View Poll Results: What types of magic should be used in Birthright?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level. (Battle magic is different – either separate spells or metamagic std ones {TBD}. Realm and unmodified std spells have no effect on Battlefield)

    8 47.06%
  • 2. 3 tiered system -standard (PHB)/battle level/realm level. (Similar to the 2nd ed system with std, realm and special battle spells affecting battle)

    9 52.94%
  • 3. Abstain

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This is a follow up to the previous poll. There is no "other" choice since this is a narrowing down of the previous choices.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary I'm moving your replies to this thread so instead of constantly opening and reclosing a thread other people can join in here.

    >There have been ample opportunities for people to express their opinions
    >regarding "other". That is why I say be as specific as possible and keep
    >thepolls running for at least 2 weeks.
    >
    >As far as when "Other" becomes a large percentage, that does indeed
    >trigger a "new" poll. I believe that is what will end up happening with
    >the duration of a round poll since "other" is currently running rather
    >high in the results.

    As has been recently pointed out, people are not going to sift through all
    the posts in order to find one that might present a viable "Other" option,
    and it`s not reasonable to expect one person to devise a poll that covers
    all those options just out of the blue. Instead, they`ll vote for the
    options presented. Either some discussion before the poll, or redoing the
    poll when a new option is presented are going to create polls that are
    complete.

    >I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at
    >least I believe I have been.
    >
    >That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for
    >editior in chief was run.

    Well, I`m afraid that`s a pretty good example of not interpreting a poll
    very well. That particular poll had nothing to do with interpreting the
    results of other polls. It`s easier (and more sensible) to interpret the
    results of that polls as people indicating that they would like someone (no
    other person was listed as an option) to continue working on an
    update. That`s not the same as saying that the poll results have been well
    devised and accurately interpreted.

    Gary
    And again you have misread what I wrote.

    Since I didn't say the poll results indicated I was consistent only that it was one of the things people have said about me. Talk about a pretty good example of not interpreting something very well.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #3
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 08:27 PM 3/15/2005 +0100, you wrote:



    >>>I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at

    >>>least I believe I have been.

    >>>

    >>>That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for

    >>>editior in chief was run.

    >>

    >>Well, I`m afraid that`s a pretty good example of not interpreting a poll

    >>very well. That particular poll had nothing to do with interpreting the

    >>results of other polls. It`s easier (and more sensible) to interpret the

    >>results of that polls as people indicating that they would like someone (no

    >>other person was listed as an option) to continue working on an

    >>update. That`s not the same as saying that the poll results have been well

    >>devised and accurately interpreted.

    >

    >And again you have misread what I wrote. ;)

    >

    >Since I didn`t say the poll results indicated I was consistent only that

    >it was one of the things people have said about me. Talk about a pretty

    >good example of not interpreting something very well.



    Without delving in too deeply, if one couples the results of a poll with a

    comment made during it regarding an unrelated issue that is an

    interpretation of the poll results as being associated with that

    comment. We hear this every election. "They voted for me, therefore, they

    support my social agenda." That might not be what you meant, but it`s what

    the previous post read like.



    In any case, what I`m trying to get at here isn`t any past interpretation

    of polls but a plan for going forward. My point is that either some

    discussion of the issue at hand should occur BEFORE the poll is presented

    so that all the options can be put into the poll, or that votes for "other"

    that include additional options should trigger a new poll. The first

    sounds like the most reasonable course of action because I wouldn`t expect

    a single person to be able to come up with all the possible options that

    could be presented for a particular gaming issue. One cannot, of course,

    mandate when people will come up with new options, but it would help if

    there was some effort to express those options before the poll was actually

    presented. That coupled with a "run-off" system of polling seems like the

    best solution for how to handle future polling.



    Gary

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary,

    I think we actually agree but don't see it.

    Depending on what the results of a poll are determines what the next step should be, IMO. There is not always an automatic discussion period. For exampe if a poll has 4 choices and an other and abstain. Choice 1 get 10 votes, choice 2 gets 8 and the other 2 have 3 total while "other" gets 3. Well there is pretty obviously a predetermined run off here between choice 1 and choice 2.

