Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6093318" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 309: July 2003part 6/9Unleash arcane armageddon: After seeing quite a few spells nerfed in scope and duration in this edition change, it's quite pleasing that they immediately bring back mass combat magic a la Birthright. War Spells are only slightly higher level than their normal equivalent, but they have substantially higher costs and casting times, and in return have their scope multiplied by a good few orders of magnitude. That means you won't be able to cast them in the middle of a round-by-round combat without guards, but you might well be able to use one to short-circuit an entire encounter if you get the drop on an enemy. We get 21 examples, most of them based upon a specific spell. Unsurprisingly, the direct damage dealing ones are the least impressive, being a mere doubling of effect radius, while the tactical buffs like mass magical weapons or blur are considerably more magnified in their impact. And even mass undead animation can't compete with the hordes you could raise in previous editions. Which means this is still written with an eye for game balance, and making sure the spellcasters are boosts to armies, not complete replacements. You won't be rivalling what 2e spellcasters with the Tome of Magic could do any time soon. That means that while this is a good article on it's own merits, it still makes me a little sad for the magic of old, and feel that something has been lost since then. I guess it fits with many actual settings where elder wizards had lost spells that you can't match now. Oh well, that's the price you pay for a little more game balance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(un)reason, post: 6093318, member: 27780"] [B][U]Dragon Issue 309: July 2003[/U][/B] part 6/9 Unleash arcane armageddon: After seeing quite a few spells nerfed in scope and duration in this edition change, it's quite pleasing that they immediately bring back mass combat magic a la Birthright. War Spells are only slightly higher level than their normal equivalent, but they have substantially higher costs and casting times, and in return have their scope multiplied by a good few orders of magnitude. That means you won't be able to cast them in the middle of a round-by-round combat without guards, but you might well be able to use one to short-circuit an entire encounter if you get the drop on an enemy. We get 21 examples, most of them based upon a specific spell. Unsurprisingly, the direct damage dealing ones are the least impressive, being a mere doubling of effect radius, while the tactical buffs like mass magical weapons or blur are considerably more magnified in their impact. And even mass undead animation can't compete with the hordes you could raise in previous editions. Which means this is still written with an eye for game balance, and making sure the spellcasters are boosts to armies, not complete replacements. You won't be rivalling what 2e spellcasters with the Tome of Magic could do any time soon. That means that while this is a good article on it's own merits, it still makes me a little sad for the magic of old, and feel that something has been lost since then. I guess it fits with many actual settings where elder wizards had lost spells that you can't match now. Oh well, that's the price you pay for a little more game balance. [/QUOTE]

Verification