Battle Magic and Priests

[Lord Eldred]

On a post in the College of Sorcery one wise member argued that Priests should not be allowed to use Battle magic. I am not sure I agree. What do you think? Should Priests be able to use Battle Magic?

[Lord Eldred]

I voted yes because Battle Magic is not a special type of magic really. It is just magic that has an effect on large number of people. Clerics have spells that have an effect on the masses thus they can wield battle magic. There is not a legitimate reason to say that Clerics couldn't use these spells on the battlefield.

People should remember this fact when they post battlefield specific spells that they should also be able to be cast off the battlefield.

[Lawgiver]

I vote yes too. A version of Flame Strike come to mind... Though I have focused my clerics more on the defensive and healing aspect in mass battles. I would enjoy the development of more offensive battle spells for the men (and women) of the clothe. I may look into doing that...

[Lord Eldred]

My interpretation of battle spells doesn't have special spells. They are just the spells that exist that have an effect on large numbers of people. I have no objection however of developing more spells that have an effect on lots of people.

[TheCitadel]

In the campaign I run, I have limited the casting of battle magic for priests to either a regent or the lieutenant of one. This was put in place to prevent abuse. A priest regent could otherwise try to gather a lot of his clergy together and cast a host of spells on one battlefield. I justified this by saying that battle spells were empowered versions of the normal spells(which they are), and thus required the power of a regent to be employed. I did the same with mages, however. Having a bunch of magicians around to cast rain of magic missiles would just be silly.

[Lawgiver]

The spell I created is basically a clerical version of Mass Destruction. I made it more expensive, 5GB per unit instead fo a flat 5GB, and raised the caster level to 6 instead of 3. I think it should be at least a little more difficult for preists to weild the same destructive power as wizards.

[Raesene Andu]

Personally, I rule that only blooded priests may cast battle magic, which tend to limit the number of casters a little. The reasoning is quite simple, to cast battle magic, which is far more powerful that normal magic, you need a closer connection to the source of that magic that normal.

For wizard, a bloodline bring them closer to the source of their magic, the Mebhaighl, while for priests a bloodline brings them closer the source of their magic, the prayers of their followers and their god. Also, as there are unlikely to be more than 3 or 4 blooded priests within a religion, limiting the casting of battle magic only to blooded priests stops a religions from fielding a hundred priests, all able to cast battle magic.

I don't agree with stopping priests from casting battle magic all together though, if they can cast realm magic then they can cast battle magic. However, I would assume (at least for the goodly gods) that most of their battle magic would tend towards wards and healing.

[Lawgiver]

I agree I would only allow the use of battle spells blooded preists, but I'd throw in the unblooded if they were of a higher level (maybe something like 4 higher than required for blooded).

[Lord Eldred]

I am not sure why a unit of 1st level priests should be prevented from being able to cast cure light wounds and thus cure another army unit. Those that think this couldn't happen need to explain to me why not!

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
I am not sure why a unit of 1st level priests should be prevented from being able to cast cure light wounds and thus cure another army unit. Those that think this couldn't happen need to explain to me why not!

There is nothing wrong with a unit of preists casting cure light wounds and healing another army unit. However you are saying several preists not one 1st level unblooded priest healing the entire unit.

Perhaps we should define battle magic. I tend to think of the larger powerful battle magic as realm spells (whether priest or wizard). Whether you are a priest or a wizard you get one realm spell (your Domain Action) and then are reduced to the standard spells of your character class.

I would suggest that regardless of being blooded or not preists would be limited to the standard spells given to preists. However, should the blooded preist be a regent, that would be different. The preist basically get one shot to dramatically influence the battle with the use of a realm spell. After that they must rely on standard spells given to their class. I might add that I wouldn't be against creating new spells to affect entire military units.

[Lord Eldred]

I like the rulebook define battle spells as any spell that has an effect on a large number of people. Thus I think any powerful cleric that has spells that can have an effect on the masses can cast battle magic. I think I have and in fact I have stated this before.

My last post was refering to the post from the Citidel. He thinks it is abusive to gather the clergy and cast spells. I don't understand why.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I've interpreted battle spells to be different from large area of effect spells. Battle spells are spells that normally can't affect an entire unit, but have been altered to encompass one or more. A fireball may be able to affect an entire unit by itself, slightly damaging it. But a Battle Fireball would be a huge fireball with about the same damage stats as a normal one.

[Lord Eldred]

On what grounds do you make that interpretation? I don't have a problem with you altering spells to get a larger effect but on what grounds do you argue they must be altered to be used in battle? In addition how many of these altered spells do you get and how does that work? And why wouldn't Haelyn give these altered spells to his priests?

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Maybe I'm confused on the examples given in the book of Magecraft.

Quote: (from the Book of Magecraft, pp. 98)

"Using the research action during a domain turn, wizards and magicians can create new battle spells by converting existing conventional spells."

End Quote.

That gives me the idea that not all battle spells are 'normal' spells. The book also gives me the idea that it is only usable in battle:

"If the Wizard succeds in his conversion attempt, he has a new spell in his spellbook--the battle spell version of the conventional spell he had before. He memorizes the spell in the same way, but he can cast it only in battle situations." (Magecraft 98)

That seems to say that there are spells that are large area spells and then there are battle-specific spells (normally large spells don't require the spell to be cast only in battle).

Why is a God going to spend his time on spell research (or contemplation or whatever) so that his priests can get for free what wizards must spend resources on?

I think that these special conversions should be limited to wizards. Priests have a War Sphere (which is easily converted to 3E), Quest spells, Realm Spells, Regular spells, popular support (of some form), and better fighting characteristics. Wizards get Realms spells, Battle Spells, and Normal Spells. Fair balance, in my opinion, since the Priests actions are limited by an ethos and the spells are less offensive in nature.

In Morgramen's pbem, he goes one step further and actually requires blood to cast battle spells (and at least some regency in storage even). I personally like this approach. It actually makes battle-wizards rarer, and allows those regents that do employ them a real edge. Though Morg doesn't allow any priestly battlemagic, I believe this approach for wizards plus allowing priests the normal spells they have that are battle useful, would make priests more common in armies. Further, this helps explain why Elves had trouble against human priests back in the day, the Priests had War spells while the elves did not have battle spells at all.

[Green Knight]

Sure. Clerics have the ability to cast realm spells. So if wizards use battle magic in your campaign, clerics should too. Otherwise no.

[centAUr]

Just play an Elven kindom and you won't need to bother with clerics ;)

Ok, let's get serious. It is a good think to keep Priests happy since they are created to make rebelions(apart from realm spells). A happy priest can be great help, but the best is a vassal priest(and stupid enough to be happy for that). But if the realm has economical problems they should pay too. If they do it through tributes better, if they don't then tax them as much as possible. On the other hand a trade service(as per book of regency) can do the job and keep them all happy. Everything can be done better with diplomacy.

Anyway, PUT THEM TAXES, after all they earn money for doing nothing but rebelions and contesting each other :P
Or better expell them, as by the elven customs(elves are definetly more advanced).

[centAUr]

Just play an Elven kindom and you won't need to bother with clerics ;)
...
Or better expell them, as by the elven customs(elves are definetly more advanced).

Sorry guys, I messed up the threads :(

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

Maybe I'm confused on the examples given in the book of Magecraft.

Quote: (from the Book of Magecraft, pp. 98)

"Using the research action during a domain turn, wizards and magicians can create new battle spells by converting existing conventional spells."

End Quote.

That gives me the idea that not all battle spells are 'normal' spells. The book also gives me the idea that it is only usable in battle:

"If the Wizard succeds in his conversion attempt, he has a new spell in his spellbook--the battle spell version of the conventional spell he had before. He memorizes the spell in the same way, but he can cast it only in battle situations." (Magecraft 98)

That seems to say that there are spells that are large area spells and then there are battle-specific spells (normally large spells don't require the spell to be cast only in battle).


I could see how this would confuse you but I think both are true. The key is that what you are quoting is to create NEW BATTLE SPELLS. All spells that have an affect normally on a large number of people are Battle spells that can already be used without having to convert the spell. However, if the spell does not normally have an effect on a large number of people it needs to be converted but the new spell can only be used in battle situations (personally I disagree but that is what the book says). Thus Clerics can use all spells that currently affect a large number of people as battle spells without having to do the conversion.


Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
Why is a God going to spend his time on spell research (or contemplation or whatever) so that his priests can get for free what wizards must spend resources on?



Again I think you miss something. It wouldn't be the god that does the research, it would be the cleric. IF the cleric is able to think it up (with the right amount of research) then they would pray for their god to grant them that type of spell. I don't think it would be for free. I think some time and some resources would go into the process. And some special prayer time.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I'm just thinking a division would make sense. Battle spells could be spells that have extremely long casting times and larger effects for their spell level. Other spells would just be normal.

