Battle Magic Poll [Archive]

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

01-14-2002, 02:35 PM

My mindset is that wizards invented battle magic. Wizard spells seem more attuned to direct combat and often have more warlike tendencies than most religions.

It could be argued that priestly power comes as much from the people as it does from their God. Since they're given power to coerce and lead people, they would also have power over battles, which are essentially part of their people. At this point I must point to the fact that the Gods have already granted priests powerful spells that wizards can't par (read: Quest Spells). These spells are granted specifically to further the ethos of the deity in question. These spells can also be far more effective than battle spells. If you feel battle spells are neccesary to have priests be a counter to wizards, then you should also have wizards have some sort of equivalent of Quest spells. (Note: I do not allow players to have access to wish or miracle spells outside of rare occurences and never in their spellbooks, thus wish spells are not a complement to quest spells)

It can also be argued that Quest spells are rare. I must also point out that wizards are also rare (far more so than priests), particularly ones who desire to march with and support armies.

Another possible argument is the level requirements. Battle spells are available at a far lower level than Quest spells. I believe that this is because Quest spells are far more powerful and that Battle spells are merely an expansion of effect, rather than a great increase in power.

This brings me to my next point, that I view battle magic as a form of blood driven meta-magic. Priests (traditionally) aren't as interested in the shaping process of their spells, which is often a point of obssession among wizards. Priests aren't nearly as focused on magic as wizards are, by default.

All this said, maybe some priests should have limited access to battle magic, though I disagree due to my wizard bias. I've only noticed 3 of the 11 human deities with the war domain. Another one has the protection domain. 2 more have the magic domain. 4 deities that could justify war neccesity for battle magic and 2 that could justify magic province for battle magic. Barely half of the human deities. Dwarves hate magic and Goblins aren't particularly attuned to it. However, if you truly want a priestly equivalent to battlemagic spells, I suggest converting old War sphere spells and leaving them as regularly granted magics, rather than battle magic spells.

Lastly, bring on your anti-magic commandos, assassins, lions, tigers, bears, and whatnot. I'll have none of it. I wouldn't be a good mage if I didn't watch my back along with my front. And while your squad of adventurers is occupied with my wizard, my obviously superior and well-prepared armies are crushing yours. Besides, how do you know if I'm even there, or anywhere? How do you know my counter-intell hasn't duped you into a trap? Protection from Normal Missles and Prismatic Wall will prevail.

Lord Eldred

01-16-2002, 02:59 AM

I still don't understand Gargamel why a priest that has a spell that affects a number of people equal to a unit that that wouldn't be allowed. Must I remind you that Battle Spells are not special spells they are just spells that work against large number of people (not an expansion of the effect). See your rule books.

Even if you didn't like that, you would have to agree that Gods with war as their domain would likely give their priests war magic. Perhaps to get the balance you want they wouldn't give the quest spell to them.

I am not sure why Priests would have to be interested in the process of their spell in order for it to work on a unit!

With all this said, Priests would not have access to the same battle spells that Wizards have access to because remember they are regular spells that have large effects.

If they are not regular spells, where does the rules spell out how many Battle spells you get per level or describe what level each battle spell is accessed at?

Finally my General will command my superior force while we crush you! :)

Abbess Allessandra

01-16-2002, 03:05 AM

Just remember all good spells must come to an end and anyone wanting to kill the wizard or priest could do so if they wait for the right time.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

01-16-2002, 03:56 AM

Ok, my belief is that wizards should rely on spells more than priests. I agree that if a priest has a spell that is large enough to affect an entire unit, it should be able to be used in battle.

However, if I'm not mistaken, some battle spells presented by T$R were actually modified spells, except that they were of the same level as normal spells, but could only be used in battle situations, because they had greater casting times or something. I also agree that War Gods would be more likely to give their priests spells that are useful in battle (in this manner).

If all battle spells are the same as regular spells, I'm going to start casting rain of magic missles and target them all on a single person.

In all, I think we are in disagreement mainly on the nature of battle magic spells in general. I believe that some battle spells are special and those altered spells should be restricted to wizards, in the name of Meta-Magic.

(Disclaimer: If the battle specific spells given in the Book of Magecraft are actually just spells of a higher level, rather than what I believe them to be, I will rescind my entire argument.)

Green Knight

01-25-2002, 11:02 AM

Hi,

I use Battle Magic in my campaigns and it works just fine. Only users of Greater Magic (which are very rare) have the ability to cast BM (users of lesser magic can still use some form of limited ritual magic, but nothing the powre of true BM). Thus - while effective, I find that the below limitations balance things nicely.

I use a system derived from the WW - Scarred Lands setting, where every Battle spell is an unique ritual that must be learned separetely. The ability to cast ritual magic is limited by access to the meta-feat Cast Ritual Spell and a Skill called Ritual Casting. Most battle spells are based on equivalent basic spells, with a corresonding effect on units.

Learning (1+ research actiona) and using rituals are both time-consuming (1+ battle turns each) and difficult (requiring some skill checks against Ritual Casting and/or Concentration). Rituals often requiring the use of multiple apprentices or such to help with the spell, along with expensive components (altough this requirement can be waived if expending RP). Memorizing a ritual spell like this also uses up the spell slot for 1 week (1 war move).

Clerics and wizards benefit the most - Both have access to a large number of powrful spells. Druids and sorcerers are more limited, especially the sorcerers since they must use normal slots to learn battle rituals.

Bjørn

Lord Eldred

02-11-2002, 09:38 PM

Green Knight, then you disagree with those who argue that Battlemagic should not be cast by clerics?

Green Knight

02-12-2002, 03:59 PM

Yes. As clerics can cast realm magic, surely they would be able to use battle magic as well.

There is a problem, however, since there are potentially many more clerics than blooded wizards about. So the DM may have to work out some limitations as to exactly how many clerics should be capable of such increadible feats.

I personally go with only blooded clerics being able to handle all that divine energy. End of problem.

Lord Eldred

02-18-2002, 06:48 PM

I think the problem is limited by the fact that Wizards battle spells are stronger than Cleric battle spells at least offensively!

Green Knight

02-19-2002, 12:29 PM

That is true, but clerical magic is still very useful.

There is however, a problem when even 1st level clerics could cast simple battle spells. Rounding up 20 1st level clerics shouldn't be too hard for a medium size temple. In 3E that could easily be 60 1st level battle spells. Pretty unbalancing.

Lord Eldred

02-19-2002, 07:55 PM

It should be a big risk to round up 20 1st level clerics and putting them on the battle field. However, I still don't see the first level spells totally unbalancing a fight. I would send in my knights to kill them.

Green Knight

02-19-2002, 09:21 PM

I don't think the clerics would:

A) Be bunched together
B) Be that easily identifiable
C) Be that easily killed

:P

Lord Eldred

02-22-2002, 10:08 PM

A) They would be bunched together in order to combine the strength of spells, if that was desired.

B) They are the ones in the clerical garb and the ones casting spells.

C) I don't think 20 1st level clerics would survive that long against a unit of knights.

D) Even if A-C are not true, even 20 1st level clerics wouldn't throw the balance of a battle off!

Green Knight

02-23-2002, 10:59 AM

Do not underestimate the power of the <Cure Unit Spell>. Once you start down that path, forever it will dominate your destiny...

Listen to the words of a wise, old halfling :P

Lord Eldred

02-24-2002, 05:18 PM

That is exactly why I don't think a first level cleric would be able to cast a cure unit spell.

Lawgiver

02-24-2002, 07:14 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
That is exactly why I don't think a first level cleric would be able to cast a cure unit spell.

I agree however, I don't like the idea that if a regent wants to use a realm spell in battle that it shoots their entire action for the month. The entire issue is one of great difficulty. On one hand battle spells should be usable by preists, but at the same time you have to keep the power gamers in check.
If you create "battle" spells that are designed for the war sequences in Birthright who is to say they couldn't be used outside of war situations to heal the masses or restore an entire party of adventurers. A cleric doesn't even get a single Cure Serious Wounds until 5th level which heals only a single person, but then suddenly in a "battle" they can cast a Cure Unit spell and miraculously heal entire units. Its a bit shady to say the least... Unfortunately, without pooling the resources of several clerics I don't know of another way to keep a healthy balance.

Lord Eldred

02-25-2002, 02:17 AM

I would settle it by not allowing any special battle magic. Only magic that would normally have an effect on a large number of people can be used on the field of battle. If that means that in order to cure a unit, you have to have a unit of clerics, so be it!

Lawgiver

02-27-2002, 05:49 AM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
I would settle it by not allowing any special battle magic. Only magic that would normally have an effect on a large number of people can be used on the field of battle. If that means that in order to cure a unit, you have to have a unit of clerics, so be it!

I second that notion.

Mithrandir

02-28-2002, 12:44 AM

That makes alot of sense, because it is logical and eliminates the cleric number advantage, but what are the war card stats for a cleric unit. Do they vary with the religon?

Aleric

02-28-2002, 03:52 PM

Surely the problem of 20 1st level clerics casting 60 Battle Magic spells can be avoided if they are subject to the same rules a Mages - i.e. only those who are blooded can cast battle magic (like realm magic). Given being blooded is relatively rare, perhaps only 1 of those 20 clerics could cast battle magic.

However, I also tend to agree that it is odd that a first level cleric who can only heal one person 1d8 hp can suddenly cure 300 odd people just because there's a battle in progress.

Riegan Swordwraith

02-28-2002, 04:47 PM

I would go with Green Knight's suggestion on only Blooded Priests can cast BM and only those spells which would normally affect a large group of people can be used as BM.As fas as healing an entire unit goes,I beleive Circle of Healing is what a 6th level spell for Clerics??Which means a 13th level Cleric??Not too many of those.

As to the Spell Geas/Quest.In 3rd Ed.,it is a 6 level Wiz/Sor spell,as well as Cleric and Bards.What I cannot understand is why it is not a Druid spell.I mean Geas is a Celtic word and idea,and so are druids,why the hell wouldn't druids have access to that spell???Especially since Bards get it!!!

Lord Eldred

02-28-2002, 10:23 PM

Orginally posted by Aleric

Surely the problem of 20 1st level clerics casting 60 Battle Magic spells can be avoided if they are subject to the same rules a Mages - i.e. only those who are blooded can cast battle magic (like realm magic). Given being blooded is relatively rare, perhaps only 1 of those 20 clerics could cast battle magic.

However, I also tend to agree that it is odd that a first level cleric who can only heal one person 1d8 hp can suddenly cure 300 odd people just because there's a battle in progress.

Given that you agree the only way to eliminate the problem is to have no special battle magic. This would allow an unblooded magician to cast battle magic if his spell effects a large number of people and eliminates the problem with clerics because it would take awhile for the cleric to acquire the spell level needed to effect a large group.

Lord Eldred

02-28-2002, 10:24 PM

Orginally posted by Mithrandir

That makes alot of sense, because it is logical and eliminates the cleric number advantage, but what are the war card stats for a cleric unit. Do they vary with the religon?

