Battle magic poll

[Green Knight]

This went wrong. Is it impossible to edit a poll?

The choices should be:
Retained as is.
Retained and modified.
Retained but changed altogether.
Removed because normal spells and realm spells cover the subject.
Removed becuase it is unbalancing.
Removed for some other reason.

[Green Knight]

Should be retained w/modifications.
a) Only blooded characters can use battle magic
B) You have to take a "Cast Ritual Spell" feat or something similar.
c) Casting a BM spell uses up that slot for a week.

[Lord Eldred]

I think that Battle magic is covered by realm spells and area spells by definition of Battle magic. The idea that there are just spells that can only be used on the field of battle just doesn't make any sense to me!

[Green Knight]

To that I agree! If there is to be any "battle magic" it must be usable both on and of a "battlefield". Otherwise, it just gets silly. The BR rules actually mention this problem - where can use use battle spells.

[Lord Eldred]

Finally an enlightened soul to talk to!!! Down with specialized battle magic!

[Lawgiver]

I don't think that "battle" spells per say are something that shoud fall in its own class. To me they should be a realm spell or a standard spell with an area of effect. The only problem is that so many of the preists spels are incedibly limited in contrast to wizard spells. A single fireball can do catastrophic damage to large masses due to its area of effect. The best a cleric can do with a thrid level heal spell is heal a singe person 3d8+1 per level. It has always seemed to be a bit of an unfair match up. A wizard can wreak far more destruction then a cleric of the same level can bring good. The problem isn't that preists should or shouldn't have "battle" spells its that the basic fabric of preists is FAR to limited in their original D&D design. I'm all for expanding the power of preists and making them a force to be reckoned with! While preists should be largely the healers and peace bringers of the land. They should have the power to dispense justice and retribution of their deity. What sense does it make to have a god of war who can't fight or injure his opponents? Ah well... enough ranting.

[Lord Eldred]

The fact that clerics are limited bring balance in Birthright. There are a lot more clerics than there are wizards. Wizards get greater spells but I would take a cleric any day in a battle over a wizard because they are more balanced in and of themselves.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
The fact that clerics are limited bring balance in Birthright. There are a lot more clerics than there are wizards. Wizards get greater spells but I would take a cleric any day in a battle over a wizard because they are more balanced in and of themselves.

I'm of the opinion that clerics should be seperated into two classes like Wizards and magicians. The majority of clerics are more like church leaders who don't weild massive amounts of divine power. Only the elite or blooded would then have access to standard clerical powers and spells.

[Lord Eldred]

Would they then wield more powerful magic?

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver

I'm of the opinion that clerics should be seperated into two classes like Wizards and magicians. The majority of clerics are more like church leaders who don't weild massive amounts of divine power. Only the elite or blooded would then have access to standard clerical powers and spells.

YES, there is another... I fully agree with Lawgiver. A class called priests should be created the is more like a divine magician (in terms of spell power at least).

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I fully support the idea of separating the priesthood, in the nature of Wizards and Magicians.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

If you look at the descriptions of Battle-specific spells, they have many annoying requirements that are meant to justify the low level they are at.

Material components can cost around 1-2 GBs, you often need assistants to spread material components through the unit for beneficial spells, and they all have incredibly long casting times (measured in Battle Rounds or something). I don't believe that they should be uncastable outside of battle, I just believe that they are unwieldy outside of battle.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

If you look at the descriptions of Battle-specific spells, they have many annoying requirements that are meant to justify the low level they are at.

Material components can cost around 1-2 GBs, you often need assistants to spread material components through the unit for beneficial spells, and they all have incredibly long casting times (measured in Battle Rounds or something). I don't believe that they should be uncastable outside of battle, I just believe that they are unwieldy outside of battle.

If, however, one were to cast Battle Magic outside of battle, does it not then cease to be battle magic?

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Okay, I believe it is called Battle magic because that is the best time to use it.

[Mark_Aurel]

I am of the school that battle magic should removed. With some creative use of regular spells, a wizard can already be incredibly useful on the battle field as is.

Battle magic also infringes upon realm magic - some realm magic spells become nigh useless with battle magic around. I always felt realm magic added flavor, whereas battle magic falls more into the 2e category of filler, or, more specifically, "filler we put in this book so you can pump up your character and make him more powerful and really make you want to buy this book."

I don't have any issue with the balance between clerics and wizards. Sure, a wizard can take stuff apart faster than clerics can fix it, but that's just a general rule - it's easier to break something than make something. I think it's called entropy, and has to do with the second rule of thermodynamics. Or something. I could go on about this, actually. How clerics are the most powerful class in the system as is - they get a lot of spells. They get a lot of USEFUL spells in their domains. They get good hit points, good saving throws, good fighting ability. Wizards get none of that. A wizard without spells is like a fish on land. A cleric without spells is still a decent combatant. While I might think knocking clerics down a peg or two in general might be a good idea, that's just me. I think they're fairly well balanced. They both become relatively more powerful than the other classes in Birthright. If anything, it's fighters and rogues that need a little extra. Which, incidentally, they get.

So it's all good.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Most battle spells that are similar to realm spells have a far lesser duration and power. That's like saying that charm person infringes upon mass charm because they both charm people.

While it may be true that higher level wizards can already be quite effective on the battle field, most wizards don't make it that far. Thus battle magic is a way of involving all wizards in combat that doesn't give them too much power for the cost. Also, not all wizards want to waste high-level spell slots on attack spells, many wizards prefer to use indirect spells, none of which can affect an entire unit (unless they move around in tight 40' diameter balls, or 10x10 cubes).

Also, there aren't very many wizards that exist, thus most combat is done without magical support anyway.

As for battle-magic being cast outside of battle, why do you need to cast these kinds of spells outside of battle? If you cast them, you are usually in some sort of battle, where taking the long time to cast them has been determined to be neccesary to acquire the effect that you want. I guess you could put on some good pyrotechnics outside of battle for a big celebration, if you wanted.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
Would they then wield more powerful magic?


Yes, that would be the idea. Much like the comparision of magicians and true Wizards. Both have access to magic one just gains greater power.

[Lord Eldred]

Once again I have to lend my support to Mark's arguments!

As for the argument that they don't stand in tight 40' diameter circles, I would have to disagree. Battlefield fighting is very close quarters. A fireball would wipe out a significant part of a unit and thus justify a hit, the ensuing chaos from people jumping away from the blast would add damage and the few that survive but are lit on fire spread fire. Not to mention smoke inhalation damage to people who are in the area. I would compare it to a catapult slinging flaming death but instead it came from a wizard.

[Mark_Aurel]

Ok, for a lengthier treatise upon this, see the other thread.

Most battle spells that are similar to realm spells have a far lesser duration and power. That's like saying that charm person infringes upon mass charm because they both charm people.

No, it isn't. The effects of the one is significantly stronger, and you don't get it until you are much, much higher in level. In this case, the cost in terms of time and resources for casting a subversion or mass destruction is far higher than for casting a battle spell that accomplishes a similar purpose, and the net effect may end up the same.

While it may be true that higher level wizards can already be quite effective on the battle field, most wizards don't make it that far. Thus battle magic is a way of involving all wizards in combat that doesn't give them too much power for the cost.

So the argument here is, just because someone is not of a high enough level to cast a given spell, we'll simply give him a lower level version of that spell? Since a 1st-level spellcaster can't teleport, we'll make teleport a first-level spell?

Also, not all wizards want to waste high-level spell slots on attack spells, many wizards prefer to use indirect spells, none of which can affect an entire unit (unless they move around in tight 40' diameter balls, or 10x10 cubes).

It's called "prioritizing," not "wasting." If you want to cast a spell, you'll have to choose it over another. You don't get it essentially for free just because you don't want to face a tough choice. There are many indirect spells that can be hideously effective. Not every spell can be useful in every situation. If you happened to have prepared a cone of cold when what you really need is a teleport, or vice versa, then, well, tough luck. And military units do move in formation, you know. Often pretty tight formations.

Also, there aren't very many wizards that exist, thus most combat is done without magical support anyway.

So then, why all this hassle about wanting special rules for those very few wizards?

As for battle-magic being cast outside of battle, why do you need to cast these kinds of spells outside of battle? If you cast them, you are usually in some sort of battle, where taking the long time to cast them has been determined to be neccesary to acquire the effect that you want. I guess you could put on some good pyrotechnics outside of battle for a big celebration, if you wanted.

Ummm. Because you can? I mean, isn't that why wizards use spells in the first place? They use the best available tools for the job. It's a pity they don't always have the right tools, though. But a clever wizard makes do with what he has. Now. If you assume the existence of battle magic and such - it should be part of any wizard's dungeon crawl repertoire. How about a battle spell version of summon monster? It's in the book. Lots of cheap cannon fodder to keep the enemy busy, and no experience penalty (summoned monsters don't have any effect on that, very clearly stated). You could cast this prior to a given encounter, and use it to clean house pretty fast. Why not a battle spell version of burning hands? Oh wait. That's called a fireball. There are many ways the battle magic system can be broken by "creative" players, despite the attempts to prevent this in the BoM.

Want battle magic? Take a look at the War Magic cards - cards #94-100 in the Birthright box. These show how to adjudicate the effects of ordinary spells on a battlefield. There are a lot of spells there that causes significant battlefield effects. Your DM is quite unreasonable if he does not apply those effects. Adding another category of magic is just redundant cheese; especially so in a 3e environment.

[blitzmacher]

I happen to believe your posts ARE redundant cheese. You don't like battle magic so you won't be producing it in the 3e version. Fine, I will still use it in my own campaign, and that can't be stopped.

[Mark_Aurel]

No one is trying to "stop" anyone from using whatever house rules they want. When one posts in a forum such as this, however, the discussion turns to the nature of a given rule, and its pros and cons, as well as at how it fits in with the rules system at large, and the world in which it is based. I don't really see the point of a post reaffirming your right to run the game whatever way you want - that is a given, and quite unrelated to the discussion at hand, apart from the usage aspect, and you've posted that before.

[blitzmacher]

Unrelated?
In a world that often has mass combat, why wouldn't there be battle magic? There are already spells that can effect units.
A wizard who deals mainly in death prefers to study necromancy, one who wants to figure out secrets or learn the future studies divination. Why then can't a wizard who studies magic and its effects in war not have battle magic. Battle magic being mostly evocation spells that already exist, and those that other wizards in cerilia have developed to affect battle i.e. battle magic. Or why couldn't the wizards develope their own spells that affect only battle?

[Mark_Aurel]

Of course there is battle magic.

There is fireball. There is lightning bolt. There is cloudkill (*very* effective). There is circle of death. There is incendiary cloud. There is meteor storm.

Are any of those spells _not_ battle magic? Of course wizards can affect the outcome of battles with these spells. It's just that first-level wizards don't cast huge area effect spells. Rather like a first-level fighter can't take on an army.

That's all thrown aside a bit in the domain rules, of course, with 1st-level fighters leading armies, and 1st-level wizards casting realm spells. There is, however, no justification for the "battle spells" between those two extremes.

Now, at around tenth level or so, a fighter might be able to take on 200 or so 1st-level warriors on his own and expect a chance of winning. A wizard would be expected to win that 1v200 at that point.

What do you mean by "spells that affect only battle?" Do you mean a spell that would have a primary game mechanic effect stated in war card terms? Then you'd have a problem adjudicating that spell on regular characters. How much damage does a spell that inflict a D result on a unit do? 5d6? 10d6? What's the specific area of effect?

Why haven't wizards in other worlds developed it? Aren't there wars in other worlds? Worlds that has more wizards, thus a greater chance of such an invention being made? Don't argue as if this would be a purely Cerilian phenomenon - there's no justification for that in the rules. There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic.

There are plenty of spells that affect battles on an army scale. It's just that there are no spells that turns a 1st-level wizard into a human artillery piece any more than there are weapons that turn 1st-level fighters into human steamrollers.

[blitzmacher]

My question is still unanswered.
"There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic."
Where is there justification for not having battle magic?
Don't tell me it's because it sounds silly to you.
"It's just that there are no spells that turns a 1st-level wizard into a human artillery piece any more than there are weapons that turn 1st-level fighters into human steamrollers."
When did I say this?
"What do you mean by "spells that affect only battle?" Do you mean a spell that would have a primary game mechanic effect stated in war card terms? Then you'd have a problem adjudicating that spell on regular characters. How much damage does a spell that inflict a D result on a unit do? 5d6? 10d6? What's the specific area of effect?"
Sounds to me like you already have your ideas on this.
"Why haven't wizards in other worlds developed it? Aren't there wars in other worlds? Worlds that has more wizards, thus a greater chance of such an invention being made? Don't argue as if this would be a purely Cerilian phenomenon"
I don't see this as being debated in any other systems.

[Mark_Aurel]

Now you're just being dense.

The justification for adding in realm magic is in the mebhaighl, how wizards are mystically tied to the land.

The only justification given for adding battle magic has been "because it wasn't there." This isn't a good argument. Now, battle magic is purely a game mechanical construct. Like I've said before, there is many spells that can affect the outcome of mass battles - they just aren't available to low-level wizards. It's the nature of the system. First-level wizards do not flatten cities. 20th-level wizards do that, and more. In Birthright, this is somewhat different, due to realm magic. Nowhere in the setting have I seen the need to add an intermediary level of magic, however.

Now, I'm not quite sure if you really understand the concept of game balance. At each spell level, there are some things spells do and some things spells don't. If you look up the DMG, page 95, there are some general guidelines for what effects spells have, by level. Table 3-22 contains specific maximum damage values for arcane spells, by level. If you go by that chart, an arcane spell should cause a maximum of 5 dice of damage to a single creature, or it could distribute those dice among several. Thus, a 1st-level spell could harm at most 5 creatures. From this, we may conclude that a "battle spell" such as "Rain of Magic Missiles" is quite totally unbalanced with the system as it is, despite its casting time and material component requirements.

By questioning the "spells that affect battle" line that you used, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of it. I shall put it in clearer terms: What you would do with such an effect would generally be disguising a spell that should belong at a higher level as a lower level spell. The rain of magic missiles spell is a good example; it is a first-level spell that is essentially dishing out hundreds of dice of damage among several creatures. Charm Unit is another example; it essentially duplicates the Mass Charm spell (an 8th level spell!), except that its area of effect is far larger, and it can potentially affect far more creatures than even Mass Charm. I would not mind this in a realm spell. I do mind this in a 1st-level spell. There is nothing that mechanically separates a Charm Unit spell from any other spell, except for its status as a "battle spell." What would prevent a wizard from using this spell to charm the inhabitants of a peaceful little town and make them burn it down? At _1st_ level.

No, I don't have any *ideas* on how to reverse engineer battle magic spells into regular play - I don't see the point of giving wizards mass destruction spells at 1st level, or otherwise overpowered effects.

That is the essence here; the primary reason why battle magic should not exist. It breaks down the level system of D&D. Now, you do not put this very highly, as your post history would seem to suggest. However, a campaign using pretty regular D&D with minimal house rules would _not_ allow low-level wizards such power as is inherent within the battle magic system.

The argument as to _why_ wizards do not develop such magic in other D&D worlds (which is what I assume you meant by "system") is entirely valid. The point is that it does not belong in core D&D for a reason - it isn't balanced with anything, and it sets up a whole slew of balance problems by itself. It infringes on some realm magic spells (such as mass destruction and subversion; possibly others). It can potentially have a massive impact on regular play; I find that it is generally potentially very easy to abuse, despite the "precautions" taken against such.

Finally, there's the in-world reasons. It does not fit the flavor of the magic neither in core D&D nor Birthright to apply an industrial principle to it. By this is meant what battle magic essentially is - you somehow multiply a spell by piling up material components and extending the casting time. That mirrors an industrial way of thinking, applied to magic. There is no indication of battle magic as a special Cerilian phenomenon anywhere in any Birthright product prior to the Book of Magecraft, despite your prior claim in another thread to the contrary. An effect such as "rain of magic missiles" does not really fit the flavor of Cerilian magic - flashy, yes, but not disco flashy. Rather, subdued and subtle, only on occasion showing its true power. In short, it does not fit the mood of magic, it does not fit the mood of the campaign, and there is no indication of it to be found anywhere prior to the BoM. It is not balanced, not with realm magic, not with regular magic, and probably not with itself.

I think that makes a pretty strong case for the non-existence of battle magic, as outlined in the BoM.

I want you to justify now, in a similar manner - show us why it should be there and why it is balanced. Justify having battle magic in the first place; find the justifications that was given for including it, if you will.

Now. Make no mistake. I am not opposed to wizards wielding flashy effects, laying waste to armies with the wave of a hand. I am very strongly opposed to the system of "battle magic" that was implemented in the BoM. Sure, wizards may develop spells specifically for battle. But it should be original spells, not regular spells somehow blown up through some weird application of an industrial principle. It should be spells that conform to the existing spell level guidelines. It should be spells whose flavor match that of the setting. I don't see a problem with even a low-level spell affecting a large group of people, as long as it is in some decidedly _minor_ way.

I don't have a problem with magic used in battles, really. I have a problem with the system of "blow up existing spells" that was implemented in the BoM. I don't really mind seeing powerful PCs, as long as it is on the right level. I.e. a 20th-level fighter could reasonably be expected to be able to slay hundreds of 1st-level warriors, and barely break a sweat doing it. A 20th-level wizard is truly frightening. A 1st-level fighter or a 1st-level wizard should not slay armies on their own. The statement about a human artillery piece alluded to this. Most of all, what I really dislike about battle magic is how it cheapens magic and makes it mundane. Like some form of tool. Not magic. A tool.

I have, however, provided quite rational reasons for removing it from the game. I'd be happy if you could provide a good rebuttal.

"There's a justification for realm magic, but not battle magic."
Where is there justification for not having battle magic?

Let's examine this statement a bit. Now. I stated that there was a justification for realm spells - the system of mebhaighl and sources. I also stated that there was no justification for having battle magic. How you manage to turn that on its head is beyond me. In any case, I have now provided you with multiple reasons why the battle magic from the BoM is a bad thing.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Every mass-combat system requires magic to affect things in a different manner than the core system. This is because nobody wants to roll saving throws for each individual creature, calculate the effect on each creature, then determine how the overall unit is affected by these circumstance. The reason this isn't argued in other settings is because Mass-combat isn't nearly as important at low-levels in most campaigns of other settings.