Otherwise, I guess my idea of priests is that they are supposed to spend time dealing with the needs of worshippers. Wizards have more spare time for research because they aren't beholden to a church. What kind of research would a priest need to do to obtain a new spell? Doesn't seem like much, considering they don't have to come up with Arcane formulas, as many material components, or learn to shape the energy themselves, they merely ask and pray (I just don't see what exactly priestly spell research does, or why it exists). I didn't actually think that a god did any research, but I've always thought of clerical research as a joke. If a god wants to give better spells, then he/she probably would have done so already.

I'm not completely against priests getting special Battle Spells, I just feel that its a bit of a game balance issue. Wizards have little that a priest can't emulate (especially with Domains containing more attack magic than what used to be available to priests). Even the wish spell (which I don't like) has a priestly version now. However, a wizard can not emulate a priests martial skills very effectively, and cannot heal others in a manner that won't hurt himself.
Also, wizards don't have anything similar to Quest spells. In fact, people in general don't usually follow wizards, though priests can call upon the faithful. This leads me to believe that the classes are unbalanced.

Lastly, I've never said that Clerics shouldn't be able to use normal spells that affect large numbers of people. I just said that they shouldn't be called battle spells.

[Baragos]

A few spells come to my mind:

Bless - Prayer - Etc: These would influence one or more units, enhancing their combat abilities.
Ward-spells: These would hinder the enemy in some way.
Summoning-spells: These (obviously) would summon a "unit" of divine creatures. Imagine the priest who summons a host of einherin or a small number of celestials. Even "weak" celestials can take on a couple of hundred regular soldiers. Priests of Laerme would summon fire elementals, Eric's would call Nature's Allies, etc.
Healing-spells: Already Circle of Healing exists. It would be plausible to have one that could effect entire units at a time.

I think that the number of directly destructive spells should be kept at a minimum. I like the idea of a Flame Strike-battle spell, but priests are more supportive than destructive spell casters.

Baragos

[Mithrandir]

I think the main issue here is balance not, the defination of battle-spells. Only blooded individuals can be wizards, and magicians don't have a huge number spells that are effective in battle, so it's fine to have them all cast battle spells. Unfortunately, anyone can be a priest, an acording to the rules as read, that means any priest can cast battle magic. This means that a large temple could gather all the preists under it's authority and provide EXTREMELY powerful support for a given army. allowing only blooded priests to cast battle magic puts their powers back on par with that of wizards.

[Arius Vistoon]

Thank you Mithrandir !!!

i agree with you...
battle magic is'nt for priest ( just for game balance but not only ! )

Only wizard can cast battle magic !
i'm afraid with war where priest can cast it...as Mithrandir tell, there are very more priest than mage ! and the interest of play mage has reduced....

And isn't all,
imagine mage ( the characer the lesser acquire money !! ) negocie with realm regent....he hasn't argument -> priest with lot of money can do what he do...

NB : 'scuse me for my english ! my natural language is french !

[Green Knight]

There is another...

Just rule that only blooded clerics have the ability to handle the great energies required to wield battle magic. Then there will be no imbalance.

[Lord Valkyr]

Priests should be able to cast battle magic spells blooded or unblooded. Their source of power is divine or thru their connection/faith/devotion to their god not by whether or not they have the blood of old gods in their veins. Clerics also have an ethos restriction their god could decide their cause is not worthy & not grant the spell. a wizard has no restriction

[Green Knight]

In an ideal world I would agree. There needs to be a game balance tool, however, and I think a bloodline requirement does the trick. If not, even a small temple like the RCS could decimate their mundane neighbors.

[Lord Eldred]

Just how many high level priests are there in a province? I don't think that many. What kind of overpowering spells are they going to be able to support an army with? Has this actually happened in anyones campaign?

[Mithrandir]

The point is that the priest need not be all that high a level, and I imagine that most temples can field enough preists capable of battle spells to put quite a dent in an opposing force, or, more apropriatly, heal a major dent in their own. Personaly, I just prefer to limit the number of spell casting priests, and require them to be blooded and take a feat to use battle magic. This, combined with the rarity of wizards, means that only one or two individuals capable of battle magic are present on one side of a battle, and this preserves the rarity of magic in Cerilia.

[Green Knight]

Mithrandir is right. Even 1st level clerics, of which there are many, can make a substantial difference. With domain spells and a decent, 12+ wisdom, they can cast 3 1st level battle spells each. Cure unit comes to mind - 20 clerics,of say Nesirie could then cast 60 Cure unit spells. That DOES make a difference!

Raesene Andu has the solution: Limit battle magic to blooded clerics and require a feat to be spent.

[Lord Eldred]

I don't see how Cure unit could be a first level spell when cure light wounds is all you can get at first level as a Cleric.

I think you set limitations on what can be done and that takes care of balance. Also I really think you have to put limitations on spells that are strictly usable on the battlefield. In fact I would argue there should be no such thing. What makes the battlefield such a special magical place that wizards can cast spells that only work there and why would a god say I will give this cure unit spell to you but you can't use it to cure your entire adventuring party or a whole sick village for that matter. These things just don't make any sense to me. Battle magic should be limited to spells that have an effect on a large number of people instead of allowing special spells that only work on the battle field. Unless you argue that they are a limited form of realm magic but then they should only be allowed to be cast by the blooded!

[Green Knight]

Cure unit was a poor example, as it is really a 3rd level spell (I think). The argumant, however, is sound. Even low level spells can be upsetting if there are a lot available.

[Lord Eldred]

I think everyone agrees that you have to set limits. I argue that Battle spells are just another name for the group of spells already in existence (realm and area of effect) that have an impact in a battle. I can see no reason to not allow a unit of clerics to use their cumulative cure light wounds spells to cure a unit. I do see a problem with allowing one cleric cast a cure unit spell. The balance comes from not allowing spells that only work on the field of battle.

[Mithrandir]

I still think that there are to many clerics, and that allowing them all to use battle magic spoils the feel of Birthright, But whatever works in your campaign....
Also, I think that it requires a certain degree of power to cast a spell over a group of people as big as a unit, and a certain degree of will power to focus on your prayers on a battle field.

[Lord Eldred]

In my campaign, it has never happened where a large number of clerics unbalanced a fight. SO all of this argument is moot in my campaign world.

Mithrandir, I don't think you realize that we agree that you should limit the clerics ability. Just whatever way works for you!

[Lawgiver]

I think it may be possible for a single preist to cast a Cure Unit spell, but perhaps as a 4 or 5th level preist spell. The cure spell need not cure all soldiers to maximum hit points. You must remember that most typical soldiers are 1st or 2nd level have an average of 10-15 HP. Healing them even 1-3 hit points each can be quite effective. I would let a spell of that nature heal more than one unit of damage for a single however.

I recently thought of another option that is actually quite reasonable. Rather than have a cleric cast multiple instances of low level spells why not allow them to combine spells into a single large spell. For instance if a preist wanted to cast a Cure Unit spell they would allot multiple "spell slots" rather then a single spell. i.e. somthing like 3 level 3 slots for one Cure Unit spell (though I don't know the details of Cure Unit off hand so a better allotment may be necessary).

[Lord Eldred]

I don't have books with me but how many people are in a unit, would a single priest be able to combine enough spells to cure a unit even 1 point each?

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
I don't have books with me but how many people are in a unit, would a single priest be able to combine enough spells to cure a unit even 1 point each?

Its 200 men per unit.

Depending on the level of cleric perhaps, but it would be extremely draining. It was an alternative idea anyway.

[Lord Eldred]

I like the idea because it means that only higher level clerics could have any chance of curing an entire unit.

[Lord Shaene]

i posted this in a different thread but here goes.

1) wizard or priest must be blooded to cast Battle magic
2) in order to cast BM for a wizard he must acquire a rare component that is used up during the casting of the spell
3)in order for a priest to cast Bm he must to a quest/sacrifice of some sort

this would make for some great side adventures and when you went into battle neither side would no for sure if the priests/wizards could cast battle magic or not.

[Chioran]

If you made it a 3rd level spell and required the presence of a "combat medic" unit then this might make the possibility more realistic. The combined efforts of a single cleric and a unit of "combat medics" might be sufficient to perform the act.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Mithrandir

I still think that there are to many clerics, and that allowing them all to use battle magic spoils the feel of Birthright, But whatever works in your campaign....
Also, I think that it requires a certain degree of power to cast a spell over a group of people as big as a unit, and a certain degree of will power to focus on your prayers on a battle field.

So Mithrandir, if my argument is that Battle Magic is not some special magic it is magic that the Cleric is already capable of casting in an adventure that currently has a large area of effect, would you then be arguing that the Cleric on the Battle Field suddenly forgets how to cast this spell?

[Abbess Allessandra]

Besides priest spells don't work that way. They are a gift from the god. They are "miracles" if you will.
So if you are saying they forget the prayer to invoke the deity's help then I could see that but not the "spell"