Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel
What do you mean? There is no material component cost for a rain of magic missiles spell. Read the spell description. BoM page 102. Notice how the reference you are likely thinking of, on page 99, does not apply to that particular spell.
A wand of magic missiles wand would cost a third of what a wand of fireballs would. The assistants would only be required for helping create the wand.
Yes, I am refering to page 99, and yes RoMM does not have a cost. Yet, if you read page 99 carefully, you find that the INTENT is for all spells (including RoMM) to have a 1-4 GB cost.
What does that mean? That means that the BM system as described in the BoM sucks. Never claimed it didn’t. Its full of holes and the whole thing is clearely broken (but not unfixable 
).
As for the assistants - there are really no rules for creating BM magic items are there? You just decided they only have to be present at the crafting, just to difficult with me 
No, the description of the item creation feats clearly indicates this. Case in point - one does not need to have the material components to use a wand, nor be able to perform the exact somatic and verbal components, or expend experience. It follows logically from this, that a wand, as a spell completion item, would only require the assistants at item creation.
Why would there have to be separate rules for battle magic item creation? Battle magic spells are spells, just like other spells - it is clearly indicated that they are just modified versions of regular spells. Now, an item based on realm magic might be different.
Thanks, by the way - I think you’ve helped us find the biggest potential exploit of all - wands of rain of magic missiles. Since it is a spell completion item, a wizard should logically be able to use it every regular combat round. At 50 rounds per war card round, a wizard could expend every charge in the wand, and destroy practically any army of 25 war card units or less, before they even get to strike (as per the war card rules). It would require a 5th level wizard only 2250 gp, or 1 GB and some change, to be able to demolish the army of Avanil, pretty much on his own. Of course, he might accomplish a similar effect with a wand of fireballs, but at least that’s more expensive. Gee. Fun with numbers.
Ah, it’s always difficult when you’re applying a 3E concept (item creation) with a 2E concept (BM). Still, I like the thought of soul-forging those apprentices into the wand . Still, it would be a 50GB (at least) wand if one were to agree that RoMM should have had a material component cost (item creation does require you to pay for “expensive” matierials). Then again, it would allow you to wipe of Avan’s army before it even started moving - you have of course increased the range of RoMM, haven’t you 
The problem is, that even if you cancel BM, the wizard can STILL take his wand of fireballs to the party. Maybe some regular spells needs a bit o’ fixin’
Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
You conceded!?? Woo Hoo! He conceded! My day is complete Although I am not quite sure what he conceded to!!!
I realize that you don’t want to concede the arguments here but…
I think the argument depends on the definition of Battle Magic. If Battle Magic are all the spells be them arcane or realm that have an effect on whole units then I think that Battle Magic should live on. If your argument is that there should be a group of spells that only work on the Battle field, I would have to disagree.
There is no need for special battle magic. All the spells that currently have an area effect big enough to cause damage to/or otherwise alter a unit is Battle magic. If a wizard wants to have a bigger impact on the battlefield they could research and develop a spell. That spell wouldn’t just work on the battlefield although it may only be practical to use on the battlefield. In short Battle magic is just another way to catagorize magic into Battle and non-battle magic.
There is no NEED for any magic, however, it exists. On the other thread, I’ve changed my stance from Battle Magic, to some form of Mebhaighl Ritual Magic, which just happens to be used often on the battle field. This is a proposition of a precursor to realm magic. Realm magic is essentially just a really long Ritual. Shorter rituals most likely came first.
I may not have said it, but I concede that Priests should be able use Battle Magic as it was presented in 2E (BoM). I still agree that regular spells should be able to be used in battle, but there should just happen to exist longer rituals that aren’t normal spells, yet aren’t quite Realm spells. However, Priests would require a different source of magic from Mebhaighl. In 2E, there existed cooperative magic and faith castings (though they weren’t well described) that should probably still exist, as well.
