Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Mebhaighl

  1. #31
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    No - it is the function expressly stated. Where does it say it is the function expressly stated? No other function is stated. Thus, it is all that you can do with it. If that were so it would state that there is no other use. Obviously, this is not part of anything that any of the designers put in. That's your opinion not fact. There's no natural progression to magic. And you call me dense. This is your post:A man cannot, by his will, change the essence of mebhaighl; he may guide it, steer it, but not change its very nature so that it could be a tool he could wield better for his own practice.: This was my reply: BR rulebook: A source, or magical holding, is a nexus or collection point where a wizard can harness the power of the land to serve his own devices.: This is not out of context, this was not talking about realm magic but only of Mebhaighl. So you're saying you want to make sources less mystical by charting every possible use of them? So you're saying you want to make sources less mystical by having only one well defined use for them, that sounds mundane. The rules only state one function for mebhaighl - realm magic. Then, that is the only function it has. By definition, it does nothing else than that. No the rules only give one function for mebhaighl - realm magic, it does not say it is the only function it has. By definition, it does not state that realm spells is all. You can't list every function that everything does not have. You don't have to list every function it does not have, you simply say it can only achieve realm spells, it doesn't say that which implies that there can be other uses. The D&D magic system is very exacting in this way, and always has been.
    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

  2. #32
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ok, let's start by stopping being dense. The entire purpose of you making this post in the first place was to try and make up a justification for "battle magic" - so much is pretty obvious. You can, of course, argue otherwise, but history clearly indicates that so much is true; when you lose on one front, you attack on another.

    Point, the second - you aren't really arguing anymore, but rather making pointless semantic statements, since your arguments have failed. Dragging the discussion down to that level is, honestly, quite pointless.

    Point, the third - your posts are bloody hard to read when you format them like you do; is there a purpose to it, or are you unable to use UBB code when you quote others?

    I'm really not going to enter into an ad hominem debate, though it may sometimes be tempting.

    I'm going to explain, very carefully, what quoting something out of context is: It is taking a sentence from some source, and using it to support a claim that is contrary to the source as a whole, like you have been doing. This is generally a technique used by propagandists and such. The sentence you have happened upon is part of an introduction to the description of realm magic; it does not allude to anything else, like you seek to portray it as. Further, there is no need on my part to prove that mebhaighl does not do "such and such" - that is quite childish a statement to make to begin with, really. Not ANYWHERE is it stated that mebhaighl has a use beyond realm magic. Logically, the burden of proof is on whoever seeks to explain the opposite, something in which you have utterly failed, apart from trying to quote out of context; the counter argument is then to ask me to prove that things are as they are? That is ridiculous; something one would expect of a six-year old, not someone trying to argue rationally.

    So you're saying you want to make sources less mystical by having only one well defined use for them, that sounds mundane.
    Arguing over this is quite pointless, really. It doesn't stand to reason that something is of a mystic nature because it has so and so many uses; it really is unrelated to the matter at hand. Further, whether something is "mystical" or not has no place whatsoever in a discussion on game rules. "Mystical" is what the story - the DM - makes of it. The rules are another matter entirely, so let's debate only on a basis of the rules. Generally, many players tend to argue that such and such is "realistic" when what they are really looking for is to change the rules to their own tastes, or to overpower a given character. Arguing over realism, mysticism, metaphysics, religion, life, the universe, and everything, actually has no place in this discussion.

    Once you find somewhere in the rules, or even a source text, where both the letter and the spirit of the text clearly indicates that mebhaighl can be used to empower ordinary spells, you have something on which to start a debate. You have not, however, procured this - rather, it seems likely to me that you started this debate as a spin-off of the battle magic debacle.

    No the rules only give one function for mebhaighl - realm magic, it does not say it is the only function it has.
    That is one and the same, in the way that D&D rules work. If only one function is stated, that is all that can be done with it, even though the function may be creatively applied. For example, the Fly spell can only be cast upon a creature; the Fireball spell cannot precisely controlled so as to only produce a "little" fire, and so on.

    By definition, it does not state that realm spells is all.
    You must be applying a definition of your own, then. Does it state that it does something else? No. Ergo, that is what it states - that realm spells is all. It doesn't state, for example, that mebhaighl can't be tapped and used to make wine of it - because that is obviously not the intent. Nor does it state that you can't make ICBMs with mebhaighl. Does that, by your reasoning, mean that mebhaighl should be used to make ICBMs? By your reasoning, the answer is yes. There is nothing that is expressly forbidden to do with mebhaighl, because the function of what it does is clearly defined; it does nothing else.

