Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 81
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Athos69@Feb 16 2005, 02:28 PM
    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.
    i have to agree with Osprey here, but maybe for different reasons. Adding another level of spells via description like your examples causes a lot more work and bookkeeping.

    How are these spells learned?

    How many does a spellcaster know?

    Does he gain any automatically at each level?

    How many can he cast a day?

    And so on. . . .
    Duane Eggert

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The way that I had percieved it was that the 'War' spells were treated just like regular spells, took up regular spell slots, can be selected as the caster's 'free' spell on gaining a level, and were available for characters to research exactly as they do for the extant PHB spells. In essence, these were additional spells to include into Chapter 3, and they are custom tailored for the battle system already. Throw in some guidelines for DMs to convert other spells to the system, and we're done.

    The only thing that differentiates these spells from the rest is that in order to have access to them, one needs the Battle Caster feat.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  3. #23
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    The way that I had percieved it was that the 'War' spells were treated just like regular spells, took up regular spell slots, can be selected as the caster's 'free' spell on gaining a level, and were available for characters to research exactly as they do for the extant PHB spells. In essence, these were additional spells to include into Chapter 3, and they are custom tailored for the battle system already. Throw in some guidelines for DMs to convert other spells to the system, and we're done.

    The only thing that differentiates these spells from the rest is that in order to have access to them, one needs the Battle Caster feat.
    An immediate problem I see here is that this sort of approach outright screws sorcerers and bards. If they have to choose between personal and battle spells for their few spells known, they become even more impotent in their lack of versatility and easily-predicted handful of tricks. Not too fun to play, nor terribly balanced IMO.

    The BRCS realm spell system handles this by allowing sorcerers to know realm spells in addition to the normal number of personal spells known - which makes regent sorcerers quite a bit more impressive than their unsourced kin.

    This is why I prefer that Battle Magic be treated as a metamagic feat - all battle spells then rely on modified versions of personal spells known and prepared. It retains the balance of the existing class system, allowing any caster with the feat to have about the same amount of power on the battlefield as they do on the adventure scale.

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    There are several different layers of balance to maintain here IMO. Some completely disjointed (so read the items below as if they were separate posts) thoughts follow.

    The cost must be commensurate with the effect achieved. The most precious currency in Birthright isn't GB or RP, but actions. If realm spells can achieve this or that, and are considered reasonably balanced, then the cost in terms of GB/RP for battle spells should bridge the gap between requiring a domain action versus not requiring a domain action. Otherwise, they'll be broken. Thus, these spells need to be prohibitively expensive to cast if they are to have similar effects to what established realms spells have. Allowing characters to have a significant realm level effect without requiring a domain action is a really powerful benefit that needs to be very carefully balanced.

    ---

    As for the issue Doom brings up -- the balance of spellcasters versus non-spellcasters, I think it's a very valid concern. The designer in me thinks it would be cooler to come up with some new, unique benefits for non-spellcasters as applied to a battlefield environment, though. Off the top of my head, I can't really think of anything that'd really work well to accomplish that, though. I'm sure it's not an entirely insurmountable obstacle to come up with some concepts, given time. On the other hand, doing so would probably add another level of unnecessary complexity to what's supposed to be a relatively simple battle system.

    It's always been a D&D paradigm that spellcasters are better at cleaning up the mooks, which is what a battlefield primarily consists of -- in a single round, a high-level spellcaster can easily slay 40 or more normal men; a fighter of a similar level would be hard pressed to do even 10 in a single round. On the other hand, the fighter would tend to be able to take a lot more damage.

    Given how the unit system is basically just a further abstraction of an already fairly abstract system of personal combat, I think the 'use as modifier to a unit' system is adequate -- at least for low- to mid-level characters. For higher-level characters, awnsheghlien, dragons, and other high-powered creatures, I think something a bit more that that is required to really show how devastating they are on a battlefield, if left unopposed by other characters or creatures of a similar caliber.

    ---

    One idea I remember toying with in regards to battle spells was treating them as a kind of cantrip or 0-level spell on the realm spell level. Something like this: A caster could cast a single such spell in response to an invasion or something, but would required to spend a full domain action to cast multiple such spells (say 4; each having a 1-week casting time). They should be reasonably potent, but not devastating.

    Incidentally, this approach also has the benefit of being tied up with an integral part of Birthright -- the realm magic level. From a design POV, I don't really see a great need for a sort of 'middle tier' of magic between ordinary magic and realm magic, when those can already cover that ground by virtue of their own power range anyway.

    ---

    I think part of the very basic problem here is a leveling issue. The power of a spellcaster in the domain system scales much more with level than it does for non-spellcasters. That can mean one of two things: Either high-level spellcasters are unusually powerful and too good compared to other classes, while low-level spellcasters are balanced, or high-level spellcasters are balanced, and low-level spellcasters are weak. (Note that high/low level must taken in context of the setting.) It could also be a sort of middle ground (weak low, balanced middle, strong high), but I think the former two are what needs to be concentrated on in any analysis here.