Battle Magic really never interfered with Realm magic, previously. Subversion, Legion of the Dead, and Summoning were similar to Battle counterparts, yet they had durations that could not even be close to being duplicated on the field, as well as being better in general. The Battle versions of these spells were far weaker and meant to be used in a pinch.
Wands of Fireballs and Rain of Magic Missles, eh? Need to pick me up some of those…
If you want a spell to be ritualistic, just give it a longer casting time and appropriate components. Not all spells have a casting time of 1 action - many have 10 minute casting times, just to use an example. Elemental Swarm is an example of a spell with ritualistic flavor. There are certainly other, but I’m too lazy to dig up more examples.
Just make ordinary spells and use that one as a guideline.
In BR terms, you might create a very powerful Elemental unit with that spell - Defense 8, Attack 5, hits 3, move 2, never fails morale, never falls back, earth elementals have +1 defense, water elementals can cross rivers and, fire elementals have have +1 attack, and air elementals fly and thus ignore terrain benefits.
Something along those lines. Just take ordinary spells that are appropriate and show how they’d be useful in battle. Or create new ones, as normal spells, then show how they’re used in battle.
About the only problem with your approach is the spell levels, which are going to be high. That’s the way regular spells are balanced
BM gives low-level spellcasters the ability to cast important spells. Some balacing messures needs to be taken, other than increasing level. Some ideas:
- Requires skill checks
- Requires the knowledge of 1 or more feats
- Requires access to sources/ley lines
- Component costs
- Apprentices needed
- XP cost
- RP cost
etc
etc
Point is it CAN be balanced. I have a system that I feel work.
So your goal is to give low-level wizards big area effect spells?
-
- should be high; would require levels as well
-
- should have requirements; would require levels as well
-
-
- not a big issue for regents
-
- not a big issue for regents
-
- this could be a good balancing mechanic
-
Well, I suppose a big area is part of it, yes.
As I said in my previous post, there are two ways of balancing magic spells:
Increase the spell level.
or
Add in some other balancing factors.
The first solution would be best except for ONE thing:
There are very few spellcasters who would ever be able to cast these spells - even an enlarged Mass Charm wouldn’t quite affect a whole unit. So unless BR is home to a lot of 30+ wizards, magic is going to see some very limited use on the battlefield (except for wands of fireballs of course ).
Meteor Swarms aren’t exactly common in any campaign world.
Birthright is home to an unusually low number of wizards and sorcerers. That is part of what makes magic special in the setting - spellcasters are special.
In all of the published products, most wizards were around 5th-10th level or so; there are some on higher levels, and maybe approximately the same number at lower levels. Rogr Aglondier is the lowest-level wizard I can think of right now, at 3rd level.
The fact that a spell would be rare because it is hard to access due to level does not make a good argument for making up a justification for lowering its level. The spell simply is rare, and that is part of its coolness. If every two-bit wizard can access basically any effect they want to, you break down the level system, and you make magic less special (more common), subtracting from the flavor of Cerilia somewhat.
5th to 10th level. Yes exactly, thats the main problem. Not much they can do to affect the outcome of a battle. A fireball or two, that’s all.
I’m just proposing that we give them some way of affecting battles. I’m not interested in turning them into super-spellcasters with no limitations.
The question is why do lower level wizards DESERVE the ability to have an effect on battle?
Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?
Hey Mark , let me suggest something that may provide the same satisfaction as arguing the battle magic point further (since you have completely and totally decimated all arguments to battle magic system, yet they continue to resist with pointless and feeble defenses).
Take a peice of chalk and draw a 6 inch circle on the wall about eye level. Bang your head against it repeatedly until you are over taken with euphoria.
Orginally posted by blitzmacher
Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?
Blitz, this in no way is the same as what Eldred said. A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do. We are talking about the efforts of 1 person versus those of hundreds.
How has he decimated all arguments? Maybe I’m Helen Keller, but the arguments against “Battle Magic” have been:
- There is no justification for a separate tier of magic.
- It doesn’t fit the flavor of Birthright.
- It isn’t balanced.
- Its redundant.
- Its silly.
- I (we) don’t like it.
