic are even rarer and
    > consequently far more expensive!

    This is an interesting point. Why use mages on the battlefield? I have two
    main thoughts on this subject.

    First, are mages on the battlefield really that vulnerable? If one were to put
    a wizard on the battlefield, wouldn't one surround him with dozens of soldiers,
    if not a full unit of elite infantry, cavalry or knights? A mage of 7th level
    or higher could have access to the Improved Armor and Stoneskin spells, so he
    is probably going to have more protection than the average soldier or even
    leveled fighter. Protection from Normal Missiles could keep him safe from
    archers or crossbowmen. That same mage is going to have on the average 17 or
    18 hp, which is not a lot, but more than any average soldier. In my
    experience, mages tend to have higher than their average hit points per level.
    The dice tend to roll funny when it comes to PC's hit dice for some reason....
    :) Assuming the mage/magician isn't of high enough level to have magical means
    of escaping a battlefield, isn't he and the regent who he works for going
    recognize that hand to hand combat is not his forte and have a few swift horses
    around so the mage/magician can bug out when enemy soldiers get too close?

    Second, how much does it actually cost to hire and maintain a mage? The
    description of the Lieutenant action says "Base Cost: None" but in most of the
    campaigns I've been in the DM takes a cue from BR:TGA and there is a house rule
    that it costs 1GB/level to hire a LT. (I don't do that in my campaigns,
    however. I think it should be free to get a lieutenant.)

    I also don't use battlespells, so the 1-4GB cost of casting them doesn't make
    any difference in my campaigns. If I did, however, certain battlespells seem
    to be cost efficient. Charm Unit, for example, seems like it could be quite
    cost efficient if it's cost is 1GB and can be used to turn a unit that cost
    much more than that. (I assume in that statement that the battlespells based
    on 1st level spells have the lowest possible cost.)

    If one were to research a few battlespells things could get expensive, but I
    think that's up to the player. I don't use battlespells so I could easily be
    wrong on this, but I thought the GB expense in researching battlespells was
    optional, used to increase one's chance of success. If that is true one could
    hire a mage for no cost and have him research battlespells at no cost. I can't
    seem to locate the information on the cost of a laboratory... it seems to me
    it was around 1,500gp, wasn't it?

    The reason I bring up researching battlespells is because I think the
    battlespells NOT in the BoM would be the ones most likely for mages to
    utilize. Hail of Fireballs or Spread of Lightening Bolts would probably
    destroy an enemy unit and cost 1-2GB or so to cast. That's pretty cost
    effective against even units with lower muster costs then knights or cavalry.
    At 7th level a mage could cast Polymorph Unit and potentially turn a phalanx of
    charging knights into 200 trout flopping helplessly on the battlefield. (I
    assume it would transform their horses too.)

    At lower levels mages certainly are not very powerful on the battlefield, but I
    think that changes at around 5th level when, if using battlespells, they start
    to become cost effective. At higher levels I think they become even more cost
    effective.

    Gary

  3. #3
    Sindre Berg
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Gary V. Foss wrote:

    > Jonathan Ingram wrote:
    >
    > > Since the best a low level mage can hope to do is one or maybe two
    > Rains of
    > > Magic Missiles, you have to wonder why any regent would go to the
    > expense
    > > of paying for the components and support cost of even a mere
    > magician on
    > > the battlefield. Why not simply pay for an extra unit of archers?
    > >
    > > It's true that even a lowly magician could also contribute defensive
    > magic,
    > > but even magicians are uncommon in Anuire.
    > >
    > > Obviously, a blooded mage can make a big difference with realm
    > magic, but
    > > blooded mages capable of casting significant realm magic are even
    > rarer and
    > > consequently far more expensive!
    >
    > This is an interesting point. Why use mages on the battlefield? I
    > have two
    > main thoughts on this subject.
    >
    > First, are mages on the battlefield really that vulnerable? If one
    > were to put
    > a wizard on the battlefield, wouldn't one surround him with dozens of
    > soldiers,
    > if not a full unit of elite infantry, cavalry or knights? A mage of
    > 7th level
    > or higher could have access to the Improved Armor and Stoneskin
    > spells, so he
    > is probably going to have more protection than the average soldier or
    > even
    > leveled fighter. Protection from Normal Missiles could keep him safe
    > from
    > archers or crossbowmen. That same mage is going to have on the
    > average 17 or
    > 18 hp, which is not a lot, but more than any average soldier. In my
    > experience, mages tend to have higher than their average hit points
    > per level.
    > The dice tend to roll funny when it comes to PC's hit dice for some
    > reason....
    > :) Assuming the mage/magician isn't of high enough level to have
    > magical means
    > of escaping a battlefield, isn't he and the regent who he works for
    > going
    > recognize that hand to hand combat is not his forte and have a few
    > swift horses
    > around so the mage/magician can bug out when enemy soldiers get too
    > close?
    >
    > Second, how much does it actually cost to hire and maintain a mage?
    > The
    > description of the Lieutenant action says "Base Cost: None" but in
    > most of the
    > campaigns I've been in the DM takes a cue from BR:TGA and there is a
    > house rule
    > that it costs 1GB/level to hire a LT. (I don't do that in my
    > campaigns,
    > however. I think it should be free to get a lieutenant.)
    >
    > I also don't use battlespells, so the 1-4GB cost of casting them
    > doesn't make
    > any difference in my campaigns. If I did, however, certain
    > battlespells seem
    > to be cost efficient. Charm Unit, for example, seems like it could be
    > quite
    > cost efficient if it's cost is 1GB and can be used to turn a unit that
    > cost
    > much more than that. (I assume in that statement that the
    > battlespells based
    > on 1st level spells have the lowest possible cost.)
    >
    > If one were to research a few battlespells things could get expensive,
    > but I
    > think that's up to the player. I don't use battlespells so I could
    > easily be
    > wrong on this, but I thought the GB expense in researching
    > battlespells was
    > optional, used to increase one's chance of success. If that is true
    > one could
    > hire a mage for no cost and have him research battlespells at no
    > cost. I can't
    > seem to locate the information on the cost of a laboratory... it
    > seems to me
    > it was around 1,500gp, wasn't it?
    >
    > The reason I bring up researching battlespells is because I think the
    > battlespells NOT in the BoM would be the ones most likely for mages to
    >
    > utilize. Hail of Fireballs or Spread of Lightening Bolts would
    > probably
    > destroy an enemy unit and cost 1-2GB or so to cast. That's pretty
    > cost
    > effective against even units with lower muster costs then knights or
    > cavalry.
    > At 7th level a mage could cast Polymorph Unit and potentially turn a
    > phalanx of
    > charging knights into 200 trout flopping helplessly on the
    > battlefield. (I
    > assume it would transform their horses too.)
    >
    > At lower levels mages certainly are not very powerful on the
    > battlefield, but I
    > think that changes at around 5th level when, if using battlespells,
    > they start
    > to become cost effective. At higher levels I think they become even
    > more cost
    > effective.
    >
    > Gary
    >
    > ****
    > ************************************************** ********************
    >
    > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    > line
    > Gary I like you post, but I'd like to comment on one thing... I've
    always understood the reason "Hail of Fireballs" isn't in the BoM is
    because it is not allowed through the rules...I always thought that
    Battle spells are conventional spells where only one minor detail is
    altered...AoE, from typicaly one person = one unit...The Fireball spell
    is already listed as a Battle spell in the Boxed Set on the original War
    Cards as a spell with a H result, and if you really want "Hail of
    Fireball" it would be a much higher level spell and then probably touch
    the Cloud Kill spell (the lowest level D spell as far as I can remember)
    and thus not be cost effective to research...
    Anyway this might just be my house rules and not the official stuff...
    - --
    Sindre

    Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

    www.uio.no/~sindrejb

  4. #4
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Sindre Berg wrote:

    > Gary I like you post, but I'd like to comment on one thing... I've
    > always understood the reason "Hail of Fireballs" isn't in the BoM is
    > because it is not allowed through the rules...I always thought that
    > Battle spells are conventional spells where only one minor detail is
    > altered...AoE, from typicaly one person = one unit...The Fireball spell
    > is already listed as a Battle spell in the Boxed Set on the original War
    > Cards as a spell with a H result, and if you really want "Hail of
    > Fireball" it would be a much higher level spell and then probably touch
    > the Cloud Kill spell (the lowest level D spell as far as I can remember)
    > and thus not be cost effective to research...
    > Anyway this might just be my house rules and not the official stuff...

    Ah, that's entirely possible, Sindre. I don't really know much about
    battlespells because I don't tend to use them much.

    Thanks,
    Gary

  5. #5
    Pieter A de Jong
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Sindre Berg wrote:
    >
    > Gary I like you post, but I'd like to comment on one thing... I've
    > always understood the reason "Hail of Fireballs" isn't in the BoM is
    > because it is not allowed through the rules...I always thought that
    > Battle spells are conventional spells where only one minor detail is
    > altered...AoE, from typicaly one person = one unit...The Fireball spell
    > is already listed as a Battle spell in the Boxed Set on the original War
    > Cards as a spell with a H result, and if you really want "Hail of
    > Fireball" it would be a much higher level spell and then probably touch
    > the Cloud Kill spell (the lowest level D spell as far as I can remember)
    > and thus not be cost effective to research...
    > Anyway this might just be my house rules and not the official stuff...
    > --
    > Sindre
    >
    I don't think that I agree with your perspective on battle spells. I
    would suspect that "Hail of Fireballs" is possible. There are indeed
    major differences between battle spells a conventional spells, as
    illustrated by the much increased area of effect. However battle spells
    usually require much more by way of spell components and casting time,
    and in a majority of case require the spellcaster to have assistants to
    help handle the spell. For example a "hail of fireballs" spells might
    require 100lbs of bat guano, rather than the pinch that fireball
    requires. As well, the casting time would increase from 1 personal
    round to one battlefield turn, and might require 3 1st or higher level
    apprentices as assistants. However, similarly, the effect of such a
    spell would also be multiplied above and beyond the battlefield impact
    of one fireball. It might produce one fireball per level of the caster.
    As the minimum level of the caster would be 5 and most units can only
    take 2 hits, then such an attack would take out a minimum of 2.5 units,
    and potentially more if the mage is higher level, as such, mages have a
    devestating impact on the battlefield.
    - --

    Pieter A de Jong
    Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
    University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

  6. #6
    Sindre Berg
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Pieter A de Jong wrote:

    > Sindre Berg wrote:
    > >
    > > Gary I like you post, but I'd like to comment on one thing... I've
    > > always understood the reason "Hail of Fireballs" isn't in the BoM is
    >
    > > because it is not allowed through the rules...I always thought that
    > > Battle spells are conventional spells where only one minor detail is
    >
    > > altered...AoE, from typicaly one person = one unit...The Fireball
    > spell
    > > is already listed as a Battle spell in the Boxed Set on the original
    > War
    > > Cards as a spell with a H result, and if you really want "Hail of
    > > Fireball" it would be a much higher level spell and then probably
    > touch
    > > the Cloud Kill spell (the lowest level D spell as far as I can
    > remember)
    > > and thus not be cost effective to research...
    > > Anyway this might just be my house rules and not the official
    > stuff...
    > > --
    > > Sindre
    > >
    > I don't think that I agree with your perspective on battle spells. I
    > would suspect that "Hail of Fireballs" is possible. There are indeed
    > major differences between battle spells a conventional spells, as
    > illustrated by the much increased area of effect. However battle
    > spells
    > usually require much more by way of spell components and casting time,
    >
    > and in a majority of case require the spellcaster to have assistants
    > to
    > help handle the spell. For example a "hail of fireballs" spells
    > might
    > require 100lbs of bat guano, rather than the pinch that fireball
    > requires. As well, the casting time would increase from 1 personal
    > round to one battlefield turn, and might require 3 1st or higher level
    >
    > apprentices as assistants. However, similarly, the effect of such a
    > spell would also be multiplied above and beyond the battlefield impact
    >
    > of one fireball. It might produce one fireball per level of the
    > caster.
    > As the minimum level of the caster would be 5 and most units can only
    > take 2 hits, then such an attack would take out a minimum of 2.5
    > units,
    > and potentially more if the mage is higher level, as such, mages have
    > a
    > devestating impact on the battlefield.
    > --
    >

  7. #7
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    The question was raised if mages are or aren't vulnerable on the battlefield.

    By the rules, a wizard must be assigned to a unit. If the unit is destroyed the wizard is DESTROYED. Sounds pretty
    risky to me.

    I'm in favor of letting the troops settle the issue and not have mages dominate the battlefield. Where they really seem
    to make a difference is where one side has one and the other doesn't.

    I'm against spells like "rain of fireballs". It goes beyond the original intent of battle spells. Read the battle
    spells and play balance section in BoM. This spell already has a name. It's a realm spell called mass destruction.

    Randax

  8. #8
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Gary V. Foss
    Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:32 AM
    >

    >The description of the Lieutenant action says "Base Cost: None" but in most
    of the
    >campaigns I've been in the DM takes a cue from BR:TGA and there is a house
    rule
    >that it costs 1GB/level to hire a LT. (I don't do that in my campaigns,
    >however. I think it should be free to get a lieutenant.)


    I agree. Lieutenants are drawn by a higher purpose, usually either devotion
    to the realm or the office of her leader, but I have allowed an
    exceptionally high level bard to be a regent's lieutenant, ruling that the
    character had been the regent's tutor (hence devoted to the regent himself).
    Esp if the lieutenant is tasked to do things which are not dangerous,
    charging by the level seems excessive.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

  9. #9
    Jonathan Ingram
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    At 11:04 PM 11/4/98 +0100, you wrote:
    > Of course all the extra components, possible assistants etc. are all
    >just effects to offset the greatly increased AoE (and of course Dmg due
    >to increased area), and then to maintain play balance you need the extra
    >stuff. Anyway what I was trying to say about "Hail of Fireballs" is that
    >in my campaign (theoreticly since it doesn't exist) it would be at least
    >a 4th level spell, probably a 5th..And then as a Mage considering
    I wouldn't allow such a spell to be created without an extensive amount of
    time and money (and lots and lots of saving throws vs mistakes) to be
    created. The mage would have much better luck researching a battlefield
    version of Delayed Fireball for use in trapping the battlefield....oh, did
    I mention that any mage who revealed he had such a spell would doubtless
    find himself fending off assassins and thieves forever? Surely the Gorgon
    wouldn't stand for one of his armies to be destroyed by such magic, not to
    mention his (or his employer's) enemy.

    >"price" I would go for the conv. spell Cloudkill, even though Hail looks
    >more spectacular...But I DO beleive mages have a devastiting effect on
    >the battlefield. Take Caine f. inst. he can throw 2 Cloudkills and then
    >remove two Knight units from the game...Before he starts with his 3
    >fireballs !!! That seams rather dangerous to me...
    Seems is precisely right. Sure, he's a powerful mage. But his best case
    scenarios is three or four spells in a single battle, including one
    cloudkill while the enemy is approaching the unit to which he's attached.
    If he's lucky, his unit survives and he can then target another unengaged
    enemy unit that comes within range. He can use his magic to help his
    attached unit survive, of course, with Stoneskinned Army. If he's really
    lucky, he might take out two or even three units on the battlefield during
    the entire battle.

    But suppose the unit to which he's attached is destroyed; he's managed to
    take out one enemy unit and maybe damage another. Remember, as soon as the
    enemy unit engages his (which is as soon as it moves into the same square
    and before the magic phase) he can no longer target it. If an enemy mage
    happens to be attached and cloudkills his attached unit, he's dead or at
    least in serious danger. The BEST LIKELY scenario is that he makes a saving
    throw and finds himself a prisoner of the enemy army. Since he's such a
    high level NPC, I would give him a flat change to escape of about 20% if he
    makes his saving throw.

    Off the battlefield, he's a much more powerful opponent if he can augment
    several units. So why on earth would he take to the battlefield?

    I don't deny that a mage can make a difference, but it seems awfully risky
    to me to actually get on the battlefield when his powers can be much more
    effective off the battlefield through realm magic. Even a measly +1 on
    attack ratings for the army he supports is worth more than the one unit he
    can destroy with Cloudkill. Even if he can't use realm magic, he can
    prepare Fireball and Lightning Bolt scrolls to give to the less valuable
    magicians...

    I guess if the DM allows for spells to be "precast" on units (i.e., before
    the battle) the mage is at his most useful. He could trap the battlefield,
    create illusionary units, and cast lots of Stoneskinned Army (a tough nut
    to crack) on a couple of core units. The rules don't make allowance for
    this though.

    If I'm the enemy and I know Caine's on the battlefield, I'll use my priests
    and mages/magicians to find out to which unit he's attached and hit it
    hard, hoping to destroy it and Caine immediately. Losing such a powerful
    mage's support should cause any army to at least make a morale check...

    Jonathan

  10. #10
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Mages and magicians on the batt

    Jonathan Ingram wrote:

    > >"price" I would go for the conv. spell Cloudkill, even though Hail looks
    > >more spectacular...But I DO beleive mages have a devastiting effect on
    > >the battlefield. Take Caine f. inst. he can throw 2 Cloudkills and then
    > >remove two Knight units from the game...Before he starts with his 3
    > >fireballs !!! That seams rather dangerous to me...
    > Seems is precisely right. Sure, he's a powerful mage. But his best case
    > scenarios is three or four spells in a single battle, including one
    > cloudkill while the enemy is approaching the unit to which he's attached.
    > If he's lucky, his unit survives and he can then target another unengaged
    > enemy unit that comes within range. He can use his magic to help his
    > attached unit survive, of course, with Stoneskinned Army. If he's really
    > lucky, he might take out two or even three units on the battlefield during
    > the entire battle.

    I think mages might be a little more dangerous on the battlefield than that.
    The mages in my campaign are and I don't even use battlespells.... Here's why:

    The length of time of a battle round is supposed to be five normal melee
    rounds. According to the Rulebook a mage can only cast a single "War Magic"
    spell (the standard spells listed on the battlecards as effecting whole units)
    in that period. "[T]he rest of the time, the PC is busy preparing his spell
    and ducking the enemy. He may still use standard spells normally."

    Does that make sense? He can cast four other spells, but not "War Magic"
    spells during the same period of time because Fireball spells somehow take more
    preparation time on the battlefield as opposed to in a smaller fight. Why's
    that? The casting time for a Fireball is 3 segments. A mage can cast it every
    round if he has it memorized in any other situation, include melee combat, so
    why not on an open field during a battle? I think a mage should be able to
    cast five Fireballs in a battle round, and the difference between a unit taking
    five Fireballs and the proposed Hail of Fireballs battlespell is pretty moot.
    I like my chicken extra crispy, not burned to a crisp, if you get my drift....

    "Aha!" you say, "but only a 13th level mage has that many 3rd level spells
    available to him! If he casts those spells in a single battleround then he is
    NAKED! After casting his memorized spells on the battlefield he's useless!"
    And you are quite right. A 13th level mage would exhaust his Fireballs in a
    single battle round if he were able to cast one every melee round. Unless....

    Unless we borrow a bit of the logic from the "Time and Magic" thread. Say
    you're a mage who thinks one day he might end up in a battle somewhere and
    you're 9th level or higher. Wouldn't you sit down at your desk and start
    scribbling a few Fireball scrolls? In fact, wouldn't you spend every waking
    moment before a battle putting Fireballs down on paper until you worked your
    little fingers to the bone? It takes three days to put a 3rd level spell on a
    scroll. A 9th level mage using the best of materials will have a 96% success
    rate, so in two months he'll have 19 or so Fireball spells all tied up in a
    little bundle to take off to the battlefield in addition to the three he can
    memorized.

    To paraphrase Billy Crystal: "Have fun blowing up the castle!"

    That same 9th level mage could create as many as six Cloudkill scrolls in a
    month, which are the battlefield equivalent of "Bang! You're Dead!" magic if
    this is such a thing. Writing such scrolls would, however, drop his chance of
    success down to 94% per scroll....

    At 11th level a wizard can create charged magical items and then the fun really
    starts because he can make a Wand of Fire in 2 + 1d8 days plus a few days of
    charging up the wand. At that point he can walk around like the wizard Tim in
    _Monty Python's Holy Grail_ blasting things right and left. Plus, the 1st
    level apprentice of our 11th level mage (who was going to have to walk around
    lugging 50 pounds of bat guano if his master were going to cast the Hail of
    Fireballs battlespell) now can just carry the wand his master created for him.
    It's no big deal for his master because he already has two spares, and they can
    stand back to back in a battlefield blasting anything foolish enough to come
    within 160 feet. They don't even have to use both hands....

    A couple of Protection from Normal Missiles spells should take care of any
    pesky archers that stay outside of boom-boom range, and a unit of knights to
    guard the mage and his apprentice might be prudent. Even if one were not going
    to allow mages to cast five spells in a battleround like I do, I think mages
    would be a pretty scary sight on the battlefield, not because of the spells
    they memorize, but because of the ones they bring with them on scrolls or in
    magic items.

    It is certainly possible that a unit with a mage in it could be overrun somehow
    if attacked from all sides, but that kind of thing is always a possibility and
    a really bright mage might also pack a few Wall of Force/Fire spells or scrolls
    with him to deal with such a possibility.

    So I see battlespells as pretty much redundant. It doesn't make sense to me to
    have a spell available to 1st level mages that will effect an entire unit
    because they will have access to spells that effect whole units soon enough and
    at higher levels their ability to create scrolls and magic items makes them
    incredibly powerful on the battlefield. All without battlespells.

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Magicians - does anyone play them?
    By Raedwald in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 03-01-2002, 07:04 AM
  2. Mages and magicians on the battlefi
    By Jonathan Ingram in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-1998, 11:19 AM
  3. magicians
    By Jonathan Picklesimer in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-1998, 04:43 PM
  4. SV: Magicians and sources
    By tduexx@students.aabc.d in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-02-1998, 08:47 PM
  5. Magicians and sources
    By Solmyr in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-31-1998, 09:43 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.