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%
Results 11 to 20 of 24
Thread: Types of magic in Birthright
-
03-17-2005, 07:48 PM #11Also 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?"
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).
I would allow any character who had an appropriate battle-scale ability to use it in the same way. The truth is, though, that I can't think of any other classes with a unit-scale power, other than the new Noble and his inspiration ability.
-
03-18-2005, 04:06 PM #12
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Posts
- 282
- Downloads
- 131
- 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).
That's when you zoom in to real time.
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?"
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.MORNINGSTAR
-
03-19-2005, 12:46 PM #13
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Something to keep in mind while voting here, as Osprey pointed out zooming in to the PCs is an option (was in 2nd ed and the BRCS-playtest and I see no reason to even consider taking that out).
What this can do is still have spellcasters use their normal spells on the field, but in a combat round format. This will have no immediate/direct effect on the battle per say but can hav an accumulated effect depending on what happens. If a PC (regardless of class) disables sufficient number of combatants then the DM can "rule" that the unit they were in has been effected by the cumulative damage, etc.
In effect this keeps spellcasters from "inserting" standard spells into a battleround, but they can still use their abilities.
Something else that Osprey pointed out and I think it is a good idea that in order to do this then the PC can't be considered as part of the hero unit. A very logical stance - either the character is contributing to the whole by leadership, inspiration, supplemental damage, etc. or he is engaging the enemy directly. Pretty much the hero unit as I see it is within the base unit it is supplementing - that is the 200 troops are protecting their "leader" such that they can't directly engage the enemy and are relegated to giving (or at least not effectively).
As I see it the vote for standard spells having an effect on the battle is basically putting them into the "normal" battle round order of things and not inserting a standard PC/NPC combat round.Duane Eggert
-
03-19-2005, 02:20 PM #14I dont see a problem in a strait up close fight a fighter has an advantage but in a battle a wiz is at an advantage any fighter no matter how good can be brought down by sheer numbers while a wiz can stand back being invisible resistant to arrows etc and pound units to death. They are more powerfull and it is only right. This does only apply to wizards of a certain level.
High AC is probably the better defense, though 1 in 20 arrows are still going to hit you.
High AC and Prot. from Arrows is the best combo, to those who can do it. But really, it's no guarantee at all when round after round after round of arrows is pelting your mage. The DR wears off, the arrows start hurting, the low hp of the mage means death is never far away...
-
03-19-2005, 02:45 PM #15What this can do is still have spellcasters use their normal spells on the field, but in a combat round format. This will have no immediate/direct effect on the battle per say but can hav an accumulated effect depending on what happens. If a PC (regardless of class) disables sufficient number of combatants then the DM can "rule" that the unit they were in has been effected by the cumulative damage, etc.
I think the effects of presonal spells on the battlefield will still need to be discussed and outlined, at least in brief. I think this could be handled, however, either as a (largish) sidebar in Ch 6 or as an appendix. In fact, I've been thinking for a while now that "Magic on the Battlefield" should either be a significant addendum to Ch 6 (probably at the end), or an Appendix at the rear of the BRCS.
There really does need to be guidelines for personal magic and its effect on the field. It's not enough just to count the number of people effected. As others have pointed out, offensive spells don't deal just physical damage, they are great morale-killers and weapons of terror. This has effects on the unit level that aren't evident at the adventure level. Well, that and 3rd ed D&D seems to have no provisions for monsters running in fear except by DM fiat. On the battlefield, though, morale is all-important. Most battles are won once the enemy army's morale is broken and they no longer have any stomach for fighting.
Something else that Osprey pointed out and I think it is a good idea that in order to do this then the PC can't be considered as part of the hero unit. A very logical stance - either the character is contributing to the whole by leadership, inspiration, supplemental damage, etc. or he is engaging the enemy directly. Pretty much the hero unit as I see it is within the base unit it is supplementing - that is the 200 troops are protecting their "leader" such that they can't directly engage the enemy and are relegated to giving (or at least not effectively).
The main function of 'zoom' is to enlarge the level of detail in the battle and make it personal. It's primarily a roleplaying tool, used to highlight the actions of heroes and villains. The whole point, though, is that when you zoom in you aren't necesarily negating the heroes' actions within a hero unit, rather you're looking closely to view the details of their actions - which is very useful when they're doing something exceptional (like dueling the enemy commander, for example).
So it's a bit more complex than just saying, "Detailed actions, no hero unit."
This is okay, it's just a place where I think the DM needs to take control and adjucate the effects of the heroes' actions. It would be good for us to provide some helpful guidelines in how to do this. Naturally, this depends on what the battlesystem looks like, so we'll wait and see a bit.
