Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 101 to 109 of 109
  1. #101
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    Good post Gargamel.
    I had just thought of a consentration DC for casting a spell during the chaos of battle, DC 10 + spell's level. I was going to make it harder but their are also bodygaurds trying to protect the wizard at the same time.
    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. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United Provinces of Ceril
    Posts
    1,028
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    Most of the people who have voted (in both polls) obviously believe (the concept of) Battle Magic has a place in Birthright. Not just spells that affect battle, but a separate tier of magic.
    Where in the world do you make this assumption from? I voted yes that Battle Magic has a place in Birthright but I don't agree that it should be a separate tier of magic. I do not believe you can make that assumption from the limited worded polls in both areas. Also these votes took place before lots of the argument in the two threads. If you read the arguments, there is a divided opinion. Careful in what you argue.

    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    That said, its not prudent to compare the physical methodology with the magical one (by your own ideas). In Reality, somebody carrying a big dagger is just as impossible as magic. However, in Fantasy, magic has capabilities that are unparalleled by physical methods. Having a third tier (ritual style) of magical usage is only as silly as having a second (realm style). In fact, since this is fantasy, there could be arguments for infinite different methodologies of magic. Each would have to be justified by the setting, naturally.
    Here I think you misunderstand the argument being made. Just because the Wizard at low levels can't affect the battle doesn't mean that they should, must or deserve to! The argument on the big dagger is that thieves don't have any great ability to affect a battle, if wizards deserve extras to affect the battle why don't thieves and what would that look like?

    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    Just because something wasn't originally with something, doesn't mean it doesn't fit now. I've said this before, but apparently, this means nothing. By the opposing logic, anything that is added after the original release has no place in the continuation of the product. So, in a similar manner, 3E rules have no place in Birthright. Since they weren't created alongside the orginal box, they don't match the flavor of the setting. This line of thought is unacceptable.

    Battle magic is silly as it stands, but I believe it is this way for different reasons than you. It isn't justified in the BoM properly. The rules aren't cohesive with 3E (largely because they were created for 2E). In general, the concept was jarbled and vague. However, some of us have used our imaginations and in doing this, have given "Battle Magic" its rightful place in the setting (by redefining it and explaining it for better terms). A few more of us have taken this a step further and have decided to allot a higher potential and more rich role to "Battle Magic" (i.e. the concept of Ritual Magic). Either way, taking the easy way out and giving up on a concept with such high potential is out of the question.

    Mebhaighl source assisted ritual magic has the potential to more strongly define the magic in Birthright. This concept has the ability to reinforce realm magic's place in the setting as well as strengthen its definition. Realm spells have their high powered effects justified because the wizard uses the power he gains from sources, regency, materials (GBs), and casting time. A lesser form of ritual magic could be justified in the same manner, just using less amounts of the above.
    Here I would have to agree with you. Everyone should be able to adapt the rules to their own campaign world. So if it didn't exist in the original box set it can still be added.

    I disagree however that it is silly as it stands. I happen to think there was no problem with the conversion to 3e that Battle Magic is a category of magic and not a different tier. You can disagree but don't call my thinking silly! I am not giving up on the concept I just disagree with your interpretation of the concept. Battle Magic was intended to serve as an easy way to settle regular magic in battle and I happen to like it that way.

    While I think your ideas on ritual magic are good. I do not wish to add them to my campaign. That does not mean you shouldn't add them to yours. I also can't think of a legitimate reason to not add them to yours other than the fact that it may make the wizard way too powerful in comparison to the other classes. I seem to recall arguments of no one would go to war if the other side had a wizard!

    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    Also, according to your arguments, giving medium and long range spells a range of 1 unit is unacceptable. This creates separate adjudications of spells, which could be interpreted as a separate system. Also, not letting spellcasters cast more than one spell per battle card round violates other rules in 3E (in d20, a round is X amount of time, in that time a person can do X amount of actions, spellcasting is an action. This actions duration is based upon the casting time of the spell. Only one spell can be cast per d20 round.), how do you justify this?
    These all serve as a simplification to the system. Just as the Battle Card system is a simplification of battle. Really in battle one side wouldn't get to move and then the other. Armies move whenever they feel the need. However, the rule is created to simplify. Also the armies themselves are restricted to moving in battle squares rather than their actually movement rate.

    Even if you don't like this your problems are easily solved. Allow spells to go their range not battle squares. Allow a spell caster to cast as many spells a battle turn is in rounds.

    I am sure when all is said and done with your Ritual Magic there will be things that had to be done to simplify the rules otherwise the game would get bogged down and no longer be fun!

    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    Now, Rogr's advantage in battle is little under either system:

    In your proposed system, Rogr's 3 wizard levels are worthless. I know of few 1st or 2nd level spells that have a large enough area to affect a unit (particularly at 3 caster levels).

    In our system, he can cast a few battle spells. These spells can easily rout a unit. However, these units can regain their composure (or never lose it), and have only possibly taken one hit. Charm unit can do little except lead a unit off the field (read its description). Saves can render any of these spells ineffective (I haven't seen any that don't have saves). Thus, the advantage gained is minimal.


    Now, Ilien is a small nation. Regardless of its neutrality, it is an easy target. It can only afford a relatively small military. However, something has kept regents from taking over the nation in the past (even during the reign of Rogr). Now, it would cause a ruckus for a neighbor to take over Ilien. Most other nearby nations would dislike another nation controlling the county. If the only thing that stopped Diemed from taking over Ilien was the frowns of Roesone, Medoere, and Aerenwe, it would have been conquered long ago. However, even Rogr has been able to use his magical powers to assist in warding off aggressors. If he can't cast any useful spells in battle situations, I guess Diemed must have been really scared of Rogr's ability to charm single persons or cast light all this time.
    A couple problems with your logic.

    1. Rogr has a neutral country and does little piss people off because of it. A country taking over Ilien would have to do it without provocation. This would gain more than just frowns from the neighbors, this would have all the neighbors coming to Rogr's aid.

    2. Rogr has a small standing army but there is no reason that he couldn't raise a larger army or hire a bunch of mercenaries in times of need. Your argument only proves that Rogr is stupid not to have a larger standing army.

    3. The power of wizards is so mysterious that perhaps they are scared of what they think he could do not what he actually can do!


    Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

    I don't understand how wizards can maintain anything without other holdings. They require gold to raise the levels of their sources, yet they cannot generate them. They can't militarily protect their property. Giving them a form of "Battle Magic" almost makes up for the military (while giving priests another advantage). Realm magic is very slow, and you probably can't stop armies from contesting your sources anyway, so what's the point.

    I've come to one conclusion:

    Everyone hates wizards. There is no logical explanation for their continued existence in birthright. Even high level wizards with large source networks can only barely protect some of their property (especially without the Ward Realmspell). Realmspells are slow and have limited durations. A wizard without gold is also neutered.

    Therefore, we must begin to worry about how to allow wizards the ability to protect themselves, rather than take what little ability they have away.
    A Wizard would not be able to keep power with out any other types of holdings thus if he wants to keep power get other holding types. We don't have to give them special magic. For example Rogr owns the Law holdings in Ilien. He can tax everyone else. He can get the gold to stay powerful.

    I love wizards! They are in no danger of going extinct as long as they don't only rely on magic to stay alive. They must use political moves and have holdings. Otherwise they don't have to be a province ruler. They can be a regent with just source holdings. They rarely have to fight an army alone. They would have help from the province ruler.
    Lord Eldred
    High Councilor of the
    United Provinces of Cerilia
    "May Haelyn bring justice to your realm"

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I do see divided opinions. Even among those who agree with me, I'm sure some of our views differentiate at certain points. However, there are a couple of things I must clarify.

    When I said "Battle Magic is silly as it is" I was referring to a statement made by Mark.

    I did make an assumption on the poll statement. However, I doubt that the people who voted to remove battle magic meant to actually disallow spells from affecting battles. If people disagree with their original thoughts, they should speak up, but I know that is asking alot.

    The argument against the big dagger was against the mindset that a big dagger is comparable to spell inflation.

    Next, so you are saying that everything published after the original chainmail or D&D is just house rules? I wasn't speaking at all of house rules. I was referring to things that have been officially added to the setting. I understand that some things that are officially added can also be removed. However, I am arguing against the mindset that since it wasn't in the first draft of Birthright, it doesn't fit the setting.

    A low level wizard isn't going to have a large effect on a battle. A low level wizard is only going to be able to expend a few one shot effects and may bring harm to a unit or two (1st level Wizard, maxes out at 2 1st level spells. Sorcerer is a bit tougher, but Sorcerer's have to use an entire slot on a Battle Ritual.) If I have alot more troops than an enemy army, I'm going to still go to war with them, regardless of their arcane support (unless, they have thousands of wizards or something).

    It is true that changing the effects to fit the system is a simplification, and is neccesary. However, some arguments have been aimed to remove any sort of variation in the system. My statement was intended to point out how silly that is.

    If Diemed was on a war to return lost provinces to itself, then Ilien's friends would already be at war with Diemed. Most other nations could do little to assist in the matter. Rogr's funds are limited. He can't spend all of his money on a military because there are other things neccesary to maintain. Thus, he can't get extra mercenaries and increasing taxes will decrease support from other regents.

    If you are worried about the abuse of players, stating that wizards power is too mysterious will do little to hamper players from attacking them. Players would abuse the poor wizards.

    Wizards should not need to rely on other holdings or regents (as much). They should only need to rely on others as much as a fighter, priest, or guild regent does. However, they don't have this luxury. This relegates wizards to only support, unless they all must divide their interests into non-wizardly crap (yup, crap). This is unacceptable. Why do wizards need other types of holdings? Guilders don't, nor priests. I'm not saying special magic makes up for this, far from it. Magic is only a first step. My new argument is that Wizards are underpowered. Ritual magic is of little use in the course of an adventure because of the amount of resources that will be neccesary for it to occur. Losing a spell slot for a week, as well as GBs of material components, long periods of time with the target(s) in view, lots of cannon fodder assistants; its just unfeasible.

    Wizards will not be overpowered by this. If your players find a way to effectively use a Battle Ritual on an adventure, they should be commended for their ability to pull it off, not reprimanded for their ingenuity. If balance is supposed to be the core of a conversion, then balance. Wizards have to spend years of study and often much of their youthful health and vigor to earn what power they can get. No other class requires as much education.

    Land and law regents are self-sufficient.
    Temple and guild regents are self-sufficient.
    Source regents are not.

    I'm not seeing any balance.
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

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

  4. #104
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Let's see. A mixed domain is generally weaker than one that specializes in a single area; provinces and sources is not a very good combination. That said, a couple of levels down the road, and with a level 5 source, Rogr can cast the Warding spell - he could potentially trap the Dieman army, if he could catch it in a single province, then proceed to pillage Diemed with a significantly smaller army. So, yea, I guess it's the wizard that needs protection here.

    Further, why would a wizard even _need_ to defend himself from an army? Assaulting a wizardly domain with an army doesn't make sense. Now, you can chop the forest down, and reduce a source by one level, by occupying a province. Makes the farmers happy, knocks the wizard down a notch, but doesn't really destroy his domain. Guild and temple domains are far more fragile.

    A wizard that rules a landed domain would of course need to maintain an army of his own as well. That's when it can get rough. A pure source domain, however, is probably the hardest domain type of all to assault.

    That still doesn't make things quite right, though.

    Next, so you are saying that everything published after the original chainmail or D&D is just house rules? I wasn't speaking at all of house rules. I was referring to things that have been officially added to the setting. I understand that some things that are officially added can also be removed. However, I am arguing against the mindset that since it wasn't in the first draft of Birthright, it doesn't fit the setting.
    That's a rather silly extrapolation. You're muddying up your arguments again; on the one hand, you have admitted that the "battle magic" of BoM wasn't all that good and then work to "improve" on it in various ways, trying to compromise, make it more edible, whatever - then you talk about the "official" version again. Next, there's the issue of quality control. Some BR products have been rather weak. Blood enemies, for instance, made no mention of the Gorgon's wizard levels. It _did_ make mention of psionics, though. Just because it is in an "official" product, does not mean it fits in with the rest - that's the consequence of using many designers who don't all agree or even understand what they are writing for. The BoM contained some good stuff, but also a lot of filler. Carradalaigh and Battle Magic are the most distinguishable filler parts.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Okay, maybe I have confused my arguments a bit. Its pretty obvious. So I'm starting over, somewhat fresh, but more informed than I started last time. (The wish and miracle spells have no bearing on this argument, just in case it comes up).

    Main Argument:
    I believe that a third tier of magic similar to what is commonly known as "Battle Magic" should exist. By Battle Magic, I am referring to the concept introduced in the Book of Magecraft. This tier of magic I refer to, while similar to some people's conception of the "Battle Magic" presented in the Book of Magecraft, is actually an elaboration on that idea. Instead of merely being useful in mass combat, it should be useful off the battlefield. It is a form of magic that uses mebhaighl to a lesser extent than what Realm magic uses it and a greater extent to than which normal magic uses it.

    Claims:
    1. Wizards can be underpowered as presented on the scale of regency.

    2. This middle tier of magical fantasy can provide the setting of Birthright with a unique flavor.

    3. This middle tier of magic can be used to help explain the existence of the top tier of magic, Realm spells.

    Support:
    1. On why wizards are underpowered - Source holdings can not produce GB resources under normal circumstances. It cost GBs to rule and create holdings. In addition, it appears to be of little cost for any regent with a local holding to use a contest action to block functionality of a source holding. Considering that armies, when occupying, are considered law holdings and all other opposing holdings are considered contested, wizards have little means to remove this threat to their domain. Realms spells are of little use because they require much time and the source has been blocked anyway. It is also very difficult to fortify a source holding, considering there aren't any really logical rules regarding such an act. Finally, a source holding does not provide as many benefits to the holder as does any other type of holding.

    2. This tier of magic is something that does not exist in other campaign settings. While some of the effects described in the Book of Magecraft appear much more well suited to a high magic campaign, such as the Forgotten Realms, the concept is still one that has only been presented in a birthright context. While the original concept is somewhat hokey and undertested in practice, it still is an interesting concept that should be expanded to enrich the Birthright setting.

    3a. In light of the arguments against "Battle" magic, Realm spells need to be questioned. It has been argued that a middle tier of magic gives too much power to low level wizard characters. However, Realm magic gives even more power to these same characters. It has been argued that "Battle" magic does not balance spell level (character level) requirements are not balanced with effect. Realm spells are far more guilty of this. Death Plague is far more powerful than any 9th level spell, to name one. It has been argued that resource requirements do not properly balance "Battle" Magic spells. However, Realm spells use only resource requirements to balance their spells (if you convert caster level requirements into their equivelant spell level), even giving some spells a lower level than their normal counterparts. Thus realm spells are more out of balance than "Battle" magic, by your own arguments.

    3b. Now, disregarding the silly idea that we should remove Realm Magic, lets look at this progression. We'll start at the top. Realm magic is very powerful magic that uses large amounts of resources to achieve tremendous effect. These resources include: regency, mebhaighl sources, time, and GBs of materials. Normal magic is commonly used and also requires resources, scaled down for the scale of its effect. These resources include: materials, time, and mebhaighl (magical energy). Now when effects are compared, normal magic and Realm magic overlap in some areas and not in others. When you look at the basic effect, they are the same. Subversion charms, charm spells charm; Transport teleports people, Teleport teleports people; Ward stops certain things from entering an area, the various shell, wall, and wizard lock spells stop certain things from entering an area; ad nauseum. When you compare duration some spells are similar and some differentiate. However, when you compare area of effect, Realm magic is significantly larger than normal magic. In fact, normal spells don't even come close to Realm spells and there is a large gap in the size of effects. Now, considering this and considering how things progress under normal circumstances, such a large gap doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Under normal, human methods of progression, you gradually expand your ability. Why then is there a large gap in the effects? Wouldn't some wizard have needed a spell with a larger effect than a normal spell yet smaller than a realm spell? Would that spell need more resources than a normal spell? Would that spell need as much in resources as a Realm spell? Wouldn't somebody have thought to use a little bit more mebhaighl before they thought to use a lot more mebhaighl?

    Periphery Argument:
    This concept requires its own system to be implemented properly.

    Claims:
    1. The level of effect that lies between the farthest extent of existing normal spells and the smallest area of Realm spells is unreachable using existing spell level balancing, be they Realm spells or normal spells.

    Support:
    1. If I want to create a larger version of the Meteor Swarm effect, one that effects say 1 km^2 of ground, what level is the spell? By the fact that I can create effects that are bigger and smaller with similar properties, I should be able to do this. Its more powerful than the ninth level spell Meteor Swarm and less powerful than a Realm spell sized Meteor Swarm effect. How do you adjudicate this? If you say it isn't possible, then how can larger effects be possible, if you say it is possible within the current system, where? There must be something to account for this.


    I've tried to simplify and refine my arguments, so as not to confuse myself and others, hoping to more clearly state my point. I still think I'm fighting for a cause worth fighting for. I feel that I was kind of mean singling out you and Lawgiver as the d20 team, but I have only heard your two arguments from the said team. I can only hope that there are proponents of something similar to what I argue for on the team, and that they are more convincing than I appear to be. Please don't confuse me with just a player. I'm very much a DM as well. I am merely frustrated because I don't appear to be making a dent, while taking a few myself.

