Battlewise

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 31 2004, 03:09 PM

This does reproduce the effect from the 2nd ed rule fairly well using the mechanics of the BRCS playtest. Every unit gains the effect as if the scion was in the unit. The way morale bonuses work in 3.5 it translates to the attack and defense bonus so it is actually performing what was intended by the 2nd ed description. Even though the phrasing may seem to be otherwise, the way that 3.5 mechanics work it translates fairly well. And since it slides with ranks in Lead it allows for scaling with scion's level.

So are you saying then that Morale will be dropped as a seperate stat for units in the revision? Currently, the bonus was only to the unit's morale rating. Now if this is a Morale bonus to attack and defense, this is an entirely different mechanic than the BRCS used. It's confusing as to what Morale is referring to.

I am not saying anything specific on any revision to Ch 6, only that 'anything' is possible. Currently there is no working copy of any revisions to that Chap so it is open game for the masses to discuss and change.

I personally like the morale bonus/stat but I have had to revise things based on what the majority wants in the past so. . . .

[Athos69]

Well, Morale is really a catch-all for morale, Will save, Reflex save and Fort save, since it is used to determine how well troops shrug off magical attacks of all natures.

The thing is, I feel that the saves should be seperated from morale, and a morale check be made manditory *if* a spell causes damage to the unit, or is a mind-affecting enchantment, like fear. A unit's ability to resist damage has (or should have) little to do with its courage

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Jul 31 2004, 04:50 PM
Well, Morale is really a catch-all for morale, Will save, Reflex save and Fort save, since it is used to determine how well troops shrug off magical attacks of all natures.

Yes and no.

Per the definition of morale bonus from 3.5 PHB " A bonus representing the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination...."

Types of things that provide morale bonuses and their effects include;

Bard's bardic music for example the Inspire Courage effect ". .. +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 morale bonus on on atack and weapon damage rolls."

Paladin's abilities. An example is Aura of Courage ". . .+4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects."

The spells Aid and Bless are also examples of things that grant morale bonuses.

Basically D&D uses it as a very broad category that reflects the "effects of greater hope, courage and determination." Which is very very broad in its application, also the effects can very from saving throw bonuses to attack and damge roll bonuses.

[Osprey]

Which to me says Morale as a unit stat makes for an excellent equivalent to a Will save (I would even sayt they're interchangeable), a fair equivalent for Fortitude saves (determination and inspiration have a lot to do with peoples' drives to keep on going when the going gets tough), and a horrific substitute for a Reflex save. While a few sketchy correlations could be made between a unit's morale and its ability to react, I would be OK with units not getting Reflex-based saves at all. And if a unit could get a save based on its ability to find cover and react quickly, this is measured by 3 main factors: good leadership, tight discipline, and drilled reflexes born out by superior training and combat experience.

Ever read All Quiet On The Western Front? There's a great passage in there talking about how the green recruits were so obvious to the vets because they didn't know when to duck and cover when a shell was incoming or there was machinegun fire. Few veterans were injured or killed by such incidental damage compared to the number of rookies who were.

So in that sense, I suppose morale is a fair measure of a unit's reflexes, too, as it improves with unit experience and good leadership both.

In general, I mostly like the BRCS unit setup the way it is, and I'm OK with the unit stats as presented. I just don't like Battlewise adding to unit morale alone.

[Osprey]

I think you are missing something in the text. The EL bonus applies as if the scion was personally with the unit. So a hero does not need to lead the unit.

"In addition, as long as the scion is on the field of battle, all allied units gain a bonus to morale. This bonus is equivalent to the bonus that the scion would normally provide to a unit under their direct command (+1 bonus to morale for every 5 ranks of Lead)."

I think you are confusing EL of a Hero unit with the Morale bonus granted from Lead. As I understand it, the current version of Battlewise provides 2 effects:

1. All allied units gain a Morale bonus based on the Scion's lead score. This specifically acts as a bonus to their courage against routing, their ability to rally from a rout, and their saving throws against fatigue and magical attacks.

2. The scion's level is treated as 2 higher when determining the EL of any hero unit of a unit of which he is a part. This is actually a slight change [down-powered] from the BRCS, where the power added +2 to the EL of the hero unit of which he was a part.

Since a hero unit can add bonuses to Attack, Defense, AND Morale, it is quite different from simply adding a Morale bonus to a unit. EL and Lead are 2 different creatures.

Battlewise

"The scion adds one point to the attack and defense ratings of any army he commands personally - he must be present at the battle to gain this advantage."

I guess it comes down to what "he commands personally" means and how to best interpret this. Using that it applies to every unit on the battlefied definitely makes this ability waay too powerful.

The text description also includes inspiring troops ". . .to analyze enemy weaknesses, create sound plans of attack, and inspire toops to victory."

I don;'t think there should be any confusion what the original description meant. It says any army he commands, not any company or unit he commands personally. Personally means he is the guy on the field leading the army, not sitting in his castle sending messengers to his general. And as I said earlier, I don't think commanding from the reserve really counts either. He is the general calling the shots, and I think in the case of a bloodline power this should require his physical presence and hands-on command of his troops. It's only fitting for the heroic ideal woven into the Battlewise commander's persona.

However, army means army. There's no doubt about it. 2e BR was pretty specific, calling individual groups of soldiers either companies or units. Don't you think they would have written "companies" or "units" if that was what they meant? Especially when this is later verified in the mechanics description by saying "all allied units recieve a bonus to attack and defense."

I think it's crystal clear that Baker and Co. wanted Battlewise to be a decisive advantage on the battlefield, not just a slight edge. Commanders with battlewise were meant to be "far more effective" than those without. Not "somewhat more effective" or "slightly better than an equal-level commander without Battlewise." Which seems to be more where other folks want to take this power.

Here I take a stand with the authors of the original material. I love the heroic element of Battlewise, particularly because it's available to scions of Anduiras and Azrai, the classic heroic and villainous commanders of the BR battlefields. I love the fact that commanders with Battlewise are clearly superior to those without the power. This is one of those signature powers that clearly distinguishes those with the blood and the heritage and the divine right to command from those without. It doesn't make their armies unbeatable, it just makes them more bad-assed. I love it, and want to see it stay in that spirit rather than get toned down for fear of it being unbalancing. It's meant to be unbalancing. It's meant to be a decisive advantage not a slight one. That was really the original intent and spirit of the power.

Ultimately, adding a bonus to the combat stats of units makes them stronger. But there's always a counter for this, be it greater enemy numbers, stronger foes (Legions of Dead and Stonecrown Ogres come to mind), or another opposing commander with Battlewise...

That's where I stand, and I think it's on solid ground.

Osprey