-
03-19-2005, 05:23 PM #16
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- aberdeen, scotland
- Posts
- 282
- Downloads
- 131
- Uploads
- 0
What this can do is still have spellcasters use their normal spells on the field, but in a combat round format. This will have no immediate/direct effect on the battle per say but can hav an accumulated effect depending on what happens. If a PC (regardless of class) disables sufficient number of combatants then the DM can "rule" that the unit they were in has been effected by the cumulative damage, etc.
as for the morale effect of a magicla attack if it has caused enough damage to reduce the health of a unit have them make a morale save as would happen with any attack.
low level wizards could just be part of a hero unit but higher level wizards are more powerful and can have a big effect.
lets say a wizard can cast two fireballs and that would do one point of damage he could do that and it would have very little effect on a battle but two battle spells would have a much bigger effect. this will also make battle magic much more common because it gives you a bigger effect. I think that the battle magic needs to be much mroe powerful than it is just now but thats me.MORNINGSTAR
-
03-19-2005, 08:43 PM #17I think you are missing the point the spells have such an effect that they may as well be immune. look at fireball for a 10th lev wiz it has a range of 800feet now he is not going to be threatened by arrows. now low level wizards may be but they dont have spell that can have a big effect in general on a battlefield so its a moot point. Zooming in is pointless for a wizard who can cast third level spells or above unless you have another wizard to counter them in which case you could have them face of against each other.
If nat 20's always hit, then just about every enemy archer could go for a lucky shot at the mage, even if they would normally be needing 30+ on a d20 roll. This might sound a bit daft, since arcehr units can't fire that far in the battlesystem level, but I don't think it's any more ridiculous than an 800' range for a fireball (or the ranges of long-range spells in general).
And enemy hero archers could be much more devestating potentially, with magical weapons/ammo especially.
Most high level characters are fairly immune to low-level attackers except for the nat 20 rule...this is a major part of what feeds into the rationale for "powering up" hero units from the BRCS.
Finally, long-range attacks are only useful if you can see your target...terrain (like a forest or buildings) can shorten the effective ranges of anyone on a battlefield.
-
03-19-2005, 09:23 PM #18
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 19 2005, 09:45 AM
What this can do is still have spellcasters use their normal spells on the field, but in a combat round format. This will have no immediate/direct effect on the battle per say but can hav an accumulated effect depending on what happens. If a PC (regardless of class) disables sufficient number of combatants then the DM can "rule" that the unit they were in has been effected by the cumulative damage, etc.
What this means is that depending on how the zoom-in encounter is played will determine what the effect is on the battlefield.
If using Storm of Vengence in a zoom-in format then the area of effect would entail substantial casualties. But note the casting time - 1 round. Since this is a zoom in then the foes also get to act in normal combat rounds and can at the very minimum get off a set of attacks with missile weapons.
Also note that in the first round (1 round after starting to cast) the effect is merely deafening, the second round starts to deal direct damage (acid rain) if the caster is maintaining concentration - oops there is that concentration check requirement if hit for damage in order to maintain a spell.
I also meant that there is now a different initiative order rather than the battle round one, since it is in combat rounds {only logical thing to do}.Duane Eggert
-
03-19-2005, 09:35 PM #19
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 19 2005, 09:45 AM
Something else that Osprey pointed out and I think it is a good idea that in order to do this then the PC can't be considered as part of the hero unit. A very logical stance - either the character is contributing to the whole by leadership, inspiration, supplemental damage, etc. or he is engaging the enemy directly. Pretty much the hero unit as I see it is within the base unit it is supplementing - that is the 200 troops are protecting their "leader" such that they can't directly engage the enemy and are relegated to giving (or at least not effectively).
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.
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.
By combing these two I got the choice it was to act as part of the hero unit or cast spells during the zoom-in period.
Perhaps I was wrong, but if using standard spells and changing the casting time to 1 per battle round is changing the standard rules quite a bit (read "standard magic must be modified to work on the battlefield"). Especially since I suggested changing all battlefield spells to be modified similarly to the battle caster feat (e.g., changing casting time and area of effect at the minimum) - but that seems to be getting shot down quite a bit recently. In general people seem to want their spellcasters to be able to cast all of their spells within a single battle round (assuming it is a 10 minute period).Duane Eggert
-
03-19-2005, 09:40 PM #20
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Germany
- Posts
- 883
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
graham anderson 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=3032
>
> graham anderson wrote:
>...
>I think you are missing the point the spells have such an effect that they may as well be immune. look at fireball for a 10th lev wiz it has a range of 800feet now he is not going to be threatened by arrows. now low level wizards may be but they dont have spell that can have a big effect in general on a battlefield so its a moot point. Zooming in is pointless for a wizard who can cast third level spells or above unless you have another wizard to counter them in which case you could have them face of against each other.
>
>
800 ft is a long range. However ranged weapons, such as the Anuirean
Longbow can shoot up to 10 range increments. 100 ft. * 10 = 1000 ft. The
archer would of course take the penalty for the additional range
increments of 8 * -2 = -16 to attack. But when most average NPC archers
on the field can hit PC´s only with a natural 20 anyway that makes no
difference.
bye
Michael
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks