Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 3636585" data-attributes="member: 18832">I think there's a simple justification: magic isn't gunpowder.Historically, the introduction of large cannons led very quickly to the introduction of smaller firearms. However, that's because gunpowder and other chemical explosives is scaleable in a way that magic isn't.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A wand of magic missile costs 750 gp.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Eighteen light crossbows with 50 bolts each costs only 720 gp.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A wand of magic missile requires either an arcane spellcaster or someone with a decent Use Magic Device check; the DC is 20, after all, so you'd need a 4th-level character with Use Magic Device as a class skill and Skill Focus to make the check 50% of the time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A 1st-level warrior can use a light crossbow with no special training or feat investment, and you can equip eighteen of them for less than the cost of a single wand.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A wand of magic missile hits every time for 2-5 damage.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A light crossbow has a good chance of missing, but I'm confident that eighteen shots doing 1-8 damage if they hit will compete over time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A wand of magic missile, once its 50 charges are expended, costs a full 750 gp to replace.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A light crossbow, once its 50 bolts have been fired, costs only 5 gp to resupply with another 50 bolts - 90 gp to resupply all eighteen crossbows.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the soldier carrying a wand of magic missile is killed, the wand is out of commission.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If a soldier carrying a light crossbow is killed, there's still seventeen other crossbows in play.</li> </ul>There's no provision in the rules for something cheaper than, but as effective as, a wand of magic missile - it would be unbalanced.Conversely, a magical replacement for a cannon makes sense, and I think they would definitely exist - the investment of a well-trained artificer or spellcaster to operate a weapon with an area of effect or a siege weapon-level impact on the battle becomes justified at that point.The reason a magical artillery piece like that is a reasonable investment compared to a spellcaster is that the crew can be replaced if they're killed or injured - it's easier to put a new artificer behind an arcane ballista than it is to replace a sorcerer or battle mage who can cast fireball.</blockquote>

Verification