Battle and Realm Magic

[irdeggman]

This is a logical argument, but I do not like the idea of elven sorcerers one bit, it just feels wrong to me. Elves do have an inherent magical ability but no more so than anyone with a bloodline. Blooded humans would be more likely to become sorcerers following that argument, although I guess humans could have started as sorcerers and then become wizards later on as their magic became more structured.

Actually the logic of elven sorcerers extends beyond their blood and to the description of elves in the 2nd ed material. In many places the elves are described in what more suitalble fits a 3.5 sorcerer than any one else. Again I go back to the elves split from the Sie as just one source.

This would still mean that human magic was wizards magic and that if elves were sorcerers then they couldn't become wizards at all (because they don't want to use anything elven). Remember that most of the battles between humans and elves took place before Deismaar, so it would have been elven arcane magic vs. human priestly magic.

Why would it mean that elves couldn't become wizards? I don't see any connection. A wizard is a reflection of time and study vice natural ability. Elves, IMO, have a prpensity for natural ability hence a tendancy towards sorcerers but that doesn't limit them from pursuing the academic study neccessay to becaome a wizard. I can very much see how humans trying to emulate the elven mastery of the arcane had to resort to study - hence wizards vice sorcerers.

Actually, that raises an interesting argument. If the human-elf wars are pre-Deismaar and elves are generally sorcerers, and sorcerers are less effective on the battlefield whem compared to wizards and cleric, then that shows you how the humans won. With assistance from priests trained to fight on the battlefield vs. elven sorcerers then the human had the advantage.

But you have already in great depth pointed out that clerics are pretty much useless on the battlefield while wizards rule. So essentially clerics would have been a non-factor on the battlefield during the human-elven wars.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Feb 18 2005, 10:28 AM
LIST OF CURRENT WAR SPELLS
· Acid Fog
· (...)Wind Wall

Thanks for a good & hard work, Raesene!

How do You think, this is a good grid for a typical company of Brt men-at-arms?

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Feb 20 2005, 03:08 AM

Actually the logic of elven sorcerers extends beyond their blood and to the description of elves in the 2nd ed material. In many places the elves are described in what more suitalble fits a 3.5 sorcerer than any one else. Again I go back to the elves split from the Sie as just one source.

The way I see it.
Sorcerer = no training, learn spells themselves.
Wizard = training, learn spells from college, master.

Elves have a long and proud history and an advanced culture and civilisation, which has become a little xenophobic in recent years. They would have developed theories for magic, the various schools of magic, etc. Their theories might be very different from humans. I'm sure a young elf wizard doesn't go and look up spells in musty old tomes, but he may study at the feat of a master wizard and learn his spells that way.

Remember, the elves did teach humans true magic, and if humans are wizards rather than sorcerers then that would suggest elves are wizards as well. The human who were taught by Azrai were sorcerers, and I'm sure there are Vos and Rjurik sorcerers as well, and goblins and orogs, but I like the idea of elven wizards.

Most of my ideas of Cerilian magic come from The Shadow Stone novel by the way, that deals with the issue quite extensively. That novel has a lot of good ideas that can be used.

Why would it mean that elves couldn't become wizards? I don't see any connection. A wizard is a reflection of time and study vice natural ability. Elves, IMO, have a prpensity for natural ability hence a tendancy towards sorcerers but that doesn't limit them from pursuing the academic study neccessay to becaome a wizard. I can very much see how humans trying to emulate the elven mastery of the arcane had to resort to study - hence wizards vice sorcerers.

Because if humans had developed wizard magic, then elves are going to avoid it like the plague out of simple spite. Any elf who became a wizard would be ridiculed because he had chosen "human" magic over traditional elven methods of spellcasting. If humans had developed wizard magic then elves could not be wizards.

And if elves have always had wizards, then that negates the argument for vast hordes of elven sorcerers. If, as I have suggested, elves developed wizard magic, then most elves would be wizards because that is the traditional elven form of magic and they were the ones who taught it to humans. This would not prevent them from becoming sorcerers.

Also, if elves are wizards, then this would explain why not every elf becomes a spellcaster. It is a most regimented occupation that say a bard or ranger, so not many elves would be interested.

But you have already in great depth pointed out that clerics are pretty much useless on the battlefield while wizards rule. So essentially clerics would have been a non-factor on the battlefield during the human-elven wars.

Did I? I don't recall doing that, because I certainly don't believe that. Priests are not useless on the battlefield. The only thing I said was that standard cure spells cannot be used to affect an entire unit, unless you have a group of priests, and it would need to be a fairly large group. This doesn't mean that you can't have clerical battle magic, and in that case it would be as effective as wizard's magic, although priests would mainly have battle spells that boost a units effectivness, heal the unit, or protect the unit, rather that destruction spells like the wizard.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy@Feb 20 2005, 06:16 AM
Thanks for a good & hard work, Raesene!

How do You think, this is a good grid for a typical company of Brt men-at-arms?

That would seem fairly accurate.

Interesting to note that the fireball cannot hit much more than about 1/5 of the soldiers in the unit, and if the unit scatters, spreads out to avoid spells, then it would do even less damage.

[Athos69]

I've always pictured the Elves as having both Sorcerors and Wizards, most likely in a 70/30 split. This would reflect all those who felt the calling of the arcane path, and the aversion to structured study and learning. It still leaves room open for all sides of the debate...

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu
Because if humans had developed wizard magic, then elves are going to avoid it like the plague out of simple spite. Any elf who became a wizard would be ridiculed because he had chosen "human" magic over traditional elven methods of spellcasting. If humans had developed wizard magic then elves could not be wizards.

And if elves have always had wizards, then that negates the argument for vast hordes of elven sorcerers. If, as I have suggested, elves developed wizard magic, then most elves would be wizards because that is the traditional elven form of magic and they were the ones who taught it to humans. This would not prevent them from becoming sorcerers.

Also, if elves are wizards, then this would explain why not every elf becomes a spellcaster. It is a most regimented occupation that say a bard or ranger, so not many elves would be interested.

Let me tell you were your logic fails:

It seems as if you cannot even begin to imagine the elves having both wizards and sorcerers from a MECHANICAL standpoint; in other words, while many elves would be having the capacity to produce any sort of mage, the most ingenious probably are wizards, while the ones with tremendous force of personality became sorcerers. While the wizard is by default a student of the eldritch arts, I have a tendency to consider every possible pathway; in this case, those who would study with an elder mage strike me more as the person who tries to tap his inner reserves and thus resembles more of a sorcerer than a wizard; in other words, I don't feel there is no study us a sorcerer, it just happens to be less formal than most teachings!

As for your argument, well, while I generally agree that most elven mages would probably be sorcerers, I feel the sharing would be 40/60; what I feel I should intone is that the arcane spellcasters might probably be more like 35/50/15 wiz/sor/brd... In any case, I believe that wizards originated from elves (unlike sorcerers who originated from dragons) but still were much prefered from humans because there was no racial superiority in being a sorcerer as a human.

[Osprey]

In Cerilia, where all non-elven true mages are blooded scions, there is a tendency for the blooded to be born of the ruling classes, be they land, law, temple, guild, or source regents and their retinues.

In the political arena, especially a more sophisticated one like Anuire, Khinasi, or Brechtur, the choice between wizard or sorcerer becomes heavily weighted in favor of the wizard. The reason's simple: wizards are far more versatile in their arcane powers, and since neither wizards nor sorcerers have much mundane power (weak skill sets, weak combatants), their magical utility becomes their main political value.

The competitive nature of the political world demands a degree of versatility that few sorcerers can provide. Thus I believe the wizard would be far more common among "civilized" humans than sorcerers.

Elves, well...I really like wizards a lot more than sorcerers as a PC class, so I'm biased. Neither class has a very interesting array of skills, though at least wizards have the range of craft, knowledge, and profession skills, and INT as a favored attribute (so more skills). Sorcerers would be so much cooler if they had some CHA-based social skills - which at least makes Anuirean and Khinasi sorcerers more interesting since they have some useful racial skills (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Sense Motive). I've also tried out a few of the new magicians, and found them to be far more interesting PC's to play...their blend of versatile skills, decent combat ability, and helpful magics make them both rivals with and powerful complements to bards and clerics (the other 'support' classes). With such balance achieved, I am quite interested in the idea of elven magicians...for those Sidhelien who prefer a more versatile, and thus less restrictive class, it's a great class, as is the bard.

Anyways, among elves I can see validity in both sides of the ongoing discussion. The spontaneous, intuitive nature of sorcery really favors a chaotic race more than a structured, scholarly sort of magic. I just wish elven sorcerers weren't so...boring. In truth I prefer bards over sorcerers for the really chaotic, passionate sorts of elves - while elven wizards might be hyper-focused and absent minded, or those history buffs who are all about the past, traditions, rituals...I still reckon elven wizards would lean away from chaos more than most elves.

Like other societies, I consider "arcane casters" the favored class for PC/NPC elven characters of exception. Most elves are probably experts of some sort, which trims down the number of potential mages quite a lot.

I'd place bards and magicians as the most common arcane casters, then sorcerers and wizards - c. 35/25/20/20% respectively. This assumes most sorcerers would likely be multiclass characters, and many wizards as well - it's hard to imagine anyone, especially a Sidhelien, being content with only the study of arcane magic and lore for century after century.

[Osprey]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu+Feb 20 2005, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Feb 20 2005, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thomas_Percy@Feb 20 2005, 06:16 AM
Thanks for a good & hard work, Raesene&#33;

How do You think, this is a good grid for a typical company of Brt men-at-arms?

That would seem fairly accurate.

Interesting to note that the fireball cannot hit much more than about 1/5 of the soldiers in the unit, and if the unit scatters, spreads out to avoid spells, then it would do even less damage. [/b][/quote]
I thought the diagram was good work, too.

I&#39;ve been thinking about real space (as opposed to abstract D&D terms) used by a unit.

One 5&#39; square per man seems like a slightly loose formation...pikemen, halbadiers, spearmen, and shield-wall infantry might pack in at 3&#39; per man.

Axemen and swordsmen would use 5&#39; apiece in an offensive formation, so the diagram works pretty well for them.
5&#39; apiece is decent for a line of archers, too.

10&#39; apiece is about right for a cavalry formation, though I&#39;ve always assumed a cavalry company is far fewer than an infantry company - as few as 40 horsemen, no more than a hundred per company. Horses do add to the EL of a unit - but I also assume that many regular or veteran cavalrymen are better than 1st level warriors. In fact, I prefer that any professional soldier (like a knight or mercenary, for example) be a fighter by default, not a warrior. These guys fight for a living, some are born and bred for it - with PC levels they have a higher CR, so there are less of them needed to make an effective unit. Veteran companies are probably comprised of a number of fighters of 1st and higher levels.

In medieval battles, a line of battle formation often spread the units out pretty thin - so a 10-squad wide line of battle might be fairly common too (wish I knew how to do a nifty diagram on here).

Actual loose formation would probably be a 5&#39; space added between each soldier. The company spreads out to minimize missile and artillery/magic damage (a unit morale save vs. an incoming spell might represent the unit spreading to loose formation in time).

In 5&#39; "normal" [diagram] formation (5x2), the fireball could hit no more than 36 men at once, less than a fifth of the men. And after the first hit, the company&#39;s not likey to stand around for target practice to continue.

The dimensions of a loose formation unit would be twice the diagram&#39;s. Which means a single fireball would catch only a handful of soldiers, perhaps most of one squad...1/10 of a company, barely a scratch. If your average company has 2 hits and 200 troops, then it would take at least 10 fireballs (assuming they all stand around and take it without moving) to destroy the company. Not exactly economical, even with a wand of fireballs.

On the other hand, 2 widened fireballs (40&#39; radius spread) would obliterate the basic formation in quick succession. But Widen Spell, at +3 spell level (a widened fireball takes a 6th level spell slot), will keep this a rare sight on the battlefield.

Battle Magic could expand the effect of spells in two ways: by widening the area from a single point (like widen spell), or by multiplying a basic effect many times over (a favorite of the 2e system, but obviously disliked by many). Multi-spells make a degree of sense: if the spells are designed for the battlefield, volleys would work best against entire companies for overall effect. A volley of several (3+) normal fireballs would get better overall coverage than one widened fireball.

Also, there&#39;s a good logic to multi-spells and widened spells if battle magic is primarily ritual magic (with a 5-10 minute casting time). Ritual is all about repetition - chanting, gesturing, repeat...building up power, shaping, growing, repeating in cycles...Each cycle could produce another copy of the spell, or feed one powerful central &#39;form&#39; of the spell.

Chanting invocations and wards like bless, shield of faith, prayer, etc. work really well as a continuous-effect sort of spell: the initial casting time is probably short (a minute or two perhaps), but the spell must be maintained by the clerics continuing to chant and pray.


Some conceptual stuff to float into the mix.
Osprey

[Thomas_Percy]

There is a diagram for a Knight Company, but there are only 100 warriors there:


My knights are:

KNIGHT: Human Ftr2/Ari2; Medium Humanoid; CR 3;
HD 2d8+2d10+4; hp 15;
Init +0; Spd 20 ft/x3;
AC 20[28 cover] (+8 full plate, +2 shield), touch 10, flat-footed 20;
Base Atk/Grapple +3/+5;
Full Atk +5 (1d8+2[2d8+4 with Spirited Charge]; 19-20/x2, Longsword),
+5 (1d8+4[3d8+12 with Spirited Charge]; 20/x3, Lance),
+3 Two-handed (1d8; 19-20/x2, Light Crossbow);
SV Fort +4, Ref +0[+4+Improved Evasion, cover], Will +4;
Str 14(+2), Dex 10(+0), Con 12(+1), Int 12(+1), Wis 12(+1), Cha 14(+2);
Skills: Craft (siegecraft) +2, Diplomacy +12, Intimidate +3, Knowledge (nobilty) +3, Knowledge (religion) +2, Knowledge (stewardship) +8, Listen +2, Perform (dancing) +3, Ride +7, Sense Motive +9, Spellcraft +2, Spot +2, Survival +2.
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Trample, Spirited Charge, Mount Strength (mount’s Str bonus instead of raider’s Str bonus durning charge).
Possessions: Potions & oils: Protection from evil, oil of Magic weapon, Heavy Warhorse

HEAVY WARHORSE, Large Animal, CR 2
HD 4d8+12, hp 30,
Init +1, Spd 35 ft (50 ft without barding).
AC 20 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +6 banded barding, +4 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 19
Atk +6 melee (1d6+4, 2 hooves) and +1 melee (1d4+2, bite)
SQ: Low-light vision, scent
Fort +7, Ref +5, Will +2
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6
Skills & Feats: Listen +5, Spot +4
Endurance, Run

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=3000

>

> Osprey wrote:

> QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Feb 20 2005, 06:49 PM) QUOTE (Thomas_Percy @ Feb 20 2005, 06:16 AM) Thanks for a good & hard work, Raesene!

>

>How do You think, this is a good grid for a typical company of Brt men-at-arms?

>

>(IMAGE: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ps/Company.jpg)

>-----------------------------

>

>

>That would seem fairly accurate.

>

>Interesting to note that the fireball cannot hit much more than about 1/5 of the soldiers in the unit, and if the unit scatters, spreads out to avoid spells, then it would do even less damage.

>-----------------------------

>

>

> I thought the diagram was good work, too.

>

>I`ve been thinking about real space (as opposed to abstract D&D terms) used by a unit.

>

>One 5` square per man seems like a slightly loose formation...pikemen, halbadiers, spearmen, and shield-wall infantry might pack in at 3` per man.

>

>Axemen and swordsmen would use 5` apiece in an offensive formation, so the diagram works pretty well for them.

>5` apiece is decent for a line of archers, too.

>

>10` apiece is about right for a cavalry formation, though I`ve always assumed a cavalry company is far fewer than an infantry company - as few as 40 horsemen, no more than a hundred per company. Horses do add to the EL of a unit - but I also assume that many regular or veteran cavalrymen are better than 1st level warriors. In fact, I prefer that any professional soldier (like a knight or mercenary, for example) be a fighter by default, not a warrior. These guys fight for a living, some are born and bred for it - with PC levels they have a higher CR, so there are less of them needed to make an effective unit. Veteran companies are probably comprised of a number of fighters of 1st and higher levels.

>

>In medieval battles, a line of battle formation often spread the units out pretty thin - so a 10-squad wide line of battle might be fairly common too (wish I knew how to do a nifty diagram on here).

>

>Actual loose formation would probably be a 5` space added between each soldier. The company spreads out to minimize missile and artillery/magic damage (a unit morale save vs. an incoming spell might represent the unit spreading to loose formation in time).

>

>In 5` "normal" [diagram] formation (5x2), the fireball could hit no more than 36 men at once, less than a fifth of the men. And after the first hit, the company`s not likey to stand around for target practice to continue.

>

>The dimensions of a loose formation unit would be twice the diagram`s. Which means a single fireball would catch only a handful of soldiers, perhaps most of one squad...1/10 of a company, barely a scratch. If your average company has 2 hits and 200 troops, then it would take at least 10 fireballs (assuming they all stand around and take it without moving) to destroy the company. Not exactly economical, even with a wand of fireballs.

>

>On the other hand, 2 widened fireballs (40` radius spread) would obliterate the basic formation in quick succession. But Widen Spell, at +3 spell level (a widened fireball takes a 6th level spell slot), will keep this a rare sight on the battlefield.

>

>Battle Magic could expand the effect of spells in two ways: by widening the area from a single point (like widen spell), or by multiplying a basic effect many times over (a favorite of the 2e system, but obviously disliked by many). Multi-spells make a degree of sense: if the spells are designed for the battlefield, volleys would work best against entire companies for overall effect. A volley of several (3+) normal fireballs would get better overall coverage than one widened fireball.

>

>Also, there`s a good logic to multi-spells and widened spells if battle magic is primarily ritual magic (with a 5-10 minute casting time). Ritual is all about repetition - chanting, gesturing, repeat...building up power, shaping, growing, repeating in cycles...Each cycle could produce another copy of the spell, or feed one powerful central `form` of the spell.

>

>Chanting invocations and wards like bless, shield of faith, prayer, etc. work really well as a continuous-effect sort of spell: the initial casting time is probably short (a minute or two perhaps), but the spell must be maintained by the clerics continuing to chant and pray.

>Some conceptual stuff to float into the mix.

>Osprey

>

The view you both present is a purely gamemechanical view. How much men

are killed by the fireball in which formation and that then the army

unit will quickly change formation to render more fireballs less

effective - as if a fireball would be just some minor nuisance that the

other soldiers ignore and if a fireball would be a common sight on the

battlefield that is more threatening than a mounted charge.



Neither of you take into account that Knights or any other sort of

cavalry will be a far more common sight on the battlefield than a True

Wizard. An infantery unit in loose formation begs for a cavalry charge

that would quickly rout them.



That after the first fireball hits, "...the company`s not likey to

stand around for target practice to continue..." would mean that they

immediately scatter into a loose formation, as every infantery soldier

in Birthright is used to the sight of fireballs and knows their range of

effect? No, I would think that after the first fireball hits an army

unit that the original 2E "Rout" result is the most likely to represent

the effects of a fireball. True Magic is rare, powerful and to the eye

of the uninitiated (=every NPC soldier) horrific to behold. Unless you

assume that not only the army units that accompany a wizard are trained

in supporting his magic, but all others are trained in knowlegde about

the arcane arts as well and could calmly stand the sight of their

comrades incinerated next to them (regardless if a 3rd or a 5th of the

unit turns to ashes - the result should be that everyone in that unit

who is not a PC routs and the PC suffers the effects of a fireball spell).

bye

Michael