- Somebody was gonna remove it anyway.
- Your (mine and other supporters, actually) view is inferior to mine.
REBUTTALs that have been used:
-
It is justified. The idea was created and presented to the players of the game. The players may have not liked the balance in the concept, but they seem to like the concept itself. Also, it can be justified mechanically and by the concept of story. Mechanically, wizards have few ways to defend their domains. This form of magic can help serve to supply wizards with some small semblance of security. With regard to the story and setting, realm spells are spells that take really long periods of time to cast. These spells also consume large amounts of other resources and utilize extremely large amounts of mebhaighl. It is concievable that wizards have developed a system of magic that uses much more mebhaighl than regular spells and far less than realm spells. These spells also consume larger amounts of resources and time than normal spells. This is the same idea behind realm magic, only on a smaller scale. Thus, if you say that this is not justified, then you also say that Realm Magic is not justified.
-
We argue that it does fit the flavor. This is an opinion statement, thus it is not a good argument. On the concept of general birthright flavor, things along the lines of psionics does not fit the flavor and things along the lines of traditional medieval-magical fantasy fit the flavor of birthright if they conform to the culture(s) they supposedly originate from, or if they can conform to an ambiguous “feel” of the setting. You can say that wizards using sources of extra mebhaighl to enhance their spells without increasing their [spells] “level” does not conform to the feel of the setting; then, I’ll just laugh at you and point to realm spells.
-
It can be balanced (just like anything else), and we’re even willing to be the ones who will do the work. Removal is a cop-out and is a weak method of handling imbalance of pre-existing game concepts. (regardless of when it came into existence).
-
So is realm magic, if you use the basis in that argument; or it isn’t redundant, on the same grounds that realm magic isn’t redundant. Pick one.
-
The original system can be considered silly and doesn’t take many things into account. However, this is no reason to remove a concept (which isn’t the silly part) from the game. Instead, there is a thing known amongst the masses as compromise. If something isn’t balanced, create something or have something created that is balanced. Don’t throw things away just because you don’t like them. Only throw away things that have no value whatsoever (if you come back saying that this has no value whatsoever, you obviously haven’t taken a word I’ve said into account and should just stop reading right here. Otherwise, continue).
-
We do like it. We being a part of the people who are going to be playing the game. I have no clue what the actual majority of the people who will use this conversion feel about “battle magic.” I do know that some people have argued for it and others against it. If you throw out everything just because you don’t like it (or don’t like the “imbalance” it creates, or don’t like wizards, or whatever you don’t like about something) then you will lose things that many (possibly most) others find important to their game.
-
Even if it was going to be removed, there could have been plans to redesign and fix it. There could have been other plans that weren’t mentioned that you might not like, such as the idea that Elves were going to begin worshiping Haelyn en masse, or something else that doesn’t make some people happy. Just because you heard through the grapevine that somebody was going to make a change, doesn’t say much of anything. Rumors are transient and plans can change or be modified.
-
This is the worst part of the opposing argument. It hasn’t so much as been stated as loudly implied with the tone of the arguments. There are a lot of opinions floating around, as well as a lot of really good and really terrible ideas. Talking down at people should really be frowned upon. Some of us are trying really hard to convince people, who seem to find no positives in our arguments, that there exists this game concept that should be preserved because of its uniqueness. Then there are others who are trying to convince these people that this game concept has absolutely zero value whatsoever. Both sides apparently have a lot of emotion. I know it can be difficult, but emotion should not be splattered all over the other people. Instead, your emotion should only drive you to try harder.
I’m asking this small, simple favor. If you are indeed writing rulebooks, include some form of what we’ve been calling “Battle Magic” and balance it to the best of your ability. This inclusion should be warranted by the fact that there are a lot of people who may want to still use it. You are writing a conversion, not re-creating a setting. Convert what is already part of the system. I know there are people who will not use these rules, and will just ignore them. That’s fine. However, it is difficult for many people to create their own game rules and balance them. I’ve spent a lot of time creating new rules and fixing existing ones. It takes a lot more work than should be put into a game, but it can really help out. There will be many people who will thank you for this inclusion, because it saves them time and hassle (just like all ‘officially’ sanctioned rules do). And, finally, you can take joy in the fact that people are using rules that, for what they are, are balanced by someone who knows what they’re doing (instead of some of the shotty crap that people post on a lot of internet sites all the time).
I also find it somewhat depressing that only two of the “Birthright d20 Team” members have voiced their opinion on this matter, and both seem to have the same opinion. It is commonly known that differing opinions create the best results. Compromise.
1 & 2. Now you are mixing things up here; you are tying the fact that battle magic doesn’t have an in-world justification to your own idea that battle magic should use mebhaigl light, thus muddling up the argument; one is a fact, based on the 2e books, the other is your suggestion. The only “justification” that was ever offered was that wizards couldn’t do it, and thus they should be able to do it.
-
It’s called the path of least resistance; if it can be done using the existing rules, there’s no point in making up new rules.
-
Again, you are actually trying to argue as if your own ideas on battle magic are the facts presented in the BoM.
-
The “concept” isn’t removed; wizards will always be able to affect large battles, with spells such as fireball, cloudkill, etc.
-
That’s not an argument of any sort. Fact is, many of the battle magic spells seemed quite fit in flavor to a setting like FR - big, cheesy effects. Rain of magic missiles is the main culprit, of course, but there are others as well.
-
I’m not going to discuss that much further, as that would require divulging private correspondence - I tried finding the public sources stating the same, but they’ve been removed.
-
Oh, I get it. You are just a player, while the people that are arguing against you are mostly DMs. Relax, it’s natural to feel that way about the argument, then. It really does sound like you are arguing for the wrong reasons, though.
I’m asking this small, simple favor. If you are indeed writing rulebooks, include some form of what we’ve been calling “Battle Magic” and balance it to the best of your ability. This inclusion should be warranted by the fact that there are a lot of people who may want to still use it. You are writing a conversion, not re-creating a setting. Convert what is already part of the system.
No one has said anything about re-creating the setting. We’re not allowed to that, anyway, even if we were crazy and wanted to do it. Don’t confuse the rules with the campaign world - they are quite different. Birthright the world can be rendered in many different types of rules systems; I once did a quick conversion to Alternity, for instance. We are not converting a system; we are writing a set of 3e rules for BR. If it isn’t strictly needed, I see no reason to include it - there are more important things that require far more attention.
I also find it somewhat depressing that only two of the “Birthright d20 Team” members have voiced their opinion on this matter, and both seem to have the same opinion. It is commonly known that differing opinions create the best results. Compromise.
I’m mostly expressing my own opinion here; nothing on this is official or finalized as of yet. The developers have disagreements, and sometimes quite strong ones; these are all found on the developer boards.
You might’ve been pleased to see some of the ideas that has been discussed on wizards, or you might not be - only time will tell.
Why do first level fighters DESERVE to lead armies into battle?
First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.
First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.
Yes, but all other classes can do this without having to choose the right domain, why? Because they can generate the money to assemble armies.
A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do.
You are quite right, a fighter leading armies is much more dangerous then a wizard with a couple spells.
Orginally posted by blitzmacher
First level wizards can lead armies, too, if they rule the right kind of domain.
Yes, but all other classes can do this without having to choose the right domain, why? Because they can generate the money to assemble armies.
What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards don’t want to lead the armies. This would put them in harms way. They will manipulate others into doing it for them. Then they will sit back and reap the rewards. Keep in mind that wizards are by far the more intelligent of the classes and they use this to their advantage.
Orginally posted by blitzmacher
A fighter leading armies to battle is not going to affect the outcome of a battle in the same way a wizard with battle magic will do.
You are quite right, a fighter leading armies is much more dangerous then a wizard with a couple spells.
Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball.
Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball.
Do you mean a fighter with a sword, or a fighter with hundreds of sellswords?
What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards don’t want to lead the armies.
Speculation?