Woo HooO!!! made a Poll I did!! 
Not sure why it didn’t work the first time, but oh well.
Magic is a lost art and quie rare in my campaign. I promote clerics over mages. Battle magic can to easily sway combat.
You might as well just have a wizard duel and get it overwith. No moral regent would send his troops like lambs to the slaughter against a mage without a mage of his own. And since you now have two mages leading the fight… why sacrafice the ground pounders?
There are a limited number of wizards in the world. Thus not every army can have one. If there is one you better have a group that can reach the wizard and kill it and keep it busy with the different troops you have brought along with you. WHo knows maybe one of your archer troops can bring the wizard down with a volley of arrows. This is made even more possible if the wizard chooses to confront the army on his/her own.
Archers take out a wizard… must be a sorry wizard.
Look with so many people shooting arrows at just the wizard it is bound the a significant number will hit and since wizards tend to have a low number of H.P. they should stand a decent chance of killing even a significant level wizard assuming the wizard doesn’t wipe them out first with a battle spell!
You’ve never hear of wall of wind or other spells to make arrows pointless…
or guards with shields… Check the romans. Form a tight cube around the mage and loose at the alast second to cast the spell. You could have a lackey apprentice give the command to drop the shields.
Thanks for making my point Lawgiver! I have been arguing that you should not send a wizard out alone against an army that it is important that you have the army to provide cover for the wizard. If the wizard has an army and you do not than the odds are looking against you. Unless you are able to get to the wizard with your troops but as you point out it will be difficult.
Even the makers of Birthright for the PC place wizards in the midst of army units. To me it only makes sense.
A true wizard wouldnt have any trouble stopping a barrage of arrows, a simple spell called shield will stop all normal missiles, but i would never send out a wizard alone to battle an army, all the wizard needs is a protective barrier in front of him to prevent anyone from physically getting to him so he can sit back and cast devastating spells unless of course theirs another wizard against him, the protective barrier could be an army or a castle etc…
The only problem I see with battle magic is people ignoring the componients. Some of these spells can get very expensive.
A regent wanting a Mage Lt. in my camapaign generally pays a hefty salary or some other compensation. This should more than make up for the used spell components.
Funny you should mention castles Lord Shaene…didn’t your armies get crushed by a wizard name Xerath from a castle tower? I know I read that some place
Now who’s the one doing the mocking? [staring at Eldred]
I voted other because I was never able to access the book with battle magic in it, so I wasn’t sure whether or not I liked it, though it seems like it could be useful converted to battlesystem (somehow) or chainmail.
I do have experience from the Birthright PC game.
(Smiles, almost laughing) Lord Shaene and I are old friends, Lawgiver, couldn’t you tell that from the tone of my voice? (winks at Lawgiver)
Indeed, Eldred [nodding] I was merely making my point!
Point well made
personnally wizards would rarely show themselves especaily in battle. the shield spell does not make ione immune from arrows. secondly since it is wisely known that a wizard could wipe out an army, there would evolve wizard killers. just as the pike and longbow evolve to take out knights, commandos of wizard killers would take out wizards. they would be in high demand. if a wizard made himself vulverable by being seen he increases his chance of being snuffed. this is a logical progression in the evolution of warfare. one question what exactly is this poll asking.
Wouldn’t the best wizard killers just be more wizards? Wizards tend to have ways of staying alive. Wizards should be rare in battle, but since battles are so common, wizards might as well profit from them as well. The idea of wizard-killing commandos sounds right, historically, but what would make them effective? My best guess would be priestly support, whom I don’t believe should have battle magic.
A shield spell may not stop arrows, but a protection from normal missles does a good job.
Spell resistant commandos come to mind as being powerful against wizards.
I am interested in why Gargamel thinks priests should not have battle magic. I am going to make a new thread for this subject if anyone cares to participate.