    The solution could be to allow other classes to scale similarly with level (which would be 'better D&D,' but would also mean that PCs are likely to be trounced by higher-level NPC regents, then do the trouncing themselves later) or to tone down how much the power of a spellcaster scales with level to fit better with what the other classes get. In that light, if battle spells are really a necessity, I think they need to be tied more to the domain system in the manner outlined above -- as some kind of 0-level effect. It'd fit the transition from 2e to 3e/3.5e on a conceptual level as well -- in 2e, wizards and other spellcasters got a single 1st-level spell per day. Now they get that, but they also get a few 0-level spells to round out their repertoire, giving them a much-needed low-level power boost. Their power curve is still too steep at higher levels, but c'est la vie, I suppose.

    It seems to me that battle magic may have been devised for a few different reasons. First, to serve as filler. That was the be-all and end-all of a lot of 2e products. To have some filler material, often something that would 'up' an existing power curve. A secondary purpose may have been to give lower-level casters 'something to do' other than scry on people and make gold. The battle magic system itself suffered from a large number of typical 2e deficiencies, however -- a lack of playtesting and mechanical balancing (i.e. stuff was all too often balanced with 'role-playing restrictions' in mind, leaving it wide open to be power gamed with) -- and a lack of consistency with the already existing systems in Birthright. It never seemed to me to quite fit in with the nature of the setting. The type of magic that is in Birthright doesn't scream 'Rain of Magic Missiles' to me. 'Rain of Magic Missiles' sounds like something Elminster would cook up.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:42:04PM +0100, irdeggman wrote:

    > Travis I hope this means we`ve gotten your interest level up again.



    Yep.



    > 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.



    I don`t buy it. A non-blooded, non-regent spellcaster is just as

    useful on the battlefield as a rogue, barbarian, or any other character

    of the class is on the battlefield. That is, they all contribute

    equally (assuming equal character level) to one or more heroes cards.

    Thats it. No more, no less (during the battle). A blooded regent

    spell caster contributes just as much, but also has the option of

    spending realm level resources prior to the big shindig.



    > 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?



    Again, I would respectfully disagree. Firstly, any character can take

    the warcraft skill, but really only _one_ character`s warcraft skill is

    important: the general/leader of the army. If there are three

    characters with equally high warcraft skills these effects don`t stack

    (as they would with battle spells).



    Likewise, anyone can learn and use warcraft. Only certain classes can

    use battle spells. For a fighter to excel in warcraft they would have

    to sink a significant portion of their overall skill points into the

    skill. Even a single classed (but high INT) wizard could get a very

    similar warcraft skill check with less overall skill investment. With

    a single multiclass level of fighter, a wizard could easily max out the

    skill and match or exceed the warcraft skill of any other character of

    the same level. The same does not appear true of fighters and battle

    spells.



    It would be very hard to convince me that giving spellcasters something

    "extra" at the tactical level is balanced (particularly as rogues get

    squat except for their contribution to the Heroes card). It isn`t

    balanced and never was. That being said, unbalanced battle magic is

    _definitely_ part of the BR tradition. One could easily argue that

    battle magic isn`t _supposed_ to be balanced and that part of the BR

    universe is that when wizards take to the field, look out!

    Tradition/flavor is a fine argument if that is what you believe that

    the author`s intended.



    Personally, I don`t find that overpowering spellcasters in army battles

    (which really should be where the fighter-type regents get to shine)

    makes my game more enjoyable. But then again, I also thought that the

    authors of the Book of Priest/Magecraft must have been smoking some

    heavy hashish when I first read the battlespells rules in 2e... so I`m

    very biased on this issue.



    - Doom

  6. #26
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    And the chief editor's real plot starts to gell by re-engaging Jan and Travis muha muha muah


    Athos69,

    Osprey makes a good point (and pretty much the same lineof thinking Ihad) about not treating battle spells as separate and unique spells. It especailly impacts elven sorcers, whichis in general what people believe is the elven preferred class since they cannot increase the number of spells known by research.

    I also think using battle caster feat a semi-metamagic feat is the simpliest method.

    The issue becomes do we need to document how this affects every spell in the PHB? If so then what guidelines do we need to include for people to handle all of those other spells that have been added to the "Official" WotC spell lists?


    And yes Travis I agree with your opinion of the 2nd ed authors' use of mind-expanding pharmaceuticals when writing the battle magic rules. Have I mentioned lately that I went to school in Ann Arbor during the 70s and 80s? I swear I saw some people on the diag in April (Annual Hash Bash day) throwing dice and muttering to themselves or maybe that was just the trees talking to me The colors man look at the colors

    And as both Travis and Jan have pointed out a wizard on the battlefield reducing vast numbers of minions (i.e., cannon fodder) with a single spell has always been
    a core theme of D&D.

    And I agree with Jan's take on the entire BR battle magic system being too influenced by FR. It seemed like this was where they put their FR castoffs (including some adventures - Sword of Roele anyone?)

    Rain of Magic Missiles an the Flying Unit thing come to mind as spells that just don't fit the BR theme. Plus I always had trouble seeing how a limited use spell (on a mass scale) like magic missile could be "modified" to affect 200 individuals in any meaningful way. (I mean max of 5 missiles?)