    You don't have to list every function it does not have, you simply say it can only achieve realm spells, it doesn't say that which implies that there can be other uses.
    There is nothing in the text that implies this, really. The text says that mebhaighl is used to power realm magic. And that is it.

    To be quite honest, however, it also depends on how you interpret mebhaighl in a campaign where you are the DM - it is not my job to meddle in that; anyone can play the game the way they want to. The point, however, remains, that, officially, there is nothing to support your ideas. And a good counter-argument to that isn't to say "prove that there is nothing in the rules that stand contrary to my opinion" - the good counter-argument is to actually locate something that supports you, without having to resort to the cheap practice of quoting out of context.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  3. #33
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    Let's start with the context thing. You made a post basically stating that a wizard could not use mebhaighl for their own purpose. I answered that with a quote from the rule book describing sources and not realm spells, which nowhere in the description of sources did it state that it can only be used for realm spells, or are realm spells even mentioned in the description. It was a very appropriate answer to your statement, and not out of context.
    No matter what you may say I am not making a justification for battle magic. I am making a statement that mebhaighl could be used to enhance normal spells. The battle magic debate only opened my mind and closed yours.
    Point two, I have only shown that with the way that the rules on mebhaighl is written that my idea is possible.
    As far as burden of proof, that is for the one prosecuting the proposed idea to achieve. You barely have a "more likely than not" argument.
    If it said anywhere in the rules or descriptions that it can only be used for realm magic this whole thread would not even exist, but it does not. If it sounds like a childish argument to you then so be it, but since you still argue the matter does that mean you are a childish 6 year old as well.

    Arguing over this is quite pointless, really. It doesn't stand to reason that something is of a mystic nature because it has so and so many uses; it really is unrelated to the matter at hand. Further, whether something is "mystical" or not has no place whatsoever in a discussion on game rules. "Mystical" is what the story - the DM - makes of it. The rules are another matter entirely, so let's debate only on a basis of the rules. Generally, many players tend to argue that such and such is "realistic" when what they are really looking for is to change the rules to their own tastes, or to overpower a given character. Arguing over realism, mysticism, metaphysics, religion, life, the universe, and everything, actually has no place in this discussion.

    You were the one to bring these up, not me.

    That is one and the same, in the way that D&D rules work. If only one function is stated, that is all that can be done with it, even though the function may be creatively applied. For example, the Fly spell can only be cast upon a creature; the Fireball spell cannot precisely controlled so as to only produce a "little" fire, and so on.

    Using that logic, a magic missile damages any creature it hits. Then it describes what it can't do, damage inanimate objects.

    You must be applying a definition of your own, then. Does it state that it does something else? No. Ergo, that is what it states - that realm spells is all. It doesn't state, for example, that mebhaighl can't be tapped and used to make wine of it - because that is obviously not the intent. Nor does it state that you can't make ICBMs with mebhaighl. Does that, by your reasoning, mean that mebhaighl should be used to make ICBMs? By your reasoning, the answer is yes. There is nothing that is expressly forbidden to do with mebhaighl, because the function of what it does is clearly defined; it does nothing else.

    This is the wheel of my idea.
    BR rules pg 81
    SOURCES
    A source, or magical holding, is a nexus or collection point where a wizard can harness the power of the land to serve his own devices. Just as streams and creeks flow downhill to form rivers, a living land's magical essence known as mebhaighl collects in Cerilia's glens and downs. Magic trickles from the eaves of a forest toward its center, to the place where the trees are the oldest and strongest, weaving an invisible web of living energy. Forests, rivers, hills, mountains, and swamps-all areas of nature unspoiled by man-continuously renew their magical power.

    It says explicitly that the wizard can use this power to serve his own devices. Later on it describes how it can be used to achieve realm spells. Just because it doesn't describe any other uses, doesn't mean they don't exist. If realm spells were the only thing mebhaighl could be used in, then it should have been written so, but it wasn't. As for making wine out of it, if a wizard had a spell to make wine then he could make wine. If he channeled a little M into the spell he would be able to produce more wine .

    Since you are set on that since the rules only refer to realm magic, and that what I am saying is against the rules and for my own wants and needs here is another topic.
    The official rules states bloodtheft transfers bloodline strength not RP, but that was changed for 3E to fit someone elses wants. The rules were very clear in this but it was still changed.
    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

  4. #34
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    It says explicitly that the wizard can use this power to serve his own devices. Later on it describes how it can be used to achieve realm spells. Just because it doesn't describe any other uses, doesn't mean they don't exist. If realm spells were the only thing mebhaighl could be used in, then it should have been written so, but it wasn't. As for making wine out of it, if a wizard had a spell to make wine then he could make wine. If he channeled a little M into the spell he would be able to produce more wine.
    So, by your logic, the wizard can use mebhaighl in any way, as long as it suits his devices? You make it sound like some form of "wish" material - whatever the wizard wills, is.

    Can the wizard "tap" mebhaighl to cast limitless spells? Would seem logical enough, the way you treat it. And, since it doesn't say that a wizard can't get limitless spells from using mebhaighl, he can. By your logic.

    You should know as well as I, or anyone else, that you are applying a meaning to the text that it was not meant to have. The text describes sources, and then goes on to realm magic. The intent of the flavor text you've stuck up on, is quite clear; it alludes to realm magic.

    Since you are set on that since the rules only refer to realm magic, and that what I am saying is against the rules and for my own wants and needs here is another topic.
    The official rules states bloodtheft transfers bloodline strength not RP, but that was changed for 3E to fit someone elses wants. The rules were very clear in this but it was still changed.
    Take it up in a separate thread.

    BTW, thanks for making your post more legible this time.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #35
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    So, by your logic, the wizard can use mebhaighl in any way, as long as it suits his devices? You make it sound like some form of "wish" material - whatever the wizard wills, is.

    I didn't write it. I didn't say it was some wish material. If the wizard has the spell M can enhance the spell, he can't turn M into wine as you suggested, or ICBM's, only enhance the spells that he has.

    Can the wizard "tap" mebhaighl to cast limitless spells? Would seem logical enough, the way you treat it. And, since it doesn't say that a wizard can't get limitless spells from using mebhaighl, he can. By your logic.

    All I have ever said about mebhaighl is that it could be used to enhance spells. To create spells from it is realm magic. You were calling my arguements childish then you post a "well by your logic than".

    is quite CLEAR; it ALLUDES to realm magic.

    Oxymoron.

    Take it up in a separate thread.

    Not when it is relevant in this one.
    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

  6. #36
    Senior Member Lawgiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Murray, KY
    Posts
    1,054
    Downloads
    9
    Uploads
    0
    I believe what Blitzmacher is looking for is some suggestions like this:

    -Benefits: A wizard may spend additional time in preparing a spell he may enhance his spell casting abilities by channeling mebhaighl. For each hour that is spent in preparation the wizard may cast a single spell as if he/she were one character level higher (to a maximum of four levels). For instance, a 4 level wizard may spend three hours tapping into and channeling mebhaighl. After the three hour period, the channeling comes to a brief apex in which the wizard may cast a single spell as if they were a 7th level caster.
    -Potential Dangers: Channeling mebhaighl can be incredibly dangerous if rushed. Normally channeling requires days or weeks of preparation. Such effort results in a massive amount of power that is manifest in realm spells. Wizards may however attempt to accelerate the process, though at a bit of a risk. To reflect the difficulty of bending the power of the land to a wizard’s will in such a short time a successful Spellcraft check must be made with a base DC of 10 + 5 per hour/level the spell is enhanced (i.e. spending 3 hours channeling requires a successful check of 25). If the caster fails the DC he/she immediately suffers 1d4 points of damage per level of the spell attempted (5th level spell is 5d4 damage). Additionally, due to the draining power channeling mebhaighl a wizard must also make a successful Fortitude check. Failure results in a temporary loss of Constitution equal to 1 point per level of the spell attempted. If a wizard’s constitution is reduced below 0 he killed immediately. Wizards who lose more than half of their Constitution fall immediately unconscious in a comatose state (until their Constitution returns above half). Lost Constitution may be regained at a rate of 1 point per 3 days of bed rest.
    This is just an initial suggestion off the top of my head. The potential dangers should be enough to make most power gamers at least think twice before acting rashly and channeling a power beyond their control.
    Servant of the Most High,
    Lawgiver

    Isaiah 1:17
    Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.

  7. #37
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    Actually I haven't put much thought into that yet.
    As for benefits I was thinking that it would affect each spell differently with results being somewhere between a enlarge and an empower effect.
    For the cons I was looking at a spell so empowered would take up 3 spell slots, one to tap into the M, one to channel it into the spell, and one for the spell itself. A wizard would also need to have a source level equal to or greater than the level of the spell to be cast. I like the DC checks and would probably change it slightly like this: Spellcraft DC 15 + source level to be tapped, if roll failed damage taken it would be d4 per source level being tapped. Concentration DC 15 plus spell level to have the M channeled into the spell, if failed take damage d4 per spell level. After the spell is cast a Fortitude save at DC 10 plus source level needs to be made because of the power of the land that ripped through them in such a short period of time. If roll failed then suffer the con effects you stated.
    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. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ah, my favorite thread-series... I think I'll digress a little.

    Stop me if I'm wrong, but...

    Magic is a fantastic, mystical form of energy that allows those who use it to break beyond the barriers of the mundane rules of physics.

    Mebhaighl is a mystical force/energy that permeates Aebyrnis, not is scattered throughout the world.

    Wizards are fantastic beings that have the ability to harness a mystical tool and energy known as magic.

    In the Birthright campaign, Mebhaighl is the magical energy that wizards manipulate to suit their purposes.

    Being magical energy, wizards use mebhaighl to cast spells.

    A source is a collection point of mebhaighl.

    A source is a point where wizards can harness magic, not The point. Hence, they can cast normal spells.

    A Realm spell requires a bloodline and sources in order to be performed. Also, Realm spells are (usually) outside the capabilities of normal spells.

    The reason a realm spell requires a source is because the realm spell requires large amounts of mebhaighl, far more than regular spells.
    ----------------------------------------

    Regardless of whether or not this series of (I'll call them) definitions is accepted by everybody (I really can't see why not), the point is that there are two extremes.

    One extreme is the Realm spells, the height of a wizards power and capabilites. The other, normal spells, capable of a broad range of activities and services.

    Defining two extremes creates an area in between. This middle area has much precedence in all sorts of applications and ideas: alignment, polarity, and line segments to name a few. Even normal magic has two extremes and an area in between (cantrips, 9th lvl spells, 1st-8th level spells).

    Thus when you think of how mebhaighl is used in spells (and it is used in spells), you recognize that there is a large space between what is used in normal and realm spells. This area lacks definition.

    Now, you can say that:

    "The rulebook doesn't define anything in this area, so it doesn't exist."

    or possibly:

    "What has been defined within this area is faulty, so it will cease to exist."

    Both of these statements are silly. The rulebooks do not define many issues that come up in games. However, these issues must be dealt with as they appear. Take these examples:
    ------------------
    EXAMPLE 1:

    DM: After dowsing the area, you have discovered a rich vein of silver in the [blank] Hills in [X] province.

    Player: I want to start a mining operation here, to supplement my income.

    now here's two responses:

    DM: The building of the mine costs X GBs and it will cost X GBs to staff it each month. The book doesn't mention how businesses and special natural resources affect income. Therefore I must assume that they do not affect income, your mine would not supplement any income.

    Player: Screw that, we don't need another drain on our economy.

    OR

    DM: The building of the mine costs X GBs and it will cost Y GBs to staff it each month. The book doesn't mention how businesses and special natural resources affect income. However, it should affect income because it wasn't there before. Lets say it produces Z GBs a turn, until it runs out.

    Player: Excellent, I'll have Lieutenant [Miner] oversee the operation.

    EXAMPLE 2:

    Player: I want to enact a progress action. My regent is going to begin work on a new social theory that calls for the reverence of dwarves.

    Three more possible responses:

    DM: The progress action comes from the Book of Regency. That book has no value because it has kits in it which are just Second edition filler. You are an idiot for suggesting that it might have justification in standard birthright campaigns.

    OR

    DM: The progress action states explicitly that social advances can be made. However, it does not explicitly mention one concerning reverence for dwarves. Thus, I must assume that that cannot be made and I will not allow you to even attempt the action.

    OR

    DM: [confused look] I guess. The people are going to strongly resist it, considering that they just finished a war with the dwarven hold that borders you. Just so you know, its going to be extremely difficult. If you maintain the action long enough, the people's resistance may diffuse, but expect great expense and it will require the utmost patience. DC 120.
    ------------------

    Both examples involve situations that the rulebooks are not explicit about. The last possible response for both examples is indicative of imagination and reason. The other responses are what many of the arguments arguing against the idea that mebhaighl can have many uses.

    I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everything should be defined discreetly. However, nothing in nature is (except our current best possible explanation of certain aspects of quantum/particle physics). Saying that magic can only have one of two possible existences destroys a lot of roleplaying. Limiting things like this is contrary to the concept of imagination. I'm not saying that rules should discount playability, but I am saying that rules should not remove viable role-playing possibilities.
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

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

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.