    While if the results had a spread all over the place then there would clearly need to be a more in depth discussion period prior to the next poll.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 01:14 AM 3/16/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



    >I think we actually agree but don`t see it. :D



    No, we don`t! Never! ::kidding::



    In any case, I guess we can agree to just agree....



    >Depending on what the results of a poll are determines what the next step

    >should be, IMO. There is not always an automatic discussion period. For

    >exampe if a poll has 4 choices and an other and abstain. Choice 1 get 10

    >votes, choice 2 gets 8 and the other 2 have 3 total while "other" gets

    >3. Well there is pretty obviously a predetermined run off here between

    >choice 1 and choice 2.

    >

    >While if the results had a spread all over the place then there would

    >clearly need to be a more in depth discussion period prior to the next poll.



    Most people are going to avoid an "Other" option with the expectation that

    such a vote is going to effectively be a waste or because in order to find

    what the "Other" option might represent they`d have to read through the

    subsequent posts and locate the person who expresses what might be

    represented option (which some people might do, but most would probably

    not.) "Other" doesn`t really convey a whole lot of value, and I think most

    folks automatically assume it`s a non-vote, or a vote AGAINST the other

    options presented rather than a vote FOR something else.



    Gary

  6. #6
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    One simple solution for personal magic on the battlefield is that anytime a caster uses a personal spell, the battle "zooms in" to adventure level - thus forcing the PC or NPC to react at the same level. So a mage casts a fireball - a few rounds later, enemy archers in range respond with hails of arrow fire. If they are normal 1st-level warriors, they'll probably need a natural 20 to hit the mage so assuming 1 in 20 arrows hits is reasonable without rolling 100 or 200 times. Figure 1 in 20 hits is then a confirmed critical. Roll for damage on the hits, and that's it. If a mage has a low AC, he's an idiot to try and use highly-visible and destructive magic on the battlefield if there are archers in range.

    Interesting that in 3.5, Protection from Arrows only absorbs 100 points of damage from non-magical missile fire. If an average longbow arrow does 1d8, that's about 20-25 hits of absorption. With a high AC, though, that's enough protection to let off a few spells and then get out of the 'hot zone' of responding fire unless there are multiple units of archers all aiming at you alone.

    Anyways, the major function of "zooming in" isn't about the troops, it's about heroes and villains. The greatest danger will come from enemy NPC's and/or monsters responding to a spellcaster - like if they have spells of their own, or a magical ranged weapon with sufficient range, or are able to close to melee range.

  7. #7
    Just going to chime in here real quick. When Osprey and I were playing out those "zoom in" adventure level battles, it was a lot of fun and really made it feel like the Illiad when the hero's call out each other's names and duel in the middle of the battle. Of course everybody kept fighting though

    I also thought it was a much better way to determine what happens to the command unit, as opposed to just rolling to see which unit wins the fight and then which army commander has to roll to see if he escapes or not.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  8. #8
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by tcharazazel@Mar 16 2005, 06:52 PM
    Just going to chime in here real quick. When Osprey and I were playing out those "zoom in" adventure level battles, it was a lot of fun and really made it feel like the Illiad when the hero's call out each other's names and duel in the middle of the battle. Of course everybody kept fighting though

    I also thought it was a much better way to determine what happens to the command unit, as opposed to just rolling to see which unit wins the fight and then which army commander has to roll to see if he escapes or not.
    I agree.

    It is also IMO the best way to handle standard magic on the battlefield. It keeps all PCs involved and having something they can do without granting a potentially huge benefit to spellcasters and there is no worry about how standard casting times translate on the battlefield.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #9
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I'll add a a single plug here: it's probably reasoanble to allow any PC one action per battle turn without any 'zoom.' In other words, if a spellcaster wants to cast a single fireball during a battle turn, they may do so without interrupting the ongoing battle. Then things become like a choice: the caster may cast a single battlefield-affecting spell, a Battle Magic spell, or fight as part of a hero unit.

    Osprey

  10. #10
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Decent point, but then Doom's issue about concerning the feasability of other classes (non-spellcasters) comes into play. They don't get an additional action (or choice here).

    Also the time frame becomes an issue - I can just hear the crying from the peanut gallery now. "Well if I can cast one spell then why can't I cast 100. The casting time is only 6 seconds and the round is 10 minutes after all?"
    Duane Eggert

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.