View Poll Results: What types of magic should there be in the BRCS?
- Voters
- 26. You may not vote on this poll
-
1. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level.
13 50.00% -
2. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (only realm spells affect the battlefield)
5 19.23% -
3. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (standard spells have an effect on the battlefield without any modification)
8 30.77% -
4. Other – please specify
0 0% -
5. Abstain
0 0%
Results 31 to 40 of 54
-
02-24-2005, 06:47 AM #31Originally posted by Mark_Aurel@Feb 24 2005, 12:03 AM
If 1 GB expended equals 1H on one unit, I'd consider that a more than fair trade-off. I'd even consider it to be a bit too cheap.
2 GB per spell may be more appropriate as a starting point.
This makes battle magic expensive, but still useful because it can quickly destroy enemy units and doesn't have a maintenance cost (apart from keeping your wizard happy). Of course, that is only dealing with battle magic that directly damages a unit, there are other spells like Charm Unit etc that can be consider more powerful, but for most of them the enemy unit gets a saving throw.Let me claim your Birthright!!
-
02-24-2005, 10:32 AM #32
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by MorganNash@Feb 23 2005, 12:03 PM
Rain of Magic Missiles
Casting Time: 20 minutes
Requirements to learn: Must know the "Magic Missile" spell; Spellcraft 7 ranks
XP Cost to learn: 500 XP
Effect: Blats the living daylights out of the enemy.
Reminds me a lot of the epic spell mechanic.
For casting time I'd use Battle rounds or something similar. Mixing time units and battle rounds gets real nasty and complicated IMO.
A few other things to think about.
Currently we are not planning on forcing characters to expend exp i order to learn realm spells, which are more powerful, so the rationalization for charging exp for battle spells seems a bit harsh in comparison.
What is this classified as? A technique? A new spell?
Does this take up a spell slot?
How many of these can a character know?
The more I think about it the more I like the single battle caster feat concept. take it once and a caster can cast a spell in battle. It is similar to the tactical feats of the Complete Warrior, in that they are more complicated than normal feats and only apply in specific situations, etc. Of course the casting time and cost of casting the spell should increase and most likely add a number of assistants to the casting.Duane Eggert
-
02-24-2005, 10:36 AM #33
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Posts
- 949
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
That is how I worked it out initially. A battle magic version of magic missile (i.e. rain of magic missiles) would cost you 1 GB to cast and do 1 hit (no saves). So to destroy a unit of infantry (2 hits) it would take two spells and cost 2 GB in components, or exactly the same as the infantry cost to muster in the first place.
I've yet to see a really good argument why there should be a separate subsystem for battle magic, though. But if there is one, it should be balanced with how it could be abused in mind, not how it would typically be used.Jan E. Juvstad.
-
02-24-2005, 11:03 AM #34
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by irdeggman@Feb 24 2005, 10:32 AM
Currently we are not planning on forcing characters to expend exp i order to learn realm spells, which are more powerful, so the rationalization for charging exp for battle spells seems a bit harsh in comparison.
What is this classified as? A technique? A new spell?
Does this take up a spell slot?
How many of these can a character know?
The more I think about it the more I like the single battle caster feat concept. take it once and a caster can cast a spell in battle. It is similar to the tactical feats of the Complete Warrior, in that they are more complicated than normal feats and only apply in specific situations, etc. Of course the casting time and cost of casting the spell should increase and most likely add a number of assistants to the casting.
My only question re: the Battle Caster feat concept is that it seems to shoot a "normal" caster into a whole new league of power for only one Feat. I can't imagine that there are many PC casters that wouldn't take it although role-playing ("I don't want to go anywhere near a battle!") would affect that.
What about Battle Caster (can cast Battle Magic that is based upon 1st-3rd level spells), Improved Battle Caster (moving it up to 4th-6th) and Greater Battle Caster (for 7th-9th)? Combined with increased casting times and materials cost, perhaps.
-
02-24-2005, 04:17 PM #35Actually, the cost to destroy a unit of infantry with 'battle magic' should be higher than the cost to muster it in order for the system to approach a semblance of balance. You must also take into account more expensive units, like knights.
Bullets are cheaper than training.
It's not very fair, but if it were there would be far fewer wars.
I think the same concept should apply to battle magic. The costs are for one-shot, expendable effects. To think such an effect should cost as much as training and equipping 200 men just doesn't seem right. Most commanders don't go into battles expecting to lose exactly as much GB worth of units as they destroy. War in BR would be pointless if this were the end result each time.
Battle magic should represent a real edge - much as personal magic will also represent this, I'm sure, and with almost negligable cost in comparison.
Also, if we make the material costs exorbitantly high, we have created yet another way to screw mages out of money, since they won't be able to ask for a profitable fee because no one can afford it.
Make battle magic prohibitively expensive, and you pretty much guarantee that it will hardly ever be used. Which seems like a sneaky way of downplaying it so that it isn't too decisive of a factor when used...
-
02-24-2005, 04:19 PM #36
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by MorganNash@Feb 24 2005, 06:03 AM
A very fair point on the comparison between not charging XP for Realm Spells and charging for Battle Spells. Essentially, in L5R, they are a whole new mechanic and the character can learn as many of these as they wish (assuming they have the requirements, wish to spend the XP and can find someone to teach them).
My only question re: the Battle Caster feat concept is that it seems to shoot a "normal" caster into a whole new league of power for only one Feat. I can't imagine that there are many PC casters that wouldn't take it although role-playing ("I don't want to go anywhere near a battle!") would affect that.
What about Battle Caster (can cast Battle Magic that is based upon 1st-3rd level spells), Improved Battle Caster (moving it up to 4th-6th) and Greater Battle Caster (for 7th-9th)? Combined with increased casting times and materials cost, perhaps.
What this does is force a character to have at least 2 feats committed to this concept, although the first metamagic feat could still be used normally. I also like having at least 1 rank in warcraft as I see it strongly related to the entire concept.
What happens is it makes it bit harder on non-wizards but not so much so that they can't proceed down the path with at least some dedication.
regardless, it might be premature to take about real specifics yet. First this poll ahs to be concluded and then if it proceeds the same way it is going now I'll need another one to pare down the concept to whether there should be a separate spell list or a metamagic feat to accomplish battle magic. At least that is how I see things shaping up so far.Duane Eggert
-
02-24-2005, 07:30 PM #37
OK, something just occurred to me that might be useful in terms of
distinguishing between standard and battle magic. Given that:
1. The issue of costs for battle magic was raised, with various methods
(monetary, RP and/or XP) being raised.
2. The effects of standard magic are, from what I can tell, pretty much
universally recognized as being significant on the battlefield. (I could
have missed someone`s argument against that, though, so if I`m mistaken
there please let me know.)
3. In 3e/3.5 one of the transitions in the magic system is the costs,
requirements and methods used to create magic items.
OK, with those things in mind, what if battle magic was not defined as a
whole new system of magic between the standard level and the realm level,
but as the effects of the standard magic system`s magic item creation rules
in 3e upon the battlefield? The effects of the battlespell "Rain of Magic
Missiles" is pretty much thematically indistinguishable from the effects of
a spellcaster expending all the charges of a Wand of Magic Missiles upon a
single company of soldiers, isn`t it? The effect of healing magic on a
unit of soldiers might be that of the creation of enough potions to heal
the appropriate number of the troops hp. Etc. Etc. Etc.
If viewed in this way the issue is justified by much of the original 2e
material that describes (in rather vague, 2e terms I`m afraid) the
additional material components and extended requirements of
battlemagic. Those costs are sometimes often described in terms that could
be fairly easily equated to the 3e magic item creation system. Such an
interpretation would satisfy those (like myself) who view the D&D magic
system effects as very powerful on the battlefield without bothering to
scale up the standard magic system into an entirely new level of magic,
while at the same time addressing the concerns of those who want to use
such a system in a 3e conversion. The costs and requirements of
"battespell" would then be those of creating the appropriate 3e magic item
based upon that spell. The effects on the battlefield would still need to
be defined, but it would describe the differences between those levels and
preserve all aspects of those differences.
