Battle and Realm Magic

[Athos69]

I see your points Osprey, but let's remember the 'KISS' maxim.

If we have a cumbersome system where spells are open for interpretation, it will be so unwieldy and arcane (pun not intended) that few people will want to use it.

I'm proposing a class of spells that will only be available to characters who have the Battle Caster feat.

Two examples are below.

Fireball, War
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 battle turn
Range: 2 Squares
Area: 1 Unit
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

As per the fireball spell, but it deals two hits to the target unit.
Material Component: 1/2 GB worth of guano and sulphur.

Cure Light Wounds, War
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: One Square
Target: One Unit
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (harmless) or Will half; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) or Yes; see text

As per the Mass Cure Light Wounds spell, but it cures the target unit of one hit.
Like other cure spells, war cure light wounds may be used to deal damage to a targeted undead unit in its range. Each affected undead may attempt a Will save for half damage.

Now I have not converted the Saves information, because I seem to recall that there was a discussion on giving units all 3 saves, instead of one catch-all saving throw.

[Osprey]

At the risk of being redundant, here are my responses and questions re. the Realm Magic guidelines suggested by Duane.

Realm magic affects provinces and areas larger than a battlefield.

So you believe all unit-affecting spells should be relegated to Battle Spells? That is what seems to be suggested here. This would also eliminate all personal spells as well.

While some of the unit-affecting spells in the BRCS were battle spells in 2e, a number of them are drawn from the original realm spells in the BR rulebook.

The following 2e realm spells would be eliminated if realm spells affected only areas larger than a battlefield:
Arcane: Legion of Dead, Mass Destruction, Raze (a castle is smaller than a battlefield), Stronghold, Subversion (with units as targets), Summoning, and Transport.
Divine: Bless Army.

Arcane (BoM): Battle Fury, Defection, Feign Destruction, Inflame, and Royal Facade.
Divine (BoP): Consecrate Relic and Excommunicate.

Mages would obviously lose a huge chunk of their classic repertoire, while clerics would be minimally affected (there are fewer divine realm spells in general, and almost all of them have province-scale effects).

I think personal and unit-affecting realm spells should remain part of the realm magic system. There are some very clear examples of unit-affecting realm spells doing things that battle magic simply cannot reproduce for very long or on as wide a scale.

Ex.: Mass Destruction should do 3 hits of damage per unit, 1 on a unit save - since it can target multiple units, this makes it a lot larger in scope than an equivalent battle spell. It also has severe limitations, mainly that it must be discharged in the province where it was cast within 4 weeks of the spell's completion. Harsh, but a good balancer to an otherwise devestating spell. The duration of this spell is thus instantaneous.

Any enhancement or protective spell could also be used to protect one or more units for an extended duration - i.e., throughout an entire campaign that lasts for weeks, rather than a single round or so in a battle. BIG difference in utility and effect compared to battle spells, and something that seems to me to be appropriate for the big RP/GB/time-consuming act of casting a realm spell. Bigger investment, bigger returns...

Realm magic may have durations longer than battle rounds, usually in terms of months or seasons.

See above. IMO, unit-affecting spells should have durations measured in weeks (war moves), while province-affecting spells should have durations measured in months (domain rounds).

Only blooded spellcasters can cast realm magic.
Realm spells are only researched not learned automatically with level or from spellbooks.

Agreed, though I think a +2 circumstance bonus to the Spellcraft check to learn the realm spell is applicable when using another caster's set of notes, or when recieving tutelage by one who knows the spell already. Realm spells may be somewhat unique, but it seems ludicrous to me that regents wouldn't pass down secrets, or at least a few insights and ideas about realm magic and spells, to their successors.

The maximum number of realm spells a character can know is limited by his ranks in spellcraft. (exact detail can be worked out).

A few things here:
1. 1 realm spell per rank is rather generous, allowing a fledgling 1st level caster to master 4 realm spells. Yikes.
I think 1 realm spell per 2 ranks is much more balanced and appropriate for the BR setting. It is good to force low-level regents to choose their relam spells carefully.

2. Is Spellcraft the appropriate skill for measuring realm spell knowledge limits, or is the appropriate Knowledge skill (Arcana/Religion/Nature for mages/clerics/druids resp.) a better measure (as per the epic spellcasting origin for this idea)? I personally would prefer it be the relevant knowledge skill, while requiring a successful Spellcraft check to master a realm spell. Any spellcasting regent should possess the relevant Knowledge skill anyways, so it encourages good realm casters to be good regents, too.

Researching a realm spell takes domain actions (length of time depends on the ‘level’ of the spell).

We had worked out before (in another thread) a rough system like this:
Cost: 1 RP + 1 GB per level of the realm spell being researched.
Requires the character have exclusive access to a source or temple holding of sufficient level to cast the spell being researched.
Time:
1 month for 1st-3rd level realm spells
2 months for 4th-6th level realm spells
3 months for 7th-9th level realm spells

These are pretty simple, sound guidelines IMO, and should be incorporated into Ch 7.

As to whether learning a realm spell requires a domain action or simply a character action, is highly debatable IMO. I feel it is sufficient that a person learning a realm spell use only a Character Action (1st choice), or at most a single Domain Action (the 1st month that research is begun - 2nd choice) so long as they meet the above requirements. Exclusive access to a source means that holding cannot be used for any other active function while the realm spell is being researched. This means the temple or source holding could not be used to initiate a domain action in that province (casting a realm spell, rule/contest holding, agitate, etc.), nor to support or oppose another regent's domain action in the province.

I think this "exclusive holding use" plus requiring character actions is sufficiently restrictive to be balanced - otherwise domains with regents or lts. learning realm spells will spend long periods in political inactivity - and that's neither fun for the players, nor very competitive at the domain level.

Only blooded spellcasters can cast realm magic.

Agreed, and note that this applies to elves and clerics, too. This makes it particularly valuable to have blooded spellcasters as lieutenants, as they have the potential ability to cast realm spells for their regent.

Casting a realm spells requires access to a source or temple holding and expenditure of RP and usually GB.

Yep - the devil's in the details, of course. Raesene and some of us had wrestled with a system for calculating RP and GB costs in another thread (it's a ways back in the BRCS forum, I'm not sure where exactly) - I don't believe that system was ever fully ironed out or agreed upon by any majority, but it does contain a lot of interesting ideas and concepts regarding realm spell costs.

For instance, one of the core ideas was that realm spells were ideally suited for large-scale effects, thus raising the costs somewhat for unit-target spells, and even more for personal-target spells.

Similar idea for why duration would be scaled appropriately - province-affecting spells are the simplest realm spells to design, and thus have longer durations than unit or personal spells as a default.

I'm still not certain if I agree with all of this reasoning, but it certainly makes a certain amount of sense, and does keep things roughly parallel with the 2e realm magic.

Casting time of a realm spell is a domain action.

Yep, though more technically: Casting time is 1 domain round (1 month), and casting a realm spell requires a full domain action (Character+Standard Action).

Realm spells are not contained in spellbooks they are intimately known by the caster.

Yes, though I imagine a creator can (and often would) write notes and aid another in crafting an equivalent spell (see above). A month's worth of ritual magic is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to be recorded in painstaking detail by the creator of the spell, ensuring that time and memory do not erase knowledge of the spell and how to perform the required rituals - same goes for the specific components necessary (while a player just chalks off some GB, the character would likely have much more exacting specifications for the propoer ritual materials needed over the course of the casting).

Realm spells are all unique and even if 2 casters know spells that have the same effects they are both unique spells.

Yes, but this doesn't mean there aren't many similarities possible - especially when comparing the spells of a master and apprentice, for example. Hence the possibility of aiding another caster's realm spell research.

Osprey

[Osprey]

I see your points Osprey, but let's remember the 'KISS' maxim.
If we have a cumbersome system where spells are open for interpretation, it will be so unwieldy and arcane (pun not intended) that few people will want to use it.

Simple is good, but it's important to balance simplicity with a system that is logical and consistent. My desire is to create such a system along with a list of the more commonly used Battle versions of existing spells, built using the same design system.

I have a desire to do the same with the Realm Magic system.

The desired result is to create 2 systems that allow DM's and enterprising players to design their own battle or realm spells if they aren't satisfied picking and choosing from the existing list. This is particularly relevant with realm spells, which are supposedly unique spells individually designed. However, since all realm spell casters will be familiar with their allowed/known personal spells, it makes logical sense that these would tend to be the basis for designing realm spells.

By spelling out the details of a magic conversion system, we are actually eliminating many of the open interpretations from DM's and players, and replacing them with some concrete guidelines and limitations that have a logical basis in the existing magic system.

As far as healing units is concerned, I feel pretty strongly that raising soldiers from the dead is quite a different sort of magic from healing wounded soldiers, and should be treated as such in the battle magic system. Otherwise it glosses over a very important aspect of the campaign setting: units are made of individual soldiers, they're not perfectly equivalent to one super-character with a huge number of hit points. The healing limit rule I proposed was the simplest way I could think of to represent this fact:

A unit can only heal 1/2 the number of hits taken in a battle (round down) due to magical or natural healing. The remaining damage represents permanent casualties that must be replaced through recruiting or combining existing units.

Still pretty streamlined IMO, while giving a nod toward reality.

And by the way, I drop earlier revisions re. Cure Unit as a realm spell - it is definitely more appropriate as a battle spell, or could be easily accomplished by one or more healers casting cure spells repeatedly over weeks of time. Most any unit supported by spellcasting healers should be able to heal any wounds taken within a few weeks' time, at negligible expense.

[Osprey]

Now to address part 3 of Duane's initial post:

What type of effect battle spells have. Should we continue down the path of the playtest and keep the results relatively simplified or list every spell and how it can have an effect on the battle? Or should we keep it simple (e.g., like the playtest) and only specifically address the effects of the mass spells?

See previous post, and Battle Spell area of effect thread. In general, I think we should assume larger areas of effect/# of targets, extended durations, and/or extended range for battle versions of normal spells.

There should also be a section listing the effects of personal spells on the battlefield, and how this interacts time-wise with battle turns.

How should we levelize realm spells? By caster level, by holding level, by a combination?

Both - if you can identify the "core" personal spell (seed) of a realm spell, this should determine the minimum spell level of the realm spell.
Likewise, I think it reasonable to assume that the default source or temple requirement is equal to the level of the realm spell. This factor could be variable in spell design, however, affecting the cost of the spell by lowering or raising the holding requirement.

What type of saving throw system should we use for battle spells?

What type of saving throw system should we use for realm spells?

The same as for personal spells regarding individual targets. That is, the base DC for an individual to save against a battle fireball should be equal to spell level + caster's ability modifier, and the spell would do the same damage as a normal fireball. Same goes for a person caught in a province-wide Death Plague (BRCS, 3rd level realm spell): Fort save, DC 13 + caster's ability mod, plus any relevant spell focus feats or other continuous modifiers to spell DC (Necromancy in this case).

[Note: Death Plague should be a 4th level mage spell, based on Contagion; by the same token, I can imagine an evil temple using a 3rd level divine version of this spell to punish the unfaithful).

Units should get a morale check as a generic save, this keeps things simple.

Provinces probably should not get saves against province-wide realm effects, though I can imagine high-source provinces being resistant to arcane realm magic, and high-level temples being resistant to divine realm magic. Not sure how this would fold into the existing system without saves, though.

The general concept I see is that battle and realm spells aren't more potent than personal spells, they simply affect things on a much larger scale.

How many casters does it take to cast a battle spell?

One, plus serious quantities of ritual components (hence the battle wagon, though a good bag of holding or two might be able to replace this in a more mobile unit). Assistants are good, though - it is reasonable to assume one assistant per 2 caster levels of the battle caster (1 per spell level for clerics and wizards). This is mostly a color issue, not something that needs to be addressed with mechanics. It might suffice to simply say "a battle caster typically has several assistants aiding him with the mundane aspects of battle magic."

How many does it take to cast a realm spell?

One blooded regent or Lt. caster.

Sources are the power of nature, so the caster is channeling mebhaighal to cast the spell. The source is unavailable for any other use in the month in which it is used to cast the realm spell.

Temples channel the power of faith - the temple holding used to cast a realm spell would similarly be unavailable for any domain-level use in the month where it's used to cast a realm spell. However, since temples are comprised of living people, it makes sense that the main focus of that province's temple holdings are being poured into ritual prayer and support of the casting regent. This strikes me as a useful piece of flavor text to add to a description of realm spells and their casting.

PS - Sorry to everyone to flood this thread with many replies - I wanted to give a comprehensive response to the 30-odd factors laid out by Irdeggman. And good job, Duane, on spelling all of that out, it's very useful for pinning down all the nitty-gritty details of battle and realm magic.

Osprey

[doom]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:51:57PM +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> irdeggman wrote:

>

> We need to have some real discussions on how realm and battle magic

> work and relate to each other. IMO we need to define some of these at

> least at the conceptual level since they affect both the war and domain

> chapters as well as the magic chapters.



Hey all. I`ll chime in with a few comments.



Firstly, the battle spell/realm magic issue is a real bear, no doubt

about it. I probably don`t have the most popular view on the issue, but

I`ll voice it nevertheless.



<2e mode>



If I can grossly oversimplify, in the 2e system low-level clerics

completely dominated the battlefield (with cheap low/no RP/GB unit

smashing spells). High-level wizards with resources to burn were rare,

but when faced, were almost unbeatable without using magic yourself.

Adding a 10th level cleric or wizard to an army made an almost

insurmountable difference. One unit with a wizard stone-skin unit and

spells some destroy unit spells ("D" result) could basically destroy

units all day (without harm) until they ran out of spells. The only

real defense was to have a spell caster of your own... and level was

really not a factor. A spell caster with only one "D" spell could take

out a spell caster of much higher level (well, they`d take each other

out actually, but you see my point, level wasn`t terribly relevant).



On the other hand, adding a 10th level fighter to the army basically

made very little difference whatsoever. An adventurers card was an

adventures care regardless of composition (and some people might

claim that a high level caster was _also_ an adventures card).



IMHO The 2e battlespell system was grossly unbalanced and didn`t work well.





<3e playtest document mode>



Now... here is the big question. In 3e, should a 10th level wizard

(with mass spells, fireballs, etc) more or less effective on the

battlefield than a 10th level fighter? For the sake of argument, lets

assume that said fighter has whirlwind or great cleave, an AC that is

basically unhittable by a low-level warrior peons, and can reasonably

mow through peon-level soldiers by the dozens for hours. Which is more

effective in an overall day of warfare? What about a 10th level

fighter that specialized in single combat (a duelist)? More or less

effective? A 10th level diviner? Argh!



The only answer that made sense at the time was to abstract. Adding a

10th level character adds roughly the same about of "Encounter Level"

to an encounter. Why should a character`s contributions on the

battlefield be any less abstract? A 10th level character (of any class)

should be roughly equal to adding two 8th level characters (of any

class), etc. The mages are casting spells (infrequently, but

effectively), the clerics are bolstering the fighting men (buff spells,

heals, or just out there kick`n with the soldiers), the fighter types

are doing what they do best, etc. In my opinion, any attempt to _add_

power to spell casters by trying to encapsulate a tactical level effect

of a specific couple of mass spells is hokey. A mass fly spell might

turn the tide of battle just as effectively as a mass heal. Everyone

adds something, and that is what the Heros card effects attempt to

quantify (abstractly).



On the other hand, realm spells are a whole different animal.

Province/Law regents collect taxes to (among other things) build

armies. Temple/Source regents collect income to (among other things)

do cool things like buff armies. These spells, can raise units of

undead, heal badly damaged unit, bless a unit before it heads out to

war, or rain mass destruction upon one`s enemies from afar. These

spells are also (supposedly) balanced at the realm level with

realm-level costs. No harm, no foul, and lots of fun.



In short, there is no need for battle spells and I would argue that

adding them is inherently a "bad thing".



Of course, the BRCS _does_ still have battle magic. :) Via the battle

magic feat and special training for a unit, that unit can receive

bonuses above and beyond what one might expect for having a character

of that level traveling with. That character does not get to add to

the general HEROs card and their effects are abstracted to simple

bonuses to attack/defend. It works, but IMHO was a necessary

compromise rather than the "right decision". There are those who feel

that spell casters (via battle spells) should continue to have an

overwhelming effect on tactical level combat. I can`t support that

opinion.





<The future?>



In my opinion, the battle spell feat (and future discussion of battle

spells) should be dropped entirely. These spell effects should be

balanced by realm-level spell effects/costs. Spellcasters should add

power in proportion to their level in tactical combat; no more and no

less than a fighter (or any other class) of similar level. At the

realm level, however, spellcasters should remain a force to be feared.

By casting realm spells to buff/create/move army units BEFORE the

tactical combat begins, spellcasters remain a MAJOR strategic force.



Anyhow, thats my .0002 GB ;)



- Doom

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69+Feb 16 2005, 01:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Athos69 @ Feb 16 2005, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Feb 16 2005, 06:43 AM
How many creatures can fit into a 20 ft radius area – that is roughly 314 sq ft and 1 person fits into a 5 ft sq (25 sq ft) so that would be approximately 12.5 (say 13) man size creatures.

Sorry to bring this up Duane, but there is an error in your math. The area of a 20&#39; radius circle is calculated by the formula [Pi](R^2). if R= 20&#39;, that means that the area is 3.14*400, or 1256 square feet. [/b][/quote]
Yup and if you mistakenly treat a 20 ft radius as a 20 ft diameter you make the mistake I made. Thanks.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE
Battle magic should be a variation of the standard magic system. That is battle spells should be an application of standard spells. We can create some new ones if necessary, but IMO we should make every attempt to keep to standard spells. If not then we need to include battle magic in the number of spells a spellcaster can know (e.g., sorcerers and bards) or learn automatically at each level and then deal with the number of spells he can cast in a day. Although I don’t think this latter one is that big a deal due to the time period, battles take place over days and weeks vice a normal combat round. This is something we have to work in the war section that will have an affect here.


Battles take place in battle turns - 15 minutes is probably an appropriate amount of time (4 turns per hour, about 32 battle turns for an 8-hour battle - the reasonable limit for a full day of battle). A battle that couldn&#39;t be resolved in this amount of time would be extremely rare.

I agree that battle spells should be direct conversions of personal spells. I think the Battle magic feat should represent a distinct sort of metamagic feat, one that uses ritual casting and large quantities of expensive components to multiply the area of effect, range, and duration of personal spells. I don&#39;t believe this should require a spell level adjustment, though every battle spell should require preparation, even for bards and sorcerers, using up a normal spell slot for the day. Preparation would also include having the proper material components on hand, thus any prepared battle spells require the purchase and transportation of components before the actual battle.

I like the concept you have of battle round durations. Definitely deserves some discussion.

QUOTE
The various mass spells in the PHB should be addressed as to how (and if) they have an effect on units. IMO most of them do or readily can.


Any area spells need to be addressed this way - I proposed some standards for such effects in the Battle Magic area of effect thread.

I’m very hesitant take this approach as wide spread thing. There are several area of effect spells that really wouldn’t have an effect on the battle regardless of what was done to them. Invisibility Sphere for instance, it affects an area and as long as every one stays within that area they remain invisible. The odds of a unit staying in such tight formation with no one leaving the area is pretty much nil. I also am not inclined to start writing up descriptions of how every single area effect spell in the PHB would work on the battlefield. I much prefer the abstract system of the playtest document it keeps things simple and avoids all the arguing that players will end up with when they “insist” that the new spell they are using from a non-core WotC book (all are official) can be used in a certain way or when they try to likewise insist that Invisibility Sphere should indeed affect their units, etc. I only mentioned the mass spells because they are a recent addition to the rules and are more limited in number.

QUOTE
IMO the application of the battle caster feat is as follows. A caster with this feat can target spells on a battlefield such that they gain the most effect from them. The caster has such control over his spells that he can distinguish between a friendly and opponent unit.


IMO this is where any mage should be able to apply the Warcraft skill, with or without the feat. A simple check (DC 10) might suffice for knowing where best to place a fireball against an unengaged unit, while this might go up to DC 20 to place one against an engaged unit without scorching your allies.

I don&#39;t know if this detail got included in Ch 1, but Warcraft should be a skill that may be used untrained. Good tactics and strategies can certainly be reasoned out with some basic application of knowledge and logic - at least to a limited extent. As with any skill, of course, there&#39;s no replacement for a sound education, training, and experience (i.e., skill ranks).

In combination with this, I think a very cool addition to the Battle Caster feat would be to grant the character Warcraft as a class skill. Rather than requiring ranks in Warcraft to gain the skill, let the feat represent the specialized training that a Battle Mage undergoes to gain insight into magical warfare.

I sort of see the point of not requiring warcraft as a prerequisite but disagree with the concept of giving a spellcaster a bonus to determining how to best work the battlefield (not including magic) just by taking a spellcasting feat. I could see a bonus to warcraft checks involving the use of magic though. But I still lean towards having some basic concept of tactics (i.e., 1 rank in warcraft) in order to fully understand the power of battle magic.

One could instead require one or more metamagic feats as prerequisites: Widen Spell, Extend Spell, and Enlarge Spell being the 3 most applicable here. Perhaps any one of those 3 would be sufficient?

I see and generally like this concept. Now for an elven sorcerer it would require 1 metamagic feat and the battlecaster feat, minimum of 3rd level using all of his feat slots but would currently need to be 6th level to meet the 3rd level spell casting prereq. Wizards gain a benefit on this one, but since battle caster is not a metamagic feat (although it really is) it doesn’t get added to his list of bonus feats. Perhaps change the rereqs to 1 rank in warcraft and 1 of the metamagic feats listed, I don’t know I still like the concept of making the caster be capable of caster better than 1st level spells – reflects a better mastery of magic itself. Oh well this is something else to talk about in the war section.

QUOTE
The various mass spells can work outside of the battle itself without application of the battle caster feat. For example cure moderate wounds, mass would enable a caster to heal the damage a unit took if cast outside of battle. To heal a friendly unit inside of battle requires use of the battle caster feat.


I disagree with this. A normal caster knows the exact effects of their spells - it doesn&#39;t take a genius to know how to optimize their effects, especially on an unengaged friendly unit. I don&#39;t think the feat would change this by itself.

Only when the units are lined up nice and neatly. When they are intermingled like in a battle it becomes impossible – hence the battle caster feat so the spellcaster can take advantage of any momentary openings.

However, almost any Mass spell is limited to 1 target per caster level. Casting this once on a unit is almost guaranteed to have a negligible effect - it simply cannot affect enough troops. Cure spells in particular would be very limited without some sort of enhancement.

It all depends on the interpretation. Since the cure spells can target individuals the caster can pick and choose the ones that are the most hurt or who can have the most value to the unit and selectively heal them. It is a more morale based effect than pure damage. Heal the leader so he stands more upright and the troops will follow him.

Unlike with characters in the adventure scale of combat, damage to a unit represents casualties of all sorts: dead, wounded, and missing. A mass cure spell will only heal [caster level] number of wounded soldiers - it won&#39;t bring back the dead or missing.

An average regular unit has 2 hits and 200 soldiers. Thus, 1 hit on a unit should equal about 100 casualties, of which only a third or so would be wounded, the rest dead or missing. This isn&#39;t absolute, but a reasonable mean result for our purposes here.

Could any cure spell, even an enhanced Battle Magic mass cure, really restore even 1 hit to such a unit?

Veteran or tough units have 3 hits - with 200 men, this means that each veteran soldier has about 1.5 times as many HP as a regular soldier. If we also assume that veteran units are often smaller in number than a regular company (c. 150 men), we could raise this to about 2x avg. HP per soldier (average veteran soldiers would then be 2nd-3rd level warriors, rather than 1st as the default for regulars).

All that being said, if a veteran unit took 2 hits, it is reasonable to assume that enough healing magic spread out over the surviving company might be enough to restore 1 hit, representing all the wounded regaining full health. Such an effect would require healing app. 50 or more men - definitely outside the scope of a single mass cure spell regardless of caster level. However, I think this is an ideal application of a Battle Magic mass cure spell (Mass Cure Light Wounds from a 9th level caster would heal 1d8+9 hp per soldier, or 10-17 hp: easily enough to restore most wounded 2nd or 3rd level warriors to full health).

Outside of a battle, however, multiple castings of any cure spell would dramatically enhance the healing of a unit&#39;s injured soldiers. But the dead and missing will only be replaced by new recruits, something that is guaranteed to take more time, and recruiting facilities.

This ties into Ch. 6 (War), but I would like to propose a flat reality rule concerning the healing of units:

A unit can only heal 1/2 the number of hits taken in a battle (round down) due to magical or natural healing. The remaining damage represents permanent casualties that must be replaced through recruiting or combining existing units.

I disagree with this since I see the effect of taking hits more on the effectiveness of the unit fighting. It reflects the damage to equipment as well as those injured and of course some casualties. Having said that I understand and agree with your simplification since I can’t see any clearer way to handle it simply. There are other games that use a similar mechanic – Alternity had mortal/wounds/stuns for every 2 mortals a character took an additional point of wound and stun damage – secondary damage. So there is a similar type of concept her, IMO.

Recruiting: In order for a damaged unit to recruit and train new members to replace its losses, it must be garrisoned in a province where the regent has a holding of high enough level to muster an equivalent unit. Once garrisoned here (requires one month), the unit may regain 1 hit per month of recruitement, costing 1 GB per hit regained.

Combining damaged units: Damaged units of the same type (ex.: 2 medium infantry each with 1 hit remaining) can be combined to quickly replace casualties. This requires 1 GB in expenses and 1 week (war move) to complete. The recieving unit (the one being added to) may not move during this period.

Sorry for the battle rules diversion, it&#39;s something that I put out there for the sake of having a more holistic view of unit healing in general.

Interesting and promising. Definitely deserves some more discussion.


All in all I think we are thinking more similarly than differently.

[irdeggman]

In my opinion, the battle spell feat (and future discussion of battle
spells) should be dropped entirely. These spell effects should be
balanced by realm-level spell effects/costs. Spellcasters should add
power in proportion to their level in tactical combat; no more and no
less than a fighter (or any other class) of similar level. At the
realm level, however, spellcasters should remain a force to be feared.
By casting realm spells to buff/create/move army units BEFORE the
tactical combat begins, spellcasters remain a MAJOR strategic force.

Anyhow, thats my .0002 GB

- Doom

Travis I hope this means we&#39;ve gotten your interest level up again.

I have to disagree with this concept if only for the reason that it makes non-blooded, non-regent spellcasters pretty much useless on the battlefield. While I see your point on balancing the effect of a 10th level fighter and 10th level spellcaster a fighter can also take some of the new feats with his fighter bonus feats that grant bonuses to the battlefield so a straight up comparison of the classes is not quite accurate. Which is better a battle spell or a better warcraft check?

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Feb 17 2005, 01:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Feb 17 2005, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Athos69@Feb 16 2005, 01:01 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman

@Feb 16 2005, 06:43 AM
How many creatures can fit into a 20 ft radius area – that is roughly 314 sq ft and 1 person fits into a 5 ft sq (25 sq ft) so that would be approximately 12.5 (say 13) man size creatures.

Sorry to bring this up Duane, but there is an error in your math. The area of a 20&#39; radius circle is calculated by the formula [Pi](R^2). if R= 20&#39;, that means that the area is 3.14*400, or 1256 square feet.

Yup and if you mistakenly treat a 20 ft radius as a 20 ft diameter you make the mistake I made. Thanks. [/b][/quote]
How so? the formula is better written (and more mathematically correct) as follows:
pi * R^2, where pi is half the number of radians (the length of the radius of the circle applied as a bow-length along the perimeter of said circle), and R is the length of said radius.

What I see is that the whole problem lies in how battlefield-applied spells should work; my opinion is that spells should be more tightly fit around the default spell system. An example would be allowing a wizard casting a battle spell to affect a unit instead of an area with an area spell, and so forth...

[irdeggman]

So you believe all unit-affecting spells should be relegated to Battle Spells? That is what seems to be suggested here. This would also eliminate all personal spells as well.

While some of the unit-affecting spells in the BRCS were battle spells in 2e, a number of them are drawn from the original realm spells in the BR rulebook.

The following 2e realm spells would be eliminated if realm spells affected only areas larger than a battlefield:
Arcane: Legion of Dead, Mass Destruction, Raze (a castle is smaller than a battlefield), Stronghold, Subversion (with units as targets), Summoning, and Transport.
Divine: Bless Army.

Arcane (BoM): Battle Fury, Defection, Feign Destruction, Inflame, and Royal Facade.
Divine (BoP): Consecrate Relic and Excommunicate.

I didn&#39;t say that the 2nd ed system wasn&#39;t broken. I think most people believe that its battle spell system was probably the worst aspect of the BR magic system.

I was trying to establish power levels of spells, if this line isn&#39;t drawn then it is really a futile exercise to try and pin down battle magic itself.

IIRC I did mention the summon spells as being suitable as realm spells due to their duration.

Also the BRCS repertoire of realm spells was already determined to be missing quite a few from the 2nd ed books and this should help restore some of the power to the package.

IMO there are 3 levels of spells in BR;

Personal (from standard spell selection)

Battle spells (as I have clarified those spells that affect a unit(s) or the battlefield and have a more limited duration than do realm spells)

Realm spells - those that affect entire provinces or have durations in the domain round measurement (e.g., most of the playtest version summmon spells)

Let&#39;s see the 2nd ed spells Stronghold, Legion of the Dead, Battle Fury (which fits better as a battle spell and on par with the Bless Unit spell, IMO), Feign Destruction, Defection all have durations that fall into the ream spell level of power. Although I think that some of them fit better as battle spells though.

While the 2nd ed description of raze fits better with the description of a battle spell - the caster must have the target within sight and do all of the preparations on the site.

Now apply both criteria to whether or not a spell should be a realm or battle spell - area of effect and/or duration. I did say both and not just area of effect.