Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 69
  1. #21
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    No one is trying to "stop" anyone from using whatever house rules they want. When one posts in a forum such as this, however, the discussion turns to the nature of a given rule, and its pros and cons, as well as at how it fits in with the rules system at large, and the world in which it is based. I don't really see the point of a post reaffirming your right to run the game whatever way you want - that is a given, and quite unrelated to the discussion at hand, apart from the usage aspect, and you've posted that before.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  2. #22
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    Unrelated?
    In a world that often has mass combat, why wouldn't there be battle magic? There are already spells that can effect units.
    A wizard who deals mainly in death prefers to study necromancy, one who wants to figure out secrets or learn the future studies divination. Why then can't a wizard who studies magic and its effects in war not have battle magic. Battle magic being mostly evocation spells that already exist, and those that other wizards in cerilia have developed to affect battle i.e. battle magic. Or why couldn't the wizards develope their own spells that affect only battle?
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  3. #23
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Of course there is battle magic.

    There is fireball. There is lightning bolt. There is cloudkill (*very* effective). There is circle of death. There is incendiary cloud. There is meteor storm.

    Are any of those spells _not_ battle magic? Of course wizards can affect the outcome of battles with these spells. It's just that first-level wizards don't cast huge area effect spells. Rather like a first-level fighter can't take on an army.

    That's all thrown aside a bit in the domain rules, of course, with 1st-level fighters leading armies, and 1st-level wizards casting realm spells. There is, however, no justification for the "battle spells" between those two extremes.

    Now, at around tenth level or so, a fighter might be able to take on 200 or so 1st-level warriors on his own and expect a chance of winning. A wizard would be expected to win that 1v200 at that point.

    What do you mean by "spells that affect only battle?" Do you mean a spell that would have a primary game mechanic effect stated in war card terms? Then you'd have a problem adjudicating that spell on regular characters. How much damage does a spell that inflict a D result on a unit do? 5d6? 10d6? What's the specific area of effect?

    Why haven't wizards in other worlds developed it? Aren't there wars in other worlds? Worlds that has more wizards, thus a greater chance of such an invention being made? Don't argue as if this would be a purely Cerilian phenomenon - there's no justification for that in the rules. There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic.

    There are plenty of spells that affect battles on an army scale. It's just that there are no spells that turns a 1st-level wizard into a human artillery piece any more than there are weapons that turn 1st-level fighters into human steamrollers.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  4. #24
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    My question is still unanswered.
    "There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic."
    Where is there justification for not having battle magic?
    Don't tell me it's because it sounds silly to you.
    "It's just that there are no spells that turns a 1st-level wizard into a human artillery piece any more than there are weapons that turn 1st-level fighters into human steamrollers."
    When did I say this?
    "What do you mean by "spells that affect only battle?" Do you mean a spell that would have a primary game mechanic effect stated in war card terms? Then you'd have a problem adjudicating that spell on regular characters. How much damage does a spell that inflict a D result on a unit do? 5d6? 10d6? What's the specific area of effect?"
    Sounds to me like you already have your ideas on this.
    "Why haven't wizards in other worlds developed it? Aren't there wars in other worlds? Worlds that has more wizards, thus a greater chance of such an invention being made? Don't argue as if this would be a purely Cerilian phenomenon"
    I don't see this as being debated in any other systems.
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  5. #25
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Now you're just being dense.

    The justification for adding in realm magic is in the mebhaighl, how wizards are mystically tied to the land.

    The only justification given for adding battle magic has been "because it wasn't there." This isn't a good argument. Now, battle magic is purely a game mechanical construct. Like I've said before, there is many spells that can affect the outcome of mass battles - they just aren't available to low-level wizards. It's the nature of the system. First-level wizards do not flatten cities. 20th-level wizards do that, and more. In Birthright, this is somewhat different, due to realm magic. Nowhere in the setting have I seen the need to add an intermediary level of magic, however.

    Now, I'm not quite sure if you really understand the concept of game balance. At each spell level, there are some things spells do and some things spells don't. If you look up the DMG, page 95, there are some general guidelines for what effects spells have, by level. Table 3-22 contains specific maximum damage values for arcane spells, by level. If you go by that chart, an arcane spell should cause a maximum of 5 dice of damage to a single creature, or it could distribute those dice among several. Thus, a 1st-level spell could harm at most 5 creatures. From this, we may conclude that a "battle spell" such as "Rain of Magic Missiles" is quite totally unbalanced with the system as it is, despite its casting time and material component requirements.

    By questioning the "spells that affect battle" line that you used, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of it. I shall put it in clearer terms: What you would do with such an effect would generally be disguising a spell that should belong at a higher level as a lower level spell. The rain of magic missiles spell is a good example; it is a first-level spell that is essentially dishing out hundreds of dice of damage among several creatures. Charm Unit is another example; it essentially duplicates the Mass Charm spell (an 8th level spell!), except that its area of effect is far larger, and it can potentially affect far more creatures than even Mass Charm. I would not mind this in a realm spell. I do mind this in a 1st-level spell. There is nothing that mechanically separates a Charm Unit spell from any other spell, except for its status as a "battle spell." What would prevent a wizard from using this spell to charm the inhabitants of a peaceful little town and make them burn it down? At _1st_ level.

    No, I don't have any *ideas* on how to reverse engineer battle magic spells into regular play - I don't see the point of giving wizards mass destruction spells at 1st level, or otherwise overpowered effects.

    That is the essence here; the primary reason why battle magic should not exist. It breaks down the level system of D&D. Now, you do not put this very highly, as your post history would seem to suggest. However, a campaign using pretty regular D&D with minimal house rules would _not_ allow low-level wizards such power as is inherent within the battle magic system.

    The argument as to _why_ wizards do not develop such magic in other D&D worlds (which is what I assume you meant by "system") is entirely valid. The point is that it does not belong in core D&D for a reason - it isn't balanced with anything, and it sets up a whole slew of balance problems by itself. It infringes on some realm magic spells (such as mass destruction and subversion; possibly others). It can potentially have a massive impact on regular play; I find that it is generally potentially very easy to abuse, despite the "precautions" taken against such.

    Finally, there's the in-world reasons. It does not fit the flavor of the magic neither in core D&D nor Birthright to apply an industrial principle to it. By this is meant what battle magic essentially is - you somehow multiply a spell by piling up material components and extending the casting time. That mirrors an industrial way of thinking, applied to magic. There is no indication of battle magic as a special Cerilian phenomenon anywhere in any Birthright product prior to the Book of Magecraft, despite your prior claim in another thread to the contrary. An effect such as "rain of magic missiles" does not really fit the flavor of Cerilian magic - flashy, yes, but not disco flashy. Rather, subdued and subtle, only on occasion showing its true power. In short, it does not fit the mood of magic, it does not fit the mood of the campaign, and there is no indication of it to be found anywhere prior to the BoM. It is not balanced, not with realm magic, not with regular magic, and probably not with itself.

    I think that makes a pretty strong case for the non-existence of battle magic, as outlined in the BoM.

    I want you to justify now, in a similar manner - show us why it should be there and why it is balanced. Justify having battle magic in the first place; find the justifications that was given for including it, if you will.

    Now. Make no mistake. I am not opposed to wizards wielding flashy effects, laying waste to armies with the wave of a hand. I am very strongly opposed to the system of "battle magic" that was implemented in the BoM. Sure, wizards may develop spells specifically for battle. But it should be original spells, not regular spells somehow blown up through some weird application of an industrial principle. It should be spells that conform to the existing spell level guidelines. It should be spells whose flavor match that of the setting. I don't see a problem with even a low-level spell affecting a large group of people, as long as it is in some decidedly _minor_ way.

    I don't have a problem with magic used in battles, really. I have a problem with the system of "blow up existing spells" that was implemented in the BoM. I don't really mind seeing powerful PCs, as long as it is on the right level. I.e. a 20th-level fighter could reasonably be expected to be able to slay hundreds of 1st-level warriors, and barely break a sweat doing it. A 20th-level wizard is truly frightening. A 1st-level fighter or a 1st-level wizard should not slay armies on their own. The statement about a human artillery piece alluded to this. Most of all, what I really dislike about battle magic is how it cheapens magic and makes it mundane. Like some form of tool. Not magic. A tool.

    I have, however, provided quite rational reasons for removing it from the game. I'd be happy if you could provide a good rebuttal.

    "There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic."
    Where is there justification for not having battle magic?


