This went wrong. Is it impossible to edit a poll?
The choices should be:
Retained as is.
Retained and modified.
Retained but changed altogether.
Removed because normal spells and realm spells cover the subject.
Removed becuase it is unbalancing.
Removed for some other reason.
Should be retained w/modifications.
a) Only blooded characters can use battle magic
B) You have to take a “Cast Ritual Spell” feat or something similar.
c) Casting a BM spell uses up that slot for a week.
I think that Battle magic is covered by realm spells and area spells by definition of Battle magic. The idea that there are just spells that can only be used on the field of battle just doesn’t make any sense to me!
To that I agree! If there is to be any “battle magic” it must be usable both on and of a “battlefield”. Otherwise, it just gets silly. The BR rules actually mention this problem - where can use use battle spells.
Finally an enlightened soul to talk to!!! Down with specialized battle magic!
I don’t think that “battle” spells per say are something that shoud fall in its own class. To me they should be a realm spell or a standard spell with an area of effect. The only problem is that so many of the preists spels are incedibly limited in contrast to wizard spells. A single fireball can do catastrophic damage to large masses due to its area of effect. The best a cleric can do with a thrid level heal spell is heal a singe person 3d8+1 per level. It has always seemed to be a bit of an unfair match up. A wizard can wreak far more destruction then a cleric of the same level can bring good. The problem isn’t that preists should or shouldn’t have “battle” spells its that the basic fabric of preists is FAR to limited in their original D&D design. I’m all for expanding the power of preists and making them a force to be reckoned with! While preists should be largely the healers and peace bringers of the land. They should have the power to dispense justice and retribution of their deity. What sense does it make to have a god of war who can’t fight or injure his opponents? Ah well… enough ranting.
The fact that clerics are limited bring balance in Birthright. There are a lot more clerics than there are wizards. Wizards get greater spells but I would take a cleric any day in a battle over a wizard because they are more balanced in and of themselves.
Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
The fact that clerics are limited bring balance in Birthright. There are a lot more clerics than there are wizards. Wizards get greater spells but I would take a cleric any day in a battle over a wizard because they are more balanced in and of themselves.
I’m of the opinion that clerics should be seperated into two classes like Wizards and magicians. The majority of clerics are more like church leaders who don’t weild massive amounts of divine power. Only the elite or blooded would then have access to standard clerical powers and spells.
Would they then wield more powerful magic?
[b]Orginally posted by Lawgiver
I'm of the opinion that clerics should be seperated into two classes like Wizards and magicians. The majority of clerics are more like church leaders who don't weild massive amounts of divine power. Only the elite or blooded would then have access to standard clerical powers and spells.[/b]
YES, there is another… I fully agree with Lawgiver. A class called priests should be created the is more like a divine magician (in terms of spell power at least).
I fully support the idea of separating the priesthood, in the nature of Wizards and Magicians.
If you look at the descriptions of Battle-specific spells, they have many annoying requirements that are meant to justify the low level they are at.
Material components can cost around 1-2 GBs, you often need assistants to spread material components through the unit for beneficial spells, and they all have incredibly long casting times (measured in Battle Rounds or something). I don’t believe that they should be uncastable outside of battle, I just believe that they are unwieldy outside of battle.
[b]Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
If you look at the descriptions of Battle-specific spells, they have many annoying requirements that are meant to justify the low level they are at.Material components can cost around 1-2 GBs, you often need assistants to spread material components through the unit for beneficial spells, and they all have incredibly long casting times (measured in Battle Rounds or something). I don’t believe that they should be uncastable outside of battle, I just believe that they are unwieldy outside of battle.[/b]
If, however, one were to cast Battle Magic outside of battle, does it not then cease to be battle magic?
Okay, I believe it is called Battle magic because that is the best time to use it.
I am of the school that battle magic should removed. With some creative use of regular spells, a wizard can already be incredibly useful on the battle field as is.
Battle magic also infringes upon realm magic - some realm magic spells become nigh useless with battle magic around. I always felt realm magic added flavor, whereas battle magic falls more into the 2e category of filler, or, more specifically, “filler we put in this book so you can pump up your character and make him more powerful and really make you want to buy this book.”
I don’t have any issue with the balance between clerics and wizards. Sure, a wizard can take stuff apart faster than clerics can fix it, but that’s just a general rule - it’s easier to break something than make something. I think it’s called entropy, and has to do with the second rule of thermodynamics. Or something. I could go on about this, actually. How clerics are the most powerful class in the system as is - they get a lot of spells. They get a lot of USEFUL spells in their domains. They get good hit points, good saving throws, good fighting ability. Wizards get none of that. A wizard without spells is like a fish on land. A cleric without spells is still a decent combatant. While I might think knocking clerics down a peg or two in general might be a good idea, that’s just me. I think they’re fairly well balanced. They both become relatively more powerful than the other classes in Birthright. If anything, it’s fighters and rogues that need a little extra. Which, incidentally, they get.
So it’s all good.
Most battle spells that are similar to realm spells have a far lesser duration and power. That’s like saying that charm person infringes upon mass charm because they both charm people.
While it may be true that higher level wizards can already be quite effective on the battle field, most wizards don’t make it that far. Thus battle magic is a way of involving all wizards in combat that doesn’t give them too much power for the cost. Also, not all wizards want to waste high-level spell slots on attack spells, many wizards prefer to use indirect spells, none of which can affect an entire unit (unless they move around in tight 40’ diameter balls, or 10x10 cubes).
Also, there aren’t very many wizards that exist, thus most combat is done without magical support anyway.
As for battle-magic being cast outside of battle, why do you need to cast these kinds of spells outside of battle? If you cast them, you are usually in some sort of battle, where taking the long time to cast them has been determined to be neccesary to acquire the effect that you want. I guess you could put on some good pyrotechnics outside of battle for a big celebration, if you wanted.
Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
Would they then wield more powerful magic?
Yes, that would be the idea. Much like the comparision of magicians and true Wizards. Both have access to magic one just gains greater power.
Once again I have to lend my support to Mark’s arguments!
As for the argument that they don’t stand in tight 40’ diameter circles, I would have to disagree. Battlefield fighting is very close quarters. A fireball would wipe out a significant part of a unit and thus justify a hit, the ensuing chaos from people jumping away from the blast would add damage and the few that survive but are lit on fire spread fire. Not to mention smoke inhalation damage to people who are in the area. I would compare it to a catapult slinging flaming death but instead it came from a wizard.
Ok, for a lengthier treatise upon this, see the other thread.
Most battle spells that are similar to realm spells have a far lesser duration and power. That’s like saying that charm person infringes upon mass charm because they both charm people.
No, it isn’t. The effects of the one is significantly stronger, and you don’t get it until you are much, much higher in level. In this case, the cost in terms of time and resources for casting a subversion or mass destruction is far higher than for casting a battle spell that accomplishes a similar purpose, and the net effect may end up the same.
While it may be true that higher level wizards can already be quite effective on the battle field, most wizards don’t make it that far. Thus battle magic is a way of involving all wizards in combat that doesn’t give them too much power for the cost.
So the argument here is, just because someone is not of a high enough level to cast a given spell, we’ll simply give him a lower level version of that spell? Since a 1st-level spellcaster can’t teleport, we’ll make teleport a first-level spell?
Also, not all wizards want to waste high-level spell slots on attack spells, many wizards prefer to use indirect spells, none of which can affect an entire unit (unless they move around in tight 40’ diameter balls, or 10x10 cubes).
It’s called “prioritizing,” not “wasting.” If you want to cast a spell, you’ll have to choose it over another. You don’t get it essentially for free just because you don’t want to face a tough choice. There are many indirect spells that can be hideously effective. Not every spell can be useful in every situation. If you happened to have prepared a cone of cold when what you really need is a teleport, or vice versa, then, well, tough luck. And military units do move in formation, you know. Often pretty tight formations.
Also, there aren’t very many wizards that exist, thus most combat is done without magical support anyway.
So then, why all this hassle about wanting special rules for those very few wizards?
As for battle-magic being cast outside of battle, why do you need to cast these kinds of spells outside of battle? If you cast them, you are usually in some sort of battle, where taking the long time to cast them has been determined to be neccesary to acquire the effect that you want. I guess you could put on some good pyrotechnics outside of battle for a big celebration, if you wanted.
Ummm. Because you can? I mean, isn’t that why wizards use spells in the first place? They use the best available tools for the job. It’s a pity they don’t always have the right tools, though. But a clever wizard makes do with what he has. Now. If you assume the existence of battle magic and such - it should be part of any wizard’s dungeon crawl repertoire. How about a battle spell version of summon monster? It’s in the book. Lots of cheap cannon fodder to keep the enemy busy, and no experience penalty (summoned monsters don’t have any effect on that, very clearly stated). You could cast this prior to a given encounter, and use it to clean house pretty fast. Why not a battle spell version of burning hands? Oh wait. That’s called a fireball. There are many ways the battle magic system can be broken by “creative” players, despite the attempts to prevent this in the BoM.
Want battle magic? Take a look at the War Magic cards - cards #94-100 in the Birthright box. These show how to adjudicate the effects of ordinary spells on a battlefield. There are a lot of spells there that causes significant battlefield effects. Your DM is quite unreasonable if he does not apply those effects. Adding another category of magic is just redundant cheese; especially so in a 3e environment.
I happen to believe your posts ARE redundant cheese. You don’t like battle magic so you won’t be producing it in the 3e version. Fine, I will still use it in my own campaign, and that can’t be stopped.