They may vary with religion. I would think that they would be similar to the stats of an infantry unit but they have the added ability to cure an adjacent unit so many times.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-05-2002, 03:51 AM

I still don't really see a problem with the way battle magic is now, even if they are special spells.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-05-2002, 03:51 AM

Shouldn't the Druid unit from Rjurik Highlands have abilities similar to that, then?

Mark_Aurel

03-06-2002, 08:23 AM

I have a slight problem with the idea of a cleric *unit*. I mean, they're not as rare as wizards. On the other hand, they generally don't come in sets of 200 or so. Or even 20. Or 10. Maybe 5, but that'd be pretty rare as well. I mean, the vast majority of the priests/clergymen/fat bishops/whatever in a church are generally without spellcasting ability. Most provinces should barely have one cleric with spellcasting abilities, if even that. Think about it - out of 10 000 people, how many miracle-workers are there? There might be a few more in high-level provinces, and circles of druids in really low-level provinces and such - but in general, clerics should be rare. Want to field a cleric unit? I guess you'd need to gather about every cleric in Anuire to pull that one off.

If you think about it, there aren't many people living in Cerilia. And out of those, not many are "special" - scions, adventurers, clerics, awnsheghs. It all depends on the campaign, of course. But I see nothing in BR that indicates that clerics are common enough to field units of them. Quite the contrary.

Now. The Druid unit. The warcard. I generally tend to think of that either as a) A mistake, or B) A really small group of mid- to high-level druids, and a unique unit at that. Rather like the Gorgon is a unique unit. Maybe they represent the high circle of druids in the North or something. But not something you'd recruit lots of and put in your army. As I recall, there were specific rules for deploying the druid card.

I don't have any problems with a system that lets clerics make a difference on the battlefield. They can cast spells. They can be part of a crack "Adventurer" unit. But I have a really hard time imagining an army of clerics. Try an army led by one, or led by a paladin. Or the knights of Haelyn - a special unit.

As for the topic, I'd rather see battle magic go away. Not as in wizards and clerics can't make a difference. More like: Wizards don't bring wagons with lots of weird stuff with them to the battlefield. Magic doesn't get more magical simply by bundling the material components by the dozen and putting it on a cart and having assistants help you unpack it. I dunno. Compare it to guns. Just because you have a wagonload of them doesn't mean you get to fire a hail of bullets. Hmmm. I was going to use a big ol' metaphor here, with bullets being spell slots, and guns being material components and stuff, but it seems goofy. Let's just say I find "battle magic" silly because it treats magic as something less than magical - it sort of turns it into an industrial process.

It's also unbalanced with realm magic.

Big and flashy effects? Yep. Cartloads of material components? Go to the Forgotten Realms.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-06-2002, 03:58 PM

Response: Healing Skill.

Non-Magical Medics have historical precedence.

I don't see how Battle Magic is unbalanced with Realm Magic. With battle magic you create very short-lived effects when compared with Realm spells. Plus, you can't directly affect province loyalty, dispel realm spells, create money, etc. A battle spell is going to be effective at most for a few hours, while realm magic often lasts for months. There is quite a difference in scale.

Mark_Aurel

03-07-2002, 12:35 AM

Yep. Doctors have been known to exist. Same with herbal healers, medics, what-have-you.

Battle magic is out of scale with realm magic. Compare the effects of certain battle magic spells with realm magic spells such as Mass Destruction or Subversion or Summoning. They permit pretty much the same effect; the difference is that realm magic takes a month to cast - battle magic takes about five minutes.

I don't like the rationale that piling up material components and taking a bit more time to cast a spell makes it 100 times more powerful either. "Rain of Magic Missiles" might make a good 6th or 7th level spell, but not an effect a 1st-level caster uses simply by filling a wagon with material components.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-07-2002, 12:43 AM

I might be persuaded to take your side.

Perhaps Battle magic should be covered using meta-magic feats. A battle-magic feat will be just a more powerful version of extend spell (or whatever the feat that increases area). Thus, by increasing the effect of the spell, it requires a higher level spell slot. This would further reduce the number of wizards that take part in battles. Larger regular spells could still be used as normal during battle. I still think the WarCard system should be revised.

Mark_Aurel

03-07-2002, 12:52 AM

Yep - agreed. A Fireball can make a big difference on a battlefield.

Metamagic feats have been my compensation idea as well - though I don't think there's any need to make them more powerful than they are; for instance, you'd probably prefer to cast a 6th-level offensive spell (Circle of Death) to a maximized 3rd-level spell anyway.

I have a numeric system in the works for large battles - it could be a quick alternative to war cards for table top gamers and PBeMers alike. Basically, you add up numbers (each unit is counted from, say 1 for a levy, to 8 for a knight unit, then you add in some factors for terrain cards, the presence of wizards and other spellcasters, and adventurers, and then multiply the whole sum, depending on a few dice rolls - it should work faster than battle cards - it's far from polished, though - still at sketch stage).

blitzmacher

03-07-2002, 04:14 AM

I say battle magic stays. I think somewhere on this forum or in one of the books I read that battle magic was the early precourser for realm magic, which makes it a magic unique to birthright. Remember that the blooded makes up about 2% of the population, and there are only about 100 or so true wizards in cerilia. Which would also make a few number of priests with bloodlines that would be able to cast battle spells, although I think there would be more priests that would be able to do this you would still have to be able to persuade the priests to take part in a battle which would be easier said then done.
I also believe that the creators of birthright developed battle magic give something for the spellcasters to do in mass combat while the fighters rode to glory, and to give birthright its own sort of magic specialization, where some wizards would develope spells only for mass combat.

Mark_Aurel

03-07-2002, 04:35 AM

I say battle magic stays. I think somewhere on this forum or in one of the books I read that battle magic was the early precourser for realm magic, which makes it a magic unique to birthright.

That's not a good rationale, and also dead wrong.

Dragon #219 (page 102) contains playtest notes on Birthright. In specific, playtest notes on Cerilian magic. To quote ... "Mebhaighl does not affect wizard spells like those found in the player's handbook; such enchantments are no different in Cerilia than anywhere else. Realm spells, on the other hand..." What is missing from the entire article is any reference to battle magic whatsoever. It goes in quite a bit of detail about realm magic, though. If battle magic was indeed a precursor to realm magic, I'd think it'd be mentioned there. Or, in the Birthright boxed set, for that matter. Your claim is, in all likelihood, very wrong.

Battle magic is an add-on, found in the Book of Magecraft. There were no previous references to it. The war cards in the Birthright boxed set contained notes on how ordinary spells could affect a battle - that's plenty enough, I think.

I also believe that the creators of birthright developed battle magic give something for the spellcasters to do in mass combat while the fighters rode to glory...

Yes. Wizards cast spells. Fighters lead armies. There isn't any need for wizards to utterly trump fighters in this regard, is it? The regular spells already give a wizard plenty of firepower on the battlefield. There's no need to boost that with spells that doesn't even fit the setting very well.

Battle magic does fall in that generous 2e category of "cool things we add in supplements so you can power up your character and will want to buy this." There were lots of little things like that, throughout. Battle magic is simply unnecessary; wizards get enough firepower as it is.

Lord Shaene

03-07-2002, 01:04 PM

Ok this is just an idea, since i do not regularly play a wizard or a priest. ok first the said priest or wizard must be blooded . Second, perhaps in order to cast Battle Magic a certain extremely rare component or in the case of a preist a certain quest or sacrifice is needed to cast said BM spell. so in order for a PC wizard or Pc priest to cast BM he needs to do the required quest or get the required component. Once he casts his BM spell he would need to do the requirements over again before he could cast another BM spell. this could lead to many side adventures for the campaign. Also it gives you an advantage in battle but not an overwhelming one. its also going to make a pc wonder if the opposing armys wizard or priest has the component to cast his or if he is just going to use normal spells to affect the war. lots of possibilies here. let me know what you think

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-07-2002, 03:43 PM

If I'm not mistaken, battle magic is specifically referred to in the Birthright rulebook (which I don't have on me right now, unfortunately). However, it is left quite vague. I remember some mention of spells altered specifically for battle. It also is unique to birthright.

In addition, most wizard spells have far too small of an area and short of a range to have much effect on a unit , let alone affect an entire unit. I believe that battle magic is explained as a smaller scaled version of realm magic, at some point.

Battle Magic spells are expensive enough, as is, requiring much in the way of material components and assistants, as well as time. If you don't like the idea of large quantities of material components, use the Meta-Magic feat idea, increasing the size (Travis Doom's Meta Magic feat isn't meta-magic at all).

You can't really discount a supplement just because its a supplement, if that were so, there would only be one area to play (Anuire) because many other books cross-reference the other supplements. I know some of the Players' Secrets and regional sourcebooks reference the Book of Magecraft, as well as some other books.

I don't know if I want a quick alternative to the War Card system. Personally, I would like a more detailed mass-combat system. Guess I'm just a wargamer at heart. I'll have to try Chainmail, then...

Chioran

03-07-2002, 03:56 PM

I like the use of a feat for battle magic. I think it will help moderate it's use. Are there any other feat or skill dependencies for the meta-magic feat? I don't have the books handy to check.

Mark_Aurel

03-07-2002, 04:52 PM

No, it isn't. I've checked every applicable entrance where it could be referred. It isn't even mentioned in vague terms. Battle magic was not something they planned to introduce in a later product - if they did, they'd mention it. The rulebook specifically draws up three orders of Cerilian magic - lesser, true and realm magic. The former two are noted as basic PHB magic. Any claim that battle magic was designed alongside realm magic is quite preposterous; no archival evidence even hints at it prior to the BoM.

I wouldn't call the 600 feet range a fireball has at 5th caster level too short a range for it to be useful, nor would I call an effect with a radius of 20 feet too small against a massed formation of low-level soldiers. Especially when you also consider the shock effect.

Why _should_ wizards have the ability to kill 200 men or more? Why shouldn't fighters of 1st level be able to do the same? Or rogues? Now, with domain spells, I can understand it. But not with "special" versions of low-level spells.

Of course, you can't dismiss any printed product entirely, because it is "official," and all - however, you can look at how it matches up to the philosophy of the original box. Let's examine some examples:

Blood Enemies - a horrible book; some of it is ok, other parts are just plain silly. Some entries contain psionics references... The Gorgon has, for no explainable reason, been stripped of his wizard levels. Written by "slade," a freelancer who had nothing to do with the rest of the setting - of course it'll be a sub-par effort. Would you allow psionics in BR, just because a supplement mentions/allows it? The rulebook is very specific in this matter - that psionics are unappropriate, and should not be used.

Book of Magecraft - an ok book, though nothing outstanding. Lots of typical 2e filler: Battle magic, garradalaighs (has anyone even used these?), a really large section on the Royal College of Sorcery (some quick math would seem to indicate that it houses about 80 wizards and magicians or so - quite a lot...), some magical items (some of which are useful, others which are a bit inappropriate), a slew of new spells, some fairly lame kits for magicians... Now, this book may be "official," but it is hardly the crowning achievement of the Birthright line. I'd consider it a bit sub-standard, really. It also contains some new optional systems for ley lines and such. Note, "optional." The author of this book also had little to do with the inception of BR; however, at least she was an insider, and had some semi-comptent help in writing it.

The Book of Priestcraft has a higher overall standard than the Book of Magecraft, though it contains lots of traditional filler as well. Just a casual glance, though, will tell you that the BoP is far more substantial than the BoM - just check the typesetting. The primary author of the book, Rich Baker, is also a mark of quality for it.

I don't discount any part of a supplement because it is that - I check it against the vision presented in the original boxed set, to see if it holds true against that. If it does not, then, yes, you can simply ignore it.

The greatest weakness of battle magic is the lack of any reason for its existence. The only rationale offered is a metagaming one - that the existing "options" - regular spells and realm magic just doesn't do it. It's a bit like introducing a shotgun in a fantasy world and rationalizing its existence by saying "there are no shotguns, so we made one." There's also the lack of proper balancing against pre-existing realm spells. There's the lack of balancing against regular spells. There's the cheapening of magic effect - it makes magic less special.

The fact that a magic missile spell doesn't affect an entire army at once is no good rationale for blowing it up. You could ask the same question for fighters - why can't they whack a whole army at once with their sword? It does not make sense to make fighters able to wield 200-foot long swords simply because they can't whack a whole army with their swords as they are.

I don't mind the idea of spells affecting armies. I mind the arbitrary introduction of a new category of spell which had no place in the setting prior to the BoM, which has a potentially significan impact, which cheapens the "feel" of magic in BR, and which is just blatantly a way to turn wizards into medieval artillery, even at low levels. Now, I can see a high level wizard demolishing an army in a matter of seconds or minutes. But not 1st-level Joe Schmoe wizard, regent or not.

I don't mind the idea of metamagic feats taking the place of battle magic; that would simply serve to make it the domain of higher-level wizards. I don't mind the idea of some new spells introduced with a larger area, but weaker effect, specifically made for armies - they just have to be at their *proper* level, and should be a simple, regular spell.

Metamagic feats don't have any skill or feat requirements - they simply make spells use up higher-level spells slots. You'd have to be around 9th level to twin a magic missile, for instance, or around 7th to maximize it (now, that is really useful!).

I'd like a fuller war system as well - the war card thing falls between too many chairs. I know people are often complaining about how painful it is to act out, though.

If you don't like the idea of large quantities of material components

This statement in particular intrigues me. Explain how magic becomes _more_ magical by multiplying the components used, within the core logic of the D&D magic system. Could it be that someone applied an industrial way of thinking to magic? Treating it as a commodity, rather than something _magical_?

Lawgiver

03-09-2002, 04:24 AM

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

No, it isn't. I've checked every applicable entrance where it could be referred. It isn't even mentioned in vague terms. Battle magic was not something they planned to introduce in a later product - if they did, they'd mention it. The rulebook specifically draws up three orders of Cerilian magic - lesser, true and realm magic. The former two are noted as basic PHB magic. Any claim that battle magic was designed alongside realm magic is quite preposterous; no archival evidence even hints at it prior to the BoM.

I wouldn't call the 600 feet range a fireball has at 5th caster level too short a range for it to be useful, nor would I call an effect with a radius of 20 feet too small against a massed formation of low-level soldiers. Especially when you also consider the shock effect.

Why _should_ wizards have the ability to kill 200 men or more? Why shouldn't fighters of 1st level be able to do the same? Or rogues? Now, with domain spells, I can understand it. But not with "special" versions of low-level spells.

Of course, you can't dismiss any printed product entirely, because it is "official," and all - however, you can look at how it matches up to the philosophy of the original box. Let's examine some examples:

Blood Enemies - a horrible book; some of it is ok, other parts are just plain silly. Some entries contain psionics references... The Gorgon has, for no explainable reason, been stripped of his wizard levels. Written by "slade," a freelancer who had nothing to do with the rest of the setting - of course it'll be a sub-par effort. Would you allow psionics in BR, just because a supplement mentions/allows it? The rulebook is very specific in this matter - that psionics are unappropriate, and should not be used.

Book of Magecraft - an ok book, though nothing outstanding. Lots of typical 2e filler: Battle magic, garradalaighs (has anyone even used these?), a really large section on the Royal College of Sorcery (some quick math would seem to indicate that it houses about 80 wizards and magicians or so - quite a lot...), some magical items (some of which are useful, others which are a bit inappropriate), a slew of new spells, some fairly lame kits for magicians... Now, this book may be "official," but it is hardly the crowning achievement of the Birthright line. I'd consider it a bit sub-standard, really. It also contains some new optional systems for ley lines and such. Note, "optional." The author of this book also had little to do with the inception of BR; however, at least she was an insider, and had some semi-comptent help in writing it.

The Book of Priestcraft has a higher overall standard than the Book of Magecraft, though it contains lots of traditional filler as well. Just a casual glance, though, will tell you that the BoP is far more substantial than the BoM - just check the typesetting. The primary author of the book, Rich Baker, is also a mark of quality for it.

I don't discount any part of a supplement because it is that - I check it against the vision presented in the original boxed set, to see if it holds true against that. If it does not, then, yes, you can simply ignore it.

The greatest weakness of battle magic is the lack of any reason for its existence. The only rationale offered is a metagaming one - that the existing "options" - regular spells and realm magic just doesn't do it. It's a bit like introducing a shotgun in a fantasy world and rationalizing its existence by saying "there are no shotguns, so we made one." There's also the lack of proper balancing against pre-existing realm spells. There's the lack of balancing against regular spells. There's the cheapening of magic effect - it makes magic less special.

The fact that a magic missile spell doesn't affect an entire army at once is no good rationale for blowing it up. You could ask the same question for fighters - why can't they whack a whole army at once with their sword? It does not make sense to make fighters able to wield 200-foot long swords simply because they can't whack a whole army with their swords as they are.

I don't mind the idea of spells affecting armies. I mind the arbitrary introduction of a new category of spell which had no place in the setting prior to the BoM, which has a potentially significan impact, which cheapens the "feel" of magic in BR, and which is just blatantly a way to turn wizards into medieval artillery, even at low levels. Now, I can see a high level wizard demolishing an army in a matter of seconds or minutes. But not 1st-level Joe Schmoe wizard, regent or not.

I don't mind the idea of metamagic feats taking the place of battle magic; that would simply serve to make it the domain of higher-level wizards. I don't mind the idea of some new spells introduced with a larger area, but weaker effect, specifically made for armies - they just have to be at their *proper* level, and should be a simple, regular spell.

Metamagic feats don't have any skill or feat requirements - they simply make spells use up higher-level spells slots. You'd have to be around 9th level to twin a magic missile, for instance, or around 7th to maximize it (now, that is really useful!).

I'd like a fuller war system as well - the war card thing falls between too many chairs. I know people are often complaining about how painful it is to act out, though.

If you don't like the idea of large quantities of material components

This statement in particular intrigues me. Explain how magic becomes _more_ magical by multiplying the components used, within the core logic of the D&D magic system. Could it be that someone applied an industrial way of thinking to magic? Treating it as a commodity, rather than something _magical_?

I beleive the "Rant of the Rules Lawyer" has been invoked....

Lord Eldred

03-10-2002, 12:59 PM

Mark,

Thank you for that well versed statement. I believe there should not be any special battle magic spells (blowing up the magic missile for example). Battle magic spells are just a list of spells from all three realms that would be useful in a battle. I think your analogy on the fighter says it best "why couldn't the fighter then have the power to blow up his swing and wipe out an entire unit, we could call it Battle Fighting" It is just wrong. The battle field is not a special fight zone that increases the power of magic nor the power of a fighters swing. Eliminate the specially designed magic and just return the battle magic to being a list of spells that would have an effect on the battle field :)

By the way, all hail the rules lawyer!

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-10-2002, 11:54 PM

I don't think the battle field is a special zone, where magic acts differently. I believe that the idea of battle magic is altering the spells so that they are more usefull on a larger scale. A person, using a sword, requires a few feet of room to be able to maneuver his weapon. Most of this area is air, and is usually only filled when the soldier is engaged in a melee. People average about 2 ft in width and can easily take up another 2-5 ft (possibly more) with weaponry and armor and whatnot. So if each person used a 3 ft radius circle, you would hit around 35 soldiers (at the most) with a fireball that goes off at eye-level, and shock value doesn't cause them to die.

Continuing with the idea of altering spells. Birthright was created in the spirit of AD&D. Part of this was the alteration and creation of spells by and for your wizard characters. Most of what I've read about altering existing spells mentions spell components and how they affect spell-casting. Apparently, the purpose of the spell components is to assist the wizard in drawing energy for his spells. Spells are supposed to be higher level if the spell is to powerful for the trade-off to cast the spell. Trade-offs are called many things. Area, duration, casting-time, spell (material and otherwise) components, etc. are all trade-offs to assist in casting a spell. The idea of material components suggests that everyday items contain specialized magical power, that can assist certain spells. A lot of things aren't magical in the normal sense, but can apparently be used to aid in the channeling of mystical power. Some spells require more expensive/rare material components, and would need to be considered higher level without them. This is the logic behind material components. Thus, it logically follows, that if the spell is altered to be more powerful, its going to require much more in the way of trade-offs to be set at the same level. These trade-offs take the form of longer casting times, more (expense on) material components (more effect, more magic), etc. This seems to be the idea behind battle-magic. Essentially, magic doesn't become more magical, it increases in effect.

The idea that a magic missle spells can't hit an entire army is a perfectly acceptable reason for blowing it up. Its the same rationale that is behind most spell augmentation, that you want your spells to be more effective. There are different manners of going about this goal, but the idea is justified.

Comparing wizards and warriors is unneccesary. Battle magic is an attempt at involving wizards with mass-combat if they desire to do such things. Wizards are supposed to be mysterious and powerful, single low-level soldiers are not. I'm not saying a first level wizard should be able to take out entire armies on their own, I'm just saying that any lone wizard (with a bodyguard and his own army) can personally have much more of an effect on entire armies than most soldiers. In general, standard combat and spell-casting should not be compared in the manner that you present them because they exist on different levels. And, you could blow up a sword all you want, but you need to be able to find the strength to wield that sword. Physical strength and magical strength are both able to be improved, however, magical and physical limitations are different.

What is metagaming? I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean in a D&D sense (having an understanding the term with relation to Chess and various card games).

I don't think Battle-magic is a new category. I think it is just a similar concept to Meta-magic. I don't think our ideas of magic differ on any major level, and believe that our understanding of magic has been guided a bit differently. However, the concept of "Battle Fighting" is misguided, and can not be validated when arguing against my reasoning, nor my arguments invalidated by pointing out the absurdity of this concept.

Mark_Aurel

03-11-2002, 09:19 AM

You asked for it.

Birthright very much supports the idea that some areas are more magical in their nature than others; sources is a fine example. Some individuals are more magical in their nature than others - blooded scions.

The logic that you follow is not magical, however. It is industrial. And, worse, you are applying an industrial logic to magic. So, what is industrial, and what is magical logic?