    Let's examine this statement a bit. Now. I stated that there was a justification for realm spells - the system of mebhaighl and sources. I also stated that there was no justification for having battle magic. How you manage to turn that on its head is beyond me. In any case, I have now provided you with multiple reasons why the battle magic from the BoM is a bad thing.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Every mass-combat system requires magic to affect things in a different manner than the core system. This is because nobody wants to roll saving throws for each individual creature, calculate the effect on each creature, then determine how the overall unit is affected by these circumstance. The reason this isn't argued in other settings is because Mass-combat isn't nearly as important at low-levels in most campaigns of other settings.

    The idea of Battle-magic has been added on to Mebhaighl. Just because it isn't mentioned in the core-rulebook doesn't mean that it should be dismissed (The game D&D has changed much in 30+ years). Battle-magic should've perhaps been explained or justified better wherever it came from, but it wasn't. If Battle-Magic had originally been explained as a minor method of spell-enhancement that involved lower level uses of mebhaighl and sources, would that make it more integral with the campaign? You can not say it isn't valid because it doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign setting or that it wasn't designed with the original part of the setting.

    Wizards have little to protect themselves (and their sources) at low levels. Give a wizard the chance to charm a unit and make it leave the field, and now he has that much higher of a chance to make it. Battle magic fits the flavor because it improves the ability of low-level wizards to contribute to the game in mass-combat as well as a political presence. Low-level wizards can't cast most of the better realm spells and you would have them not be able to have any chance at defending themselves in battle (if the only unit they have is a small hired guard, enough for maybe a unit). A wizard should not have to be dependent upon others as a low-level regent than a fighter, priest, or thief should. If wizards don't have someone to protect them, or holdings other than sources, they are easily removed, even with Realm magic. Battle magic allows wizards to contribute to the 'flavor' of the campaign.

    Just because you say it isn't balanced with magic in general doesn't neccesarily mean that the designers didn't attempt to balance it. It takes a lot of hard thinking and, possibly, work to develop any sort of system, let alone one that is good. Disliking the system doesn't mean it isn't thoughtful.

    If a wizard charmed the entire inhabitants, he would most likely be unable to make them burn down their village, as that would contradict there nature. Also, he would have to have all of them in sight and within one battle field square at all times (including when the spell takes effect). Finally, they would have to stare (blankly, or otherwise occupy themselves within the area of one unit) at him for the length of time it takes him to cast the spell (one battle round). Then, they have to stay in formation (which I doubt they'd be very good at).
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

    The hardest part was teaching the bunnies to hug. -Duke Phillips

  7. #27
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    I concede, your points on why battle magic is not balanced are all to observant and very hard to debate against, but everything should have a chance to go down fighting. However, I still believe that their should be battle magic. Although it should be made more consistant with the wizards level, and should have something to do with their source level. Such as a wizard needing a certain source level or ley line in order to empower their regular spells with the magic of the land, and making that spell a bit more powerful but not as powerful as a realm magic spell.
    Cattle die and kinsmen die,
    thyself too soon must die,
    but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
    fair fame of one who has earned.
    HAVAMAL

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I could go with that.
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

    The hardest part was teaching the bunnies to hug. -Duke Phillips

  9. #29
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Battle magic is, I think, a quite interesting concept which should be retained,

    I fail to see why battle magic would completely disrupt a game. There are certainly balance issues here, and the rules for battle magic may not be entirely satisfying in that regard. But these are problems that can be worked out. Besides, if a 1st level wizard is able to completelt alter the outcome of a battle with his two battle spells, you're just doing it wrong :)

    As for explaining battle magic within the context of the game world, I also fail to see how this would be problematic. There are normal spells and there is realm spells. Why can't battle spells be somewhere in between? In fact, why can't there be an entire level of ritual between ordinary spells and realm spells?

    Conclusion: There are balance issues that need to be worked out, but this can be done. The relation between battle magic and other forms of magic needs to be adressed, but this can also be worked out. It all boils down to this: either you like it or you don't :P

    Conclusion: There are some serious balance issues and nature of battle magic need
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  10. #30
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gaaaad, why are there two separate threads on this?

    Read my posts in the other thread as well.

    One more reason I don't like it is because if it was done right (balanced with the existing system), it would be utterly redundant, because most of the spells are already there. Mass Charm, Fireball, Cloudkill, Circle of Death, what-have-you.

    The main niche to fill would be a spell with a larger area of effect that did less damage than other area-effect spells at higher levels. About 5th level or higher would be appropriate.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

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.