War and Warriors

[John Rickards]

> Thieves and priests get free actions; fighters and wizards don't. Wizards
> get
> realm spells; what do fighters get? Once you get out of an adventure
> scenario, fighters have no area of advantage over other classes. It really
> annoyed my player that the mage who spent all his free time researching
> spells was just as good a general on the battlefield as he was and he was a
> warrior. I have to agree with him on this point. I think fighters should be
> given an advantage on the field of battle - either a tactical advantage, or
> maybe a reduction in the cost of mustering/maintaining troops. At the very
> least, additional proficiencies for the fighter class which would result in
> advantages.

Fighters do have access to certain proficiencies that wizards et al.
do not, Strategy or Siegecraft, for example, both of which could be
of benefit in a war situation.
John Rickards

"He who is looking for something has lost something."
"And he who is not looking?"
"He gets run over."



PS. Dan. Hahahahaha.

[RMoraza@aol.co]

the box set to be awkward and certainly not detailed enough for myself.
> They do not encourage much strategy or ingenious battlefield playing. >>

One of my players plays the King of Stjordvik, a fighter class character. Not
only was BR new to him, but he was also having to make the switch to 2nd
edition rules. He spent several months complaining that warriors had been
shafted in 2nd edition, an arguement I really didn't understand because I
mostly played 2nd ed - I don't even remember the 1st edition rules. We
finally got all that resolved, but in the process he brought up some points
about BR which I would like to throw out here for comments and input.

Thieves and priests get free actions; fighters and wizards don't. Wizards get
realm spells; what do fighters get? Once you get out of an adventure
scenario, fighters have no area of advantage over other classes. It really
annoyed my player that the mage who spent all his free time researching
spells was just as good a general on the battlefield as he was and he was a
warrior. I have to agree with him on this point. I think fighters should be
given an advantage on the field of battle - either a tactical advantage, or
maybe a reduction in the cost of mustering/maintaining troops. At the very
least, additional proficiencies for the fighter class which would result in
advantages.

What do you guys think?

Alison

[Bryon Switala]

At 12:55 PM 10/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Thieves and priests get free actions; fighters and wizards don't. . . . I
think fighters >should be given an advantage on the field of battle - either
a tactical advantage, or
>maybe a reduction in the cost of mustering/maintaining troops. At the very
>least, additional proficiencies for the fighter class which would result in
>advantages.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>Alison

I agree that the Fighters get shafted in BR, unless you are creating your
own domains using the rules. The fighters pay less there for the province
level and law. I like your idea about fighters getting a reduction in
mustering/maintenance cost.

Bryon

***********************************
Well the Question has been answered. Kind of---

I'm a Twirp, no longer, now I am merely a powerful nuisance. ::and the
crowd cheers::

[James Abbiati]

I agree. I just started playing BR, and I am running the fighter. When I saw all
the things other classes could do compared to the warrior, I was not too happy.
So I figured I would concentrate on the "War" aspect of the game, and not worry
about the fact that the thief can control more different holdings than I. Then
came the first battle, and the thief PC took over and pretty much controled the
battle. The point is, as a fighter I had no advantage over any other character. I
was bummin'

Jim Abbiati


RMoraza@aol.com wrote:

> > the box set to be awkward and certainly not detailed enough for myself.
> > They do not encourage much strategy or ingenious battlefield playing. >>
>
> One of my players plays the King of Stjordvik, a fighter class character. Not
> only was BR new to him, but he was also having to make the switch to 2nd
> edition rules. He spent several months complaining that warriors had been
> shafted in 2nd edition, an arguement I really didn't understand because I
> mostly played 2nd ed - I don't even remember the 1st edition rules. We
> finally got all that resolved, but in the process he brought up some points
> about BR which I would like to throw out here for comments and input.
>
> Thieves and priests get free actions; fighters and wizards don't. Wizards get
> realm spells; what do fighters get? Once you get out of an adventure
> scenario, fighters have no area of advantage over other classes. It really
> annoyed my player that the mage who spent all his free time researching
> spells was just as good a general on the battlefield as he was and he was a
> warrior. I have to agree with him on this point. I think fighters should be
> given an advantage on the field of battle - either a tactical advantage, or
> maybe a reduction in the cost of mustering/maintaining troops. At the very
> least, additional proficiencies for the fighter class which would result in
> advantages.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Alison
> ************************************************** *************************
> >

[rhammond@mail.eclipse.ne]

At 04:54 PM 10/7/97 -0400, birthright@MPGN.COM wrote:
>I agree. I just started playing BR, and I am running the fighter. When I
saw all
>the things other classes could do compared to the warrior, I was not too happy.
>So I figured I would concentrate on the "War" aspect of the game, and not worry
>about the fact that the thief can control more different holdings than I. Then
>came the first battle, and the thief PC took over and pretty much controled the
>battle. The point is, as a fighter I had no advantage over any other
character. >I was bummin'

I take it the Strategy NWP proficiency must not be all that potent. I
haven't delved into the combat system in detail, but why not make a simple a
adaptation of a concept found in some other war games: Command Span. This
is essentially the ability of a single person to control the battle. Better
generals have the capability of controlling larger numbers of troops
effectively in combat while poorer generals do not. To make it simple
(since I'm whipping this up on the fly and have little experience with the
BR war rules) what would be the effect of limiting the number of war cards a
player could move/attack in battle to be equal to the number of weapon
proficiencies they have? Thus warriors will always have the capability to
command larger numbers of troops effectively in battle, relative to other
classes of similar level. This reflects their forte in this area. Would an
adjustment like this be sufficient to put warriors back into the limelight
when it came to battlefield leadership?
================================================== ===========================
Robert Hammond | "Chemists do not usually stutter.
rhammond@eclipse.net | It would be awkward if they did, seeing
hammond@research.nj.nec.com | that they have at times to get out such
| words as methylethylamylophenylium."
| -William Crookes, 1865

[ADEPT@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-10-07 17:16:09 EDT, you write: