Oh yes! You are so right. I would much rather be across the battlefield from a fighter with a sword than a wizard with a fireball.
Do you mean a fighter with a sword, or a fighter with hundreds of sellswords?
I would rather be across the field from the fighter and his army than the wizard and his/
Orginally posted by blitzmacher
What? Do you really believe that a wizard cannot generate the money needed to assemble an amry? The fact of the matter is that Wizards donât want to lead the armies.
Speculation?
Not speculation at all my friend, Look at the majority of wizards involved in wars. They are usually working from behind the scenes. They let the soldiers do the soldiering and when the dying is done they reap the rewards.
Maybe Iâm overly simplistic (and Iâm sure I will find many to agree to that statement), but I believe that two seperate things (Battle Magic & Battle Spells) have been discussed (in both threads).
My thoughts⌠Battle Magic is a subset of Realm Magic, they are Realm Magic spells to be used in Battle - by blooded Wizards. Battle Spells are higher level versions of the orginals affecting a wider area, and can be cast be wizards of the appropriate level for the spell.
Now, to answer the poll question - do they belong, should they remain. I believe that there is a place for both in Birthright, but do agree that some sort of restrictions need to be in place for them.
Also, I think the biggest reason that the game becomes unbalanced with high level wizards (in 3rd ed) is due to how much faster they are able to advance in levels vs all previous editions. What used to take 250,000xp now only takes 45,000. The spells / level table remained basically the same, and the spells have not been significantly modified either. Personally, I couldnât wait to play a Wizard after I read the 3rd edition rules.
My thoughts⌠Battle Magic is a subset of Realm Magic, they are Realm Magic spells to be used in Battle - by blooded Wizards. Battle Spells are higher level versions of the orginals affecting a wider area, and can be cast be wizards of the appropriate level for the spell.
Nonsense. Read the BoM, page 97, the flavor text introduction to the battle spells chapter - âfrom the writings of Audric the Seerâ. It specifically mentions a magician, and it specifically mentions modifying normal spells for the purpose - nothing about it involving sources and whatnot.
3e Wizards are better balanced than earlier editions - in earlier editions, wizards were far too weak to be worth playing; now, they actually have some firepower, even at 1st level. On higher levels, their spells are powerful, certainly - but other classes have gained in ability, relatively speaking, as well. The fact that you now get a full 20 HD benefits fighter-types greatly; the introduction of feats also mainly benefits non-spellcaster classes.
Your right Chioran, a wizard is usually behind the scenes casting spells to help the army that he is usually part of because he was hired by another regent for that purpose.
Why did he accept the job? Could it be that his source holdings donât seem to generate enough GBâs to help in spell research let alone to be able to raise an army of their own.
Your right Chioran, a wizard is usually behind the scenes casting spells to help the army that he is usually part of because he was hired by another regent for that purpose.
Why did he accept the job? Could it be that his source holdings donât seem to generate enough GBâs to help in spell research let alone to be able to raise an army of their own.
While I will admit that Wizards donât generate the same level of income as a Rogue regent or Warrior regent, they do generate enough to build armies.
However this brings up an interesting point, for which I will start a new thread.
Iâm confused by how wizards were weak before? Too weak to be worth playing? Wow. Thatâs a profound statement. Never had a problem with em.
Now, they may be more balanced (maybe), though Iâm not quite sure how. However, as regents, they are weaker than everyone else. It may be difficult, in some campaigns, to assault a source regent, but it really doesnât take a whole lot to shut him down.
How does a pure source wizard have money to rule armies? Iâd imagine that what little GBs he gets (by stealing or gifts or whatever) would probably go to raising his source levels or creating new ones (both of which cost GBs for some stupid reason). Diplomacy also costs money. About the only thing wizards can do is adventure. Depressing, if you ask me.
Try playing a 1st-level wizard by the book in 2e. You get to cast one spell - after that, itâs down to your trusty olâ staff or dagger. Granted, Sleep was very powerful at 1st level, but it was still a one-shot affair. Oh, and you had to earn more experience than any other class to go up a level as well - even though, in practice, you were the weakest character. In practice, itâd really take a miracle to reach 2nd level for a 2e wizard - theyâd have 6 hit points at most; a single lucky hit could bring them down, and with the experience rules in 2e, it took forever to make 2nd level.
Thereâs a very good reason why 3e wizards got:
-Cantrips
-Bonus spells for intelligence
-Scribe Scroll for free
-Ability to summon a familiar
-Ability to use more weapons and even armor
All that at 1st level. 2e wizards were shafted at 1st level. If you never had a problem with them, it must either
The Alchemy spell can be used to raise a good sum of GB to be able to afford other actions. However, thatâs not the point of playing a wizard - the point of being a source regent isnât to be massively involved in ânormalâ politics. Itâs to cast realm spells - thatâs really all that sources let you do, by themselves.
But you canât cast most Realm spells unless you have higher source levels than zero. Even zero level sources are difficult to create without money.
The point of playing a wizard is to play an intelligent problem solving character, not always a spellslinger. Wizards I play tend to cast very few spells. Its not how many spells you cast, its how effective the ones you cast are. A wizard that wants to stay alive will often prepare himself to stay alive, even when alone and his party slain. Actually, any intelligent character will have ways of doing this. Having a wizard around is often just as much for his problem solving skills as his spells (or should be). Yes, it is difficult to play a wizard. No, it didnât take a miracle to make it to second and succeeding levels.
Any character can be intelligent and problem-solving. Any character can also be a dumb brute. How you play the part does not matter one iota when it comes to class balance.
It didnât necessarily take a miracle to get to 2nd level, that is granted. However, the wizard would still be the character with least overall power for quite some levels. It was a rather poor way of balancing things; make a class weak at lower levels to compensate for greater power at higher levels. Since that makes you less likely to get to those levels, and most campaigns never made it that far, it doesnât work out well.
Iâm pleased to see that you think in terms of casting spells for greatest efficiency, though - that must mean that you really agree that huge effects arenât really needed for 1st-level wizards. The intelligent 1st-level wizard can still make a difference, of course. Cast a charm person on the right unit leader, say, or a minor image at the right moment, or a true strike to shoot someone with a crossbow from a great distance. Nothing earth-shattering, of course, but it can make a difference, even on a battlefield, although only sufficient unto the wizardâs level.
Wizards pretty much sucked the first few levels in 2e; in 3e, they have been fixed so that they are tolerable to play, and intelligence actually matters a lot for them on lower levels.