The idea behind magic is basically that you can affect another object in a way that transcends a reasonable cause-and-effect relationship. For instance, a normal cause-and-effect relationship is when you bend a spoon with your hands. It is not a reasonable cause-and-effect relationship that you can bend a spoon by just touching at it, or looking at it. Thus, you have a magical effect. The traditional D&D magic does depend on a cause-and-effect relationship of sorts, however. Fetishes. In order to make a castle crumble, you build a model of it, and crush the model. This isn't a reasonable cause-and-effect relationship by any means, but it does the job - through magic. The components of a spell, whether they be material, somatic or verbal, are generally accepted as somehow representing a fetish version of the larger object which they are to affect. You can't kill someone by pointing your finger at someone, but you might if you cast a finger of death spell.

Now, an industrial principle. The industrial way of thinking is not at all similar to a magical way of thinking. The industrial way of thinking clearly follows a cause-and-effect relationship. In fact, industrial thinking is all about establishing the most efficient cause-and-effect possible. Basically, industrial thinking is about churning out as much product as possible, with as little resources as possible. Preferably on a large scale. A factory exemplifies this, but it is yet evident in all parts of our society. The reason you work at a computer and have a printer to print out what you write is to save the time it would take to calligraphically achieve the same result. The primary consequence of 20th century industrial thinking, however, is serial production. By adding more resources to a process, you can create more of whatever you want to make. If you make cars, you make them in sets, and you make many of them - about 500 000 to 2 000 000 is the optimal number for any series of automobiles, from an industrial perspective. This requires pouring more resources (components) into the process, and it achieves a greater overall result.

Now. Magic is not like that. If you want to crush a castle, you make a model of it, and crush that. You don't crush it any better by making multiple models.

You don't get double the number of magic missiles by mumbling twice as long and using twice as many hand gestures. The same applies when you get to a scale in the hundredfolds. Magic does not work that way. A factory does.

Certainly, you can repeat a spell. But you can't blow its effects up just by multiplying it.

Now. There is such a thing as metamagic feats. These work somewhat along the lines of an industrial principle - blow up a spell by pouring more power into it. However, they come with a cost that is commensurate with the effect, and often greater. They follow along the lines of the magical philosophy of making a sacrifice to achieve an effect - which is another essential idea in some magical thinking. Further, a metamagic feat generally does not "blow up" a spell like a battle magic spell would - they enhance it instead. It's a way to alter a spell. Which is quite okay, really. Cast a spell in a different way, and it becomes a different spell - that's the essence of a metamagic feat.

Now, are battle magic spells "altered" spells? Yes. They are certainly based on the spells in the book. In a good way? No. Their spell level does not increase to become commensurate with the scale of the effect they have. That some magics are more powerful than others is also central to magic, of course - in general, it also follows that more powerful magic entails a greater risk/cost.

I don't think the battle field is a special zone, where magic acts differently. I believe that the idea of battle magic is altering the spells so that they are more usefull on a larger scale.

You are in fact, caught by this, the very first line of your post. In order to alter spells to make them more useful on a larger scale, you apply a metamagic feat to them. You do not simply do what the designers of battle magic did - blow up the spell, add a non-cost (more on that later) and then leave the spell at the same level. A "Rain of Magic Missiles" that caused damage over a large area (100' radius, maybe), say 2d4+2 per person, might be appropriate for a 5th or 6th level spell. Or even 7th. It is _not_ an appropriate 1st level spell. In order to enhance a spell to make it more useful on a larger scale, you must generally increase its level - either by metamagic, or by simply writing a new spell.

Next, for your argument about how closely soldiers march. This varies with the unit and the formation, of course. Roman Legions had very densely joined ranks, for mutual protection behind their large shields. You are also misrepresenting the way weapons was actually used. In general, people did not take those huge movie swings when they used a sword. A sword does not need that much leverage to cause lethal damage. A six inch swing with a two-handed sword was enough, for instance. In general, soldiers held their weapons in front of themselves, looking for openings in the enemy defense. A pikeman formation would most certainly be very dense, in order to best protect themselves from the charge of knights. Archers don't need much room to "swing" their bows. The main exception to the generally tight formations adopted on the battlefield was mounted forces; however, even they did ride quite closely together in order to best affect a charge. It is also reasonable to assume that mounted units are somewhat smaller than footman units.

Then, for the argument about fireballs. Now, if someone just incinerated a lot of my compatriots with one of those, I would not await in close rank for the next one. I doubt anyone would, except for the suicidal or the overconfident. Most forces would scatter, if, for nothing else, out of common sense - if they stand closely together, they die. Thus, producing a Rout effect.

Further, your argumentation in this part seems quite inconsistent - you want a first-level rain of magic missiles to be effective on a battlefield, yet you seem to do your best to discredit the effects of another spell, the traditional fireball? By following your reasoning, we could argue that a rain of magic missiles should have no effect at all, since the soldiers walk in too loose a formation for it to be truly effective (most of the missiles would fall between them). At most, only a fraction of a force of 200 men would be hurt - say, 35 or so? Would that be a fair assumption?

The idea that a magic missle spells can't hit an entire army is a perfectly acceptable reason for blowing it up. Its the same rationale that is behind most spell augmentation, that you want your spells to be more effective. There are different manners of going about this goal, but the idea is justified.

No, yes, and yes. From a functional perspective, it is an acceptable idea to blow a spell up in the way that battle magic does it. Rather like it is a functional idea to turn a car workshop into a factory so you can make more cars faster. The thing is, there are two things that are lacking from the justification: An in-game justification, apart from the "it wasn't there, so we added it" and a proper argument for it being actually balanced. There were no prior indications of the existence of battle magic, there was no serious attempt to properly insert it _into_ the _world_ of Birthright. Rather, it was just added on top, like a topping that does not mesh well. The balancing argument has been addressed previously - it does not fit into the established D&D level scheme, and it does not fit into the realm magic scheme. As for "spell augmentation," you can look at the metamagic feats. As for justifying the idea, it hasn't been, in any way, apart from the "we just make these spells more effective because they aren't" - if you hadn't noticed, that is somewhat circular reasoning, and goes nowhere.

Comparing wizards and fighters is certainly necessary. Battle Magic isn't an "attempt at involving wizards" - it's a way to overpower the wizard versus the other classes. Wizards already have many ways to affect battles. Just because they can't destroy an army at 1st level, any more than a fighter can, does not make them uneffective. Wizards play differently at different levels. Saying that you should make wizards more effective at destroying armies at first level because they aren't, is like saying you should give wizards access to the Gate spell at first level, because they don't have it. It's not an argument in itself, and, in any case, the reasoning is not balanced at all. By following the reasoning you apply, I *should* be able to blow up a fighter's sword to 200 feet, and maybe make it a chainsaw. I *should* be able to give rogues healing magic, simply because they don't have it.

I don't think Battle-magic is a new category. I think it is just a similar concept to Meta-magic.

Yes, it is. And a very poor one at that. Metamagic has attendant cost commensurate to the effect - battle magic does not. Gold Bars, you say. Yea, like regents have any problems piling up those. Feh. Time, you say. Yea, like that's an issue when it only takes one battle card round to cast. It still seems quite exploitable outside of the battlefield, regardless of safeguards.

Like I said before, I don't mind magic affecting battles. It should just be that it should be regular magic interacting with battle cards, not the other way around - the other way around gets complicated and unbalanced quite quickly. I _do_ mind the very poor effort that was made at "battle magic" in the BoM. You can safely replace it with metamagic effects.

Green Knight

03-11-2002, 01:09 PM

Your argument boils down to this: battle magic is unbalanced. I agree. The 2ed rules were not very good. The idea of BM is, however, very interesting. All this talk of "magical thought" and "industrial thought" doesn't change that. Retain BM, but do it in a way that adresses game balance issues.

Chioran

03-11-2002, 04:54 PM

Excellent point G.K. Just because it is broken does not mean you have to ditch it. Make an attempt to repair it.

If you think your up to the task.;)

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-11-2002, 05:44 PM

I've already suggested a manner of improving the concept of battle magic, by making it a metamagic feat with rules drawn out for it. I haven't personally determined every aspect of this possible solution, I was hoping to recieve some help.

As for the rain of magic missles, magic missles are unnerring and are targetted en masse at an entire unit. The idea of magic missles falling between the targets doesn't satisfy the unnerring aspect of magic missles.

I understand that movies are exaggerated, and thus did not determine my formation information from them. Rather, a person is nearly 2 ft wide, and my other numbers were determined from a 3ft radius, giving the soldiers a mere 2 ft between them. This was to account for the arm extending outward a few inches to take an overhead swing, and possibly hold a shield. If someone is 6 inches away from my arm if I'm using a hammer, they have a good chance of getting hit. Roman Legions did carry shields, which took up even more space. Also, people don't die by being routed.

Industrial Logic: If you make more fetishes, you can affect more things with your magic. Make 2 models, destroy two castles. Make a bonfire, create a bon-flaming sphere. Give everyone a rock to represent stoneskin, cast stoneskinned unit. Logic is logic. Efficiency has no bearing on my logic. Carting large amounts of material components is hardly efficient.

Magical Logic: Creating energy has little to do with fetishes, and not all spells require material components. Effects are the results of causes, be they magical or otherwise.

Game balance is not my argument, my argument has always been justification (though I may have lost focus at some points). The Forgotten Realms wasn't designed along with the original AD&D, but there is justification for it remaining, same goes for Birthright. On a smaller scale, Aduria wasn't designed along with the original AD&D, but I sure want to see it come to fruition. Sometimes things should be added to the game. Battle magic has added flavor and an interesting magical dimension to a Warrior heavy setting. The majority of people who have voted believe it should exist (though the votes can mean various things).

I'm not trying to make anyone more powerful, I'm trying to preserve the idea and concept of Battle Magic.

Green Knight

03-11-2002, 06:11 PM

I'm working on a system for 3E battle magic. It includes the use of a Metamagic feat and a Skill. I'd be happy to share some ideas.

Mark_Aurel

03-11-2002, 07:22 PM

Industrial Logic/Magical Logic: I'm not responding to this again until you actually understand the underlying theme.

Game balance: The problem is, once you balance battle magic with the existing spells, the idea of it becomes redundant. It is better to simply adapt the existing spells to the war cards, and create a few new spells that fills niches that would suit the war card scale well.

People don't die by being routed? That isn't the point. The point is to win the battle. The battle is won once the enemy is off the field, whether through demoralization or what have you. Then, you can choose to hunt down and slay survivors if you have cavalry.

Having two feet between soldiers is a lot of space - that's a pretty loose formation. A soldier that takes an "overhead swing" is a dead man. You try to hold a shield in front of you, in general, not at your side.

As for the "rain of magic missiles" schtick. It belongs in FR. Seriously. It's a bit gimmicky for the flavor of Cerilian magic. Rather like introducing the Machine of Lum the Mad.

And, just to burst a big hole in your bubble - if the missiles of a rain of magic missiles strike unerringly, why are there rules in its description for accidentally hitting allies?

Game balance is not my argument, my argument has always been justification (though I may have lost focus at some points). The Forgotten Realms wasn't designed along with the original AD&D, but there is justification for it remaining, same goes for Birthright. On a smaller scale, Aduria wasn't designed along with the original AD&D, but I sure want to see it come to fruition. Sometimes things should be added to the game. Battle magic has added flavor and an interesting magical dimension to a Warrior heavy setting. The majority of people who have voted believe it should exist (though the votes can mean various things).