The idea of Battle-magic has been added on to Mebhaighl. Just because it isn't mentioned in the core-rulebook doesn't mean that it should be dismissed (The game D&D has changed much in 30+ years). Battle-magic should've perhaps been explained or justified better wherever it came from, but it wasn't. If Battle-Magic had originally been explained as a minor method of spell-enhancement that involved lower level uses of mebhaighl and sources, would that make it more integral with the campaign? You can not say it isn't valid because it doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign setting or that it wasn't designed with the original part of the setting.

Wizards have little to protect themselves (and their sources) at low levels. Give a wizard the chance to charm a unit and make it leave the field, and now he has that much higher of a chance to make it. Battle magic fits the flavor because it improves the ability of low-level wizards to contribute to the game in mass-combat as well as a political presence. Low-level wizards can't cast most of the better realm spells and you would have them not be able to have any chance at defending themselves in battle (if the only unit they have is a small hired guard, enough for maybe a unit). A wizard should not have to be dependent upon others as a low-level regent than a fighter, priest, or thief should. If wizards don't have someone to protect them, or holdings other than sources, they are easily removed, even with Realm magic. Battle magic allows wizards to contribute to the 'flavor' of the campaign.

Just because you say it isn't balanced with magic in general doesn't neccesarily mean that the designers didn't attempt to balance it. It takes a lot of hard thinking and, possibly, work to develop any sort of system, let alone one that is good. Disliking the system doesn't mean it isn't thoughtful.

If a wizard charmed the entire inhabitants, he would most likely be unable to make them burn down their village, as that would contradict there nature. Also, he would have to have all of them in sight and within one battle field square at all times (including when the spell takes effect). Finally, they would have to stare (blankly, or otherwise occupy themselves within the area of one unit) at him for the length of time it takes him to cast the spell (one battle round). Then, they have to stay in formation (which I doubt they'd be very good at).

[blitzmacher]

I concede, your points on why battle magic is not balanced are all to observant and very hard to debate against, but everything should have a chance to go down fighting. However, I still believe that their should be battle magic. Although it should be made more consistant with the wizards level, and should have something to do with their source level. Such as a wizard needing a certain source level or ley line in order to empower their regular spells with the magic of the land, and making that spell a bit more powerful but not as powerful as a realm magic spell.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I could go with that.

[Green Knight]

Battle magic is, I think, a quite interesting concept which should be retained,

I fail to see why battle magic would completely disrupt a game. There are certainly balance issues here, and the rules for battle magic may not be entirely satisfying in that regard. But these are problems that can be worked out. Besides, if a 1st level wizard is able to completelt alter the outcome of a battle with his two battle spells, you're just doing it wrong :)

As for explaining battle magic within the context of the game world, I also fail to see how this would be problematic. There are normal spells and there is realm spells. Why can't battle spells be somewhere in between? In fact, why can't there be an entire level of ritual between ordinary spells and realm spells?

Conclusion: There are balance issues that need to be worked out, but this can be done. The relation between battle magic and other forms of magic needs to be adressed, but this can also be worked out. It all boils down to this: either you like it or you don't :P

Conclusion: There are some serious balance issues and nature of battle magic need

[Mark_Aurel]

Gaaaad, why are there two separate threads on this?

Read my posts in the other thread as well.

One more reason I don't like it is because if it was done right (balanced with the existing system), it would be utterly redundant, because most of the spells are already there. Mass Charm, Fireball, Cloudkill, Circle of Death, what-have-you.

The main niche to fill would be a spell with a larger area of effect that did less damage than other area-effect spells at higher levels. About 5th level or higher would be appropriate.

[Green Knight]

You seem very focused on one thing: that battle magic has no place in BR because it is somehow redundant. I feel the exact opposite, that battle magic is an interesting idea that should be explored further.

I still think cure spells, magic weapon, bless etc. would work nicely in a BM context. The problem for me is game balance, and that can be acheived with a few simple rules.

As for regular spells affecting units: yes some do, so what. You just need to add their effect on units to their spell description.

The one does not exclude the other.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Normal area spells are designed with smaller scaled circumstances in mind. If you start moving all your troops within an area small enough for most area spells, I'm going to start digging pits, so your entire army descends to the Abyss.

Balancing the system doesn't equal redundancy. I'm not sure if Battle Magic spells should just take up higher level spell slots. I'm not even sure if it should be relegated to a common form of Meta-Magic. I personally think that there needs to be more forms of Magic in general. Variety is the spice of life.

Regarding the 2 threads:
Isn't it great? It reminds me of my 2 threaded battle with Lord Eldred over whether or not Priests should have special battle magic. I think I conceded, but it was fun anyway. This time, I will not concede, for my beloved Battle Magic is at stake in its entirety. I speak for the wizards of Cerilia!

[Green Knight]

Wheter or not you go with higher levels or the same, the following is a good idea (IMO): When you cast a BM spell, you do not regian that spell slot until you have a had a week of (relative) rest. Explain it any way you want, but this means 1 spell slot = 1 BM spell/war move.

[blitzmacher]

"Gaaaad, why are there two separate threads on this?"

Wars are seldom fought upon one front.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel


Regarding the 2 threads:
Isn't it great? It reminds me of my 2 threaded battle with Lord Eldred over whether or not Priests should have special battle magic. I think I conceded, but it was fun anyway. This time, I will not concede, for my beloved Battle Magic is at stake in its entirety. I speak for the wizards of Cerilia!

You conceded!?? Woo Hoo! He conceded! My day is complete :P Although I am not quite sure what he conceded to!!!

I realize that you don't want to concede the arguments here but...

I think the argument depends on the definition of Battle Magic. If Battle Magic are all the spells be them arcane or realm that have an effect on whole units then I think that Battle Magic should live on. If your argument is that there should be a group of spells that only work on the Battle field, I would have to disagree.

There is no need for special battle magic. All the spells that currently have an area effect big enough to cause damage to/or otherwise alter a unit is Battle magic. If a wizard wants to have a bigger impact on the battlefield they could research and develop a spell. That spell wouldn't just work on the battlefield although it may only be practical to use on the battlefield. In short Battle magic is just another way to catagorize magic into Battle and non-battle magic.


AS FOR THE ARGUMENT ON PITS... That is just the most ludicrous thing I have heard. If I can kill a significant portion of your 200 troop unit then I have scored a hit. If I can scare the bejeebers out of the troops by casting a fireball without killing many perhaps they are routed. The effect is listed on the cards not all have a hit element because of the area of effect. Many of the 200 in a troop do march in tight ranks by the way and they could theoretically fall into the Abyss :P

AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENT AS WHY CAN'T BATTLE MAGIC FIT IN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN REALM AND ARCANE... Why does it have to fit there? Not to mention that it cuts across both. Realm and arcane magic both have spells that would be considered battle magic spells.

AS FOR THE WHINE ABOUT LOW LEVEL WIZARDS... Why in Haelyn's name do we have to give low level wizards the ability to fight on the battlefield when we don't give them that ability in the dungeon adventure?

[Mark_Aurel]

Excellent post, Lord Eldred - my points exactly.

[Green Knight]

Which is the more dangerous:

A) The wizard with only battle spells prepared. Spells that he can cast only once per battle turn, but that have an effect on untis.

B) The wizard loaded with only regular spell (but spells that affect units). Spells that he could conceptually unleash all of in just 1 battle round.

C) The wizard who got hold of a lowly "wand of fireballs" created by a 15th level wizard and with the full 50 charges. Die army, die!!!!!!!

Interesting, it seems game balance just took a dive :P

[Mark_Aurel]

D) A wizard with a wand of rain of magic missiles created at a third of the cost of a wand of fireballs.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

D) A wizard with a wand of rain of magic missiles created at a third of the cost of a wand of fireballs.

I think the wizard will have some problems fitting in all those 1-4GBx50 pluss assistants into the wand:p

[Mark_Aurel]

What do you mean? There is no material component cost for a rain of magic missiles spell. Read the spell description. BoM page 102. Notice how the reference you are likely thinking of, on page 99, does not apply to that particular spell.

A wand of magic missiles wand would cost a third of what a wand of fireballs would. The assistants would only be required for helping create the wand.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

What do you mean? There is no material component cost for a rain of magic missiles spell. Read the spell description. BoM page 102. Notice how the reference you are likely thinking of, on page 99, does not apply to that particular spell.

A wand of magic missiles wand would cost a third of what a wand of fireballs would. The assistants would only be required for helping create the wand.

Yes, I am refering to page 99, and yes RoMM does not have a cost. Yet, if you read page 99 carefully, you find that the INTENT is for all spells (including RoMM) to have a 1-4 GB cost.

What does that mean? That means that the BM system as described in the BoM sucks. Never claimed it didn't. Its full of holes and the whole thing is clearely broken (but not unfixable :) ).

As for the assistants - there are really no rules for creating BM magic items are there? You just decided they only have to be present at the crafting, just to difficult with me :P

[Mark_Aurel]

No, the description of the item creation feats clearly indicates this. Case in point - one does not need to have the material components to use a wand, nor be able to perform the exact somatic and verbal components, or expend experience. It follows logically from this, that a wand, as a spell completion item, would only require the assistants at item creation.

Why would there have to be separate rules for battle magic item creation? Battle magic spells are spells, just like other spells - it is clearly indicated that they are just modified versions of regular spells. Now, an item based on realm magic might be different.

Thanks, by the way - I think you've helped us find the biggest potential exploit of all - wands of rain of magic missiles. Since it is a spell completion item, a wizard should logically be able to use it every regular combat round. At 50 rounds per war card round, a wizard could expend every charge in the wand, and destroy practically any army of 25 war card units or less, before they even get to strike (as per the war card rules). It would require a 5th level wizard only 2250 gp, or 1 GB and some change, to be able to demolish the army of Avanil, pretty much on his own. Of course, he might accomplish a similar effect with a wand of fireballs, but at least that's more expensive. Gee. Fun with numbers.

[Green Knight]

Ah, it's always difficult when you're applying a 3E concept (item creation) with a 2E concept (BM). Still, I like the thought of soul-forging those apprentices into the wand :) . Still, it would be a 50GB (at least) wand if one were to agree that RoMM should have had a material component cost (item creation does require you to pay for "expensive" matierials). Then again, it would allow you to wipe of Avan's army before it even started moving - you have of course increased the range of RoMM, haven't you ;)

The problem is, that even if you cancel BM, the wizard can STILL take his wand of fireballs to the party. Maybe some regular spells needs a bit o' fixin' :P

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

You conceded!?? Woo Hoo! He conceded! My day is complete :P Although I am not quite sure what he conceded to!!!

I realize that you don't want to concede the arguments here but...

I think the argument depends on the definition of Battle Magic. If Battle Magic are all the spells be them arcane or realm that have an effect on whole units then I think that Battle Magic should live on. If your argument is that there should be a group of spells that only work on the Battle field, I would have to disagree.

There is no need for special battle magic. All the spells that currently have an area effect big enough to cause damage to/or otherwise alter a unit is Battle magic. If a wizard wants to have a bigger impact on the battlefield they could research and develop a spell. That spell wouldn't just work on the battlefield although it may only be practical to use on the battlefield. In short Battle magic is just another way to catagorize magic into Battle and non-battle magic.



There is no NEED for any magic, however, it exists. On the other thread, I've changed my stance from Battle Magic, to some form of Mebhaighl Ritual Magic, which just happens to be used often on the battle field. This is a proposition of a precursor to realm magic. Realm magic is essentially just a really long Ritual. Shorter rituals most likely came first.

I may not have said it, but I concede that Priests should be able use Battle Magic as it was presented in 2E (BoM). I still agree that regular spells should be able to be used in battle, but there should just happen to exist longer rituals that aren't normal spells, yet aren't quite Realm spells. However, Priests would require a different source of magic from Mebhaighl. In 2E, there existed cooperative magic and faith castings (though they weren't well described) that should probably still exist, as well.

Battle Magic really never interfered with Realm magic, previously. Subversion, Legion of the Dead, and Summoning were similar to Battle counterparts, yet they had durations that could not even be close to being duplicated on the field, as well as being better in general. The Battle versions of these spells were far weaker and meant to be used in a pinch.

Wands of Fireballs and Rain of Magic Missles, eh? Need to pick me up some of those...

[Mark_Aurel]

If you want a spell to be ritualistic, just give it a longer casting time and appropriate components. Not all spells have a casting time of 1 action - many have 10 minute casting times, just to use an example. Elemental Swarm is an example of a spell with ritualistic flavor. There are certainly other, but I'm too lazy to dig up more examples.

Just make ordinary spells and use that one as a guideline.

In BR terms, you might create a very powerful Elemental unit with that spell - Defense 8, Attack 5, hits 3, move 2, never fails morale, never falls back, earth elementals have +1 defense, water elementals can cross rivers and, fire elementals have have +1 attack, and air elementals fly and thus ignore terrain benefits.

Something along those lines. Just take ordinary spells that are appropriate and show how they'd be useful in battle. Or create new ones, as normal spells, then show how they're used in battle.

[Green Knight]

About the only problem with your approach is the spell levels, which are going to be high. That's the way regular spells are balanced

BM gives low-level spellcasters the ability to cast important spells. Some balacing messures needs to be taken, other than increasing level. Some ideas:

1) Requires skill checks
2) Requires the knowledge of 1 or more feats
3) Requires access to sources/ley lines
4) Component costs
5) Apprentices needed
6) XP cost
7) RP cost
etc
etc

Point is it CAN be balanced. I have a system that I feel work.

[Mark_Aurel]

So your _goal_ is to give low-level wizards big area effect spells?

1) - should be high; would require levels as well
2) - should have requirements; would require levels as well
3) - that's realm magic
4) - not a big issue for regents
5) - not a big issue for regents
6) - this could be a good balancing mechanic
7) - that's realm magic

[Green Knight]

Well, I suppose a big area is part of it, yes.

As I said in my previous post, there are two ways of balancing magic spells:

Increase the spell level.
or
Add in some other balancing factors.

The first solution would be best except for ONE thing:
There are very few spellcasters who would ever be able to cast these spells - even an enlarged Mass Charm wouldn't quite affect a whole unit. So unless BR is home to a lot of 30+ wizards, magic is going to see some very limited use on the battlefield (except for wands of fireballs of course :P ).

[Mark_Aurel]

Meteor Swarms aren't exactly common in any campaign world.

Birthright is home to an unusually low number of wizards and sorcerers. That is part of what makes magic special in the setting - spellcasters are special.

In all of the published products, most wizards were around 5th-10th level or so; there are some on higher levels, and maybe approximately the same number at lower levels. Rogr Aglondier is the lowest-level wizard I can think of right now, at 3rd level.

The fact that a spell would be rare because it is hard to access due to level does not make a good argument for making up a justification for lowering its level. The spell simply _is_ rare, and that is part of its coolness. If every two-bit wizard can access basically any effect they want to, you break down the level system, and you make magic less special (more common), subtracting from the flavor of Cerilia somewhat.

[Green Knight]

5th to 10th level. Yes exactly, thats the main problem. Not much they can do to affect the outcome of a battle. A fireball or two, that's all.
I'm just proposing that we give them some way of affecting battles. I'm not interested in turning them into super-spellcasters with no limitations.

[Lord Eldred]

The question is why do lower level wizards DESERVE the ability to have an effect on battle?

[blitzmacher]

Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?

[Lawgiver]

Hey Mark , let me suggest something that may provide the same satisfaction as arguing the battle magic point further (since you have completely and totally decimated all arguments to battle magic system, yet they continue to resist with pointless and feeble defenses).

Take a peice of chalk and draw a 6 inch circle on the wall about eye level. Bang your head against it repeatedly until you are over taken with euphoria. ;)

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?

Blitz, this in no way is the same as what Eldred said. A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do. We are talking about the efforts of 1 person versus those of hundreds.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

How has he decimated all arguments? Maybe I'm Helen Keller, but the arguments against "Battle Magic" have been:

1. There is no justification for a separate tier of magic.
2. It doesn't fit the flavor of Birthright.
3. It isn't balanced.
4. Its redundant.
5. Its silly.
6. I (we) don't like it.
7. Somebody was gonna remove it anyway.
8. Your (mine and other supporters, actually) view is inferior to mine.

REBUTTALs that have been used:

1. It is justified. The idea was created and presented to the players of the game. The players may have not liked the balance in the concept, but they seem to like the concept itself. Also, it can be justified mechanically and by the concept of story. Mechanically, wizards have few ways to defend their domains. This form of magic can help serve to supply wizards with some small semblance of security. With regard to the story and setting, realm spells are spells that take really long periods of time to cast. These spells also consume large amounts of other resources and utilize extremely large amounts of mebhaighl. It is concievable that wizards have developed a system of magic that uses much more mebhaighl than regular spells and far less than realm spells. These spells also consume larger amounts of resources and time than normal spells. This is the same idea behind realm magic, only on a smaller scale. Thus, if you say that this is not justified, then you also say that Realm Magic is not justified.

2. We argue that it does fit the flavor. This is an opinion statement, thus it is not a good argument. On the concept of general birthright flavor, things along the lines of psionics does not fit the flavor and things along the lines of traditional medieval-magical fantasy fit the flavor of birthright if they conform to the culture(s) they supposedly originate from, or if they can conform to an ambiguous "feel" of the setting. You can say that wizards using sources of extra mebhaighl to enhance their spells without increasing their [spells] "level" does not conform to the feel of the setting; then, I'll just laugh at you and point to realm spells.

3. It can be balanced (just like anything else), and we're even willing to be the ones who will do the work. Removal is a cop-out and is a weak method of handling imbalance of pre-existing game concepts. (regardless of when it came into existence).

4. So is realm magic, if you use the basis in that argument; or it isn't redundant, on the same grounds that realm magic isn't redundant. Pick one.

5. The original system can be considered silly and doesn't take many things into account. However, this is no reason to remove a concept (which isn't the silly part) from the game. Instead, there is a thing known amongst the masses as compromise. If something isn't balanced, create something or have something created that is balanced. Don't throw things away just because you don't like them. Only throw away things that have no value whatsoever (if you come back saying that this has no value whatsoever, you obviously haven't taken a word I've said into account and should just stop reading right here. Otherwise, continue).

6. We do like it. We being a part of the people who are going to be playing the game. I have no clue what the actual majority of the people who will use this conversion feel about "battle magic." I do know that some people have argued for it and others against it. If you throw out everything just because you don't like it (or don't like the "imbalance" it creates, or don't like wizards, or whatever you don't like about something) then you will lose things that many (possibly most) others find important to their game.

7. Even if it was going to be removed, there could have been plans to redesign and fix it. There could have been other plans that weren't mentioned that you might not like, such as the idea that Elves were going to begin worshiping Haelyn en masse, or something else that doesn't make some people happy. Just because you heard through the grapevine that somebody was going to make a change, doesn't say much of anything. Rumors are transient and plans can change or be modified.

8. This is the worst part of the opposing argument. It hasn't so much as been stated as loudly implied with the tone of the arguments. There are a lot of opinions floating around, as well as a lot of really good and really terrible ideas. Talking down at people should really be frowned upon. Some of us are trying really hard to convince people, who seem to find no positives in our arguments, that there exists this game concept that should be preserved because of its uniqueness. Then there are others who are trying to convince these people that this game concept has absolutely zero value whatsoever. Both sides apparently have a lot of emotion. I know it can be difficult, but emotion should not be splattered all over the other people. Instead, your emotion should only drive you to try harder.


I'm asking this small, simple favor. If you are indeed writing rulebooks, include some form of what we've been calling "Battle Magic" and balance it to the best of your ability. This inclusion should be warranted by the fact that there are a lot of people who may want to still use it. You are writing a conversion, not re-creating a setting. Convert what is already part of the system. I know there are people who will not use these rules, and will just ignore them. That's fine. However, it is difficult for many people to create their own game rules and balance them. I've spent a lot of time creating new rules and fixing existing ones. It takes a lot more work than should be put into a game, but it can really help out. There will be many people who will thank you for this inclusion, because it saves them time and hassle (just like all 'officially' sanctioned rules do). And, finally, you can take joy in the fact that people are using rules that, for what they are, are balanced by someone who knows what they're doing (instead of some of the shotty crap that people post on a lot of internet sites all the time).

I also find it somewhat depressing that only two of the "Birthright d20 Team" members have voiced their opinion on this matter, and both seem to have the same opinion. It is commonly known that differing opinions create the best results. Compromise.

[Mark_Aurel]

1 & 2. Now you are mixing things up here; you are tying the fact that battle magic doesn't have an in-world justification to your own idea that battle magic should use mebhaigl light, thus muddling up the argument; one is a fact, based on the 2e books, the other is your suggestion. The only "justification" that was ever offered was that wizards couldn't do it, and thus they should be able to do it.

3. It's called the path of least resistance; if it can be done using the existing rules, there's no point in making up new rules.

4. Again, you are actually trying to argue as if your own ideas on battle magic are the facts presented in the BoM.

5. The "concept" isn't removed; wizards will always be able to affect large battles, with spells such as fireball, cloudkill, etc.

6. That's not an argument of any sort. Fact is, many of the battle magic spells seemed quite fit in flavor to a setting like FR - big, cheesy effects. Rain of magic missiles is the main culprit, of course, but there are others as well.

7. I'm not going to discuss that much further, as that would require divulging private correspondence - I tried finding the public sources stating the same, but they've been removed.

8. Oh, I get it. You are just a player, while the people that are arguing against you are mostly DMs. Relax, it's natural to feel that way about the argument, then. It really does sound like you are arguing for the wrong reasons, though.

I'm asking this small, simple favor. If you are indeed writing rulebooks, include some form of what we've been calling "Battle Magic" and balance it to the best of your ability. This inclusion should be warranted by the fact that there are a lot of people who may want to still use it. You are writing a conversion, not re-creating a setting. Convert what is already part of the system.

No one has said anything about re-creating the setting. We're not allowed to that, anyway, even if we were crazy and wanted to do it. Don't confuse the rules with the campaign world - they are quite different. Birthright the world can be rendered in many different types of rules systems; I once did a quick conversion to Alternity, for instance. We are not converting a system; we are writing a set of 3e rules for BR. If it isn't strictly needed, I see no reason to include it - there are more important things that require far more attention.

I also find it somewhat depressing that only two of the "Birthright d20 Team" members have voiced their opinion on this matter, and both seem to have the same opinion. It is commonly known that differing opinions create the best results. Compromise.

I'm mostly expressing my own opinion here; nothing on this is official or finalized as of yet. The developers have disagreements, and sometimes quite strong ones; these are all found on the developer boards.

You might've been pleased to see some of the ideas that has been discussed on wizards, or you might not be - only time will tell. :)

[Mark_Aurel]

Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?

First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.

[blitzmacher]

First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.

Yes, but all other classes can do this without having to choose the right domain, why? Because they can generate the money to assemble armies.

A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do.

You are quite right, a fighter leading armies is much more dangerous then a wizard with a couple spells.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.

Yes, but all other classes can do this without having to choose the right domain, why? Because they can generate the money to assemble armies.


What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards don't want to lead the armies. This would put them in harms way. They will manipulate others into doing it for them. Then they will sit back and reap the rewards. Keep in mind that wizards are by far the more intelligent of the classes and they use this to their advantage.



Orginally posted by blitzmacher

A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do.

You are quite right, a fighter leading armies is much more dangerous then a wizard with a couple spells.

Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball. :)

[blitzmacher]

Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball.
Do you mean a fighter with a sword, or a fighter with hundreds of sellswords?;)
What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards don't want to lead the armies.
Speculation?

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball.
Do you mean a fighter with a sword, or a fighter with hundreds of sellswords?;)


I would rather be across the field from the fighter and his army than the wizard and his/


Orginally posted by blitzmacher

What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards don't want to lead the armies.
Speculation?

Not speculation at all my friend, Look at the majority of wizards involved in wars. They are usually working from behind the scenes. They let the soldiers do the soldiering and when the dying is done they reap the rewards.

[Xerath]

Maybe I'm overly simplistic (and I'm sure I will find many to agree to that statement), but I believe that two seperate things (Battle Magic & Battle Spells) have been discussed (in both threads).

My thoughts... Battle Magic is a subset of Realm Magic, they are Realm Magic spells to be used in Battle - by blooded Wizards. Battle Spells are higher level versions of the orginals affecting a wider area, and can be cast be wizards of the appropriate level for the spell.

Now, to answer the poll question - do they belong, should they remain. I believe that there is a place for both in Birthright, but do agree that some sort of restrictions need to be in place for them.

Also, I think the biggest reason that the game becomes unbalanced with high level wizards (in 3rd ed) is due to how much faster they are able to advance in levels vs all previous editions. What used to take 250,000xp now only takes 45,000. The spells / level table remained basically the same, and the spells have not been significantly modified either. Personally, I couldn't wait to play a Wizard after I read the 3rd edition rules.

[Mark_Aurel]

My thoughts... Battle Magic is a subset of Realm Magic, they are Realm Magic spells to be used in Battle - by blooded Wizards. Battle Spells are higher level versions of the orginals affecting a wider area, and can be cast be wizards of the appropriate level for the spell.


Nonsense. Read the BoM, page 97, the flavor text introduction to the battle spells chapter - "from the writings of Audric the Seer". It specifically mentions a magician, and it specifically mentions modifying normal spells for the purpose - nothing about it involving sources and whatnot.

3e Wizards are better balanced than earlier editions - in earlier editions, wizards were far too weak to be worth playing; now, they actually have some firepower, even at 1st level. On higher levels, their spells are powerful, certainly - but other classes have gained in ability, relatively speaking, as well. The fact that you now get a full 20 HD benefits fighter-types greatly; the introduction of feats also mainly benefits non-spellcaster classes.

[blitzmacher]

Your right Chioran, a wizard is usually behind the scenes casting spells to help the army that he is usually part of because he was hired by another regent for that purpose.
Why did he accept the job? Could it be that his source holdings don't seem to generate enough GB's to help in spell research let alone to be able to raise an army of their own.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by blitzmacher

Your right Chioran, a wizard is usually behind the scenes casting spells to help the army that he is usually part of because he was hired by another regent for that purpose.
Why did he accept the job? Could it be that his source holdings don't seem to generate enough GB's to help in spell research let alone to be able to raise an army of their own.

While I will admit that Wizards don't generate the same level of income as a Rogue regent or Warrior regent, they do generate enough to build armies.

However this brings up an interesting point, for which I will start a new thread.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

I'm confused by how wizards were weak before? Too weak to be worth playing? Wow. That's a profound statement. Never had a problem with em.

Now, they may be more balanced (maybe), though I'm not quite sure how. However, as regents, they are weaker than everyone else. It may be difficult, in some campaigns, to assault a source regent, but it really doesn't take a whole lot to shut him down.

How does a pure source wizard have money to rule armies? I'd imagine that what little GBs he gets (by stealing or gifts or whatever) would probably go to raising his source levels or creating new ones (both of which cost GBs for some stupid reason). Diplomacy also costs money. About the only thing wizards can do is adventure. Depressing, if you ask me.

[Mark_Aurel]

Try playing a 1st-level wizard by the book in 2e. You get to cast _one_ spell - after that, it's down to your trusty ol' staff or dagger. Granted, Sleep was very powerful at 1st level, but it was still a one-shot affair. Oh, and you had to earn more experience than any other class to go up a level as well - even though, in practice, you were the weakest character. In practice, it'd really take a miracle to reach 2nd level for a 2e wizard - they'd have 6 hit points at most; a single lucky hit could bring them down, and with the experience rules in 2e, it took forever to make 2nd level.

There's a very good reason why 3e wizards got:
-Cantrips
-Bonus spells for intelligence
-Scribe Scroll for free
-Ability to summon a familiar
-Ability to use more weapons and even armor

All that at 1st level. 2e wizards were shafted at 1st level. If you never had a problem with them, it must either

The Alchemy spell can be used to raise a good sum of GB to be able to afford other actions. However, that's not the point of playing a wizard - the point of being a source regent isn't to be massively involved in "normal" politics. It's to cast realm spells - that's really all that sources let you do, by themselves.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

But you can't cast most Realm spells unless you have higher source levels than zero. Even zero level sources are difficult to create without money.

The point of playing a wizard is to play an intelligent problem solving character, not always a spellslinger. Wizards I play tend to cast very few spells. Its not how many spells you cast, its how effective the ones you cast are. A wizard that wants to stay alive will often prepare himself to stay alive, even when alone and his party slain. Actually, any intelligent character will have ways of doing this. Having a wizard around is often just as much for his problem solving skills as his spells (or should be). Yes, it is difficult to play a wizard. No, it didn't take a miracle to make it to second and succeeding levels.

[Mark_Aurel]

Any character can be intelligent and problem-solving. Any character can also be a dumb brute. How you play the part does not matter one iota when it comes to class balance.

It didn't necessarily take a miracle to get to 2nd level, that is granted. However, the wizard would still be the character with least overall power for quite some levels. It was a rather poor way of balancing things; make a class weak at lower levels to compensate for greater power at higher levels. Since that makes you less likely to get to those levels, and most campaigns never made it that far, it doesn't work out well.

I'm pleased to see that you think in terms of casting spells for greatest efficiency, though - that must mean that you really agree that huge effects aren't really needed for 1st-level wizards. The _intelligent_ 1st-level wizard can still make a difference, of course. Cast a charm person on the right unit leader, say, or a minor image at the right moment, or a true strike to shoot someone with a crossbow from a great distance. Nothing earth-shattering, of course, but it can make a difference, even on a battlefield, although only sufficient unto the wizard's level.

Wizards pretty much sucked the first few levels in 2e; in 3e, they have been fixed so that they are tolerable to play, and intelligence actually matters a lot for them on lower levels.