    Again, I apologize if anything I've said appears to have been a personal assault. I occasionally start some of my replies while partially (or fully) inebriated. I've rarely been inclined to edit my posts, even the less well thought-out ones. I'm gonna keep trying, though...
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

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

  6. #106
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    I thought that revising birthright into 3e was being done to make things that weren't done well or unbalancing into something that is balanced and runs smooth. Isn't that why bloodline strength and bloodtheft been changed into 3e in an attempt to make it run smoother. Oh how the wind does change its directions.
    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

  7. #107
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I thought that revising birthright into 3e was being done to make things that weren't done well or unbalancing into something that is balanced and runs smooth. Isn't that why bloodline strength and bloodtheft been changed into 3e in an attempt to make it run smoother. Oh how the wind does change its directions.
    We make changes where necessary and avoid unnecessary changes. The goal is to simplify and make things more playable, and also to put the focus more on characters, less on domains.

    Gargamel

    Claims:
    1. -Yes. I have never disagreed with this; battle magic is not the answer, though, as it applies only to one specific aspect of rulership.
    2. It already has a unique flavor.
    3. It already has an explanation.

    Support:
    1. Source holdings are immune to occupation in the way you point out, anyway. Read the rules, please.

    2. Why should we want to fix a broken wheel from and old car and use it on a new car when the new car already has four functioning wheels?

    3a. Realm spells take a month to cast; you can cast lots of battle magic spells in a relatively short amount of time. Realm spells are simply what wizards "do" as regents - fighters lead armies, rogues gather gold, wizards cast spells, priests do a little of everything and are especially good at manipulating the people.

    3b. 3a really isn't valid, and since 3b rests upon it, consider it null. However, for the effects of "medium" size - simply use normal spells.

    Periphery:
    No, it doesn't. Wizards can perfectly well affect armies with regular spells.

    Support:
    1. Maybe you can't. There are limits to even what a 20th-level character can do. A carefully worded wish might make a gigantic meteor swarm for you. Maybe you'll have to wait for the True Dweomers in the Epic-Level Campaigns book.

    I still think I'm fighting for a cause worth fighting for.
    So, you're not really arguing rationally, but rather "fighting for a cause?" Personally, my favorite class to play is wizards, barbarians and psychic warriors (yes, I know, not in BR) - that doesn't mean I want to add a whole lot of bang-bang to those classes.

    I feel that I was kind of mean singling out you and Lawgiver as the d20 team, but I have only heard your two arguments from the said team.
    Of course there are disagreements. We vote on them, and try to present a united front in public - when it comes to defending what we have made. As nothing of that is public as of yet, our opinions are still pretty much our own.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Your House
    Posts
    201
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Fighting for a cause does not preclude rational argument. I've seen this whole thing as a series of point and counterpoint. I feel as if I've been fighting an uphill battle, though. This is largely due to the fact that every point I make is just dismissed without much reasoning behind it. I've gone to great trouble thinking this annoying argument through, and everything I say is simply dismissed. Meanwhile, I've formed most of my points to rebut your points and have fixed holes in my argument as you have pointed them out.

    Now:

    2. Yes, it does already have a unique flavor. However, the pre-existence of unique flavor does not preclude other game concepts from contributing to the flavor's uniqueness.

    3. The current explanation of Realm magic has logical flaws within it. The problem I have is that human development of technology has always started smaller, then grown larger at a gradual pace. You may think that this has little to do with magic, but that would be fallacious:

    a. Magic and Technology are both tools that have the purpose of performing tasks that a human can not perform naturally. (Killing more efficiently, making life easier, etc.)

    b. Magic and Technology are both developed as solutions to problems. This means that they are developed to accomplish specific effects, as the need arises.

    c. Magic and Technology are both built on previous knowledge of their respected domain. You don't create nuclear missles, then develop machine guns; wizards don't learn to cast spells on a huge scale before they feel they can cast spells on merely a large scale. The human desire for effects increase as their ability to improve on existing ones increase.

    I have read the rules. Unfortunately, I do not have a photographic memory and do not have access to the Birthrigh rulebook, right now. Tell me, what are the rules for contesting sources?