I'll try and pretend to understand what this means. Somehow, you're comparing the existence of campaign worlds to the existence of a bad game mechanic. And that is somehow a justification for ... something. Battle magic has added ... flavor. Actually, one of my main arguments all along has been precisely this - it ruins the flavor of Cerilian magic, which was quite rich and well defined in the boxed set. This is the entire _core_ of the industrial/magic logic argument.

To extend your argument logically, you are also in favor of wizards running magic item workshops. It follows the same logic as battle magic (industrial logic, applied to magic), and is equally fallacious from the point of view of the logic of magic.

I suppose, however, that someone has to be the Henry Ford of Cerilian magic.

...

Battle Magic [Metamagic]
You are skilled at blowing up your spells to epic proportions, for use on a battlefield.
Prerequisites: Enlarge Spell, Spellcraft 8 or more ranks
Benefit: This metamagic spell enables you to vastly increase the area of effect of your spells. This affects the area of effect of various spells as follows:
Target or targets/Creatures: You may multiply the number of targets by 100. If they must all be within a certain radius, this restriction is waived, as long as all victims are within range of the spell.
Burst/Cylinder/Emanation/Spread: You multiply the radius of the effect by three.
Cone: You are treated as being twice your level for purposes of a cone's range.
A Battle Magic spell takes up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell's actual level.

Does this look ok? No. It is much harder to adjudicate than that - there's a damn good reason why a metamagic effect increasing a spell's area/number of targets was _not_ found in the PHB - it is hard to find a proper way to balance it in all cases. I do believe some semi-suitable attempts were made in Tome & Blood, however.

If you want battle magic, don't try to mess with metamagic feats - they will end up broken, somehow - it's just not worth the effort. Rather, just make new spells, balanced ones.

Chioran

03-11-2002, 07:53 PM

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel
<snip>

...

</snip>
If you want battle magic, don't try to mess with metamagic feats - they will end up broken, somehow - it's just not worth the effort. Rather, just make new spells, balanced ones.

I disagree. I believe that it can be done with metamagic feats. It is simply a matter of tuning the feats through careful scenario based testing.

You can tweak pre-reqs and actual effectiveness until you have something that works well.

I think to say that "...they will end up broken, somehow..." is a bit unfair. How will they end up broken? Perhaps there is something you have overlooked in your assesment? If you provide examples of brokenness it may be possible to work out the details.

When you say "...it's just not worth the effort." who's effort are you referring to? Yours? G.K.'s? A-S.G.'s?

I believe that there is some merit to the idea and is worth pursuing.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-11-2002, 07:53 PM

Insulting my intelligence and telling me that I don't understand things without trying to reclarify yourself doesn't help you or I in any manner with regards to trying to understand each other's point of view. If you don't want to understand my point of view, then just say so.

Maybe you shouldn't try to balance Battle-Spells with normal spells, or Realm magic. They were intended to be used in battle. I've never personally seen them abused, and have seen many armies containing wizards lose, with and without superior overall forces. The idea is that warriors lead armies and wizards occasionally help, or possibly lead their own armies. According to you, balancing Battle-Magic with regular magic is impossible without redundancy. Thus I suggest the following:

------------------------------------------------
Feat - Heavy Magic

Heavy magic is a form of ritual magic that requires the use of Mebhaighl, but does not expend this power. It was originally applied primarily as battle magic, but has been recently used outside the scope of war. Effectively, Heavy Magic uses Mebhaighl to enhance spells to much larger effects. Heavy Magic is similar to Meta-Magic, in that it uses spell-slots. Unlike Meta-Magic, Heavy Magic doesn't use higher level spell slots. Instead, it takes up the spell slot it occupied for a week after it is cast. Every heavy magic spell has a true magic counterpart, because Heavy magic is merely a ritual that enhances another spell. Meta-Magic feats can be used on Heavy Magic, just as with normal spells, with the normal level adjustments.

-----------------------------------------

This is incomplete, but you get the idea. This is far easier to adjudicate and is defined as a mebhaighl enhanced version of Ritual Magic. Ritual magic is magic that requires much more everything that normal magic needs in order to produce a greater effect. This is contrary to your theory that magic cannot be enhanced by increasing its base parts, and has fantastic precedence. Battle magic does not ruin anything (when used properly), particularly the flavor of birthright. Mebhaighl exists, why can't it be used for levels between normal magic and Realm Magic, between which there is a glaring absence. How do you just decide one day to start casting really big spells, until you try the smaller big spells?

blitzmacher

03-11-2002, 11:46 PM

I like the idea of mebhaighl, and would think that you have to have a source level or ley line to be able to cast spells that you already have at a more powerful effect. Maybe a spell that would be prepared in this manner would take up 2 or more spell slots, which would make it less encouraging to use for an adventure where variety is usually better than grand lethality. My quesion would be what effect would it have on a spell like magic missiles, would it double it? Would the caster have to make a concentration check to be able to channel the mebhaighl during a battle, and if so what should the DC be?

Mark_Aurel

03-12-2002, 01:25 AM

Actually, I rather like that last idea, and had been working along similar lines, although from a different angle, for the official document's magic part - call it a sort of realm magic cantrip level (0-level realm magic).

There is a big difference between what you suggest there, and battle magic as presented in the BoM.

Now, as for the "it can't be done with metamagic feats" thing, I'll mostly stand by that. Spells have vastly different effects. If you were to extend one spell to a unit-level scale, it's easier to do it through just writing a new spell. Why that? Spells have very diversified effects - what works for some, or even most spells, can be seriously abused in other cases. This can have as much to do with the nature of a spell itself, though. The problem isn't so much with the concept of metamagic feats, as with making an effect that is equally simply adjudicated with _every_ possible effect available, and that also applies mostly equally strongly to every spell. As of the moment, I don't have the time to poke holes in the feat I posted myself, but I'm pretty sure there are some - I thought of a few as I wrote it, then forgot about them.

This is contrary to your theory that magic cannot be enhanced by increasing its base parts

Because you said so? Your thinking is still that, by piling up 100 tiny balls of bat guano and sulfur, and chanting and gesticulating for about 5 minutes instead of 3 seconds, you get a fireball that's 100 times larger? Again, that's an industrial form of logic applied to magic. You're applying a modern age mindset to it, if that clarifies the idea any.

blitzmacher

03-12-2002, 02:52 AM

If you were working on a cantrip realm magic dealing with battle spells, why not keep it as battle magic that will be going through some major remodeling? And then post your ideas and let people make comments on the changes then readjust. In the end I believe a real working and balanced system could be made that most people could agree with. Unless you were just trying to catch up with Eldred and Lawgiver in number of posts.

Mark_Aurel

03-12-2002, 03:31 AM

I guess we could post piecemeal, but I'd rather have it all be a big surprise. ;) Nothing is definite yet, in any case, as some ideas need a lot of working over, and posting something that is just at a conceptual stage to a public board could be counterproductive. That hint is not the full extent of the ideas that are drifting around, just a piece of a puzzle, or larger picture.

Just to reiterate and rephrase my viewpoints on this:

1) The system of battle magic in the BoM has many flaws, both game mechanical and philosophical ones. It is unbalanced, and I think this has been recognized by pretty much all parties involved in the discussion.

2) I like the idea of magic having an impact on the battlefield. I don't like the _system_ of battle magic.

3) Once you start to change the _system_ of battle magic, it is not battle magic is presented in the BoM anymore.

4) Coming up with a new system is mostly redundant, since the effect you want can mostly be had with existing spells.

To refer back to item #3, once you start changing the system of battle magic, you're not really defending it any more; you're trying to "fix" it, or make an entirely new system in its place. This has more merit than defending the system as is, but it can still have its flaws, depending on implementation.

Battle Magic as presented in the BoM is highly reminscient of metamagic feats in 3e. Battle magic, however, has some serious flaws in its conception - I've pointed out a lot of these already, no need to repeat them. The underlying philosophy of battle magic is essentially "spells that affect" battles, i.e. spells with large areas of effect, or many targets. Thus, a spell like fireball or cloudkill or mass invisibility is "battle magic," from a philosophical viewpoint, not a mechanical one. The main remaining bone of contention here, is that some have promoted battle magic to a sort of holy grail of game mechanics, rather than looking beyond that.

Battle magic was supposed to "modify" existing spells. The problem is in the different scales. A spell can't have no effect in one scale and a major one in another; thus, it should be statted clearly what happens to each individual character, then statted for special battlefield effects. It should primarily be balanced with the former in mind. The problem is also that such modification of spells is an individual process - there is no real guidance to its application apart from the "affects roughly 200 people or more." Thus, it is better to write entirely new, balanced spells - this is what actually was done in the BoM - than to try and jam every spell in the PHB into some shoe in which they do not all fit.

I consider the core of my argument won, however, since even the most ardent proponents of battle magic are working on new ways to implement such a system, rather than defending the system from the BoM. AD&D 1e and 2e players were taught to meddle a great deal with rules, because of the incompleteness of those editions. 3e is far more complete in most regards, and should, by rights, require less meddling.

And I have never, ever said that magic should not be useful in battle. I've always wanted it to be. I don't think there is any need for a separate "battle magic" layer, however, since the effects can be covered by making new, regular spells, or having regular spells already cover most of the effects possible. See the war cards labeled 94-100 for the original thought on "battle magic."

The system of battle magic, as stated in the BoM was clearly filler - and a mistake from the viewpoint of the core BR designers, even. I couldn't find the old BR chat transcripts at WoTC, but I believe Rich Baker has stated an intention to simply ignore battle magic if he was to do a new version of BR. That is not from an accurate source, however, but I am still reasonably convinced of its veracity. There is a reason for my conviction of that, but I don't feel I can reveal it all, since it is on a restricted board. This is all tangential to the discussion, and shouldn't be considered an argument, though.

And, if I were to try to catch up with Eldred and Lawgiver in post counts, I'd make far shorter posts.

Green Knight

03-12-2002, 10:45 AM

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

I consider the core of my argument won, however, since even the most ardent proponents of battle magic are working on new ways to implement such a system, rather than defending the system from the BoM. AD&D 1e and 2e players were taught to meddle a great deal with rules, because of the incompleteness of those editions. 3e is far more complete in most regards, and should, by rights, require less meddling.

This is a quite...strong...statement. With several people clearly disagreeing with you and proposing several ways to make BM work, I would say that your statement is far from true. I, for one, would like to continue this debate. You, however, seem very intent of closing it down.

And one more thing, BM spells are different from regular spells in that they have very long casting times, require components and assistants etc. They are more like ritual magic than normal spellcasting. So, philosophically, it would fit in quite nicely between spells and realm magic.

Green Knight

03-12-2002, 10:49 AM

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

3) Once you start to change the _system_ of battle magic, it is not battle magic is presented in the BoM anymore.

....

To refer back to item #3, once you start changing the system of battle magic, you're not really defending it any more; you're trying to "fix" it, or make an entirely new system in its place. This has more merit than defending the system as is, but it can still have its flaws, depending on implementation.

This isn't a valid argument. I though what we were doing was helping improve the system through the transition to 3E. Then battle isn't the same, bloodlines aren't the same etc. once you tweak/convert it to 3E?

Mark_Aurel

03-12-2002, 10:55 AM

proposing several ways to make BM work

Bingo. You aren't defending battle magic anymore, you are working on new systems, that you _call_ battle magic.

I've never said that magic shouldn't have an impact on the battlefield. I've said that the system in the BoM was quite unbalanced, and most seem to have conceded that point, and gone to work on something else.

There is a niche for ritual magic. Realm magic is a kind of ritual magic. Ritual magic on a smaller scale is generally seen to deal with subtle effects, not flashy ones - i.e. no rain of magic missiles, but rather Summon the Devil. Ritual magic, however, is a quite different discussion from battle magic.

I would say that your statement is far from true. I, for one, would like to continue this debate. You, however, seem very intent of closing it down.

Then bring some new arguments to the table. Try and prove that battle magic as presented in the BoM works - in particular with 3e. And don't try to twist things around - either you support battle magic from the BoM and BoP, or you do not. You can work to "fix" it, but then there really is no point to the debate - that would be a debate about your house rules, which I am certainly not about to enter - unless you seek feedback on a proposal, which I am generally happy to give.

Green Knight

03-12-2002, 11:01 AM

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

Then bring some new arguments to the table. Try and prove that battle magic as presented in the BoM works - in particular with 3e. And don't try to twist things around - either you support battle magic from the BoM and BoP, or you do not. You can work to "fix" it, but then there really is no point to the debate - that would be a debate about your house rules, which I am certainly not about to enter - unless you seek feedback on a proposal, which I am generally happy to give.

I'm a bit confused. "Try and prove that battle magic as presented..." Well, how much can I do before it isn't "true" BM anymore but becomes "house rules"? Can I require the use of a feat, skill rolls or can I write up new battle spell descriptions?

I think the problem is this: you don't like BM, I do. Thus, you're not going to waste time trying to come up with a system that is recognizable BM yet balanced. I'm willing to try. I am certain though, that while recognizable, the system will not be exactly the same. If that disqualifies my effort, then you are indeed right that you have won the core argument.

Mark_Aurel

03-12-2002, 11:02 AM

This isn't a valid argument. I though what we were doing was helping improve the system through the transition to 3E. Then battle isn't the same, bloodlines aren't the same etc. once you tweak/convert it to 3E?

Mechanically, no. Just like, say initiative rules changed. Or the proficiencies turning into skills and feats. The underlying concept, yes. If you didn't notice, the entire debate has been about battle magic from the BoM, not whether magic should be useful on a battlefield.

The debate would be rather pointless if we did not debate from some mutual ground. Once you try and retroactively redefine that ground, or change what is being debated into something else, there is no point.

You could start a new debate, if you wanted to, on battle-related magic.

Green Knight

03-12-2002, 11:12 AM

I had noticed.

The concept of BoM battle spells is something like this:
1. Standard spells can be turned into a battle spell variant
2. Battle spells are costly in terms of material components
3. Battle spells require assistants to cast
4. Battle spells require 1+ battle round to cast (whoever long that is, but certainly quite a few minutes).
5. Battle spells have quite limited duration and range, but are capable of targeting a whole unit (this is most a weak attempt at balance I think)
6. Battle spells can be modified by using research

As long as I stay within this framework, I see no problems. Feats may be required, perhaps some skill rolls, limitations on who can be assistants etc. New, 3E spell conversions will need to be done. Only #6 should be thrown out completely. If you convert a 3E spell to BM, it stayrs that way. If you want longer range, more target etc. take another spell (or make one) and convert it. That way spell levels stay reasonable.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-12-2002, 03:24 PM

I knew we weren't thinking that differently. As I said earlier, we were attempting to justify the existence of a level of magic between Realm spells and Normal spells, we'll call it Battle Magic.

Through the course of this argument, we've been given every flaw of the original Battle Magic and have sculpted our ideas of exactly what we would like to see, but we have defended the existence of 'Battle Magic' as we envisioned it in our minds.

The concept of 0-level realm spells is interesting, however, Realm Spells have no levels. I believe that we have been arguing to keep something that has the theme of Battle Magic without converting it to Realm or Normal magic. These spells would have to be balanced against the other forms of magic, but it wouldn't be the same issue as it was before.

I'm starting to grow fond of the idea of 'Battle Magic' actually expanding into a form of ritual that uses Mebhaighl to a far lesser extent than Realm magic. I would also like to see this type of magic develop further to be used outside of battle, an option that was feared when the old system of battle magic was in place.

Regardless of what we may have been arguing at various points in this argument, the spirit of our argument has been to retain a concept, not so much the system. The cries of unbalanced did not fall on deaf ears. However, it has come to a point where both sides realize that they want similar things and that the argument has become parallel view points. This is good.

Now, I never said that 100 little balls of bat guano make a fireball bigger (or meant anything similar). It is true that magic and industry are far different. However, having assistants help with a ritual and using stronger (amounts, expense, etc.) material components, as well as other aspects of ritual magic (casting time) can possibly make a fireball 100 times larger. The extra magical energy provided by the assistants, materials, act of ritual, etc. can enhance magic in ways that aren't covered by the normal rules (they are covered in a much stronger fashion in some 3rd party rules). This is a fantasy world, and disbelief must be suspended from time to time, lest you start living there.

I should start posting shorter, so that I can catch up with Lord Eldred and Lawgiver.

Mark_Aurel

03-12-2002, 04:10 PM

The entire point is, that's a different spell then. It's simply easier that way, than trying to come up with a separate system.

One of the first 3e Dragon issues had an article on the creation of feats. It contained a little gem of a rule, the rule behind much of the design of 3e, so to speak:

"Do you need a feat for this, or can it already be done with the existing rules? Squeeze as much as possible from the rules you have before you make a new rule."
Dragon #275, page 38, "How to design a feat," by Jonathan Tweet and Sean K Reynolds

This is a guideline that does not just apply to feats, but can be easily extended across all aspects of the game. Why write up a "silent walk" skill when you have move silently? Why make a "lightning ball" when you can simply use fireball and say it causes electricity damage instead? Why write up a whole new monster when you can just use a reasonably similar existing one, modify it a tiny bit and change its appearance? (Templates are a great idea, btw, because they multiply the number of possible monsters. For instance, no more need for a separate "vampiric illithid," since you can just apply the vampire template to the mind flayer).

There was a lot of redundant design like this in previous editions - especially on the monster side. Of course, splatbooks and filler like that sell like mad with some.

The point is, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There really is no need for a separate system for "battle magic" - as in, "create a system of standard modifications to apply to spells" - a spell template, if you will. The problem with creating a very generic system to accomplish anything, is that it may prove greatly unbalancing in specific given situations. The elegance of most of the existing metamagic feats is that they are simple to adjudicate. I think they deliberately steered away from a feat that would extend area of effect/number of targets, however, due to the difficulties inherent in balancing it with every possible combination and spell, yet keeping it relatively simple to apply.

What I assume you may be looking for though, would be to try and sneak in some system whereby 1st-level wizards could cast spells with large areas of effect that cause massive damage, relatively speaking, to low-level enemies. I might add that that violates the level-based logic of the game.

There are a few benchmarks against which you can measure your ideas. Wizards generally first get large area of effect spells at fifth level. In Birthright, regent wizards got specific access to the Mass Destruction spell at third level. That took a month of casting and cost a bunch of RP and GB. Any "battle magic" would have to be balanced against those benchmarks. This means that 1st-level wizards duking it out to armies is off-limits. 3rd-levels _might_ get some effects, if they are significantly weak enough. At 5th level, it might start making sense. Also, think about EL. A 1st-level Warrior has a CR of 1/2. That means that two 1st-level warriors should equal a wizard; such a fight should be ugly. A 1st-level wizard should be hopelessly overwhelmed by 200 warriors. Now, at what EL do we place a war card unit? I'm not sure. It would depend somewhat on its nature, but I'd think somewhere around 10 or more might be fair, depending on character class. A wizard or sorcerer could potentially wipe them out with a few spells. A cleric or druid might do the same. A fighter of about 10th-12th level or higher could probably take them on, if he's decently equipped. For a rogue, it would boil down entirely to magical gear. A 1st-level wizard does not slay an army, however, regardless of rituals or assistants or other faux hindrances.

A separate _system_ for battle magic is simply redundant, because it wouldn't add anything to the game that you couldn't do with ordinary spells - at the ordinary levels you get those spells. To achieve the battle magic effects outlined in the BoM, simply make new spells, and put them at their proper level. A stoneskinned unit might give a DR of 5/+1 and be gone after negating 10 points of damage. That could be reasonable for a ... 7th level spell, maybe, and would have a significant impact - maybe ignore next two hits, +1 to defense.

Another reason for redundancy is that a lot of people actually don't use the war cards, which the battle magic system sort of assumes. Adjudicating such effects in a different system would be difficult as well.

Like I've said - magic should have an impact on the battlefield - there's just no need for an intermediary level, when the effect can be achieved by using the existing spell system. Unless the specific effect you are looking for is to make _low level wizards_ into arny killers.

Green Knight

03-12-2002, 06:49 PM

I think I can sum this up:

1. Magic should be useful on the battlefield
2. We are not talking about realm magic
3. There is two ways of doing this, each with it's own unique strenghts and brawbacks.

A) Use regular spells, but one's that affect units.
B) Use BM spells.

I think both ways could work.
For A) you simply make spells with somewhat larger durations/areas/casting times ect. They are still normal spells though. This is very neat, except most spells will be too high a level to ever come into play. Mass Charm is of a somewhat higher level that Charm Unit.
For B) you also have just spells, only you call the ritual spells or whatever. They also haev long casting times etc. Very similar to A. Only difference is that spell level stays the same.

Both alternatives have their balance issues - but the CAN be worked out. Seems it's only a matter of liking the idea of a separate set of ritual spells or not.

I like BM and will work with that concept. Others feel that regular spells will do the trick. Both will work. Both will be BR.

blitzmacher

03-13-2002, 12:54 AM

Battle magic, is magic that is effective in battle. No matter what type of spell it is. I cannot possibly see how anyone could place any of the realm spells in this catagory, because you can't quite cast a realm spell in battle although they might have been useful a month prior to the battle. What we have left now are conventional spells, and exactly how do they affect a battle? I think it is a little absurd that an infantry unit would be routed by a fireball, taken damage yes, but routed. Perhaps there should be some sort of moral save.
This thread was about keeping BM, not changing it. I think everyone agrees a change is needed, as has been said. I do not know how Aurel can say that a seperate system for BM is redundant, after all remaking it and calling a cantrip realm spell is the same thing lets just call it what it is.
I don't believe the idea of keep BM is to have a godlike first level wizard capable of destroying armies, but I do believe that should a wizard use his blood power and the mebhaigl available to them through their source holdings be able to enhance their spells to be able to cause a hit or two against their enemies.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-13-2002, 06:54 AM

The normal rules for balancing can not apply for Battle Magic. Individual Spells should not be balanced against individual spells of other types. Rather, Battle Magic should be balanced in that the system lies between Realm and Normal Magic.

This world is different than the standard D&D world. The thought that there are big sources of Mebhaighl that have only one use is depressing. It makes sense that there exists another scale of spells. Realm spells take very long rituals, Normal spells take relatively short rituals, and this middle section would include 'medium length' rituals. A new system (or fixed system) seems to be what is neccesary to implement this. Current Area spells are ill-suited to mass combat situations. I'm not sure on the area or range of Circle of Death, but it can't be that high, other spells are similarly useless. Many spells would become utterly useless if given the level increase you suggest to increase their effect.

Mark_Aurel

03-13-2002, 08:43 AM

The normal rules for balancing can not apply for Battle Magic. Individual Spells should not be balanced against individual spells of other types.

Then what should they be balanced against? Not at all?

Rather, Battle Magic should be balanced in that the system lies between Realm and Normal Magic.

Why? You've conceded that battle magic is unbalanced, yet now you persist in trying to fix it - essentially taking the path of most resistance to achieving your goal.

This world is different than the standard D&D world.

And?

The thought that there are big sources of Mebhaighl that have only one use is depressing.

It's depressing that most things have limited applications? Swords have pretty limited applications. The magic missile spell has a pretty limited application. Sources have a pretty big range of applications, since realm magic can be used for so many things. You are thinking in mechanical terms rather than in-game terms. That's generally the wrong way to approach this.

It makes sense that there exists another scale of spells.

Even the gods don't get another scale of spells.

Realm spells take very long rituals, Normal spells take relatively short rituals, and this middle section would include 'medium length' rituals.

So, by your logic, spells such as Analyze Dweomer, Awaken and Clone are battle magic spells?

A new system (or fixed system) seems to be what is neccesary to implement this.

Why do you need a new system to differentiate casting times? Should liveoak and polymorph any object be part of different "systems?" One takes 10 minutes, the other 1 action. You don't need a whole new system to implement differentiated casting times.

Current Area spells are ill-suited to mass combat situations.

Why? Don't they cause damage? Are you ignoring the guidelines from war cards #94-100?

I'm not sure on the area or range of Circle of Death, but it can't be that high, other spells are similarly useless.

Circle of Death - Medium Ranger (100' + 10' per level; that is, 210' minimum), 50' radius effect, a _much_ larger area than a fireball. Circle of Death is the 3e equivalent of Death Spell, which according to war card #100 caused an R effect - i.e. one hit, and a substantial morale effect. I'd hardly call that useless, even though it's not the ICBM you may be looking for.

Many spells would become utterly useless if given the level increase you suggest to increase their effect.

Why? They certainly wouldn't be useless to wizards that are capable of casting them, would they?

Please define "useless."

Lord Eldred

03-14-2002, 01:44 AM

Orginally posted by Green Knight

I think I can sum this up:

1. Magic should be useful on the battlefield
2. We are not talking about realm magic
3. There is two ways of doing this, each with it's own unique strenghts and brawbacks.

A) Use regular spells, but one's that affect units.
B) Use BM spells.

I think both ways could work.
For A) you simply make spells with somewhat larger durations/areas/casting times ect. They are still normal spells though. This is very neat, except most spells will be too high a level to ever come into play. Mass Charm is of a somewhat higher level that Charm Unit.
For B) you also have just spells, only you call the ritual spells or whatever. They also haev long casting times etc. Very similar to A. Only difference is that spell level stays the same.

Both alternatives have their balance issues - but the CAN be worked out. Seems it's only a matter of liking the idea of a separate set of ritual spells or not.

I like BM and will work with that concept. Others feel that regular spells will do the trick. Both will work. Both will be BR.

I think based on Mark's last arguments both options you mentioned are wrong. A wizard shouldn't be able to cast Charm Unit when he is unable to cast Mass Charm. It doesn't make sense. Why are you trying to allow a wizard to cast massive spells at lower levels? Or why would Mass Charm take longer to cast on the Battle Field in option B. I just don't get it. Keep Battle Magic as the spells that have an effect on a large group (mass charm) and don't have special battle magic spells. If a wizard wanted to develop a Charm Unit spell that had as one of its components a piece of land from a current battlefield and the DM wants to assign an appropriate level to the spell, then let it happen but don't create a whole new field of magic for it. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (Not intended to offend anyone just a popular motto in my parts)

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-14-2002, 07:31 AM

It is my goal to create as many fields of magic as possible. I'm a wizard (the most common character I play).

When I mentioned the range of use on Mebhaighl, I was considering Mebhaighl an energy source. Most energy sources have extremely large numbers of uses. Muscle derived kinetic energy has an innumerable amount of possible uses. According to your statement, of course singular things have limited usage. Stating that the magic missle spell and swords have limited ranges, then stating that realm spells have broad applications is misleading. They do have broad applications, just like tools and normal spells, only if you keep them generalized. Alchemy is just as limited as Magic missle or Long Sword.

If I took the path of least resistance for everything, I would be a puddle. I want a middle level of magic. I want it balanced, and I want it acceptable to most people (particularly those I'm arguing against). My goal can not be achieved by simply using regular spells, because I can already do that. I want a different dimension, to be used on a larger scale (not neccesarily a battlefield, mind you). I don't want wizards to be overpowered, as you may believe, rather, I would like them to have an aspect that isn't in other settings. Realm magic is one such aspect, however, the more the merrier. The more unique Birthright is, the happier I am.

The argument that you shouldn't get the spells that would be these rituals until you could normally create such effects is a little odd. Considering that realm magic is far larger than even the greatest archmagi can create, within the rules, I wonder why it becomes so important to limit other applications of spells that are larger than normally available. Realm Spells have great cost (Regency, GBs, Sources, etc.) and casting times (and caster levels) as their only drawbacks for being available. Why then is it impossible to imagine something smaller, but generated in a similar manner?

The useless I refer to in my previous post should have rather said nearly useless or something of that ilk. Since spellcasters are lower levels in Birthright than in most campaigns, it is essential for spellcasters of lower levels to be able to participate in war. If wizards can not participate in war effectively, even lower level ones, then they can not protect their interests. At this point, it just becomes too expensive fore even the highest level wizards to maintain an effective defense for their own realms. The smaller, often temporary, armies that wizards usually have of their own would be rendered nearly ineffective without some sort of arcane assistance. Low level mages would have no chance. Higher level mages would have a slightly higher chance, but they have only a limited amount of the higher level spells they would need. Thus, most mages would be incapable of maintaining what little independence that they can currently achieve. This is why current area spells are ill-suited to mass-combat and I used the term useless. Not useless to those who can use them, but useless to those who can't (a phase all wizards must face at some point).

Even the Gods don't get another scale of spells? They have the ability to will things into existence. Sounds like they don't need another scale of spells.

I generally think of rituals being more complex. Perhaps clone (and whatnot) should be considered a Ritual type spell if a ritual system ever comes into being. However, I 'STILL' think that battle magic is magic used in battle. For the last few posts I have been arguing for a generic system of magic that I have been calling ritual magic. This is because I see that a level of magic such as this can have more applications than just battles. This just happens to be a system where rituals can be done in shorter times to have effects on the battlefield or longer times to increase the power of the ritual (off the battlefield). I still see normal spells having their place in battle. If I remember correctly, I also think that the war cards 94-100 gave more power to spells than is normally generated by casting those spells.

Green Knight

03-14-2002, 10:16 PM

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

I think based on Mark's last arguments both options you mentioned are wrong. A wizard shouldn't be able to cast Charm Unit when he is unable to cast Mass Charm. It doesn't make sense. Why are you trying to allow a wizard to cast massive spells at lower levels? Or why would Mass Charm take longer to cast on the Battle Field in option B. I just don't get it. Keep Battle Magic as the spells that have an effect on a large group (mass charm) and don't have special battle magic spells. If a wizard wanted to develop a Charm Unit spell that had as one of its components a piece of land from a current battlefield and the DM wants to assign an appropriate level to the spell, then let it happen but don't create a whole new field of magic for it. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (Not intended to offend anyone just a popular motto in my parts)

You have it all wrong.

A) is what Mark wants. Regular spells. If you need spells that affect units, either find some existing spell or make up a new one. The balancing factor will be the level of the spells.

B) is what I want. Battle spells. Spells that primarily affect units. The balancing factor will BE SOMETHING ELSE THAN LEVELS. I can't see why this is so hard to understand.

Balancing by A) is the EASIEST and stays closely within the framework of 3E.
Balancing B) is perhaps more difficult and require the invention of something new, but it can be done.

It is NOT the intention to give low-lever spellcasters MORE power. Option B) will ALSO have to address BALANCE issues.

Do I make myself clear? And no offense intended :)

Lord Eldred

03-16-2002, 12:51 PM

You made yourself clear as to what you want and what Mark wants. What I am saying is your option seems pointless. Existing spells cover it. Why would their be a special category of spells that only work on the battlefield? That I don't get. Now I could see a category of spells that are designed for the battlefield but could theoretically work off the battlefield. However, I think these spells should be researched and developed like regular spells are researched and developed and balanced by setting them at the appropriate caster level.

Do I make myself clear? ;)

Green Knight

03-16-2002, 03:01 PM

You make youself clear ;)

The reason: So that low-level casters can use spells that affect a battle. Using level balanced regular spells won't work. Thus, you use battle spells.

Example:

The esteemed Rogr Aglondier, the worst wizard of the South Coast is level 5. Stumbling across a battle, he readies his devastating array of spells...but wait, he has no spells that could even possibly begin to harm even a broken unit of goblin irregulars.

Later that year, he decides to research a battle spell: the Rain of Magic missiles. It is a powerful spell, but there are many drawback to it as well:

The DM requires (for instance):

1. Cast Ritual Magic Feat: Allows the use of ritual magic, including battle spells (the DM can expand on this, introducing many wonderful types of ritual magic). Requires one other metamagic feat.

2. Ritual Casting Skill: 4 ranks. All battle spells require a skill check vs. 15+spell level (or something)

3. That the caster be blooded and able to use true magic.

4. Casting time of 1 battle action. Range 2 squares. Target: 1 unit. Effect: Does 1 hit of damage.

5. Requires material components worth 1 GB. Requires 3 apprentices to help with casting.

So, the next time Rogr is in a battle, provided he has his materials and apprentices, might be able to inflict a few hit or do something other useful on the battlefield.

Of the field, he is a bit worse of cuz' his DM says used spell slots are unavailable for 1 week. He's also wasted a feat, skill points and a lot of gold.

So battle magic might offer a new dimension to spellcasting. Its not redundant, its different. Wheter you think it can be balanced is another issue though.

Mark_Aurel

03-16-2002, 08:10 PM

Example:

Arron Vaumel has just landed in Anuire, to conquer Ilien. Stumbling across a battle, he readies his devastating array of roguish skills ... but wait, he has no skills that could even possibly begin to harm even a broken unit of levies.

So, he goes back to the drawing table, home in Mieres. He comes up with the Really Big Mean-looking Dagger.

The Really Big Mean-looking Dagger allows Vaumel to flank an entire unit, allowing him to use his sneak attack on a vast quantity of victims at once. In order to balance the Really Big Mean-looking Dagger, we'll require

1. A feat - Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Really Big Mean-looking Dagger).

2. Balance skill - 4 ranks (gotta use something, right?)

3. That the caster be able to wield a dagger in the first place anyway.

4. Can only be swung once per battle action, in melee. Vaumel must have people help him wield it.

5. Requires a counterweight worth 1 GB.

...

A 5th-level wizard has fireball. That would Rout a unit of Goblin Skirmishers (R result). Rogr, by the book, is 3rd level.

Green Knight

03-16-2002, 08:25 PM

By the book...by the book there IS battle magic ;) I suppose ol' Rogr finally learned some magic...

The example was pretty lame, but the argument is not: If you think that magic can't be balanced except by assigning levels (you obviously think it can't) - by all means stop battle magic.

I do wonder though, why is realm magic allowed. Certainly it is FAR more unbalancing than battle magic - or does this only have to do with domain balance, not battle?

Seriously, I still think there is room for battle magic. It's an interesting concept. There are pitfalls of course, but I think I can avoid most of those. I'll continue my work on battle magic - I'll just have to archive it with the rest of my house rules :P

Now, I think I have said about all I have to say about this particular matter. What I'd like to do, however, is to discuss how to use regular spells in battle - casting times, ranges in squares and so on. Perhaps that should be moved to a new thread.

Mark, as the no1 regualr spell only champion, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this (others are of course welcome too). Not out of malice, but genuine interest.

blitzmacher

03-16-2002, 09:47 PM

Arron Vaumel has just landed in Anuire, to conquer Ilien. Stumbling across a battle, he readies his devastating array of roguish skills ... but wait, he has no skills that could even possibly begin to harm even a broken unit of levies.
So, he goes back to the drawing table, home in Mieres. He then does some good guild investments and with his profits raises and army and conquers.
A wizard must find tools a little more atuned to him.

Lord Eldred

03-16-2002, 09:48 PM

I still tend to agree with Mark here. Why do we have to give Rogr an advantage in battle. Perhaps the answer for Rogr is to get more experience so that he can get up in levels so that he is able to cast the spells that will have an effect on the battle field.

I am not arguing "Battle Magic" doesn't exist but I am saying that "Battle Magic" is a subcategory of spells under regular spells and realm spells not a whole class of spells on its own.

Mark_Aurel

03-16-2002, 11:15 PM

By the book...by the book there IS battle magic I suppose ol' Rogr finally learned some magic...

The plan, according to Rich Baker in some chat session, was actually to dump it in the revised edition. That's not official, but it's pretty much the opinion of the "father" of BR.

Why realm magic and not battle magic?

Realm magic has some flavor - it was in the setting from the very start, and it fits in. Realm magic is more akin to a wizard channeling the power of the land than his own power.

Battle magic is cheesy as it stands in the BoM - it actually detracts from the flavor that magic has in the setting, rather than add to it.

Regular spells in battle? I'd keep it simple - range would be one square for medium or long range spells, spellcasters can cast one spell per battle card round. That should account for getting into position, avoiding gettting shot at, maybe getting some defensive spells up, moving about, and so on.

blitzmacher

03-17-2002, 02:31 AM

Realm magic is more akin to a wizard channeling the power of the land than his own power.
What happens when a wizard uses this power to enhance their non-realm spells?
Maybe we shouldn't call it Battle Magic, instead call it Mebhaighl enhanced spells.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-17-2002, 02:47 AM

Most of the people who have voted (in both polls) obviously believe (the concept of) Battle Magic has a place in Birthright. Not just spells that affect battle, but a separate tier of magic. The opinion of the "father" of Birthright is possibly a transient thing. Had someone suggested other methods, it is possible that he could take a fancy to any other idea. This includes ideas that are far less desirable (to you and me) than the ones we have been suggesting of late.

That said, its not prudent to compare the physical methodology with the magical one (by your own ideas). In Reality, somebody carrying a big dagger is just as impossible as magic. However, in Fantasy, magic has capabilities that are unparalleled by physical methods. Having a third tier (ritual style) of magical usage is only as silly as having a second (realm style). In fact, since this is fantasy, there could be arguments for infinite different methodologies of magic. Each would have to be justified by the setting, naturally.

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

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

Mebhaighl source assisted ritual magic has the potential to more strongly define the magic in Birthright. This concept has the ability to reinforce realm magic's place in the setting as well as strengthen its definition. Realm spells have their high powered effects justified because the wizard uses the power he gains from sources, regency, materials (GBs), and casting time. A lesser form of ritual magic could be justified in the same manner, just using less amounts of the above.

Also, according to your arguments, giving medium and long range spells a range of 1 unit is unacceptable. This creates separate adjudications of spells, which could be interpreted as a separate system. Also, not letting spellcasters cast more than one spell per battle card round violates other rules in 3E (in d20, a round is X amount of time, in that time a person can do X amount of actions, spellcasting is an action. This actions duration is based upon the casting time of the spell. Only one spell can be cast per d20 round.), how do you justify this?

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

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

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

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

Without some form of more powerful magic besides realm spells, wizards are ineffective regents. A wizard could never make it past low levels without the support of a local regent with an army (or land themselves). Examine this:

The benefits of holdings by type -

Province -
Taxes
Military and Levies
Regency

Law -
Claims
Military
Regency
Loyalty

Temple -
Realm Magic
Collections
Military
Regency

Guild -
Trade Routes
Profit (Collections)
Military
Regency

Source -
Realm Magic
Regency

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

I've come to one conclusion:

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

Therefore, we must begin to worry about how to allow wizards the ability to protect themselves, rather than take what little ability they have away.

blitzmacher

03-17-2002, 05:03 AM

Good post Gargamel.
I had just thought of a consentration DC for casting a spell during the chaos of battle, DC 10 + spell's level. I was going to make it harder but their are also bodygaurds trying to protect the wizard at the same time.

Lord Eldred

03-17-2002, 01:22 PM

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

Most of the people who have voted (in both polls) obviously believe (the concept of) Battle Magic has a place in Birthright. Not just spells that affect battle, but a separate tier of magic.

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

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

That said, its not prudent to compare the physical methodology with the magical one (by your own ideas). In Reality, somebody carrying a big dagger is just as impossible as magic. However, in Fantasy, magic has capabilities that are unparalleled by physical methods. Having a third tier (ritual style) of magical usage is only as silly as having a second (realm style). In fact, since this is fantasy, there could be arguments for infinite different methodologies of magic. Each would have to be justified by the setting, naturally.

Here I think you misunderstand the argument being made. Just because the Wizard at low levels can't affect the battle doesn't mean that they should, must or deserve to! The argument on the big dagger is that thieves don't have any great ability to affect a battle, if wizards deserve extras to affect the battle why don't thieves and what would that look like?

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

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

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

Mebhaighl source assisted ritual magic has the potential to more strongly define the magic in Birthright. This concept has the ability to reinforce realm magic's place in the setting as well as strengthen its definition. Realm spells have their high powered effects justified because the wizard uses the power he gains from sources, regency, materials (GBs), and casting time. A lesser form of ritual magic could be justified in the same manner, just using less amounts of the above.

Here I would have to agree with you. Everyone should be able to adapt the rules to their own campaign world. So if it didn't exist in the original box set it can still be added.

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

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

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

Also, according to your arguments, giving medium and long range spells a range of 1 unit is unacceptable. This creates separate adjudications of spells, which could be interpreted as a separate system. Also, not letting spellcasters cast more than one spell per battle card round violates other rules in 3E (in d20, a round is X amount of time, in that time a person can do X amount of actions, spellcasting is an action. This actions duration is based upon the casting time of the spell. Only one spell can be cast per d20 round.), how do you justify this?

These all serve as a simplification to the system. Just as the Battle Card system is a simplification of battle. Really in battle one side wouldn't get to move and then the other. Armies move whenever they feel the need. However, the rule is created to simplify. Also the armies themselves are restricted to moving in battle squares rather than their actually movement rate.

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

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

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

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

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

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

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

A couple problems with your logic.

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

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

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

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

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

I've come to one conclusion:

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

Therefore, we must begin to worry about how to allow wizards the ability to protect themselves, rather than take what little ability they have away.

A Wizard would not be able to keep power with out any other types of holdings thus if he wants to keep power get other holding types. We don't have to give them special magic. For example Rogr owns the Law holdings in Ilien. He can tax everyone else. He can get the gold to stay powerful.

I love wizards! They are in no danger of going extinct as long as they don't only rely on magic to stay alive. They must use political moves and have holdings. Otherwise they don't have to be a province ruler. They can be a regent with just source holdings. They rarely have to fight an army alone. They would have help from the province ruler.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-18-2002, 06:07 AM

I do see divided opinions. Even among those who agree with me, I'm sure some of our views differentiate at certain points. However, there are a couple of things I must clarify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not seeing any balance.

Mark_Aurel

03-19-2002, 08:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

That's a rather silly extrapolation. You're muddying up your arguments again; on the one hand, you have admitted that the "battle magic" of BoM wasn't all that good and then work to "improve" on it in various ways, trying to compromise, make it more edible, whatever - then you talk about the "official" version again. Next, there's the issue of quality control. Some BR products have been rather weak. Blood enemies, for instance, made no mention of the Gorgon's wizard levels. It _did_ make mention of psionics, though. Just because it is in an "official" product, does not mean it fits in with the rest - that's the consequence of using many designers who don't all agree or even understand what they are writing for. The BoM contained some good stuff, but also a lot of filler. Carradalaigh and Battle Magic are the most distinguishable filler parts.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-19-2002, 10:35 PM

Okay, maybe I have confused my arguments a bit. Its pretty obvious. So I'm starting over, somewhat fresh, but more informed than I started last time. (The wish and miracle spells have no bearing on this argument, just in case it comes up).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I apologize if anything I've said appears to have been a personal assault. I occasionally start some of my replies while partially (or fully) inebriated. I've rarely been inclined to edit my posts, even the less well thought-out ones. I'm gonna keep trying, though...

blitzmacher

03-19-2002, 11:45 PM

Mark_Aurel

03-23-2002, 04:15 PM

I thought that revising birthright into 3e was being done to make things that weren't done well or unbalancing into something that is balanced and runs smooth. Isn't that why bloodline strength and bloodtheft been changed into 3e in an attempt to make it run smoother. Oh how the wind does change its directions.

We make changes where necessary and avoid unnecessary changes. The goal is to simplify and make things more playable, and also to put the focus more on characters, less on domains.

Gargamel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still think I'm fighting for a cause worth fighting for.

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

I feel that I was kind of mean singling out you and Lawgiver as the d20 team, but I have only heard your two arguments from the said team.

Of course there are disagreements. We vote on them, and try to present a united front in public - when it comes to defending what we have made. As nothing of that is public as of yet, our opinions are still pretty much our own.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel

03-23-2002, 10:33 PM

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

Now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark_Aurel

03-23-2002, 11:27 PM

Ah, here we are at the crux of what I have been arguing before - applying technological thinking to magic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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