    I think we will need a poll real soon to find out if we should have the traditional BR 3-tiered system - personal, battle and realm magic or just go to a 2 tiered one with personal and realm magic alone. There seems to be sufficient opinons on possibly eliminating battle magic that it deserves a vote.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Blackgate, Danigau
    Posts
    87
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I support doom's take on this situation.

    Balance first. Flavor second. .....and a distant third is images of flying Elminsters with every WotC spell super-sized at their fingertips.

    How many of us have played a dungeon crawl where the wizard ran out of spells, but the fighters and rogues were fine to keep going? Sure wizards like to think they are all that and the cat's meow, but they might not add more to a Heros card than anyone else.

    I am not against some nice flavor for spellcasters. In this thread here I mentioned a possible use for NPCs and PC spellcasters on the battle board. Basically for a week or month they join a unit. By giving up their character action, they get to give the unit some balanced bonus. +2 melee, faster heal in garrison, morale bonus, and such. These bonues could have flavorful names which relate to normal spells. Balance with an equivalent hero card would be possible. Exactly what bonus they could give would be dependent upon the spellcasters know spells or deity. Plenty of room to work flavor in.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    440
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    In a message dated 2/16/05 5:56:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

    brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:



    << ------------ QUOTE ----------

    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 >>



    I think I like this intepretation myself. It simplifies things a bit.

    Only two levels of magic seems easier to sell to my newbie players than three.



    Lee.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 16 2005, 09:56 PM
    The way that I had percieved it was that the &#39;War&#39; spells were treated just like regular spells, took up regular spell slots, can be selected as the caster&#39;s &#39;free&#39; spell on gaining a level, and were available for characters to research exactly as they do for the extant PHB spells. In essence, these were additional spells to include into Chapter 3, and they are custom tailored for the battle system already. Throw in some guidelines for DMs to convert other spells to the system, and we&#39;re done.

    The only thing that differentiates these spells from the rest is that in order to have access to them, one needs the Battle Caster feat.
    An immediate problem I see here is that this sort of approach outright screws sorcerers and bards. If they have to choose between personal and battle spells for their few spells known, they become even more impotent in their lack of versatility and easily-predicted handful of tricks. Not too fun to play, nor terribly balanced IMO.

    The BRCS realm spell system handles this by allowing sorcerers to know realm spells in addition to the normal number of personal spells known - which makes regent sorcerers quite a bit more impressive than their unsourced kin.
    Having precious spell slots taken up by &#39;War&#39; spells is a complete non-sequitur for Bards -- they don&#39;t currently have any spells that would be used in battle (the whole lesser magic thing), much as Magicians, and as for Sorcerors, it is a concious choice that they will have to make.

    When the Humans came to Cerillia, they were able to beat back the Sidhe because of the use of Priestly magic. We have established that the Sidhe spellcasters were by and large Sorcerors because of their chaotic natures. It wasn&#39;t necessarily the use of the cure spells, although that helped, but it was the larger number of available casters who could assist on the battlefield when comapred to the Sidhe.

    Just think -- if a Sorceror were to select &#39;War&#39; spells as part of their spell palette, they would have a large advantage in a war scenario by being able to cast whatever combination of spells they need, and usually more times than an equivalent wizard could.

    I personally don&#39;t see such a great disadvantage to a sorceror by making battlefield-scale spells part of the regular palette.

    Note that I am in no way suggesting that Realm spells become normal spells, just those that are used in war scenarios on the battlefield.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I know that I&#39;m probably pounding my head against the wall here, but making all spells that pertain to combat on the warcard scale their own, seperate standard spells that can only be &#39;unlocked&#39;, to use an old pinball term, if the user has the Battlecaster feat is the simplest and best way to go.

    This has the following advantages:
    • It clears any ambiguity over how much damage a spell does, or how much damage the spell cures.
    • There is no more debate over how large an area can be covered by a particular standard spell, be it range or shape.
    • It fits well in the existing system as a standard spell, albeit one with prerequisited to learn it, and is &#39;cleaner&#39;.
    • It forces a choice to be made -- personal-scale spells for defense during a possible retreat, or battlefield-scale spells for maximum combat effectiveness?

    The final item above gives Sorcerors greater flexibility in that they do not need to chose on the day of battle what to memorize, but it does limit the number of personal-scale spells they can know. It is a tradeoff, but tradeoffs are part of the core philosophy of 3E. It also gives us one more justification for the defeat of the Sidhe when the humans came to Cerillia.

    On a side note, I *am* willing to write up the most common spells used in combat -- we could state that these are the ones that Cerillian spellcasters have primarily used and concentrated on over the last 2-3000 years of warfare, and through trial and error, few, if any other spells of this scale have been researched.

    A disclaimer in a sidebar of "These spells are by no means an exhaustive list, but they should give DMs a starting point to detemine the statistics of otherspells that their players may want to convert for battlefield use.", along with some rough guidelines for conversion of existing spells would take care of alot of the workload.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.