    You can't argue that wizards cast realm spells, because that's "what they do." Well, I guess you can but that argument doesn't make much sense. Of course its what they do. I never actually meant that realm spells should be removed. I only applied one of your argument for not having a middle tier of magic (its not balanced, in particular) to the justification for Realm magic.

    True, Realm spells uniformly take a month to cast. And true, you can cast more battle spells in a month than realm spells. However, increase the casting time relative to the power of ritual. This would make some of the weaker rituals useful upon the battle field, while making the most powerful ritual require hours or possibly longer to cast.


    Regardless, it makes no sense to be able to affect, with spells, extremely large areas and normal adventure scaled areas but not anything in between. Waiting for True Dweomers only makes sense if Realm magic must also wait for them. This should be the case, if you are intent on saying that low-level wizards should make low-level effects, only.

    Besides, isn't the concept of True Dweomers just filler from an inferior 2E product? They were more broken than Battle Magic from 2E, though a little harder to obtain. However, somebody apparently has tried to fix them, nowhere near the path of least resistance.
    Explain how this is a signature, its not my handwriting.

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

  9. #109
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ah, here we are at the crux of what I have been arguing before - applying technological thinking to magic.

    2. You portrayed it differently. As I have pointed out previously, the battle magic of which you speak might actually do more to detract from the flavor desired for Birthright than add to it.

    3. What logical flaws? Are there also logical flaws within the way spells work because they do not conform to the laws of physics?

    a. Yes and no. Magic explicitly breaks the barrier of what is possible within the realm of ordinary physics.

    b. and c. Who said magic was "developed?" In most fantasy worlds, the greatest magic is generally found in the earlier eras; such is also true to some extent of Birthright; Deismaar lies in the past, as does the great works of elves and dwarves. In fact, in most fantasy worlds, magic and technology can be painted as opposite curves; magic is declining while technology is either advancing or stagnant. You can't really make the assumption that magic will be better in 1624 HC than it was in 1524 HC - it will more likely either be the same or lesser ("much that once was, is now lost, for none now live that remember"). Magic is not an evolutionary process - you can add to it (research new spells), but expecting it to increase (i.e. "I estimate we'll have 10th-level spells about 50 years from now") is not a rational assumption within the "logic of magic." In the same token, a 1st-level spell won't get any better by continuously trying to "improve" on it or "fine-tune" it - that's not how *magic* works - that's how a technonlogical item works.

    Another point about magic is that it does not exist to make life easier; in most cases, it permits you to do things that aren't otherwise possible, but it isn't a good tool for mundane problem solution - in that regard, using a mundane way of doing things is actually usually more economical. Magic isn't convenient. The moment it becomes "convenient" is when you start selling magic vacuum cleaners. Why isn't that done? Because it is easier to solve the problem in a mundane way - by sweeping.

    How wizards learn to cast spells is one thing - like you point out, they learn to cast spells on a small scale before they learn to cast them at a huge scale - how the spells themselves work is another thing; the spells remain constant, it is only the wizard's relative ability to use them that increases. A fireball has always been the same, and will always be the same. Same with magic missile.

    The rules for contesting sources work as other contests - with the exception that sources can't be contested by military might. You can't occupy a province to destroy or contest a source like you can other holdings.

    Of course it's what they do. It's their given function. Just like fighters lead armies, rogues collect gold, and clerics deceive the masses.

    True Dweomers only entered the discussion because you wanted to know if a wizard could make a BIG meteor storm. He can't, within the rules as they are. And that's a he CAN NOT do it. As for the True Dweomers themselves, they are pure speculation - the Epic Level Campaigns book is due this summer, and will likely contain some system for dealing with truly earth-shattering effects; the primal spells of the past, if you will. Some have speculated that the designers will re-use True Dweomers from DM's Option: High-level Campaigns. Your reasoning here seems faulty once again; High-level Campaigns was actually an excellent product, and you can see some "roots" for 3e here, as well as some very good generic tips for running a campaign - one of my better overall 2e purchases, in fact. Its utility exceeds that of Combat and Tactics and Spells and Magic, which, while also superlative products, does not have much of the more generic material that the High-level Campaigns book did. Not all 2e products were bad, of course. As for whether True Dweomers were filler - most certainly not. They actually filled a niche that was missing from a rules perspective - that of truly grandiose effects, which had previously basically been relegated to DM prerogative. The battle magic system you are trying to squeeze in isn't similarly needed; it is rather redundant, in fact.
    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.