Gary
-
02-24-2005, 11:08 PM #38
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by geeman@Feb 24 2005, 02:30 PM
2. The effects of standard magic are, from what I can tell, pretty much
universally recognized as being significant on the battlefield. (I could
have missed someone`s argument against that, though, so if I`m mistaken
there please let me know.)
Gary
What types of magic should there be in the BRCS?
1. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level.
[ 13 ] [52.00%]
2. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (only realm spells affect the battlefield)
[ 5 ] [20.00%]
3. 2 tiered system – standard/realm level (standard spells have an effect on the battlefield without any modification)
[ 7 ] [28.00%]
4. Other – please specify
[ 0 ] [0.00%]
5. Abstain
[ 0 ] [0.00%]
With the explanation of the key in the first post:
For choice 1:
Standard – basically the core rules type of stuff, no effect on the battlefield or realm level of play.
Battle level – these are things that affect the battlefield or unit(s). There are several ways to go here. Battle magic can be metamagic versions of standard spells (similar to the BRCS-playtest), they can be totally separate spells, etc. The idea being that battle spells/magic is handled differently than standard or realm magic.
Realm level – these are spells that affect things at the province level or have a long duration (domain rounds).
I don’t see how you can really make that stretch. Just because there haven't been a lot of specific points other than mine and Osprey's about the role of the battle caster feat. It is obvious that people are leaning towards no straight up effect on the battle field of standard spells - that is they either need to be a separate list or enhanced versions of the standard spells, like metamagic battle caster feat.Duane Eggert
-
02-25-2005, 01:40 AM #39
At 12:09 AM 2/25/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:
> QUOTE (geeman @ Feb 24 2005, 02:30 PM) 2. The effects of standard magic
> are, from what I can tell, pretty much
>universally recognized as being significant on the battlefield. (I
>could
>have missed someone`s argument against that, though, so if I`m mistaken
>there please let me know.)
>
>
>But since the poll results are running thus far:
>
>With the explanation of the key in the first post:
>
>
>For choice 1:
>
>Standard * basically the core rules type of stuff, no effect on the
>battlefield or realm level of play.
>
>Battle level * these are things that affect the battlefield or unit(s).
>There are several ways to go here. Battle magic can be metamagic versions
>of standard spells (similar to the BRCS-playtest), they can be totally
>separate spells, etc. The idea being that battle spells/magic is handled
>differently than standard or realm magic.
>
>Realm level * these are spells that affect things at the province level or
>have a long duration (domain rounds).
>
>I don’t see how you can really make that stretch. Just because there
>haven`t been a lot of specific points other than mine and Osprey`s about
>the role of the battle caster feat. It is obvious that people are leaning
>towards no straight up effect on the battle field of standard spells -
>that is they either need to be a separate list or enhanced versions of the
>standard spells, like metamagic battle caster feat.
Well, this might be another case of the wording of the poll not adequately
reflecting all the options possible, and the interpretation of the poll
being, therefore, inaccurate.
Do people really think that standard magic spells like Fireball, Meteor
Swarm, etc. don`t have an effect at the BR level of large scale combat?
Gary
-
02-25-2005, 04:05 AM #40Originally posted by irdeggman@Feb 25 2005, 01:49 AM
I like Osprey's take on changing the prerequisites for battlecaster to having one of a set of metamagic feats that all could be seen as related to what the battlecaster feat is attempting to do.
What this does is force a character to have at least 2 feats committed to this concept, although the first metamagic feat could still be used normally. I also like having at least 1 rank in warcraft as I see it strongly related to the entire concept.
I would think that most battle magic is a lower level (generally 1-3) but this could be because of the requirement to take another feat for higher level battle magic. Something like a battle magic version of metor storm is going to be a massively devestating spell though, one that would totally change the face of a battlefield, but as only a couple of wizards in Cerilia can cast it that isn't a major problem.
The 1 rank of warcraft (for battlecaster) isn't a problem, that is only 2 skill pts for a single classed wizard, and not a major concern. It does also fit the concept in that a wizard who is going to be casting battle spells should at least know something about how a battle works.Let me claim your Birthright!!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks