Warfare in a Fantasy Setting...

[Mithric Gunn]

In the real world, we have used everything from sticks to nukes as weapons. We have created armoured tanks and agile fighter jets. We have used chariots and oar-powered ships capable of spewing fire at the enemy. A knights armor, a city wall, a modern soldier's body armor. We study our enemies for weaknesses, send spies to figure out his strengths and position. We have developed all these ways to fight a war, and generally whoever out-thinks and out-plans and out-guns the other, wins.

That being said, my question is this:

In a fantasy setting, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?

Be creative, think outside the box.
Assuming a D&D type world might come in handy, but don't rely on in game stats. I'm more looking for concept than mechanic.
(This is prompted by my plans to run a heavy military campaign. I've given it alot of thought, but want other views. I'm sure the GitP forums can come up with some pretty devilish ideas for this.)\

Edit: Lets state for guidlines that:
-Assume standard Pathfinder/DnD spells, classes, monsters, etc.
-Assume a more standard caster to non-caster ration, as in most DnD settings(Golarion or Forgotten Realms, for instance). And wizards would require longer training, say 10 years or more, and require a decent intellect to master the basics.
-Multiple powers, mostly N or LN, but some stretching across most other alignments. How would this effect combat? Are there inherent advantages to certain alignments?

[Lord Raziere]

Depends a lot on whats available.

I mean, if you merely allow mages/wizards into battle….what kind of mages are you talking about? are they healing mages? blasting mages? summoners?
shielders? supporters that enhance the soldiers around them? communications/transportation/spies/assassins? magic can be used in a variety of ways that would revolutionize warfare, if even a handful of spells are introduced, tactics would rapidly start changing.

then you have to consider that a lot of creatures and such are bigger than humanity, and a single giant could probably break a siege by single-handedly knocking down the wall of a keep. then used after the battle, to rebuild it.

just saying "warfare in a fantasy setting" is kinda broad really. fantasy covers a lot of concepts, and any one of them could change warfare in scary ways if used. you might want to narrow it down a little…I mean if we are being completely taking this to the logical end conclusion I'd just have the governments start training the entire army to become specialized low level mages, casting their spells in a soldierly fashion so that the whole army acts like one powerful wizard casting thousands of spells at the same time, demolishing any army that doesn't use the same tactics. such a force would be scary.

[Tavar]

Lord Raziere hit the nail on the head. Without some context to define what does and doesn't work, what is and isn't available, one can't really form and suggestions.

[GenericGuy]

Its stuff like this that makes me question whether even the concepts of nation states could exist in fantasy worlds. Given the sheer amount of terrifyingly powerful beasts and difficulty in policing a populace where nearly any Tom **** or Harry might whip out a fireball (burning a city to the ground), the only “civilizations” that could exists would probably be totalitarian police city states. With all resources devoted to surviving day to day against such a hostile environment, no time for the “luxury” of war with another civilization.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Its stuff like this that makes me question whether even the concepts of nation states could exist in fantasy worlds. Given the sheer amount of terrifyingly powerful beasts and difficulty in policing a populace where nearly any Tom **** or Harry might whip out a fireball (burning a city to the ground), the only “civilizations” that could exists would probably be totalitarian police city states. With all resources devoted to surviving day to day against such a hostile environment, no time for the “luxury” of war with another civilization.

Depends on the level of power in a setting. If your world runs closer to E6 levels of power, no one gets powerful enough to Xykon-it-up and go Civ-Stomping.

But in respect to the OP, what would happen if, say, someone tried to teleport an enemy city ten feet down? As in, into the earth. Where they die from Tele-frag (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeleFrag).

[Aux-Ash]

How much magic affects the battlefield depends on availability and limits first and foremost. Just how many mages per mundane soldiers can I field.
If it's a 1:1 basis then battles are probably not even going to be relatable. But if it's one mage for 10 000 mundanes, well then they might be more of a specialist weapon you hold in reserve until needed.

Then it's the limitations. Just how much power does a wizard have? What is the typical range of spells? How long does it take to train them? Does it have any negative consequences/repercussions?
If the range lie around 10 m (30 foot) then it's practically in melee distance. Pikemen is practically just about to prod one another. Cavalry have roughly a second left before the charge connects with the target. It's a 16th of the range of most battlebows or crossbows. That would mean you'd have to keep mages being strictly support or put them in the front line (where they risk being killed).
Of course, if mages can sit on the other side of the world and whisk entire armies away on a whim then they're more WMDs than soldiers. But if their typical combatspells target people in the dozens and they must be able to visually pick out their targets, then they're more like low yield front line artillery.

And of course, the longer it takes to train a mage the more careful with them you have to be. If it's 10 years per mage, you might be hesitant to put them in the front of the vanguard.

Ultimately, how much mages affect the scene of battle is perhaps best determined with just how much ability the armies have to soak up the damage they can do. If even the most powerful mages you'd realistically field could only wipe out (or otherwise incapacitate) 100-200 men over the course of an entire battle, then they're not going to change much beyond formations. More than that though... and the way battles are fought will have to be altered to accomodate that.

[Zombimode]

In a fantasy setting, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?

Like others have already said: this is a broad question. The answer is entirely dependent on the setting in question.
You can make the test: just ask "In Middle Earth, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?"
Middle Earth is a fantasy setting, so it fits the criteria. The answer is, of course: "like they are described in the books, that is not very different from late antiquity and early medieval of Earth".

If you put "Warhammer" instead of "Middle Earth" you would get a very different answer.

"D&D type setting" is not a good limitation, because there is no such common point of reference. Every DMs homebrew setting is a different beast.
So, you have describe the setting you have in mind before this question can even attempted to be answered.

[Vitruviansquid]

In a DND/Pathfinder setting, war would probably be a ritualized combat between the two most powerful spellcasters of two nations.

[sol_kanar]

While recurring to a very specific D&D mechanic, the famous Typpyverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007) was basically a reasoning on what would happen in warfare when entire armies were able to teleport.

One other interesting point is that single, powerful entities can break havoc through armies of "regular" soldiers without suffering hits. Shadows and incorporeal undead, for example, are basically invulnerable for your regular 1st-3rd level warrior. And sometimes, they spawn even more monsters.

There are also insanely powerful spells: Apocalypse from the Sky and carefully worded Wishes/Miracles can wipe out entire cities/regions/armies.

So, it's a mess :-D

[kieza]

There are so many ways that magic can affect warfare. For example:

Wizards can be artillery, of course. Depending on the system, they might be close to the front lines, where they are strategic targets that are protected by bodyguards, or they might be sitting in a tower on the other side of the world, or they might be somewhere in between, staying near a command post and lobbing fireballs on command.

Wizards could also be support. They could buff small groups of soldiers for special ops, or entire armies before joining battle. Imagine the effect of any mass buff, like bull's strength or bear's endurance. They could use fog and earth-shaping spells for battlefield control. They could turn officers invisible so that the enemy can't target them. They can use illusions to exaggerate their army's size or make a feint.

Wizards might actually be special forces. They can teleport, and they have access to a fair selection of close-range spells. In a pinch, they can buff themselves up and become melee monsters in their own right, or they can polymorph into something nasty. With invisibility and a few save-or-dies, they're almost perfect assassins.

Wizards might not even be involved in the fighting. They might just sit back and churn out magic items for the army, or scry on enemy positions, or conduct espionage using charm person, or facilitate communications using sending, or buff commanders with owl's wisdom, or summon outsiders as reinforcements.

Better yet, they might be doing all of the above; different countries might put wizards to different uses, or each country might have several corps of wizards with different specializations.

And that's just the wizards; we haven't gotten into the effects of clerics with mass healing and their even wider selection of buffs, or druids and their ability to use any sort of animal or plant against the enemy. There'd probably be a lot of research into the sort of superweapons that are normally reserved for BBEGs. Warfare in a fantasy setting is going to be defined as much by a nation's military spellcasters as by the troops and hardware they employ.

Here's an example from my homebrew setting: One human nation has mages who emphasize teleportation magic. They can move troops around, on a local or global level, much faster than any other nation. This allows them to outflank any other nation on the field of battle, and to strike at the weakest point of any defense with no notice. Another nation has lots of mages focused entirely on making things go boom. They can devastate close formations, blast holes in fortifications, and throw enemies around with concussive spells. They even blow up to take the enemy with them when they die. Elves, on the other hand, are nothing but subtlety. Their troops are concealed by illusions, protected by arcane shields, and equipped with magical weapons. Their strongest mages can hamper or shut down enemy spellcasters by tampering with the local ley lines, and they have devices which allow them to fire spells through far-distant relays without exposing themselves to danger.

[Man on Fire]

In Black Company they solved the problem of wizards quite easily - they are first to be eliminated. And if wizard is powerfull, they just use artillery on them.

[Rorrik]

I'm currently writing a novel where mages are relatively rare and magic is weak compared to most systems. For example, the record range known for a fireball is about 12 feet, making them useless atop high walls. In this situation, most normal tactics apply, but scrying is useful as a supplement to a spy network, weather mages are a valuable strategic element to control troop movement, and healing is far more effective than in standard medieval conditions, leading to better health, longer life, and more highly trained troops than the standard militias of our ancient world.

If the magic is not so limited all hell breaks loose. I don't see how anyone can even raise an army in D&D and then have them march in formation, everyone would desert if they knew their whole platoon was just a big fireball target.

[Ironvyper]

I always figure that warfare in D&D would look much more like Vietnam then Lord of the rings. I.E. small guerrilla groups scattered over a large area fighting to win by attrition and hold certain key points but not necessarily worrying about holding a particular line on a map.

That way they would limit the effectiveness of area affect magic. Wizards would likely go with a group of bodyguards and use summoning magic to inflict casualties on the enemy without losing any of your own guys. And the other side would naturally be trying the same thing.

Castles would have extensive underground portions. Probably all the most important areas would be underground and warded with different types of abjuration magic. Much more like a modern bunker complex then a traditional castle.


Something I havent heard is the use of magical gates and portals. Teleport doesnt work with large numbers of soldiers but I can see powerful nations building a system of portals that connect various important fortresses and wilderness outposts so that they can very quickly move soldiers to any point in the nation where they are needed.

In fact playing in with the more guerrilla nature of warfare I expect that only large population centers and far flung gate outposts would be defended with a traditional "line in the sand" mentality.

[jaybird]

http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/41876/GTMF_Banner2.jpg

That's what happens :smalltongue:

[Gnoman]

Magic doesn't change things nearly as much as you would think. If mages are fairly rare, however powerful, the only significant devation from RW would be a greatly increased anti-air focus to deal with the threat of flying creatures. If they are common, the result would be nearly identical to that technology caused in the real world, with phases of tactics coming in and out of fashion as the magic race progresses. That said, even a high-level magic user in 3.5 or pathfinder is actually quite limited in what he can bring to the table on a mass-combat scale. Even the most powerful spells affect such a small area that he wouldn't make a significant dent, and 3000 warriors would have a pretty high chance of taking him down with ranged weapons or closing the distance to engage in melee.

[Lord Raziere]

The problem with the "kill the mage first" tactic:

everyone starts gunning for mage.

mages go :smallbiggrin:

Then start making illusions of themselves for everyone to aim at.

Then you die because your aiming at an illusion while either the real one is killing you, or the normal soldiers are killing you.

[Mithric Gunn]

I always figure that warfare in D&D would look much more like Vietnam then Lord of the rings. I.E. small guerrilla groups scattered over a large area fighting to win by attrition and hold certain key points but not necessarily worrying about holding a particular line on a map.

That way they would limit the effectiveness of area affect magic. Wizards would likely go with a group of bodyguards and use summoning magic to inflict casualties on the enemy without losing any of your own guys. And the other side would naturally be trying the same thing.

Castles would have extensive underground portions. Probably all the most important areas would be underground and warded with different types of abjuration magic. Much more like a modern bunker complex then a traditional castle.


Something I havent heard is the use of magical gates and portals. Teleport doesnt work with large numbers of soldiers but I can see powerful nations building a system of portals that connect various important fortresses and wilderness outposts so that they can very quickly move soldiers to any point in the nation where they are needed.

In fact playing in with the more guerrilla nature of warfare I expect that only large population centers and far flung gate outposts would be defended with a traditional "line in the sand" mentality.

Hmm, that actually sounds interesting. and if every major power has an epic caster, then they might even use proxies to battle, as an outright military confrontation could kill both countries involved.
I would think that high level magic would be extremely rare, just as very few soldiers will ever reach the higher fighter levels. And every wizard spell lvl requires you to be more intelligent, so only very intelligent people could ever reach that level(and they have to live that long)

[Man on Fire]

The problem with the "kill the mage first" tactic:

everyone starts gunning for mage.

mages go :smallbiggrin:

Then start making illusions of themselves for everyone to aim at.

Then you die because your aiming at an illusion while either the real one is killing you, or the normal soldiers are killing you.

That's why Black Company use their pretty weak mages (who are mostly illusionists and can summon small creatures) to locate enemy mages. Some of them they can even neutralize themselves, with stronger they use better tactis. Like firing a catapult at them.

[Morty]

Of course, a fantasy setting might well not have anyone that could be called a "wizard", which brings us back to the problem mentioned already.

[Emmerask]

The main problem with warfare in such a high powered setting as d&d is that you simply would not have classical warfare.
There would be zero need for a normal army, when one hero can kill every one of them in a 1 vs 10000 fight.

So warfare would imo consist of herogroups killing each other.
fortifications are completely useless so it would be a very mobile "warfare".
Farms etc would not be strategic resources, you can always conjure food, similarly metal etc etc.

[Frozen_Feet]

You want to know what warfare between really powerful supernaturals looks like, you take a look at Dragon Ball Z. Or Naruto. Or Bleach. (In descending level of power.) In the first, really powerful people come and go as they may, destroying whole planets on whim. "War" boils down to a handful of exceedingly powerful beings duking it out.

In the second, conventional armies make almost no appearance, because they've been obsoleted by fast, powerful and compact squads of Shinobi. Battle, in general, looks very much like the guerilla warfare described in some previous posts, with small groups hunting each other down in vast wilderness.

In Bleach, there is a conventional army (of sorts...)... but when the really powerful people step up, only they matter. Others run for cover.

[Beowulf DW]

If you take the Fire Emblem example, war in a high fantasy setting would boil down to relatively small units fighting over key positions.

In a fantasy setting like the Silmarillion where everyone's a super powered combatant in extraordinarily large armies...well, it'll be exactly as Tolkien described it. They lost a whole continent.

In DnD, chances are that you'd have the Fire Emblem situation popping up, otherwise vast tracks of land will be razed by the clashing of each army.

However, with a low level campaign, you could concievably have the Lord of the Rings scale battles that most fans of fantasy seem to love.

[TurtleKing]

Yea big army type battles are not really viable if magic is available. Even the rare caster can still be a key unit.

Take for example a fifth level cleric in an army wearing a certain insignia keyed to three spells. These spells are Insignia of Healing, Insignia of Blessing, and Insignia of Warding. All three work by when cast all wearing the keyed insignia within long range of the caster recieve the effect. So when that fifth level cleric casts Insignia of Healing all soldiers with 600ft of that one cleric recieves a Cure light Wounds effect by only one spell. So with that don't even require needing alot of casters when one per several hundred or even thousand can heal all of them. All three spells are in Races of Destiny.

[jackattack]

The thing is, a very powerful wizard or a small group of heroes may be able to defeat an army, but they can't hold territory unless they are willing to settle in the area they've just conquered. To maintain a direct hold over a large area, and to enforce new laws, you need an occupying force, which means an actual army.

The fees a nation would have to pay to a high-level party of heroes may well be higher than the cost of outfitting a decent army, particularly if some portion of that army is conscripted for temporary service.

One man can kill a wizard or a hero in their sleep, or with poison, or with a well-placed spell/item, even with guards and wards and whatever. It is much harder to catch an entire army unawares.

Decent spacing and a few wizards working counter magic can largely eliminate the wizard effect on large scale combat.

-----

Another interesting point is that fantasy settings also involve battles in unusual environments. The great hall or main thoroughfare of a dwarven city is going to create new challenges and new opportunities -- catapult range may be limited by the ceiling (and by the supports holding the ceiling up), but certain magics may allow combatants to walk on the same ceiling. A high-altitude area with peaks connected by rope bridges over bottomless chasms invites catapults and airborne troops/creatures, but leaves traditional infantry very vulnerable. And so on.

[Emmerask]

Well you can just teleport and use divinations to know where trouble will be so these points don´t actually apply in a world as powerful as d&d.

In any world that is more medium powered you are correct however.

[Tavar]

Keep in mind that the Wizards that are counter-spelling have to be near level equivalent to the other wizards, as well as have a similar spell load out. Counter spelling, in DnD, is pretty hard.

[Shoot Da Moon]

Another thing to remember in DnD settings, is that the fantasy elements present include not just magic, but orcs (a species well suited for land warfare due to their robust and strong physiology), elves (a species made for woodland stealth and survival), dragons (powerful air units) and demons (need I say more?).

Magic is just the most obvious fantastic variable on the battlefield.

[Fatebreaker]

I had this big, long, complicated post about warfare and influences and whatnot. Then I realized that I was overthinking this for anyone who isn't actually a fellow grognard, and honestly, if you are, you've probably already thought of this stuff.

So here's something a little bit more straightforward, because that's more useful to more people:

In general, I'd pick a time period to start from. Then, I'd decide what changed, and how, and when. For example, take Roman-style cultures doing Roman-style warfare in a 1st-3rd level world. Magic is, for whatever reason, not an influence in warfare. Suddenly, one side starts fielding armies equipped with magic-missile wands and caltrops. Suddenly, everything changes. You can't charge them, because, y'know, caltrops (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#caltrops). Anyone who manages to charge through does so without some significant number of their unit, leaving them vulnerable to the enemy. Folks who are stopped by the caltrops are gunned down by volleys of magic missiles. Everyone spreads out. Cover becomes vital. Armor becomes irrelevant. Melee stops being viable, at least, not without massively outnumbering the enemy. Magic missiles do not miss, so individual skill from the gunner is meaningless; a nation could field massive numbers of gunners, provided they could manufacture enough wands.

Ta-daa! You've changed how warfare works by taking one or two simple things and looking at how they would influence people. Then you might ask yourself what tactics rise up to challenge these. "My country tames gryphons and we drop rocks on your magic-missile units from more than 110' away. So there." Uh-oh! Now what does the magic-missile nation do? Arms race! Woohoo!

So pick a point to start from. Add in the elements you want, and ask yourself, "How would I use these?" Then add in the next element, and keep making changes until you reach a stage you're happy with. If you know the character of your nations, you can even make intentionally "bad" decisions because it fits the needs of that particular nation. These can even be cultural blind spots for your players to exploit.

You can also start at the end and work backwards, justifying each decision along the way. Either one works. A few key things to ask yourself:

1) How do people communicate? Are there magical or mechanical means of communicating, or is it limited to raw volume?

2) What is the primary method of projecting violence? Is it muscle, machine, or magical?

3) How are these armies supplied? What logistical structure is in place to support them? Do soldiers supply their own gear? Is there an official organization which handles supplies? Do generals finance their own armies? How easy is it to train new soldiers, priests, or mages?

4) How easy is it to travel? Is teleportation a thing? Are monsters tamed as cavalry? Are there roads?

Those four questions should help you get started, because answering them starts to set parameters on what kind of warfare you'll end up with. A post-scarcity magical society of instant and easy communication with teleportation looks an awful lot like the Tippyverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007). A muscle-based world with little magic, no roads, and poor supply looks a lot like the Conan movies.

So that's a start. Good luck!

[Mike_G]

Keep in mind that modern nations with spy satellites, stealth bombers, cruise missiles, infrared sights, airmobile troops, body armor, and nuclear weapons can still have a tough time beating a bunch of skinny guys in sandals and pajamas with AKs and homemade explosives.

Quantity has a quality all it's own.

High level PCs should be a tiny minority of the world population. Casters need to be trained, and replacing a single 5th level Wizard will be more expensive than replacing a company if low level warriors or a battalion of impressed commoners. Holding territory is done more cheaply with conventional soldiers.

PCs would be strike teams. Spells could make warfare look much more like modern combat than classical, with spells subbing for airstrikes, artillery, spy planes, radar, biological/chemical warfare and logistics.

Yes, you can find ways in the rules to break the world. Spawning undead, gate loops and so on, but in a setting where the default population is low level Commoners, then Experts, Warriors, Shamans and Aristocrats, and a tiny proportion of PC classes, and the wilds full of disuntied monsters, the idea of Lord of the Rings style armies of men with stout hearts and sharp spears could work.

[Zombimode]

Suddenly, one side starts fielding armies equipped with magic-missile wands and caltrops.

Of course, this doesnt work AT ALL. Wands are spell trigger items. You need to be able to cast the spell to use the wand.

Also a single 1st level wand costs 750 gp. It has 50 charges.

A light crossbow is 35 gp, 50 bolt are another 5 gp.

Yeah, the numbers speak for themselves.

[Fatebreaker]

Of course, this doesnt work AT ALL. Wands are spell trigger items. You need to be able to cast the spell to use the wand.

Also a single 1st level wand costs 750 gp. It has 50 charges.

A light crossbow is 35 gp, 50 bolt are another 5 gp.

Yeah, the numbers speak for themselves.

*shrug* Those aren't impediments so much as different boxes to check off. Instead of fighters, you need wizards. And if gold-as-wealth is not a scarce resource, then a weapon which does not miss and suffers no penalties for range or partial cover might be totally worth the "price" of gold.

Today, gold isn't used as money and hasn't been used as money for some time. Not to mention that we spend a hefty chunk of change on the gear carried by our troops. Outspending the other guy is a time-honored road to victory! In a suitably advanced or high-end fantasy world, the same might be true. Likewise, in a suitably high-end fantasy world, a magic-nation fielding squads or platoons or companies of first-level wizards might be par for the course, because wizards are no longer scarce.

Moreover, it really doesn't matter what the thing is. It could be weaponized giants, or pegasus knights, or a tiny box which, when opened, shifts everything within ten miles into a random layer of the Abyss. The point is that, in a fantasy world, even a simple change can make warfare look very different than the medieval European sword'n'board party.

Really, you took the time to figure out how it couldn't work, but not how it could?

Speaking of weaponized giants...

We once got a bunch of ogres drunk, chained 'em together, covered 'em in spiked armor, and told 'em that the enemy had the key. Hilarity ensued.

Then we went to the next kingdom over and began selling "Ogre Chain Gang" kits. Buy yours today!

...or else.

[Madwand]

Of course, this doesnt work AT ALL. Wands are spell trigger items. You need to be able to cast the spell to use the wand.

In ebberon there is a class, which can use low-level magical items for warfere (and anything else, really). Also, think of eternal wands and items with infinite charges.

....

Oh, that way madness lies.

[Zombimode]

*shrug* Those aren't impediments so much as different boxes to check off. Instead of fighters, you need wizards. And if gold-as-wealth is not a scarce resource, then a weapon which does not miss and suffers no penalties for range or partial cover might be totally worth the "price" of gold.

Today, gold isn't used as money and hasn't been used as money for some time. Not to mention that we spend a hefty chunk of change on the gear carried by our troops. Outspending the other guy is a time-honored road to victory! In a suitably advanced or high-end fantasy world, the same might be true. Likewise, in a suitably high-end fantasy world, a magic-nation fielding squads or platoons or companies of first-level wizards might be par for the course, because wizards are no longer scarce.

Moreover, it really doesn't matter what the thing is. It could be weaponized giants, or pegasus knights, or a tiny box which, when opened, shifts everything within ten miles into a random layer of the Abyss. The point is that, in a fantasy world, even a simple change can make warfare look very different than the medieval European sword'n'board party.

You are generally missing the importance of availability of resources and the economics of fielding an army.
Recruiting a single unit if 1st level wizards and equiping them with wand of magic missile is, in comprasion to recruting and equiping a unit of spear or crossbow militia, a HUGE investment - with relativliy minor benefits. Sure, the offensive potential against other 1hd creatures in range is good, but the wizards unit is very defenseless. They provide a huge bullseye for your enemies and devising a one-time countertatic is easy and much less costly.

As for giants and pegasi: both are intelligent creatures. You cant just breed and use them like domestic animals. Availability is also an issue. In many settings giants and espacially pegasi are rather rare.

The "tiny abyss box" is a nuke, so Im not sure why you have brought it up.

Im not saying that wizards, giants or pegasi cant, shouldnt or arent used in fantasy warfare. Just that baring very specific circumstances and settings (like Ebberon) the economics and availability alone will keep those assets from invalidating more conventional militaries.
Remember, for thousands of years, large bodies of humans equiped with rather simple weapons and armor dominated the battlefields of earth. Wardogs, elephants or even artillery could not change this. It took the advanced industrial revolution of the early 20th century to fundamentally change the nature of warfare.

[Man on Fire]

You are generally missing the importance of availability of resources and the economics of fielding an army.

This. People who talk about how magic would change everything just seem to forget about how complicated the warfare actually is. To make wizard effective it would require a lot of money, much more than it's worth - training to the point he can become dangerous and can handle the life of soldier, equiping him with necessary magic items to utilize his powers and keep him from getting killed, many of which could cost more than small unit. Then you also need to train and equip a pack of fighters that can protect the wizard and kill enemy wizards, which is far more expensive that training and equiping ordinary soldiers.

You also need to consider that most of D&D wizards spend a lot of time to study arcane magic so training them would be a real pain - soldier must be ready quickly, so there's always a reserve of them around in case of suprise attack.

Use of Sorcerors eliminates that problem, but causes another - they are rare, in order to mantain a number of them suitable for effective use of magic in large-scale warfare you would have to enforce selective breeding, either forcing sorcerors to breed with each other or forcing people to breed with mystical creatures (which causes a problem of catching them or convincing to breed with your people in the first place) for a small chance their children shall inhereit their magical abilities.

Now, you may point me at Clerics. Clerics are great - good in fight, knows a lot of spells, can deal with the undead but have one small problem - they don't serve the state, they serve their respective gods. The moment your interests starts conflicting with these of their gods, guess whose side shall they pick? There is also a problem that Clerics are trained by their respective religions so in order to get them you need to get friendly with one of them, which in turns weakens your political position, opening your to infulence of religious group that holds interests of their god above that of your people and leaving you a choice to either accept their requests or say goodbye to your magic army. And gods help you if you will get the help of more than one temple, because you will quickly turn into a puppet in intrigues and power plays between various religious groups you invited to your court. Same goes for Druids and Paladins, through the latters doesn't have much magic to begin with.

By the way, to train effectively a military unit of sorcerors or wizards you will also need few powerful wizards to acts as teachers, which also leaves you weakening your position - who do you think strongest part of your army will respect? Their teacher, the man who taught them to fly, one of them, or you, completely normal guy who thinks he can boss them around? It will quickly force you to be infulenced by the powerful wizard in charge of your magic army, who probably will start using his position even if for betterment of the kingdom.

I don't say magic would be useless, but certainly wouldn't be as important as you seem to think. Magic would have a lot of more practical and suble use than "wizard blasts enemy army to hell and back" - mantaining supply lines with teleporting abilities, healing, illusions, searching for enemy mages - and there would be only a few of them. The real battle would be probably reserved for few offensive wizard placed in strategic places and small elite units of Eldritch Knights, Dragon Disciples and similiar, who can both do spells and take care of themselves in the battle, send to eliminate enemy casters or on special missions.

[Rorrik]

Now, you may point me at Clerics. Clerics are great - good in fight, knows a lot of spells, can deal with the undead but have one small problem - they don't serve the state, they serve their respective gods. The moment your interests starts conflicting with these of their gods, guess whose side shall they pick? There is also a problem that Clerics are trained by their respective religions so in order to get them you need to get friendly with one of them, which in turns weakens your political position, opening your to infulence of religious group that holds interests of their god above that of your people and leaving you a choice to either accept their requests or say goodbye to your magic army. And gods help you if you will get the help of more than one temple, because you will quickly turn into a puppet in intrigues and power plays between various religious groups you invited to your court.

Now there's a cool concept. I've got a campaign on its way to political intrigue anyway and with two clerics in the party and a high level cleric of a different god than either of them leading the strongest faction they are looking to unite, this will be fun.

Man on Fire is right on track with the limitations on magic. If you could make your whole population any class you wanted, sure, it would have a huge effect. But in D&D there are severe limits on just who becomes a wizard. Powerful hero parties may become a Fire Emblem situation as noted, but for the most part the battles will be one by normal troops, specialists, and supporting casters.

[Morty]

Personally, I like to treat magic in warfare as a sort of nuclear weapon. Properly applied, it can do a lot of damage, but the consequences and collateral damage are so dire it's rarely done. That assumes the existence of functional magic, obviously. In a setting where supernatural is outside the reach of mortals, things are different.
Mind you, that doesn't really apply to Dungeons & Dragons but then, D&D is hardly the extent of fantasy fiction, is it?

[Emmerask]

This. People who talk about how magic would change everything just seem to forget about how complicated the warfare actually is. To make wizard effective it would require a lot of money, much more than it's worth - training to the point he can become dangerous and can handle the life of soldier, equiping him with necessary magic items to utilize his powers and keep him from getting killed, many of which could cost more than small unit. Then you also need to train and equip a pack of fighters that can protect the wizard and kill enemy wizards, which is far more expensive that training and equiping ordinary soldiers.

You also need to consider that most of D&D wizards spend a lot of time to study arcane magic so training them would be a real pain - soldier must be ready quickly, so there's always a reserve of them around in case of suprise attack.

Use of Sorcerors eliminates that problem, but causes another - they are rare, in order to mantain a number of them suitable for effective use of magic in large-scale warfare you would have to enforce selective breeding, either forcing sorcerors to breed with each other or forcing people to breed with mystical creatures (which causes a problem of catching them or convincing to breed with your people in the first place) for a small chance their children shall inhereit their magical abilities.

Now, you may point me at Clerics. Clerics are great - good in fight, knows a lot of spells, can deal with the undead but have one small problem - they don't serve the state, they serve their respective gods. The moment your interests starts conflicting with these of their gods, guess whose side shall they pick? There is also a problem that Clerics are trained by their respective religions so in order to get them you need to get friendly with one of them, which in turns weakens your political position, opening your to infulence of religious group that holds interests of their god above that of your people and leaving you a choice to either accept their requests or say goodbye to your magic army. And gods help you if you will get the help of more than one temple, because you will quickly turn into a puppet in intrigues and power plays between various religious groups you invited to your court. Same goes for Druids and Paladins, through the latters doesn't have much magic to begin with.

By the way, to train effectively a military unit of sorcerors or wizards you will also need few powerful wizards to acts as teachers, which also leaves you weakening your position - who do you think strongest part of your army will respect? Their teacher, the man who taught them to fly, one of them, or you, completely normal guy who thinks he can boss them around? It will quickly force you to be infulenced by the powerful wizard in charge of your magic army, who probably will start using his position even if for betterment of the kingdom.

I don't say magic would be useless, but certainly wouldn't be as important as you seem to think. Magic would have a lot of more practical and suble use than "wizard blasts enemy army to hell and back" - mantaining supply lines with teleporting abilities, healing, illusions, searching for enemy mages - and there would be only a few of them. The real battle would be probably reserved for few offensive wizard placed in strategic places and small elite units of Eldritch Knights, Dragon Disciples and similiar, who can both do spells and take care of themselves in the battle, send to eliminate enemy casters or on special missions.

Well even if we ignore wizards or casters, there would still be the level 20 fighter with heavy fortification and enough dmg reduction to be completely undamageable by the whole army and can slaughter them all or force the retreat.

D&d and other systems with such huge power differences between normal human beings and heroes just don´t work for normal warfare.

Another point why normal armies in d&d would be completely useless: wraith.
Someone one into the armies night camp... they are now all dead.

[Fatebreaker]

You are generally missing the importance of availability of resources and the economics of fielding an army.
Recruiting a single unit if 1st level wizards and equiping them with wand of magic missile is, in comprasion to recruting and equiping a unit of spear or crossbow militia, a HUGE investment - with relativliy minor benefits. Sure, the offensive potential against other 1hd creatures in range is good, but the wizards unit is very defenseless. They provide a huge bullseye for your enemies and devising a one-time countertatic is easy and much less costly.

The "importance and availability of resources and the economics of fielding an army" are not static concepts. I understand them well enough to realize this. Depending on how you design your world, different factors will affect what is considered valuable.

Horses used to be a highly prized and valued resources in war. Not so much these days. If your fantasy world is built around the surface world vs. the Underdark, cavalry as we know it would not really exist. If your fantasy world is built around tribes of plains nomads, then horses are suddenly much more valuable.


As for giants and pegasi: both are intelligent creatures. You cant just breed and use them like domestic animals. Availability is also an issue. In many settings giants and espacially pegasi are rather rare.

Why not? In your setting they are rare. In other settings (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440038a&prodId=prod780928) they are not (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440111a&prodId=prod1600015). Also, it is worth pointing out that we have bred and used intelligent creatures, including people, like domestic animals in the past, including for warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary).

There are difficulties to overcome, certainly; but if you, the DM, want armies of knights riding pegasi, then those are difficulties you can easily overcome.


The "tiny abyss box" is a nuke, so Im not sure why you have brought it up.

Because in a fantasy world that adheres very strongly to a "historical" style of warfare (for whatever reasons), what if the first break by magic is when a wizard accidentally or intentionally invents a nuke -- suddenly, that fantasy world changes course, because a country which doesn't have an Abyssal box is at the mercy of one that does. Which, actually, would be a pretty neat mini-campaign to run.


Im not saying that wizards, giants or pegasi cant, shouldnt or arent used in fantasy warfare. Just that baring very specific circumstances and settings (like Ebberon) the economics and availability alone will keep those assets from invalidating more conventional militaries.

And a DM creating their game-world can easily determine the economics and availability of their world.


Remember, for thousands of years, large bodies of humans equiped with rather simple weapons and armor dominated the battlefields of earth. Wardogs, elephants or even artillery could not change this. It took the advanced industrial revolution of the early 20th century to fundamentally change the nature of warfare.

Substitute "industrial revolution" with "magical revolution," choose when and where and why and how it happens, and off you go. Remember, the first guns weren't too practical, but look where we are today.

The point is that war in a fantasy world does not have to look "like history, but with fireballs." It all depends on how you design your world. Which, you'll note, is what I said in the first place.

And finally...


Well even if we ignore wizards or casters, there would still be the level 20 fighter with heavy fortification and enough dmg reduction to be completely undamageable by the whole army and can slaughter them all or force the retreat.

D&d and other systems with such huge power differences between normal human beings and heroes just don´t work for normal warfare.

Another point why normal armies in d&d would be completely useless: wraith.
Someone one into the armies night camp... they are now all dead.

...Emmerask hits it right on the head. Even without magic you still have mundane characters who invalidate an army because they can slaughter their way from one end to the other and back again in a fairly gruesome and unimpeded fashion. D&D does not model "real" warfare, unless you are playing with a very altered ruleset.

The simple fact is that when you, the DM, design your world, you have total and complete control. You can bring into being any set of circumstances which will allow you to support your vision. It is equally easy to write, "wealth is abundant" as it is to write, "wealth is scarce." The rules equally support "magic is easy to learn" and "magic is difficult to learn," because there are no rules on how magic is learned -- just rules for leveling up, and all classes do that equally (well, in the sense that they require the same experience points to level up; some classes can more successfully earn that experience easier than others!). It is equally valid to say, "PC classes are rare" as it is to say, "PC classes are common."

Zombimode, don't get me wrong -- you're raising good points that are well worth thinking about. A DM can and should contemplate the limitations of a desired strategy. It helps make a better world, because it hangs together when the players poke it and start asking awkward questions.

The point is that, when the question at hand is "In a fantasy setting, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?", then the answer depends entirely on how you, as the DM, define that fantasy setting.

[Talakeal]

Why not? In your setting they are rare. In other settings (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440038a&prodId=prod780928) they are not (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440111a&prodId=prod1600015). Also, it is worth pointing out that we have bred and used intelligent creatures, including people, like domestic animals in the past, including for warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary).


I beg to differ.

"...only the richest and most influential knights can boast of owning a battle trained pegasus, for the creatures are difficulty to capture and harder still to train. Accordinly, to own such a beast is the ultimate symbold of wealth and success for their owners..." - Warhammer Armies: Bretonnia

And giants are explicitly listed as rare in ever army I can think of that can take them, meaning they are limited to one per army.

[Man on Fire]

The point is that, when the question at hand is "In a fantasy setting, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?", then the answer depends entirely on how you, as the DM, define that fantasy setting.

And that's why military is normal in settings I like, or at least it's proven magic cannot make up for the strategy. I seen too many stories where magic was just used as convinient excuse for writers to not do their research and make boring and stupid battles. I like when my fantasy elements doesn't replace military strategy but changes it. I recommend you naomi Novik's Telmaire series, where concept of Dragons being used in military is actually given a lot of thought. While other people say "we don't need strategy, we have magic", which is and always will be stupid.


Well even if we ignore wizards or casters, there would still be the level 20 fighter with heavy fortification and enough dmg reduction to be completely undamageable by the whole army and can slaughter them all or force the retreat.

That's because D&D is made in Heroic/High Fantasy convention. Convention in which fighter can rip apart entire army but only few of such formidable fighters are around. And it still doesn't exclude use of strategy, see Berserk where the concept is quite nicely explored, especially during the Golden Age arc.

[Fatebreaker]

I beg to differ.

"...only the richest and most influential knights can boast of owning a battle trained pegasus, for the creatures are difficulty to capture and harder still to train. Accordinly, to own such a beast is the ultimate symbold of wealth and success for their owners..." - Warhammer Armies: Bretonnia

And giants are explicitly listed as rare in ever army I can think of that can take them, meaning they are limited to one per army.

Sir, my Flying Circus wishes a word.

Seriously, though, that quote is a good example of what I'm talking about. The full quote runs...

"Most Pegasus Knigths hail from around the border city of Parravon, hard on the slopes of the Grey Mountains where many of their noble mounts can be found. Their numbers are made up almost exclusively of Knights of the Realm, and then only the richest & etc."

...which makes it a very good example of how what is prohibitively rare in other places is common enough for practical weaponization here. Few armies can field a Pegasus at all, and no other armies can field units of them, because Parravon is one of the few places in the world where mount and rider can meet.

And then there are rules like:

"Special Rule: If the army is led by a Bretonnian Lord who is riding a Royal PEgasus, then the 0-1 restriction for Pegasus Knights is removed." - Warhammer Armies: Bretonnia, page 66.

Which means that, under easily-attainable circumstances, you can make them even more common.

It's also worth noting that the Warhammer World has been moving away from traditional-style warfare. 8th Edition allows 50% of your points to be spent on Special choices (pegasus knights, for all you non-Warhammer folks, are Special choices), and the artwork and fluff very much play up the increasingly fantastical nature of the world. And 7th edition was likewise more high-fantasy than 6th. 5th was fairly hero-centric, and previous editions were limited mostly by what models Games Workshop could produce. More and more, the game is expanding the limits of its own fantasy, and they've explored some interesting concepts.

Additionally, you can substitute "Pegasus knights" for pretty much any fantastical unit. In Warhammer, dark elves ride cold ones (raptors!), goblins ride wolves and spiders, orcs ride boars, lizardmen also ride cold ones (dinosaurs riding dinosaurs!), the Empire just got demigryph calvary, and Chaos knights are semi-immortal heroes armed with the wargear of gods who ride horses so warped by Chaos by that they are no longer horses as we understand them. There are entire armies of ogres, skeletons who ride giant snake-golems, ratmen armed with flamethrowers and lightning guns, chariots pulled by giant lions, and all manner of "not real" units, each with their own in-game justification.

Giants themselves are "rare" choices, but they are also not-rare, given how many armies are able to field them or giant-equivalents, like bone giants or cygors. The point is that it is not rare to see some big gribbly on the field.

Y'all are getting hung up on the wrong details. Just because something is impractical most everywhere does not mean that it is not practical somewhere. The Duchy of Parravon can field units of Pegasus Knights. No one else can. Why? Because some smart chap who wanted to include Pegasus Knights figured out how to make it work and said, "Lo, let Lancelot and Rainbow Dash kick ass."

You can, too.


And that's why military is normal in settings I like, or at least it's proven magic cannot make up for the strategy. I seen too many stories where magic was just used as convinient excuse for writers to not do their research and make boring and stupid battles. I like when my fantasy elements doesn't replace military strategy but changes it. I recommend you naomi Novik's Telmaire series, where concept of Dragons being used in military is actually given a lot of thought. While other people say "we don't need strategy, we have magic", which is and always will be stupid.

You may like fantasy settings with little or no magic, but that's not what the original poster is asking for. Rather, that's only a small subset of what the original poster is asking for. I agree that "a wizard did it" is a terrible, terrible crutch used by far too many writers. Smart fantasy is pretty cool to see.

Access to magic just means you change your strategy to match the options available to you. It does not replace it.


That's because D&D is made in Heroic/High Fantasy convention. Convention in which fighter can rip apart entire army but only few of such formidable fighters are around. And it still doesn't exclude use of strategy, see Berserk where the concept is quite nicely explored, especially during the Golden Age arc.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is worth a read if you like high-end fighters without much magical shenanigans.

[Knaight]

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is worth a read if you like high-end fighters without much magical shenanigans.

I seem to remember the war between Shu and Southern Man being loaded with magic, and there was the wind control incident during the Battle of Chibi.

[Fatebreaker]

I seem to remember the war between Shu and Southern Man being loaded with magic, and there was the wind control incident during the Battle of Chibi.

The story revolves around heroic individuals doing heroic things. Most of them are non-magical, yet perform superhuman feats. A champion goes forth and routs an army of ten thousand, that sort of thing.

There's some supernatural stuff in there, sure, but very few wizard-types.

It's "mostly" free of magical shenanigans.

Hmm... a poor comparison: Do you play Exalted? If so, think lots of charm-users, but not many actual sorcerers. Does that make sense?

[Knaight]

The story revolves around heroic individuals doing heroic things. Most of them are non-magical, yet perform superhuman feats. A champion goes forth and routs an army of ten thousand, that sort of thing.

There's some supernatural stuff in there, sure, but very few wizard-types.

It's "mostly" free of magical shenanigans.

Hmm... a poor comparison: Do you play Exalted? If so, think lots of charm-users, but not many actual sorcerers. Does that make sense?

I've read the story, and those both involved overt magic. Zhuge Liang calls up the wind in the battle of Chibi, and there's heavy commanding of spirits in the Southern Man campaign. Those also both involved a lot of cleverness and heroism, because Zhuge Liang is involved, so there's that.

[Fatebreaker]

I've read the story, and those both involved overt magic. Zhuge Liang calls up the wind in the battle of Chibi, and there's heavy commanding of spirits in the Southern Man campaign. Those also both involved a lot of cleverness and heroism, because Zhuge Liang is involved, so there's that.

Right, but in a novel spanning over a hundred years and literally hundreds of characters, most of the events and most of the characters are fairly mundane. I'm not disputing whether Zhuge Liang or his wind-rituals were in the book. I'm saying that, by and large, the book features non-magical characters doing superhuman things rather than D&D-style high-level wizards.

Let me try it this way: I'm actively recommending it as a light-fantasy read, not a non-fantasy read. Does that make sense?

[Knaight]

Right, but in a novel spanning over a hundred years and literally hundreds of characters, most of the events and most of the characters are fairly mundane. I'm not disputing whether Zhuge Liang or his wind-rituals were in the book. I'm saying that, by and large, the book features non-magical characters doing superhuman things rather than D&D-style high-level wizards.

Let me try it this way: I'm actively recommending it as a light-fantasy read, not a non-fantasy read. Does that make sense?

Those are merely examples. Magic features heavily, particularly ghosts, and I'd dispute the extent of it being non-magical. Yes, it is less magical than D&D, by virtue of not being D&D. I get what you're saying, I simply disagree with it, and would say that you're underselling the amount of legitimate magic that goes on in that book.

[Fatebreaker]

Those are merely examples. Magic features heavily, particularly ghosts, and I'd dispute the extent of it being non-magical. Yes, it is less magical than D&D, by virtue of not being D&D. I get what you're saying, I simply disagree with it, and would say that you're underselling the amount of legitimate magic that goes on in that book.

I never said it was non-magical. It just has very few of the magical shenanigans of the variety which Man on Fire said he didn't like. It features a very different sort of magic. It's closer to mythical magic than fantasy magic, and even so, it's on the light side from what I usually deal with.

I feel very much like we're not so much disagreeing as operating on different scales.

[Zombimode]

The point is that, when the question at hand is "In a fantasy setting, what kinds of weapons, defenses, and tactics would armies use?", then the answer depends entirely on how you, as the DM, define that fantasy setting.

Im just quoting the last bit of your posting with the intent not to clutter the thread with overly long qoutes.
Thank you for your response and clarifications. It appears that I had, indeed, misunderstood your first posting. Because I entirely agree with your postition (the bit I've quoted).
I mistook your first posting for a position that claims that specific elements would "naturally" or "logically" (or whatever term people like to missuse these days) determine certain results in a fantasy setting. Thats why I provided such specific counterpoints to show that there is absolutly no necessity in this (I could have worded it better though).

[Fatebreaker]

Im just quoting the last bit of your posting with the intent not to clutter the thread with overly long qoutes.
Thank you for your response and clarifications. It appears that I had, indeed, misunderstood your first posting. Because I entirely agree with your postition (the bit I've quoted).
I mistook your first posting for a position that claims that specific elements would "naturally" or "logically" (or whatever term people like to missuse these days) determine certain results in a fantasy setting. Thats why I provided such specific counterpoints to show that there is absolutly no necessity in this (I could have worded it better though).

No, I'm glad you asked questions. It's a good thing to discuss, and I hope it helps the OP (and any other budding fantasy generals out there).

[Jay R]

If the magic is not so limited all hell breaks loose. I don't see how anyone can even raise an army in D&D and then have them march in formation, everyone would desert if they knew their whole platoon was just a big fireball target.

First of all, yes, of course people don't fight in lines when accurate long-range attacks show up. The rifle, the cannon, the machine gun and guerilla combat ended line combat forever. But that doesn't stop people from fighting; it means they don't line up in the open to do it.

The chariot, iron, the stirrup, the cannon, the star fort, the musket, the rifle, the ship of the line, the airplane, the missile, the gatling gun, the submarine, the walkie-talkie, radar, and the GPS each changed warfare when they were first developed. So too will the Fireball, the Lightning Bolt, Cloudkill, etc.

In my current game, we slaughtered the front lines in two battles with Lightning Bolts. In the third battle, the enemy weren't in a line; they were more scattered when approaching. So we needed to adjust. We used a Wall of Fog on all of their unit except the front warriors, and let our cavalry take them out. (The Wall of Fog kept their archers from shooting and their units from forming pike squares, and their front was enough to show the cavalry where to charge.)

Fireballs act like artillery. It doesn't eliminate the need for foot soldiers, but it certainly makes their task more difficult.

Tactics that work under the current conditions will be quickly copied by everyone, just like everyone learned the pike square after it was shown to be a way for infantry to withstand a cavalry charge.

The legitimate questions to ask are these:
What tactics will work?
What counter-tactics will defend against those tactics?
What counter-counter-tactics will defeat the counter-tactics?
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Magic is the current high-tech military phenomenon. You will win if you find a tactic that the opponent isn't ready to counter, and if you can counter theirs.

But in the next battle, they will be doing what you did. How will you deal with that?

[Rorrik]

True, but as your scenario demostrated, even with a changed tactic your single mage turned the tide of the battle. In any case with casters able to wipe out large groups single handedly, a large standing army will by in itself an almost obselete strategy. Most of the work will be done with well paid, highly skilled, hero-like squads able to counter such a powerful threat, because no mere mortal would be worth what it would cost to make him fight.

The point I was making is that to field an army that knows it might be fighting spell casters, each man will be taking a greater risk and so will demand higher pay. This makes foot soldiers more expensive in a fantasy setting that they would be otherwise.

On a related note, it seems likely that mercenary troops would be more likely to play a significant role in warfare. This would reduce the need for leaders to raise and maintain large groups of mages or powerful warriors and remove the conflict of political interest of the wizard teachers mentioned by Man on Fire. Mercenary groups ar ehardly reliable, but they would be cheaper and probably common.

[Mike_G]

The important question to ask is how ubiquitous is magic? If it's rare, it will have limited effect, and you could still have classical style warfare with a few magic augments.

Giving the French army three assault rifles wouldn't have changed the outcome at Agincourt. Giving them 3,000 would have.

As far as availability can be judged, we can look at cost. D&D uses gold piece values because that's easy for players to grasp, not because it models actual macroeconomics well, but it's what we have. If you equip a company with Wands of Magic Missile that cost 750 apiece, your opponent can deploy 25 men to your one if he buys light crossbows. And 2-5 damage with autohit is probably better than a light crossbow, it's not better than 25 of them. To make your wands the D&D equivalent of assault rifles, you need to spend a lot more than the enemy.

If you enforce spell component costs, magic item costs, and figure that there just isn't a 90 day Wizard boot camp, magic becomes a useful advantage for wealthy nations, but doesn't make it impossible o have a
classic fantasy setting with knights and kings and dragons and wizards, so long as the last two are more rare than the first.

[kieza]

One major, major problem for defense planners in a fantasy setting is the existence of teleportation, which can render the concept of front lines obsolete. In 3.5, it's especially nasty, because it can go anywhere on the same plane. 4e, with its reliance on destination circles, is a bit more complicated. Defense planners need to be able to secure teleport destinations from enemy teleports, whether that means armed guards, wards, or keeping the address secret. They also need to run frequent sweeps for enemy covert circles.

There's one nation in my setting that specializes in teleport-capable warfare; they have artillery set up to fire through portals, troops who specialize in porting into battlefields, and lots of ways to get a destination circle into enemy territory, from infiltrators to spies, to special artillery shells that unfold into a destination circle. (One of my players had a fun time with the special shells; he fired one using the portal artillery, then fired another through the new circle, over and over until he got a circle in range of the enemy.)

[lt_murgen]

In Black Company they solved the problem of wizards quite easily - they are first to be eliminated. And if wizard is powerfull, they just use artillery on them.

I second that. The Black Company series is probably the best large-scale-warfare-with-wizards I've read in the last couple of decades.

Seriously, though, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is parity.

Look at warhammer, d&D minis, and other skirmish games. What you see is parity. 200 points of troops for both sides. Optimization and synergy makes one much better than the other, but it is still roughly the same. Bigger and more powerful units cost more than smaller ones. But well-optimized units will always do better than less-optimized units.

I suspect that in a fantasy world at any tech level or magic level, you would find the same- parity. If the good aligned nation has access to X, their enemy will likely invest their treasure in developing X or counter-X as well. And this will see-saw back and forth as new things are developed. So, on a steady-state basis, most armies consist of matching units or counter units to each other army out there.

[Man on Fire]

One major, major problem for defense planners in a fantasy setting is the existence of teleportation, which can render the concept of front lines obsolete. In 3.5, it's especially nasty, because it can go anywhere on the same plane. 4e, with its reliance on destination circles, is a bit more complicated. Defense planners need to be able to secure teleport destinations from enemy teleports, whether that means armed guards, wards, or keeping the address secret. They also need to run frequent sweeps for enemy covert circles.

There's one nation in my setting that specializes in teleport-capable warfare; they have artillery set up to fire through portals, troops who specialize in porting into battlefields, and lots of ways to get a destination circle into enemy territory, from infiltrators to spies, to special artillery shells that unfold into a destination circle. (One of my players had a fun time with the special shells; he fired one using the portal artillery, then fired another through the new circle, over and over until he got a circle in range of the enemy.)

teleportation would create a big market for dimension locking strategic objects on mass scale, wouldn't it?

[Jay R]

True, but as your scenario demostrated, even with a changed tactic your single mage turned the tide of the battle.

Read it again. When my mage realized that he couldn't turn the tide of battle single-handedly, he switched tactics and became troop support, enabling the cavalry to turn the tide.


In any case with casters able to wipe out large groups single handedly, a large standing army will by in itself an almost obselete strategy.

The first time I heard this argument, decades ago, it was that guided missiles and aircraft would make a large standing army an obsolete strategy. Clearly, that is incorrect.

Our side had an army, and that fact was crucial. Battle history over many centuries have made it clear that combined arms are superior to any structure that doesn't include all types.


The point I was making is that to field an army that knows it might be fighting spell casters, each man will be taking a greater risk and so will demand higher pay. This makes foot soldiers more expensive in a fantasy setting that they would be otherwise.

More expensive than a modern army that knows it might be facing atomic, biological and chemical weapons? Not at all. Foot soldiers in all wars are facing mass death. I have no reason to believe that the death rate in a battle with mages would be higher than in an equivalent battle without them, or that common soldiers would know it if it were true.

The evidence we have is that bombs and poison gas don't make it too expensive to get soldiers. From that evidence, I assume that Fireballs and Cloudkills wouldn't, either.

[Fatebreaker]

Battle history over many centuries have made it clear that combined arms are superior to any structure that doesn't include all types.

While you are correct, just for the sake of argument I'd like to hear your thoughts on the following. For the record, I am not supporting any particular answer of this question, merely curious about what answer you arrive at or why.

*ahem*

While combined arms has proven to be the path to victory in our world, it can be argued that this stems largely from the inability of any singular soldier or unit to both operate independently and successfully negate any potential threat. In a sufficiently high-end fantasy world, in this case a well-optimized D&D setting, a wizard is capable of combating any threat and need not necessarily rely on supporting arms in any meaningful way. At what point do you envision a world in which a combined arms approach is not practical, because additional military variety ceases to meaningfully contribute? Is such a world possible? What would that world look like?

*coughs*

There you go. Very curious to hear your answer. It's more a thought experiment, and again, there's neither a right or wrong answer. But it might help set an upper-end for our original question, and help any world-builders avoid choices which naturally lead to that state of affairs.

[Jay R]

While combined arms has proven to be the path to victory in our world, it can be argued that this stems largely from the inability of any singular soldier or unit to both operate independently and successfully negate any potential threat.

That depends on what you mean. No single individual can change his attack quickly, but the single person with his finger on the button of guided atomic missiles can destroy a whole city or country.


In a sufficiently high-end fantasy world, in this case a well-optimized D&D setting, a wizard is capable of combating any threat and need not necessarily rely on supporting arms in any meaningful way.

Ever read comic books? Supeman can stop any threat individually, once he finds it, and unless the enemy uses kryptonite before Superman knows the fight started. Therefore good Superman stories revolve around the difficulties of finding the enemy, and/or threats from kryptonite. He defeats the super-powered criminal, while the police catch the henchmen and keep other people away, EMTs treat victims, etc.


In a sufficiently high-end fantasy world, in this case a well-optimized D&D setting, a wizard is capable of combating any threat and need not necessarily rely on supporting arms in any meaningful way. At what point do you envision a world in which a combined arms approach is not practical, because additional military variety ceases to meaningfully contribute? Is such a world possible? What would that world look like?

There you go. Very curious to hear your answer. It's more a thought experiment, and again, there's neither a right or wrong answer. But it might help set an upper-end for our original question, and help any world-builders avoid choices which naturally lead to that state of affairs.

The textbook answer is that infantry are not needed to destroy, only to conquer and hold. Also, infantry can make good use of terrain, weather, or other complication. The wizard, like the guided missile operator, can destroy any open area. But also like the wizard, he cannot search every forest and cave. The infantry are needed for that. Also, the infantry are needed to protect the wizard while sleeping, memorizing spells, etc.

If the side with the wizard only wants to destroy the entire enemy's country, maybe infantry aren't needed. But if the goal is to capture and hold land, or conquer the populace, then the wizard can soften them up, just as air support can soften up a territory prior to the invasion, but planes and bombs and wizards cannot actually invade.

In our recent battle, at the end, our soldiers started in the trees on one side of the battle field, while one of our wizards was in the opponent's camp, flying invisibly. My wizard destroyed a magic mirror, fireballed trolls, and chased off their biggest mage while the soldiers, including the fighter PCs, were defending our king from the giant spiders and the opposing army. I wasn't fireballing the army because the trolls and enemy magic were too urgent. If there weren't soldiers, the king would have been quickly killed and we would have lost the battle. (The only reason we were fighting is that the enemy had to keep the king from reaching the capital, or the country switches to our side.) Meanwhile our other wizard and our clerics were dealing with the enemy priests.

When my wizard was finally able to deal with the enemy soldiers, they were sufficiently spread out that it was more efficient to help the cavalry defeat them. I'm glad we had cavalry.

By the end of the battle, the field was held, and the prisoners were guarded, bu the foot soldiers.

And why weren't our soldiers being targeted by their magic? Because we set up our infantry in the woods, where they were harder to see.

The correct defense for infantry against carpet bombing, whether from planes or wizard, is to hide. Therefore what you are discussing isn't the end of combined arms or the end of the infantry; it's just the end of line combat and the beginning of guerilla warfare.

A wizard can do nearly anything. He cannot do everything.

[Aux-Ash]

I think that there's a case of vastly underestimating the capabilities and scales involved in big mediveal-esque battles.

For instance, archers will not be targetting their opponents, they'll be volleyfiring en masse. With bows (and crossbows) the maximum range of volleys lie somewhere between 150 (~450 ft) and 360 m (~1080 ft). And they'll be grouped in companies of hundreds and firing upwards to 10 arrows a minute each (do note that this is slower than what most rpg systems allow, being roughly 1 arrow every 1,5 four second rounds).
When the archers are firing, thousands of arrows are going to hit those target areas and any mages involved -will- have to arrange something to protect themselves. That might be magic, plate armour or shields and depending on setting those have various implications.

Then we have cavalry itself. The gallop speed of a horse is about 40 km/h or 11,1 m/s (44 m or ~132 ft per four second round). Which is to say freakishly fast. Essentially, the moment after you noticed that the enemy cavalry has begun the final stretch of the charge against you they'll hit home. If you were unoccupied and kept your eyes on them, sure... a formed infantry unit can force them to bounce. But if you were remotely distracted (like say... by casting a spell on someone else or recovering from something) chances are they'll destroy you.
The reason infantry forms up is to be able to resist these horrifically powerful charges. Because they'll destroy anything that cannot form a solid wall. A wizard would have to join them in formation or fly (hey guys! I'm over here!) to avoid death by cavalry charge.

And then... the sheer distances involved. If we assume one broadshouldered man every 0,6 m, then a thousand men is going to be able to form a line 600 m long. I'n some cases in history larger armies had to employ people riding back and forth with messages between officers because they were so far away from one another they couldn't even see one another.

Battles are massive, chaotic and hectic. Unless the wizards in question are made out to be virtual gods, chances are the sheer scale of it all is going to overwhelm their powers.
They'll be very useful to be sure. Especially as shock troops, doing stuff like softening up a formation just before a charge hits, bolstering your own lines or demoralizing troops. Wild cards that can tip fortune in your favour.

But unless one or both sides can field hundreds of them or they're quite literally living gods, warfare isn't going to be changed a lot by their presence.

And if mages are simply so dangerous that normal soldiers can do little to resist them. Then the most important job a wizard in an army will have is to intercept and lock down the other side's wizard. Making them serve more like the aviators of ww1 (complete with dogfighting) than anything else. And meanwhile these two titans fight: the rest of the battle will proceed as fighting with that technology usually proceeds.... except with nervous glances at the two dueling mages.

[Jay R]

I think that there's a case of vastly underestimating the capabilities and scales involved in big mediveal-esque battles....

Excellent analysis. Everybody who skipped this post because it was too long, go back and read it now.

[Man on Fire]

I think that there's a case of vastly underestimating the capabilities and scales involved in big mediveal-esque battles.

For instance, archers will not be targetting their opponents, they'll be volleyfiring en masse. With bows (and crossbows) the maximum range of volleys lie somewhere between 150 (~450 ft) and 360 m (~1080 ft). And they'll be grouped in companies of hundreds and firing upwards to 10 arrows a minute each (do note that this is slower than what most rpg systems allow, being roughly 1 arrow every 1,5 four second rounds).
When the archers are firing, thousands of arrows are going to hit those target areas and any mages involved -will- have to arrange something to protect themselves. That might be magic, plate armour or shields and depending on setting those have various implications.

Then we have cavalry itself. The gallop speed of a horse is about 40 km/h or 11,1 m/s (44 m or ~132 ft per four second round). Which is to say freakishly fast. Essentially, the moment after you noticed that the enemy cavalry has begun the final stretch of the charge against you they'll hit home. If you were unoccupied and kept your eyes on them, sure... a formed infantry unit can force them to bounce. But if you were remotely distracted (like say... by casting a spell on someone else or recovering from something) chances are they'll destroy you.
The reason infantry forms up is to be able to resist these horrifically powerful charges. Because they'll destroy anything that cannot form a solid wall. A wizard would have to join them in formation or fly (hey guys! I'm over here!) to avoid death by cavalry charge.

And then... the sheer distances involved. If we assume one broadshouldered man every 0,6 m, then a thousand men is going to be able to form a line 600 m long. I'n some cases in history larger armies had to employ people riding back and forth with messages between officers because they were so far away from one another they couldn't even see one another.

Battles are massive, chaotic and hectic. Unless the wizards in question are made out to be virtual gods, chances are the sheer scale of it all is going to overwhelm their powers.
They'll be very useful to be sure. Especially as shock troops, doing stuff like softening up a formation just before a charge hits, bolstering your own lines or demoralizing troops. Wild cards that can tip fortune in your favour.

But unless one or both sides can field hundreds of them or they're quite literally living gods, warfare isn't going to be changed a lot by their presence.

And if mages are simply so dangerous that normal soldiers can do little to resist them. Then the most important job a wizard in an army will have is to intercept and lock down the other side's wizard. Making them serve more like the aviators of ww1 (complete with dogfighting) than anything else. And meanwhile these two titans fight: the rest of the battle will proceed as fighting with that technology usually proceeds.... except with nervous glances at the two dueling mages.

Five star post right here.

[Rorrik]

More expensive than a modern army that knows it might be facing atomic, biological and chemical weapons? Not at all. Foot soldiers in all wars are facing mass death. I have no reason to believe that the death rate in a battle with mages would be higher than in an equivalent battle without them, or that common soldiers would know it if it were true.

No, not more expensive than modern soldiers, though modern soldiers usually don't face those kinds of weapons. My point was they'd be more expensive than medieval soldiers, because that is what the fantasy setting is akin to. Comparing them to modern soldiers may be reasonable, though, because hypothetically the increased wealth due to the presence of magic would increase the size the economy in general and make the pay scales and treasury sizes more on par with modern times. I wonder how economics would be effected.

Also, very apt Aux-Ash, don't think anyone is going to improve upon that.

[Incanur]

You don't need anything like living gods to render medieval-esque weapons and tactics obsolete. Whether any given fantasy magic-users manage this depends on their powers, but it's far from the realm of divinity. If they can so much as chuck fireballs, dense formations become a lot less attractive. If they can teleport, they become ideal scouts, commanders, and assassins. If they can do both of these things at will - or at least frequently - the armies might as well go home.

As everyone knows, high-level casters in 3.x crunch indeed have the capacity to wipe away legions at a whim. Mages in fiction tend to be less potent and more fragile, though exceptions exist (example: Doctor Strange). For internal coherence, I encourage writers and game designers to either limit magic or remove powerful casters from warfare if they want anything akin to historical combat in the setting.

[Man on Fire]

You don't need anything like living gods to render medieval-esque weapons and tactics obsolete. Whether any given fantasy magic-users manage this depends on their powers, but it's far from the realm of divinity. If they can so much as chuck fireballs, dense formations become a lot less attractive. If they can teleport, they become ideal scouts, commanders, and assassins. If they can do both of these things at will - or at least frequently - the armies might as well go home.

And on the large scale of real-life warfare you would still need more of them than it's worth it. And then enemy mages still would go after your mages, so neither side would have any use of them. And still, casting magic would be easy target for anyone, from archers just shooting en masse, through calvary who is faster than it seems, to artilerly that just drops a rock on wizard's head.

[kieza]

And on the large scale of real-life warfare you would still need more of them than it's worth it.

That depends. If magic is something that only a small subset of people can learn (sorcery, in D&D), then there's simply an upper limit to how many mages you can field. If it's something anyone can learn if they put their mind to it and develop the right mindset (like most other forms of D&D magic), then a country will eventually be able to train enough wizards that their wages drop. (I'm an economist. I think about everything in these terms.) After a few generations of mage-enhanced warfare, there will be lots of wizards out there, who are not exactly cheap, but who the military can afford to hire in sufficient numbers to throw lots of spells. At that point, they just become another aspect of combined-arms warfare.

The phase of warfare where wizards are too expensive to field in numbers is when they've just been introduced to organized warfare (via a cultural shift, the first rise of professional armies, or simply there not being much magic before) and there aren't many around, and thus can demand lots of money for their services.

[WalkingTarget]

That depends. If magic is something that only a small subset of people can learn (sorcery, in D&D), then there's simply an upper limit to how many mages you can field. If it's something anyone can learn if they put their mind to it and develop the right mindset (like most other forms of D&D magic), then a country will eventually be able to train enough wizards that their wages drop. (I'm an economist. I think about everything in these terms.) After a few generations of mage-enhanced warfare, there will be lots of wizards out there, who are not exactly cheap, but who the military can afford to hire in sufficient numbers to throw lots of spells. At that point, they just become another aspect of combined-arms warfare.

The phase of warfare where wizards are too expensive to field in numbers is when they've just been introduced to organized warfare (via a cultural shift, the first rise of professional armies, or simply there not being much magic before) and there aren't many around, and thus can demand lots of money for their services.

Steven Brust's setting, Dragaera, has an interesting history.

The Empire is, in part, based on the connection of citizens to the Imperial Orb - which allows everybody to tap into the great sea of chaos that is the source of Sorcery in the setting. Anybody who has the time/resources to learn is able to do so. The peasant class often doesn't get past the stage where they can make a small light or start a fire, but it means that both sides of any conflict will have access to large numbers of dedicated casters, along with even more non-conscript soldiers with a smattering of combat-focused casting at their disposal (including the ability to prepare limited-use wands or similar items that can be triggered by pretty much anybody and can do similar damage to, say, a handgun).

However, the fact that these things exist means that armies also put a lot of resources into protective spells and history is filled with ups and downs of magical supremacy over mundane combat depending on if the latest rounds of protective measures have been defeated or not. So, by the "present" of the main storyline they're in a time period where:

teleportation is possible, but can be warded against, so you can move small forces around, but not into an enemy's base - thus armies still march
large scale, artillery-style spells are possible, but likewise guarded against, so no blasting each other from miles away
everybody is capable of casting something useful, but likewise, everybody is able to do personal defensive stuff - of course, any concentration being spent on casting is concentration not going towards avoiding the sharp things that somebody is probably swinging at you


So, while powerful, sophisticated magic is available, it's more or less besides the point in warfare and things are mostly decided by arms. "Check back again in twenty two hundred or two thousand years and you're likely to find a different answer."

[Aux-Ash]

You don't need anything like living gods to render medieval-esque weapons and tactics obsolete. Whether any given fantasy magic-users manage this depends on their powers, but it's far from the realm of divinity. If they can so much as chuck fireballs, dense formations become a lot less attractive. If they can teleport, they become ideal scouts, commanders, and assassins. If they can do both of these things at will - or at least frequently - the armies might as well go home.

As everyone knows, high-level casters in 3.x crunch indeed have the capacity to wipe away legions at a whim.

This descriptions is what I meant. If mages are capable of that, then they're gods. They're on the scale of forces of nature, not humans.

Also, I doubt that purely mathematically a high levelled 3,5 wizard can wipe entire legions in continous warfare if human soldiers are actually capable of what they're capable of IRL. Remember, the game doesn't really portray melee combat very accurately.
I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand... but could someone with better grasp on the rules than me actually demonstrate that? Just figures on ranges and how many they can take out before they run out of spells would do.


For internal coherence, I encourage writers and game designers to either limit magic or remove powerful casters from warfare if they want anything akin to historical combat in the setting.

This I agree with completely.

[Emmerask]

Also, I doubt that purely mathematically a high levelled 3,5 wizard can wipe entire legions in continous warfare if human soldiers are actually capable of what they're capable of IRL. Remember, the game doesn't really portray melee combat very accurately.
I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand... but could someone with better grasp on the rules than me actually demonstrate that? Just figures on ranges and how many they can take out before they run out of spells would do.


If we are talking one army with one potent mage vs one army without any magical support:

Summon one wraith into the enemies night camp, they can´t kill it and every killed enemy turns into a wraith.
This will kill most of the army (except for those who run away) no matter the size with one spell.
Then we have stuff like blackfire due to its spreading nature it will kill any formation of soldiers no matter the size for one spell.

As always fireball and its other damaging kins are the weakest option you have for warfare.

As for protection against this nonmagical foe, get luminous armor (I think it was called) it renders you completely immune to nonmagical weapons.

[Emmerask]

doublepost

[Jay R]

If we are talking one army with one potent mage vs one army without any magical support:

Summon one wraith into the enemies night camp, ...

And they all flee into the woods. They never come out, and they never form into a visible unit again. From now on they snipe from the woods. A superior force cannot slay the target they cannot find.

Yes, agreed, long-range or area-effect attacks ends the era of line combat. Rifles, poison gas, and gatling guns did it in the real world. Then begins the era of guerrilla warfare.

All statements that assume the ability to attack an entire army formed up into a shooting gallery are making the assumption that nobody adjusts to the presence of the wizards, which is untrue.

Besides, the wizard can destroy, but he cannot conquer or occupy. That requires a large supply of troops. Even if you've destroyed the entire army, you haven't taken the lands or conquered the people. And your lone wizard is extremely vulnerable. If he ever spends a full round where a half-dozen lower-level enemy wizards can see him, he dies.

In the game I'm playing now, our two wizards destroyed the lines of 1,000 goblins. But in the next battle, nobody lined up, and we had to find new tactics, which used the spellcasters to support the speed and impact of the cavalry.

Having said that, we weren't epic level, we were 6th level, and we absolutely changed the entire tenor of the battlefield when we were the only casters. But our superior tactics defeated their higher level priests in the next battle.

Yes, spellcasters become the most important presence on the battlefield, just as bombs, tanks, and automatic weapons do. This changes the role of the soldier, but doesn't eliminate it.

[Fatebreaker]

I think that there's a case of vastly underestimating the capabilities and scales involved in big mediveal-esque battles.

For instance, archers will not be targetting their opponents, they'll be volleyfiring en masse. With bows (and crossbows) the maximum range of volleys lie somewhere between 150 (~450 ft) and 360 m (~1080 ft). And they'll be grouped in companies of hundreds and firing upwards to 10 arrows a minute each (do note that this is slower than what most rpg systems allow, being roughly 1 arrow every 1,5 four second rounds).
When the archers are firing, thousands of arrows are going to hit those target areas and any mages involved -will- have to arrange something to protect themselves. That might be magic, plate armour or shields and depending on setting those have various implications.

Then we have cavalry itself. The gallop speed of a horse is about 40 km/h or 11,1 m/s (44 m or ~132 ft per four second round). Which is to say freakishly fast. Essentially, the moment after you noticed that the enemy cavalry has begun the final stretch of the charge against you they'll hit home. If you were unoccupied and kept your eyes on them, sure... a formed infantry unit can force them to bounce. But if you were remotely distracted (like say... by casting a spell on someone else or recovering from something) chances are they'll destroy you.
The reason infantry forms up is to be able to resist these horrifically powerful charges. Because they'll destroy anything that cannot form a solid wall. A wizard would have to join them in formation or fly (hey guys! I'm over here!) to avoid death by cavalry charge.

And then... the sheer distances involved. If we assume one broadshouldered man every 0,6 m, then a thousand men is going to be able to form a line 600 m long. I'n some cases in history larger armies had to employ people riding back and forth with messages between officers because they were so far away from one another they couldn't even see one another.

Battles are massive, chaotic and hectic. Unless the wizards in question are made out to be virtual gods, chances are the sheer scale of it all is going to overwhelm their powers.
They'll be very useful to be sure. Especially as shock troops, doing stuff like softening up a formation just before a charge hits, bolstering your own lines or demoralizing troops. Wild cards that can tip fortune in your favour.

But unless one or both sides can field hundreds of them or they're quite literally living gods, warfare isn't going to be changed a lot by their presence.

And if mages are simply so dangerous that normal soldiers can do little to resist them. Then the most important job a wizard in an army will have is to intercept and lock down the other side's wizard. Making them serve more like the aviators of ww1 (complete with dogfighting) than anything else. And meanwhile these two titans fight: the rest of the battle will proceed as fighting with that technology usually proceeds.... except with nervous glances at the two dueling mages.

This is a really good analysis, provided that this fantasy-world is not very fantastical. Whether that's due to rare spellcasters, a low-level world, magic being difficult or rare, or just such a fractured social structure that no individual can muster up a magical horde, it's a concept that can work.

That said, I would definitely make sure that you are clear about why in a fantasy setting the fantasy elements don't change how people wage war. If you are telling a war story, you can be sure that your players will want to think of ways to use fantasy elements to their advantage. You want to make sure your world withstands their attention.

The more fantasy elements you add (whether "more" means "more common" or "more powerful"), the less likely the traditional methods of warfare would develop. They simply cannot compete.


And they all flee into the woods. They never come out, and they never form into a visible unit again. From now on they snipe from the woods. A superior force cannot slay the target they cannot find.

Yes, agreed, long-range or area-effect attacks ends the era of line combat. Rifles, poison gas, and gatling guns did it in the real world. Then begins the era of guerrilla warfare.

All statements that assume the ability to attack an entire army formed up into a shooting gallery are making the assumption that nobody adjusts to the presence of the wizards, which is untrue.

Besides, the wizard can destroy, but he cannot conquer or occupy. That requires a large supply of troops. Even if you've destroyed the entire army, you haven't taken the lands or conquered the people. And your lone wizard is extremely vulnerable. If he ever spends a full round where a half-dozen lower-level enemy wizards can see him, he dies.

-anecdote snipped-

Yes, spellcasters become the most important presence on the battlefield, just as bombs, tanks, and automatic weapons do. This changes the role of the soldier, but doesn't eliminate it.

Guerrilla warfare depends on secrecy, initiative, and relevance. You must remain hidden from the enemy; you must choose the battles; you must be able to fight meaningful battles. Moreover, guerrilla warfare takes place from a position of weakness.

Divination neatly solves both the secrecy issue and the initiative issue. You know where they are and you know what they're doing. They are already weaker than you, otherwise they would not be using guerrilla warfare. Eliminating an enemy you can find, predict, and outmatch should not be a bother. If it is, you weren't going to win this war anyway.

And if divination isn't your thing, magic has the answer to that, too. Every night, summon more wraiths (if you're feeling uncreative), and send them in. Let them scour the forest. If you want to get creative, there are plenty of creatures you can summon.

Also, the "flee into the woods and snipe" theory presumes that the woods occupies a position you care about in the first place. If not, let 'em rot. If they never leave the woods and never form a cohesive unit, they're neither projecting power against the enemy, nor are they defending their civilized centers. They have effectively removed themselves from the fight.

It also presumes that the woods are not already full of fantasy monsters who are hungry.

Finally, if you're lazy, what's the best way to solve a bunch of wandering enemies in a wilderness area? Go to the nearest tavern and post a bounty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html).


Besides, the wizard can destroy, but he cannot conquer or occupy. That requires a large supply of troops. Even if you've destroyed the entire army, you haven't taken the lands or conquered the people. And your lone wizard is extremely vulnerable. If he ever spends a full round where a half-dozen lower-level enemy wizards can see him, he dies.

Why is the victorious wizard alone? Where were the half-dozen lower level wizards when their conventional army needed them?

Think bigger. For instance...


A wizard can do nearly anything. He cannot do everything.

A wizard cannot. A wizard army can.

And you very well may field an army of wizards in a world where magic is easy to learn and has no consequences. It is entirely to your benefit to do so. In D&D, a wizard is better than a fighter. Ten wizards are better than ten fighters. This goes on. A nation is best served by investing in a caster-based army which does not operate along historical traditions.

Let's look at some non-D&D examples: in Lord of the Rings, magic is not an option for most of the mortal races; warfare looks fairly conventional. In Warhammer, for example, magic makes you go crazy, explode, and get sucked into hell. Mortal troops are still viable because of the limitations on magic, but mages radically alter any battle they take part in. In Exalted, there are entire armies of Essence-users, backed by fantastical creatures, all armed with artifact weaponry. Mortal troops are only useful for things the powerful don't want to do, or in those eras/locations where magic isn't common. Heck, during the First Age, many powerful Exalts only keep mortal armies because they made the Exalt in question look cool. That's right -- generations of trained professionals were equivalent to a fashion accessory.

Again, there are fantasy worlds which play by the assumptions you're operating on. They're perfectly valid. But there can be (and are) fantasy worlds which look at what magic can do, and extrapolate a world that's very different from "Medieval Europe, plus a fireball or two." Kieza hits it on the head when he mentions that the question revolves around scarcity. If (or as) magic becomes less scarce, the separation between our historical strategies and the tactics of the fantasy world diverges rapidly.

[Grac]

The problem with these discussions is that each side is trying to prove its point and doesn't really look at what the kinda conditions would be like. I won't pretend to know what the answer is, but just post a few thoughts for consideration. I am an e6-ist, so that colours my thoughts about what magic users are capable of, but I don't think that matters much in the end, because a lv6 wizard can still sling fireballs, just not as much.

The main question I see that needs to be answered is 'how many magic users are there?' if we are going the traditional antsy route and assuming a feudal setting, then it is safe to assume that only the nobility would be allowed to cast magic (or at least be given access to meaningful magic and the education necessary to research more). Magic use is dependent on stats, both for extra spells per day, and for maximum spell level, so decisions have to be made about what a given score means in terms of real ability, and how easy/hard it is to educate people to raise them to that ability score. Given that they are nobles, we can probably assume that magic users will be given decent educations, and we can fudge the numbers to put a minimum of 13 for their casting stat, this allows level three spells to all who get to level 6.

This doesn't take into account those 'natural' casters who've been chosen by their god (chosen soul, I think it is?) or get the spell casting boon through heredity (sorcerers)... Would they be cooped into low levels of the nobility, as 'knights'. Or would they be hunted down for being of common blood yet casting magic? If coopted, would they receive an education into an appropriate class (thus making them weaker overall) or would they be allowed to rise in their 'natural' class? That is a setting dependent question.

So the presence of magic users on the battle field would be determined by the strength and virility of the nobility, as well as how willing it is to accept new members into its ranks. Those cultures which hunt 'natural' spell casters down will have less casters to rely on in times for war, while those that are more accepting will have more. What is the position of the clergy? Obviously in such a situation not all of the clergy would be clerics, because what church wants to give that power to some rabble rousing local priest? At the same time, maybe clerics would have a similar position as monks did in Europe, serving as a kind of police, but that goes into a different discussion...

So if we assume that the vast majority of nobles are noble1/wizard3 (or maybe a ToB class? I mainly only added it for the skills, of which ride would be useful), with the minority being lower levels, higher levels, and other classes, then we end up with a rather large amount of people on the battlefield able to cast lv2 spells, even if only one, still, that's a large amount of flaming spheres, for example! So while not as extreme as others are suggesting (wightocalypse, for example, or cloudkill), it does seem that even with these rather restricted assumptions, there would be a huge impact.

What that impact actually is, I'm more inclined to let others who know more about the rules speculate.

[Incanur]

This descriptions is what I meant. If mages are capable of that, then they're gods. They're on the scale of forces of nature, not humans.

That sets a rather low bar for divinity and collapses differences of scale. A few tanks and/or helicopters could devastate formations and scatter a medieval army, but I wouldn't classify such contraptions as godlike. In comic book terms, you only need to be mid tier to rout a host of folks with swords and spears. Going back to earlier fantasy, Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando quite reasonably cut through at least one army simply by virtue of impenetrable skin and impressive stamina. For high-end and legitimately cosmic casters like Doctor Strange, the greatest historical military force ever fielded would be completely irrelevant and akin to a swarm of ants. You don't need anywhere near that level of power to transform warfare.


Also, I doubt that purely mathematically a high levelled 3,5 wizard can wipe entire legions in continous warfare if human soldiers are actually capable of what they're capable of IRL. Remember, the game doesn't really portray melee combat very accurately.

The shadow bomb technique converts any army into shadows at an exponential rate, though this admittedly has the potential to escape the wizard's control and would only work for demented geniuses and the like. But simply loading up on teleport spells and core evocations would enable to the wizard to savage any medieval-esque army on the march with impunity. Long range trumps bows even without magical defense or hit points - no archer can reliably hit an individual beyond about eighty yards.

[Eric Tolle]

I think that there's a case of vastly underestimating the capabilities and scales involved in big mediveal-esque battles.

When the archers are firing, thousands of arrows are going to hit those target areas and any mages involved -will- have to arrange something to protect themselves. That might be magic, plate armour or shields and depending on setting those have various implications.

Protection from normal missiles is a second level spell. Other than that, there's flight and invisibility, which the mage is going to want to do anyway.



Then we have cavalry itself. The gallop speed of a horse is about 40 km/h or 11,1 m/s (44 m or ~132 ft per four second round). Which is to say freakishly fast.

Wall of Force- Splat! Wall of Stone- Crunch! Or even better, ROck to Mud- splut! One spell and either you've got a bunch of dead horses, or drowning knights. Note that the mage doesn't have to wait for the actual charge to start- she can hit the cavalry with these spells as they're forming their charge, or even better, attack them while they're in camp. Cloudkill while saddling up can ruin your whole day.

For more fun, for large scale effects, during the night do Move Earth and cover it with Hallucinatory Terrain.


A wizard would have to join them in formation or fly (hey guys! I'm over here!) to avoid death by cavalry charge.

That's why you have the Invisibility up as well. Note- none of the spells I listed above break invisibility, because none of them are attacks.


And then... the sheer distances involved. If we assume one broadshouldered man every 0,6 m, then a thousand men is going to be able to form a line 600 m long.

Which is a tactic that really wasn't used until guns came on the field- and even then it would be a line four deep. Though that may be a technique that will come to play to compensate for magic, it would leave the line vulnerable to counterattack. And rolling a Cloudkill down the line would be lots of fun.



Battles are massive, chaotic and hectic. Unless the wizards in question are made out to be virtual gods, chances are the sheer scale of it all is going to overwhelm their powers.
They'll be very useful to be sure. Especially as shock troops, doing stuff like softening up a formation just before a charge hits, bolstering your own lines or demoralizing troops. Wild cards that can tip fortune in your favour.

You left out scrying the opposing forces commanders, teleporting in a strike team, and killing them in the night. Scry and Die is the stuff of nightmares for military campaigns.

And even if the commanders are warded against teleport, armies are too large to prevent mages from doing scry-and-die attacks on unprotected areas like the support areas and camps. An army needs it's camp followers, who are unlikely to be resistant to area magic spells. Like again, Cloudkill. An army won't last long if they don't have people to prepare their food and repair their equipment.


And if mages are simply so dangerous that normal soldiers can do little to resist them. Then the most important job a wizard in an army will have is to intercept and lock down the other side's wizard.

In other words, you need a wizard to fight a wizard. Armies will field as many wizards as they can, with some devoted to guarding, and the rest to attacking other wizards or the crucial elements of the army structure. Offense really favors mages, so the army that has one or two extra wizards will win.

[Man on Fire]

A wizard cannot. A wizard army can.

However, creating effective wizard army would be too time and founds consuming and opens your court to the infulence of the top wizards that will train these guys. In time one guy needs to become wizard capable of casting fireballs around you can train several novices to be soldiers.

[Aux-Ash]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. High levelled DnD wizards are indeed capable of destroying armies on their own. From the sound of it they are indeed individually capable of the same level of destruction as forces of nature or tactical nukes.

Which neatly puts them in lesser god territory.

Because if they are practically immortal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and unstoppable.... I can't think of any other word for describing what they are.

And in such a case, then indeed. Warfare will not be anything alike what it was. Nor do I think... even remotely comparable to anything we have today.

Unless of course the other side can field a equally powerful mage that can intercept and completely lock that side's mage down. The battle taking place below them as these two gods dogfight among the skies.
I'll admit that mental image is oddly appealing.

---

But I stand by my statement that the scales involved is easily underestimated. I'm not saying it's impossible to imagine a setting where mages can overcome these... but that warrants thought.

To compare. If you face an army of 30 000 men, which admittedly is -very- big for the technological level we're referring to. Killing them on average 1 person a second will mean you have to spend 8 hours and 20 minutes of uninterrupted killing to wipe them all out. If we assume four second rounds and one spell each... that's 7500 spells with a minimum of 4 victims each.

Uninterrupted.

Yes, that does assume a big army. And yes, you don't need to kill remotely that many to disperse and rout the army (25 % ought to be enough... so 1875 spells over 2 hours and 5 minutes). And it's certainly possibly to create a setting where wizards can do this.

But that goes to my main point:

Either mages have to be -very- powerful or there has to be a lot of them.

In those two cases. Warfare will indeed be radically different.
But if not... it need not be (but can be).

EDIT: Major math error. Corrected now.

[Mike_G]

Yes, high level PCs, mages especially, can devastate a conventional army.

A few points to bear in mind, however. The fluff suggests that there aren't lots and lots of high level PCs around. Getting to high levels takes time, risk and resources. A wizard that powerful probably has his own schemes and isn't interested in serving in a nation's army. Unless it's his nation.

The idea of raising battalions of Wizards might work by the actual crunch, but fluff wise, it's silly. Cardiologists make more than janitors, but you need to be a lot smarter, more dedicated and a lot richer to become a cardiologist. If we assume the stratified pseudo medieval society, most people won't be able to send junior to Wizard college, given the cost of spellbooks, components, and finding a high levle Wizard--who could be ruling his own demiplane full of Charmed succubi-- to take his valuable time teach this commoner brat how to maybe compete with him in power some day.

I don't think it's in the best interest of mages to create lots of mages. I don't see how mass producing Wizards has ever made any sense. How many hugely powerful individuals or corporations look around and say, "Ya know what we need? More hugely powerful entities like me. So I can have something to worry about." Most powerful entities want to limit competition.

And last, if you overcome all these issues and get a high level wizard who agrees to serve in you army when you need him, he's the analog to a nuclear weapon. A great deterrent, and every nation will want one, but actually using him will make everybody else take a long hard look at your nation, it's intentions and how to counter it.

The existence of air power, nukes, spy satellites etc has not eliminated the standing army.

It's just made them adjust.

The degree to which they need to adjust depends entirely on how much magic is availible.

[kieza]

If we assume the stratified pseudo medieval society, most people won't be able to send junior to Wizard college, given the cost of spellbooks, components, and finding a high levle Wizard--who could be ruling his own demiplane full of Charmed succubi-- to take his valuable time teach this commoner brat how to maybe compete with him in power some day.

See, I don't assume this. If there are incentives for a country to have lots of wizards at their disposal, they'll come up with ways to train lots of wizards, kind of like how the modern military has ROTC programs to train promising young people into officers. It probably destroys the stratified medieval society, but it's a logical course of action for defense planners. There'll be recruiters looking for any kid with the brains and drive to be a wizard, and if he can't afford training, they'll offer to apprentice him to a warmage if he serves for ten years afterwards. Even a low-level wizard can do some pretty useful things in an army; a level 5 wizard in 3.5 has access to scorching ray, fireball, plenty of magic missiles, and a ton of useful buffs.

The simple existence of learnable magic, I think, radically changes a society, to the point where it ceases to resemble our own history.

[Mike_G]

See, I don't assume this. If there are incentives for a country to have lots of wizards at their disposal, they'll come up with ways to train lots of wizards, kind of like how the modern military has ROTC programs to train promising young people into officers. It probably destroys the stratified medieval society, but it's a logical course of action for defense planners. There'll be recruiters looking for any kid with the brains and drive to be a wizard, and if he can't afford training, they'll offer to apprentice him to a warmage if he serves for ten years afterwards. Even a low-level wizard can do some pretty useful things in an army; a level 5 wizard in 3.5 has access to scorching ray, fireball, plenty of magic missiles, and a ton of useful buffs.

The simple existence of learnable magic, I think, radically changes a society, to the point where it ceases to resemble our own history.

But why would a high level wizard want more high level wizards? And how can you run your ROTC for mages if the senior instructors aren't on board? Warren Buffet isn't running classes on becoming a billionaire. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't try to raise legions of software gurus to challenge them someday. A high level wizard has a great deal of unequal power. It makes him special and a force to be reckoned with. Not many iof the high and mighty want to spread out their unequal power. Because when everyone is special, no-one is.

We have nukes, but we sure as hell don't want everybody to have them. If my spies find out that the savages next door are beginning a Mage Academy, that becomes target number one.

I just don't see the Royal Wizard Academy working.

[kieza]

But why would a high level wizard want more high level wizards? And how can you run your ROTC for mages if the senior instructors aren't on board?

Because he's a patriot, not a power-hungry idiot? Not all wizards are motivated by greed or lust for power. Some become wizards because they want to understand how magic works, some because they have a goal best achieved through magic, and some because they want to serve their country.

[Fatebreaker]

We have nukes, but we sure as hell don't want everybody to have them. If my spies find out that the savages next door are beginning a Mage Academy, that becomes target number one.

I just don't see the Royal Wizard Academy working.

That's okay. You don't have to. But someone else will -- and all it takes is one to make everyone without it obsolete.

You may not want the savages next door to have a Mage Academy, but you sure want one for yourself. And if your casters like their home (even wizards can be sentimental), or at the very least don't like the savages next door (they have practically no books at all!), then they have a vested interest in ensuring that your country survives.

If "wizards=nukes," then the first couple countries to get wizard academies up and running will likely dominate the ones that don't. Of course, wizards don't actually equal nukes, because unlike a nuke, a wizard can wield a great deal of finesse. But the incentive to weaponize wizards en masse are still there.

[Man on Fire]

Because he's a patriot, not a power-hungry idiot? Not all wizards are motivated by greed or lust for power. Some become wizards because they want to understand how magic works, some because they have a goal best achieved through magic, and some because they want to serve their country.

People who want to serve their country become soldiers. And most of wizards will be smart enough to see that war is not an answer to any problem and it's better to seek peaceful solution or gather a band of adventurers and lead them to defeat the enemy. Those wizards would also know that army of magic uses is a dangerous power that may be very well misused or even turned against their own people. Power corrupts, not everyone from the trained wizards will be loyal to the crown, some may decide it's better to go and start killing people who ever wronged them. And imagine how corruptible will be power of having command over an army of guys who can throw fireballs around.

And training wizards takes long time. You think that it's easy because D&D makes it simple with levels. But it's not, to become a wizard you must be dedicated to your studies and learn magic, not many people will meet prequisities, some will fall in their studies, some may dedicate themselves to studying more than others and becoem true mages....but you also need to train those intelectuals to become soldiers. And as great military leader from my country once said, "intelectual in army is a double traged - for intelectual and for the army". You don't need soldiers to think, they are suppsed to listen to the orders. Training everybody to think and then tell them they aren;t here to think it's a terrible idea. Not to mention that if you need your army quickly, you don't have time for training them into becomign mages, even Sun Tzu needed a time to train his soldiers and when your neigbhor will find out that you are training mages, you won't have time.

[Grac]

See, I don't assume this. If there are incentives for a country to have lots of wizards at their disposal, they'll come up with ways to train lots of wizards, kind of like how the modern military has ROTC programs to train promising young people into officers. It probably destroys the stratified medieval society, but it's a logical course of action for defense planners. There'll be recruiters looking for any kid with the brains and drive to be a wizard, and if he can't afford training, they'll offer to apprentice him to a warmage if he serves for ten years afterwards. Even a low-level wizard can do some pretty useful things in an army; a level 5 wizard in 3.5 has access to scorching ray, fireball, plenty of magic missiles, and a ton of useful buffs.

The simple existence of learnable magic, I think, radically changes a society, to the point where it ceases to resemble our own history.
But none of this makes sense. You start from the idea of what makes sense for the nation, but the nation is a modern idea. In the real world during the same time frame, it would have made huge sense for feudal lords to send our recruiters to grab nice strong boys from among all classes of the population and raise them as knights. But they didn't.

We can certainly assume the presence of many magic users, but there is no reason to assume they are anything but nobility, and that they have anything but noble appetites, interests, and prejudices.

[kieza]

See, I'm not talking about an army of wizards. I'm talking about a support corps that still makes up a minority of the military. And there's no reason why a soldier has to be a fighter or ranger or whatever, they can be a wizard as well. Also, sure it takes time to train a wizard. I'd say it takes about as much time to train a level 1 wizard as it does to train a green first lieutenant (aka level 1 warlord): that is, four years of officer's school/wizard academy.

As to the idea that being a wizard somehow makes you less suitable as a soldier...yeah, you wouldn't want a wizard to be a grunt with a sword or a bow. But I see wizards as a type of specialist or officer: it's preferable for that sort of soldier to be able to analyze a situation and see the big picture. And while they might be more open to the idea of peaceful solutions, they'd also be bright enough to recognize when that isn't practical, such as when the enemy is already attacking you.

Finally, when we talk about power corrupting, we're generally talking about power that other people don't have; when there are lots of wizards, they tend to keep each other in check.

Maybe we're working from different assumptions: I mostly run 4e, where wizards aren't godlike; they're closer in power to fighters, but their emphasis is on battlefield control and dealing with large numbers of weak enemies (such as armies of infantry). They also have easier access to powerful but slow-casting rituals; I can see a lot of use for many of the published rituals (there's one that raises fortifications from the earth, another that makes plants bear fruit for provisions, a variety for scrying and communications...) and it's not unrealistic to think that there are other rituals which can be used for artillery strikes or mass buffs, which are held in the hands of the military.

[Mike_G]

Most of the discussion seemed geared to 3e Wizards, who are kinda godlike, at high levels, anyway. That was the foundation for the Tippyverse theory, which is the far end of what magic would do to a world. 4e Wizards wouldn't be as much of a game changer.

The reason I can't equate Wizard with Butter Bar lieutenant is that a new 2nd lieutenant out of West Point or Annapolis is a trained leader. But he doesn't have supernatural powers. He can't decide to make himself invulnerable.

Wizards are far far more powerful than average people. High level Wizards are the movers and shakers of the world, not technicians. That kind of power is a Big Deal.

And I just don't see the Haves wanting to distribute that kind of power en masse to the Have Nots.

That's why the stereotype is the ancient Wizard taking a young apprentice and schooling him over years. One apprentice, over a long time, to teahc the limits and consequences of such enormous power, handing the mantle over when the master is at the end of his days, about to ascend to a higher plane.

That's mystical and cool and magicky. Rounding up all the smart guys and sending them to Spelljockey Academy so they can be a cog in the Great Imperial War Machine seems...just blah. Fine if you like that knid of thing, but out of step with just about every fantasy convention.

[Man on Fire]

See, I'm not talking about an army of wizards. I'm talking about a support corps that still makes up a minority of the military. And there's no reason why a soldier has to be a fighter or ranger or whatever, they can be a wizard as well. Also, sure it takes time to train a wizard. I'd say it takes about as much time to train a level 1 wizard as it does to train a green first lieutenant (aka level 1 warlord): that is, four years of officer's school/wizard academy.

We need to take this discussion out of D&D terms, they're polution to the mind.
And having half-assed wizard who cannot do a jack is wasting time and founds and real euivalent of 1st leven would be exactly that.


As to the idea that being a wizard somehow makes you less suitable as a soldier...yeah, you wouldn't want a wizard to be a grunt with a sword or a bow. But I see wizards as a type of specialist or officer: it's preferable for that sort of soldier to be able to analyze a situation and see the big picture.

Nope, wizard would be somebody more akin to modern day sniper, medic or saper - member of the regular unit with specific abilities. And those people still get their share of running around and still have to fight.


And while they might be more open to the idea of peaceful solutions, they'd also be bright enough to recognize when that isn't practical, such as when the enemy is already attacking you.

You missed that part about them finding assembling and sending group of adventurers to stop the enemy by obtaining some mcguffin to be more practical and less bloody.


Finally, when we talk about power corrupting, we're generally talking about power that other people don't have; when there are lots of wizards, they tend to keep each other in check.

Great, now we have wizard civil wars erupting inside our own army, we sure as hell be able to win when members of our own troops are blastign each other.


Maybe we're working from different assumptions: I mostly run 4e, where wizards aren't godlike; they're closer in power to fighters, but their emphasis is on battlefield control and dealing with large numbers of weak enemies (such as armies of infantry). They also have easier access to powerful but slow-casting rituals; I can see a lot of use for many of the published rituals (there's one that raises fortifications from the earth, another that makes plants bear fruit for provisions, a variety for scrying and communications...) and it's not unrealistic to think that there are other rituals which can be used for artillery strikes or mass buffs, which are held in the hands of the military.

And I see this from perspective of somebody who cares about storytelling not mechanics of the game. And It woudl be quite unrealistic to assume that magic would blow the military away. And lazy on the writer's side - if you don't want to do the research about warfare just don't put the battles in the story, because saying that magic renders strategy useless is showing reader's a finger.

That being sad, I would like to read a book that actually explores full impact of introducing army to the military and all it's consequences without beign lazy. Anybody know some good positions about it? i'm talking novels here, not game suplements.

[Incanur]

And It woudl be quite unrealistic to assume that magic would blow the military away.

I don't know about realistic, but it's even stranger to have armies inexplicably behaving as if they're in medieval Europe when they inhabit a world of potent and widespread magic.


Anybody know some good positions about it? i'm talking novels here, not game suplements.

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books do this passably well. Rand al'Thor ends up being able wipe out armies more or less by himself thanks to the One Power. Rand approximates a high-level D&D wizard, albeit with more raw power but less control and reliability.

[Eric Tolle]

And in such a case, then indeed. Warfare will not be anything alike what it was. Nor do I think... even remotely comparable to anything we have today.

Oddly enough I think armies would exist- a mage has a hard time holding territory- for that you need boots on the ground.


Unless of course the other side can field a equally powerful mage that can intercept and completely lock that side's mage down. The battle taking place below them as these two gods dogfight among the skies.
I'll admit that mental image is oddly appealing.

I think that would be a big part of magical warfare- invisible flying mages trying to hunt down other invisible flying mageswho in turn want to nuke the command section of the army. It would be a cross between Top Gun and Hunt for Red October.



To compare. If you face an army of 30 000 men, which admittedly is -very- big for the technological level we're referring to. Killing them on average 1 person a second will mean you have to spend 8 hours and 20 minutes of uninterrupted killing to wipe them all out. If we assume four second rounds and one spell each... that's 7500 spells with a minimum of 4 victims each.

The question is, how many of them do you need to kill with a cloudkill before the rest break and run, ruining the formation? Seeing a cloud of lethal vapors rolling slowly toward you has to be bad for the moral. Especially if it's not on the battlefield, but in camp.

Of course until you have magical superiority, opening up on camp like that is risky for a mage, so we'd probably be looking at lightning quick raids, staying just a couple rounds before teleporting out.

[Fatebreaker]

Man on Fire, I like where your head's at. You have a position, you believe in it, but you want to learn examples of someone else's position. I gotta hand it to you. Hats off, man. Hats off to you.

So, on with it!

Service, Power, & War:

People who want to serve their country become soldiers. And most of wizards will be smart enough to see that war is not an answer to any problem and it's better to seek peaceful solution or gather a band of adventurers and lead them to defeat the enemy. Those wizards would also know that army of magic uses is a dangerous power that may be very well misused or even turned against their own people. Power corrupts, not everyone from the trained wizards will be loyal to the crown, some may decide it's better to go and start killing people who ever wronged them. And imagine how corruptible will be power of having command over an army of guys who can throw fireballs around.

The bit about serving your country meaning soldiering is not inherently true. It's one way to serve, but service can mean all sorts of things. It could mean political or civil service. It could mean learning to be a healer, whether physical or spiritual. It could mean studying how the world works and applying that knowledge to reshape reality on a whim. All it takes is a desire to make life better for you family, tribe, village, duchy, kingdom, empire, world, whatever. On top of that desire, add follow through and a talent. Service means a variety of things to a variety of people.

But the main thing I want to address in the quoted paragraph is twofold: first, that war can be a solution to problems, and second, that your justification for why no one would make an army of wizards functions equally well as a justification against most any powerful body. I'd like to address the second one first, for reasons which mostly have to do with a whimsical desire rather than any logical justification.

A powerful organization, by definition, is a threat to the society which supports it. Whether that is a political, economical, or military organ is irrelevant. Each possesses, by dint of its power, the capacity to help or hinder that society. A corrupt process no longer acts on behalf of the nation, but the individuals within it. Magic is simply another form of power in this regard, albeit a frightening one due to (sticking with D&D) the versatility it provides, the ease of learning, and lack of consequences for wielding it.

As for war not solving problems, I imagine the answer there depends on your views of war. I won't go down that road, since it is almost certainly one that will lead to irreconcilable differences, but in some ways that is the very point itself. There are some arguments which contain within them positions of such mutually opposed and mutually exclusive viewpoints that no amount of compromise or discussion will suffice, and yet must be brought to resolution. To quote from a description of the Horus Heresy:

"The Mournival was always intended to provide even-tempered advice. It was supposed to provoke discussion and dissent, so that we could properly debate each issue and be sure of arriving at balanced reasoning. It is true to say that the decisions we had to make at Davin and Isstvan were so extreme, the natural dissent was intense. Those who lost the argument could not be permitted to live. It is the way of things. When the matter is so great, those who speak against it become our enemies. They had to say no, for in their no our yes was consecrated." -- Age of Darkness, "Little Horus," page 281

Ten thousand years later, the war rages on.

I suggest we all leave it at that, unless we like our threads locked.

Smart War & Smart Warriors:

And training wizards takes long time. You think that it's easy because D&D makes it simple with levels. But it's not, to become a wizard you must be dedicated to your studies and learn magic, not many people will meet prequisities, some will fall in their studies, some may dedicate themselves to studying more than others and becoem true mages....but you also need to train those intelectuals to become soldiers. And as great military leader from my country once said, "intelectual in army is a double traged - for intelectual and for the army". You don't need soldiers to think, they are suppsed to listen to the orders. Training everybody to think and then tell them they aren;t here to think it's a terrible idea. Not to mention that if you need your army quickly, you don't have time for training them into becomign mages, even Sun Tzu needed a time to train his soldiers and when your neigbhor will find out that you are training mages, you won't have time.

Start training them young. It's what we do, and it seems to work.

D&D's leveling system is something I'll address in the next quote.

As for thinking soldiers, well, again, that depends on your level of magic (no, that kind of level!). A high degree of magic allows wizards to summon up and control all sorts of creatures, making themselves de facto commanders, or to apply their intellect in creative ways. This is an excellent example of how wizards don't really fit into historical or modern warfare, because sufficiently advanced wizards just have such a mind-boggling array of options that, yes, you want them to think of something better than "fireball!"

A smart mage can rapidly switch between offense, defense, military intelligence, logistics, transportation, combat engineering, precision, wholesale destruction, area denial, and all manner of battlefield roles. This effectively removes him from our historical approach, because we have nothing like it to compare it with.

D&D Difficulties:

We need to take this discussion out of D&D terms, they're polution to the mind.

Now, I won't argue against that. D&D is weird because it claims (like you later point out) that magic is difficult to learn, but mechanically it's no harder than any other class. A D&D world which extrapolates its own mechanics ends up looking nothing like the D&D world which the meager fluff sketches out. It is also, as we have seen, a system which encompasses such extremes as to make discussion worthless except as an example of how important it is to define your variables whilst world building.

Is there a particular world you would like to discuss?

The Role of Wizards:

Nope, wizard would be somebody more akin to modern day sniper, medic or saper - member of the regular unit with specific abilities. And those people still get their share of running around and still have to fight.

This goes back to the availability and power of magic question, which is the fundamental variable running throughout this entire thread. If we presume a 4e-style world, then, yeah, wizards are specialists within a larger whole. If we presume a 3.x-style world, then any mageocracy which gets off the ground has no great need for mundane-types to do the bulk of the fighting. The mages summon in all the cannon-fodder they need, or use golems, or undead, and use their insane power to negate and destroy a conventional enemy army. Of course, two such armies clashing would be awesome to watch...

And if we presume an Exalted-style world, then casters are god-kings who can only be challenged by other god-kings. In the First Age of Exalted, the "foot troops" were lesser god-kings with supernatural abilities that far outstripped those of mundane mortals. Exalted is a fun world like that.

Army or Adventurers?

You missed that part about them finding assembling and sending group of adventurers to stop the enemy by obtaining some mcguffin to be more practical and less bloody.

Shadowrun is a neat game-world that operates partially on this principle. All the super-powerful organizations out there have military and paramilitary forces at their beck and call, but it's cheaper and more expedient to send in "deniable assets" to solve the problem.

Of course, if adventurers really are cheaper and more effective, you'll soon find city-states or nations or whatever who sponsor adventuring parties (or groups of them), keeping them on retainer to Solve Difficult Problems. This will have its own ramifications on the world.

Story Perspectives:

And I see this from perspective of somebody who cares about storytelling not mechanics of the game.

And that's an awesome perspective to have. My recommendation, though, is to find a way to match mechanics and story, because it's always better when they go hand in hand.

In Legend of the Five Rings, fantasy-samurai fight like historical-samurai, because there culture trumps efficiency. One clan (the Phoenix) have entire armies of mages, but don't use them, because 1) the level of destruction they would unleash is unacceptable in anything but the most dire of circumstances, and 2) it would be rude. As a result, the Phoenix strive to find the non-violent solution, because if you back them into a corner, they will win. Another clan, the Crab, don't fight in the traditional fashion, because they don't fight other samurai -- they fight hellspawn things that don't buy in to the whole culture vibe. Since they don't play by the rules, the Crab don't either. The Crab are looked down on for this. In both cases, it is theoretically more effective to just muster up armies of shugenja (mages). However, there exist mechanics for social interactions which make the fallout undesirable within the context and rules of the game. The story and the mechanics mesh, and it goes well together.

Put another way, you want mechanics that support your story, because otherwise it's more profitable for your players to buck the story, and it only takes one guy to ruin it.

Lazy Worlds:

And It woudl be quite unrealistic to assume that magic would blow the military away. And lazy on the writer's side - if you don't want to do the research about warfare just don't put the battles in the story, because saying that magic renders strategy useless is showing reader's a finger.

Sufficiently advanced magic would blow away a conventional medieval military. Provided the author constructs a world of sufficiently advanced magic, that's not lazy. That said, yeah, I've seen too many fantasy books where the author was, in fact, lazy, and simply declared "a wizard did it."

Hilariously enough, Harry Potter is an example of the reverse -- wizards still use "owl post" instead of the vastly more efficient global communications network we've built up. There's some handwave somewhere about electronics not working at Hogwarts, but from the behavior of wizards throughout the series, it's clear that they simply don't understand that newfangled stuff. Maybe there's a way around that. Still, it's a fun little example of "dude, mundane is so much better than magic," which is nice to see in fantasy fiction. iStaff, man. Look into it.

Good Fiction:

That being sad, I would like to read a book that actually explores full impact of introducing army to the military and all it's consequences without beign lazy. Anybody know some good positions about it? i'm talking novels here, not game suplements.

Umm... the Iron Kingdoms from Privateer Press is an interesting world. It's a medieval-turned-industrial setting, where magic is beginning to be nationalized because of how much it augments a military force. I'm not sure if the novels are any good, but the game (Warmachine) is fun and has some neat fiction. They're also re-releasing the RPG (this summer, I think?), so that might be a good read.

The Exalted world is also pretty good in that respect. I think I mentioned it earlier. They also write novels (I have not read them). Worth a look.

But those are both (primarily) game worlds. Let's see, fiction... fiction...

Raymond E. Feist did the Riftwar & Serpentwar Sagas. Those were awesome. Prince of the Blood & the King's Buccaneer come between the two sagas. They're very much worth a look, partially because they start low-fantasy, and gradually up the magic and organization thing, so you get to see it develop. They're also just fun to read.

The Black Sun Rising series by C. S. Friedman is about a world where magic is everywhere, and has some amusing repercussions. High-level technology doesn't function unless you both know how it works and really trust it deep down, because if you doubt it, your subconscious alters reality such that the technology does not work. However, magic is really dangerous, because if you are scared of the dark... well, then the dark is suddenly dangerous. For real. There's a huge market in magical items which negate the effects of magic. Magic is common, easy to access, difficult to control, and dangerous when it goes wrong. It's an interesting trilogy.

Oh! Read the Malus Darkblade sage, from the Black Library. It's amazingly fun. It's set in the Warhammer world, and there's all sorts of good stuff there. There's five books (or two Omnibi), which you can get off of Amazon. I recommend looking for the Ominbus editions, "The Chronicles of Malus Darkblade" Volumes I & II. You won't regret it.

Those should get you started. I hope you enjoy them!


Edit: Added spoilers for length.

Also...


It would be a cross between Top Gun and Hunt for Red October.

Dude, I want to play that game.

[Grac]

We need to take this discussion out of D&D terms, they're polution to the mind.

I disagree, insofar as if we are going to discuss the impact of something unreal on something that is real, we all need to know the terms of what is being discussed. Above I tried to do this by narrowing things down to D&D 3.5, with e6 rules, and assuming the overwhelming majority of casters will be nobility and around 4th level. This particular set-up isn't necessary, nor is it necessary to assume anything to do with D&D, but it is necessary that we are all on the same page, at least with regards to starting assumptions. That said, it is a mainly 3.5 forum, so it makes sense that that would form the basis for discussion.

[Aux-Ash]

The question is, how many of them do you need to kill with a cloudkill before the rest break and run, ruining the formation? Seeing a cloud of lethal vapors rolling slowly toward you has to be bad for the moral. Especially if it's not on the battlefield, but in camp.

Let's run the numbers? All the works I've read (though I'm far from a expert) suggest that between 10 and 25 % casualties in a short timespan generally causes a rout except under extraordinary circumstance.

Let's assume Infantry is about 1 person per 0,6 squaremeters. They're packed tight but need some room to move their arms and weapons. The radius is 20 ft so 6,7 m and thus the area is 42 squaremeters. This means that about 70 men will be caught in the initial zone. It moves at 10 feet a round, so 3,3 m/4 seconds or 0,825 m/s (almost 3 km/h, which is to say just slightly slower than your average elderly person) and drifts away from the wizard. So it'll probably catch a few more before the rest of the formation manages to scurry out of it's way. After the initial two rounds it's very unlikely to catch more victims.

Against a 120 man formation (a full company) it's certainly enough to destroy them and will certainly rout them. But it will not affect much more than a unit and unless cast in a pivotal moment (which it should be) then the enemy will simply fill the gap once the cloud moved out of the way.

The range is as far as I can tell somewhere between 190 and 300 ft or 63-100 m. So the wizard is outranged 1,5 to 6 times by archer volleys. By the time the wizard is in range the archers are probably packing up and retreating back behind friendly line to brace for the charge.
The minimum range is also when cavalry begins the final strech, when they aim their lances and are about 1,5 rounds away from hitting you. The maximum range is merely 2,5 rounds away from hitting you. Cavalry also takes up a lot more space (and move quicker) so you're unlikely to get more than half of them in a single spell... and they attack in groups of -at least- 40.

Is the spell useful? Absolutely. Though the effect is somewhat limited in that following up with infantry or cavalry risk them being exposed by the spell as well.
Is it a gamebreaker? Only against small enemy forces, the larger the force the less useful it becomes.

In order to incapacitate entire frontlines (as in the fronts of theunits. Not an actual line) you'd need dozens of cloudkills cast at once in a coordinated pattern.

In the camp it'll only be dangerous for the people caught in it initially since they're considerably more spread out. There'll be enough space and enough time to move out of it's way.

[kieza]

We need to take this discussion out of D&D terms, they're polution to the mind.

Okay. Here are my assumptions:

1) At least one form of magic, wizardry, is learned, not innate.
2) A relatively large portion (still a minority, but maybe 3-5%) of the population have the native intelligence and drive to become wizards, but not all of them take that path. (Some go into other types of scholarship, some just aren't interested in magic, some never get a chance to learn.) Also, magic is not so hard to learn that it takes 10+ years to learn the basics; it's feasible to train a conscript-quality wizard, but given the smaller supply of wizardry-capable recruits, armies prefer to give them more training than the infantry.
3) Magic is capable of a wide range of actions: long-range bombardment, close-range blasting, scrying, buffing, crafting, messaging, teleporting, etc.
4) A direct, even fight against an equally skilled warrior (one who has had years of training or experience) could go either way. (Generally, my rationale is that a wizard can do a little damage over a wide area, which is great for taking out groups of baseline soldiers, but trained warriors are tougher and a sword to the face really hurts.)
5) Wizards do not render traditional soldiers obsolete. They can do a lot of damage with their magic, but they're vulnerable to being swarmed. Besides swarming enemy wizards and fighting enemy swarms, baseline soldiers are more useful for holding territory, as there aren't enough wizards to be everywhere at once.
6) Wizards have access to rituals that are time-consuming but more powerful than on-the-fly magic.
7) This may be the most important: the history of the world is not analogous to that of our world. The presence of magic changes things: notably, it creates an incentive for centralized governments which have the resources to find and train people with the potential to be wizards.

Expanding on #7: A small tribe can train warriors just as well as larger ones. However, training wizards requires a certain level of infrastructure: you need to have at least one wizard in every generation, or you lose the continuity of knowledge; this is easier in larger populations. You need to have the spare resources for books and implements. You need to be able to have members of your society who aren't out hunting or farming all day. This all makes it easier to reliably train wizards in larger groups. This incentive, coupled with the fact that wizards give their group a military advantage, is going to encourage larger societies, and contribute to the downfall and assimilation of smaller ones.

The existence of magic also alleviates many of the obstacles to centralized governments, such as communication delays and the quick spread of disease in early cities. The end result of all this is going to be a quicker rise of centralized government and nationalism, which are some of the conditions required for a systematic wizard-training apparatus.


Great, now we have wizard civil wars erupting inside our own army, we sure as hell be able to win when members of our own troops are blastign each other.

This deserves a response of its own: I was actually talking about having wizard MPs, and possibly wizards among the regular police, to maintain a credible threat to magic-using lawbreakers. The point, after all, is to avoid chaos.

I can accept that when wizards are few and far between, a lot of them will wind up being amoral at best. But when there are lots of them, and some of them work for the authorities and you can thus expect them to track you down if you incinerate your childhood rival for kicks, it puts the same sort of behavioral constraint on the wizards that a police force puts on us in the real world.

[Jeraa]

That said, it is a mainly 3.5 forum, so it makes sense that that would form the basis for discussion.

No, this is in the Roleplaying Games forum.


The all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.

This discussion should be kept as system-neutral as possible.

[Hjolnai]

One thing to consider: If magic is better at defense than offense, if one mage can distract and negate two or three others for a couple of minutes until the infantry can reach them or the archers shoot them, then the advantage is not necessarily with the greatest number of mages - a force with half the number of mages their opponents have will still have a decent chance if their tactics are sound and their ordinary soldiers experienced and numerous.

This just shows that the particular system of magic makes a significant difference in determining what works and what doesn't in terms of military activities - not really a new observation, but I felt like putting a word in.

[Emmerask]

This discussion should be kept as system-neutral as possible.

The op asked specifically for a d&d type world



Edit: Lets state for guidlines that:
-Assume standard Pathfinder/DnD spells, classes, monsters, etc.
-Assume a more standard caster to non-caster ration, as in most DnD settings(Golarion or Forgotten Realms, for instance). And wizards would require longer training, say 10 years or more, and require a decent intellect to master the basics.
-Multiple powers, mostly N or LN, but some stretching across most other alignments. How would this effect combat? Are there inherent advantages to certain alignments?

[Fatebreaker]

If we could, I'd like to shift the topic more towards that alignment-specific question.


Lets state for guidlines that:
-Multiple powers, mostly N or LN, but some stretching across most other alignments. How would this effect combat? Are there inherent advantages to certain alignments?

How does a fantasy world with a concrete alignment system alter the behaviors of the nations within it?

[Talakeal]

People are claiming that it is no easier to level up as a fighter than a wizard, and this is true, but it isn't the question that needs to be asked. Both the PHB and the DMG state that most people are incapable of taking a PC class at all, that only truly exceptional and heroic individuals have the potential to become PCs. There are no rules for NPC classes advancing, because the PCs automatically fall under the special heroes definition, and therefore you don't need rules for NPC leveling, it is simply a plot device.

So, I think a better question is not fighters vs. wizard, but warriors vs. adepts.

[sol_kanar]

People are claiming that it is no easier to level up as a fighter than a wizard, and this is true, but it isn't the question that needs to be asked. Both the PHB and the DMG state that most people are incapable of taking a PC class at all, that only truly exceptional and heroic individuals have the potential to become PCs. There are no rules for NPC classes advancing, because the PCs automatically fall under the special heroes definition, and therefore you don't need rules for NPC leveling, it is simply a plot device.

So, I think a better question is not fighters vs. wizard, but warriors vs. adepts.

I agree. We could consider also Magewrights (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040823a) (from Eberron campaign setting) as another NPC class able to cast a small number of spells.

[Grac]

No, this is in the Roleplaying Games forum.



This discussion should be kept as system-neutral as possible.
The Playground is a predominantly 3.5 forum, or at least that's the retort whenever people complain that a discussion is too 3.5 centric, even if we are in the 'system neutral' forum.

Nevertheless, I contend that it isn't possible to have a 'system neutral' discussion, outside everyone prefacing their posts with the name of a game/work (which I don't oppose at all, it's just messy). The reason for this is extremely simple: magic is make-believe, so we can't reference any real occurrences of magic to give us insight, while there is also no culturally dominating view of magic that we can draw on.

[Mike_G]

If we could, I'd like to shift the topic more towards that alignment-specific question.



How does a fantasy world with a concrete alignment system alter the behaviors of the nations within it?

Oh, dear lord no.

Let's discuss something less controversial, like religion or politics.

[Man on Fire]

The Playground is a predominantly 3.5 forum, or at least that's the retort whenever people complain that a discussion is too 3.5 centric, even if we are in the 'system neutral' forum.

So we should continue this to be 3.5 discussion because of an excuse people use when others complains about them constantly talking about 3.5? I don't get it.


Rest of you guys - I'll answer all points you made later today.

[randomhero00]

Some kind of disease warfare IMO. Wizards can do whatever with there spells but there duration or area is limited. Whereas disease is not. So chucking diseased corpses over the walls would still be best IMO.

[Fatebreaker]

Oh, dear lord no.

Let's discuss something less controversial, like religion or politics.

I don't mean, "Let's discuss alignment." God, no. That would be madness.

No, I mean things like, Team Evil gets liches, Team Good gets paladins, that sort of thing. Straight up lists of options available (or limited to) factions of a different alignment. Things like how you aren't going to see the Black Knights of Badness riding unicorns, for example, but you might see them riding nightmares.

[hamishspence]

Things like how you aren't going to see the Black Knights of Badness riding unicorns, for example, but you might see them riding nightmares.

Forgotten Realms does have Evil Unicorns:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG83b.jpg

but those were magically created by tainting normal unicorns with "the blood of demons and other hellspawn".

[Fatebreaker]

Forgotten Realms does have Evil Unicorns:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG83b.jpg

but those were magically created by tainting normal unicorns with "the blood of demons and other hellspawn".

Hell YES.

Man, next D&D game, one of the Big Bad's top lieutenants has to be a sexy sorceress on an Evil(tm) unicorn! She will gallop about the land doing Evil(tm) things! And she will have a personal cohort of Evil(tm) Knights riding Nightmares, whom I shall dub the Knightmares!

Thank you, Hamishspence. Thousands of tormented souls and the ruins of what was once a great land lament your name, and it is Good. Er, Evil. Whatever.

[hamishspence]

The book with these "Black Unicorns" in is Monsters of Faerun (updated to 3.5 in the Players Guide to Faerun web enhancement).

Or you could just add the appropriate template (Fiendish?) to a standard unicorn.

The Red Wizards of Thay were the ones that first came up with them.

[Fatebreaker]

Curses! My Faerun collection lacks such a tome!

Nooooooooooooo!

[hamishspence]

Amazon still has quite a few copies:

Monsters of Faerun (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monsters-Faerun-Dungeons-Dragons-Forgotten/dp/0786918322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334963354&sr=8-1)

[Man on Fire]

I don't know about realistic, but it's even stranger to have armies inexplicably behaving as if they're in medieval Europe when they inhabit a world of potent and widespread magic.[/quote[

And not saying that. I'm saying that military would accomodate to the magic and make a way to neutralize enemy wizard. What I'm against is saying wizards would make military obsolete. Making army like if existence of magic had no impact on it is lazy but making an army impotent and useless because of magic is even more lazy.

[quote]Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books do this passably well. Rand al'Thor ends up being able wipe out armies more or less by himself thanks to the One Power. Rand approximates a high-level D&D wizard, albeit with more raw power but less control and reliability.

From that describtion it sounds like exactly what I'm arguing against (granted, only from that describtion, I would appricate more data). If one guy can wipe entire army because "wizards!" then there was no reason for an army to be there to being with. If army cannot make good challenge for a hero, don't put it in front of the hero, put somebody that can make a challenge to him. Too many lazy writers treats war like something they may easily solve with Great Wizard of Nonsense waving his Wand of Deus Ex Machina and use that as an excuse to not do their damn* research! Maybe a short story will illustrate what I'm talking about.

I'm so much against this because I once talked with a would-be writer** who wanted to write fantasy about orc invasion. He had this dumb idea of orcs being nothing more than a horde of dumb barbarians who somehow defeats more advanced army so Choosen One number 535346 can save the day. And when I tried to explain to him that it would be stupid because even real life equivalents of barbarians were using strategy and no army would win by blindly charging right on without a plan, he said "This doesn't matter, magic changes everything". He was using this stupid explanation to cover his own lazyness.

So no, I'm not saying that military should be like there was no magic to begin with. But it still has to follow the basic rules of warfare. Sun Tzu's great book of war isn't suddeny obsolete because some old idiot who was dumb enough to come on the battlefield wearing colorfull pijamas can summon a tornado made of bees - there are things there that could be used to neutralize him, when applied with creativity. I just demand of people that if they want to mix warfare and magic that they are going to respect the former. And do their f*****g research!

Look again at Black Company - there are wizards out there whou could obliberate entire armies, most of Ten Who Were Taken for example are something of a fusion between 3.5 high-level wizard and Nazgul and I mean all strenghts no weakness kind of fusion. But the armies these wizards fight with takes this into consideation. In first book there is a war between rebels, lead by Circle of Eighten, another group of ultrapowerful wizards and forces of Lady of Charm, commanded by the Taken. At one point three of Taken obliberates enemy army only to find out that it was only small group and real army has sneaked behind them to attack their army from the flank. Or The Witcher where invading empire managed to utterly destroy wizard's community's main organization, sow the seeds of distrust among remaining wizards and generally make them fight each other because they were too much of a threat and that was the first thing they did right before the invasion. Or Berserk where we have Shrieke, who sure can obliberate hordes of enemies but is still vunerable and needs protection of her teammates when she's casting her spells. That's the kind of thing I'm talking here about.


The bit about serving your country meaning soldiering is not inherently true. It's one way to serve, but service can mean all sorts of things. It could mean political or civil service. It could mean learning to be a healer, whether physical or spiritual. It could mean studying how the world works and applying that knowledge to reshape reality on a whim. All it takes is a desire to make life better for you family, tribe, village, duchy, kingdom, empire, world, whatever. On top of that desire, add follow through and a talent. Service means a variety of things to a variety of people.

I was oversimplyfing a little but I still think that it doesn't apply. I mean, how I see wizards, they're very powerful, they are dedicated to the common good (I'm talking about good guys here of course) but I think they may be more far-sighted than just loyality to one kingdom or king. They know that kings come and go but common good can be achieved by decication and study and research. Wizards are like moder day sciencists - you don't send them to the front line because they may be step from find a cure for cancer right now.


As for war not solving problems, I imagine the answer there depends on your views of war. I won't go down that road, since it is almost certainly one that will lead to irreconcilable differences, but in some ways that is the very point itself. There are some arguments which contain within them positions of such mutually opposed and mutually exclusive viewpoints that no amount of compromise or discussion will suffice, and yet must be brought to resolution.


But the main thing I want to address in the quoted paragraph is twofold: first, that war can be a solution to problems

I don't say it's not. I say that I think that most of wizards who, because of their studies probably value peaceful life, would be more eger into looking for other ways to avoid the problem. Wizards just strike me like guys who will see war as too much trouble and death that it's worth.


A powerful organization, by definition, is a threat to the society which supports it. Whether that is a political, economical, or military organ is irrelevant. Each possesses, by dint of its power, the capacity to help or hinder that society. A corrupt process no longer acts on behalf of the nation, but the individuals within it. Magic is simply another form of power in this regard, albeit a frightening one due to (sticking with D&D) the versatility it provides, the ease of learning, and lack of consequences for wielding it.

This reminds me way too much about X-Men and their inherently broken aesop. Yes, they are still humans like anyone but can you really blame people for the fact they're afraid of guys who can destroy a building with a wave of hand? Modern democracy is based on the idea that if government becomes corrupted, troublesome or just isn't doing their job right you can fix it. By voting these people out. If an organization that is part of the system misbehaves, system has laws and regulations it can enforce on the organization and means to do so - bueraucrats, police, military etc. But with wizards, who can obliberate entire army? If they will decide to take over, system won't have a way to do anything about it, because the only regulations and means to enforce them were created by wizards themselves (because who else could do that?) who knows the best how to overcome them.


Start training them young. It's what we do, and it seems to work.

But we still need a time to teach people loads of things. Child needs time to learn to write and read before you can teach it magic missle and it needs to learn to walk before you order it to run 45 miles with full equipment, sneak behind enemy lines and stab them from behind. To effectively train such army you would have to enlist kids. And that's just sick, look at all terrible cases of child soldiers in the world.


As for thinking soldiers, well, again, that depends on your level of magic (no, that kind of level!). A high degree of magic allows wizards to summon up and control all sorts of creatures, making themselves de facto commanders, or to apply their intellect in creative ways. This is an excellent example of how wizards don't really fit into historical or modern warfare, because sufficiently advanced wizards just have such a mind-boggling array of options that, yes, you want them to think of something better than "fireball!"

A smart mage can rapidly switch between offense, defense, military intelligence, logistics, transportation, combat engineering, precision, wholesale destruction, area denial, and all manner of battlefield roles. This effectively removes him from our historical approach, because we have nothing like it to compare it with.[/SPOILER]

The problem is, that while Jack of all trades sure would be useful, military would require Master of every one of them, a specialist - medic doesn't need to summon creatures and scout doesn't need to cast fireballs, military machine is based on the fact that everybody knows what's their job and can do it the best, dropping loads of functions on one guy if counterproductive. And when wizard who managed to learn decent level magic in every domain you listed is going to be taught strategy to be also an officer and undergo military training? And he wouldn't be as good in any of the three things as if he just pursued one of them.

I know I insisted of removing D&D terms but this metaphor would probably nail my point straighter. Lets say that usual soldier is a 1-2 level fighter, commanding officer is a warlord and wizard is a wizard. Would Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Warlord 6 be as effective fighter as fighter 14, as effective warlord as warlord 14 or as effective wizard as wizard 14? He may be a good build but the point of multiclassing is sacrificing abilities from one school for abilities of the other, making you weaker in first but more comprehensive. The problem is that millitary cannot afford that. They have to be sure that their soldier will hold the line the best he can, that their medic won't do half-assed job, thet their sniper can hit the target, their scout can find enemy position and not give out his, their spy can get the information without blowing up his cover and their general knows all kinds of strategies. Wizard who can increase his condition, heal, turn invisible, charm people and knows a bit of strategy would make a good character for an adventure story, but on battlefield he would be useless. If I would be drafted, send at the end of the world with M5 and ordered to empty it at bunch of people with AK-47 I wouldn't care if my medic is good sniper, knows five languages, can sneak behind enemy lines and each week calls president to discuss with him next strategy, I would like to know that if I'm shot in the liver he actually knows his job more than watching first aid lessons during his driving licence course, because otherwise I'm dead. Going back to D&D look why Multiple Ability Buy is seen as a hidrance and why all tips for begginers I read suggest you to pick up what you're good for and stick to it, even if you're a wizard or cleric.

[quote]Is there a particular world you would like to discuss?[/SPOILER]

No, just in general, anything that gives interesting insight on the topic.

[quote]Shadowrun is a neat game-world that operates partially on this principle. All the super-powerful organizations out there have military and paramilitary forces at their beck and call, but it's cheaper and more expedient to send in "deniable assets" to solve the problem.

Of course, if adventurers really are cheaper and more effective, you'll soon find city-states or nations or whatever who sponsor adventuring parties (or groups of them), keeping them on retainer to Solve Difficult Problems. This will have its own ramifications on the world.

And that's why I'm talkig about. Why should Hiacynth from Gray Mountain prepare an army of wizards for the king to fight the Dark Lord Srom if he can pick up street rat, war veteran with big axe, choosen one farmboy and some hot chick and destroy the guy without unnecessary loss of innocent lives?


And that's an awesome perspective to have. My recommendation, though, is to find a way to match mechanics and story, because it's always better when they go hand in hand.

In Legend of the Five Rings, fantasy-samurai fight like historical-samurai, because there culture trumps efficiency. One clan (the Phoenix) have entire armies of mages, but don't use them, because 1) the level of destruction they would unleash is unacceptable in anything but the most dire of circumstances, and 2) it would be rude. As a result, the Phoenix strive to find the non-violent solution, because if you back them into a corner, they will win. Another clan, the Crab, don't fight in the traditional fashion, because they don't fight other samurai -- they fight hellspawn things that don't buy in to the whole culture vibe. Since they don't play by the rules, the Crab don't either. The Crab are looked down on for this. In both cases, it is theoretically more effective to just muster up armies of shugenja (mages). However, there exist mechanics for social interactions which make the fallout undesirable within the context and rules of the game. The story and the mechanics mesh, and it goes well together.

Put another way, you want mechanics that support your story, because otherwise it's more profitable for your players to buck the story, and it only takes one guy to ruin it.

Thank you, that's precisely what's I'm talking about.


Sufficiently advanced magic would blow away a conventional medieval military. Provided the author constructs a world of sufficiently advanced magic, that's not lazy. That said, yeah, I've seen too many fantasy books where the author was, in fact, lazy, and simply declared "a wizard did it."

That's my main concern. Too many times when people say that magic would blow the military they don't have belivable world of sufficently advanced magic to back it up, they just doesn't want to read a history book to learn something about war.


Hilariously enough, Harry Potter is an example of the reverse -- wizards still use "owl post" instead of the vastly more efficient global communications network we've built up. There's some handwave somewhere about electronics not working at Hogwarts, but from the behavior of wizards throughout the series, it's clear that they simply don't understand that newfangled stuff. Maybe there's a way around that. Still, it's a fun little example of "dude, mundane is so much better than magic," which is nice to see in fantasy fiction. iStaff, man. Look into it.[/SPOILER]

On the other hand, I never liked her assumption that one human with a gun is as good as a wizard, it was going too far into the other direction for me.

[QUOTE]Umm... the Iron Kingdoms from Privateer Press is an interesting world. It's a medieval-turned-industrial setting, where magic is beginning to be nationalized because of how much it augments a military force. I'm not sure if the novels are any good, but the game (Warmachine) is fun and has some neat fiction. They're also re-releasing the RPG (this summer, I think?), so that might be a good read.

Yeah, I know Iron Kingdoms, it came to my mind when I was writing this post. And it's a good example - magic does infulence the military but doesn't replace it.


The Exalted world is also pretty good in that respect. I think I mentioned it earlier. They also write novels (I have not read them). Worth a look.

But those are both (primarily) game worlds. Let's see, fiction... fiction...

Raymond E. Feist did the Riftwar & Serpentwar Sagas. Those were awesome. Prince of the Blood & the King's Buccaneer come between the two sagas. They're very much worth a look, partially because they start low-fantasy, and gradually up the magic and organization thing, so you get to see it develop. They're also just fun to read.

The Black Sun Rising series by C. S. Friedman is about a world where magic is everywhere, and has some amusing repercussions. High-level technology doesn't function unless you both know how it works and really trust it deep down, because if you doubt it, your subconscious alters reality such that the technology does not work. However, magic is really dangerous, because if you are scared of the dark... well, then the dark is suddenly dangerous. For real. There's a huge market in magical items which negate the effects of magic. Magic is common, easy to access, difficult to control, and dangerous when it goes wrong. It's an interesting trilogy.

Oh! Read the Malus Darkblade sage, from the Black Library. It's amazingly fun. It's set in the Warhammer world, and there's all sorts of good stuff there. There's five books (or two Omnibi), which you can get off of Amazon. I recommend looking for the Ominbus editions, "The Chronicles of Malus Darkblade" Volumes I & II. You won't regret it.

Thanks a lot, I will look into them when I have a chance. I would also add to it Naomi Novik's "Temeraire" - first book showed she cares deeply about integrating the existence of dragons into warfare in a beliveable way.

* - That's a tollerable word on this board, right, right?
** - For those who remember my attack on MLP fandom - this si the same guy.

[Incanur]

If one guy can wipe entire army because "wizards!" then there was no reason for an army to be there to being with.

That's not necessarily a valid conclusion. An example: Contemporary tanks, helicopters, and/or bombers could rout unsupported infantry, yet foot soldiers still have their place in modern warfare. Riot police would fare even worse, but they exist by the thousands. In the fantasy context, medieval-style armies might remain for the purpose of combating their equivalents even the presence of mages who could annihilate them with ease.


If army cannot make good challenge for a hero, don't put it in front of the hero, put somebody that can make a challenge to him.

In general, the hero-defeats-army scene serves to instill wonder in the reader and establish the hero's power. I agree it can be problematic if magic too conveniently resolves a story's dramatic tension, but that's a separate matter.

[Fatebreaker]

I don't know about realistic, but it's even stranger to have armies inexplicably behaving as if they're in medieval Europe when they inhabit a world of potent and widespread magic.

And not saying that. I'm saying that military would accomodate to the magic and make a way to neutralize enemy wizard. What I'm against is saying wizards would make military obsolete. Making army like if existence of magic had no impact on it is lazy but making an army impotent and useless because of magic is even more lazy.

Wizards don't make a military obsolete -- they make the historical methods of warfare obsolete.


I was oversimplyfing a little but I still think that it doesn't apply. I mean, how I see wizards, they're very powerful, they are dedicated to the common good (I'm talking about good guys here of course) but I think they may be more far-sighted than just loyality to one kingdom or king. They know that kings come and go but common good can be achieved by decication and study and research. Wizards are like moder day sciencists - you don't send them to the front line because they may be step from find a cure for cancer right now.

Presumably, wizards are people just like the rest of us, and are capable of the full range of emotions and ideas as the rest of us. Remember, the culture the wizard comes from will have a major effect on how he views the world.

The Riftwar/Serpentwar Sagas I mentioned earlier has examples of both. One faction has no wizards except the reclusive, non-aligned wizard types. As the war gets worse and worse, volunteers step up to save their home. The more powerful wizards from here eventually grow beyond any singular faction. Another faction has semi-nationalized wizards, giving them the option of serving or death. This... works about as well as you might expect. A third faction tests every child for magical ability, and positives are raised in isolation to learn both Very Powerful Magic and be indoctrinated in service to the state. They have the neat ability to act for the good of the realm as they see fit, but are held in check from one another and are held apart from society as much as possible. When they go to war, this works very, very well.


I don't say it's not. I say that I think that most of wizards who, because of their studies probably value peaceful life, would be more eger into looking for other ways to avoid the problem. Wizards just strike me like guys who will see war as too much trouble and death that it's worth.

There may be wizards like that (I'd be surprised if there were not), but let's not stereotype personality and beliefs based on profession.


This reminds me way too much about X-Men and their inherently broken aesop. Yes, they are still humans like anyone but can you really blame people for the fact they're afraid of guys who can destroy a building with a wave of hand? Modern democracy is based on the idea that if government becomes corrupted, troublesome or just isn't doing their job right you can fix it. By voting these people out. If an organization that is part of the system misbehaves, system has laws and regulations it can enforce on the organization and means to do so - bueraucrats, police, military etc. But with wizards, who can obliberate entire army? If they will decide to take over, system won't have a way to do anything about it, because the only regulations and means to enforce them were created by wizards themselves (because who else could do that?) who knows the best how to overcome them.

Oh, yes, X-Men's literal aesop is broken. Mutants and humans are not equal, because mutants have powers that break how our basic society functions. Mind control is the blatant example, but the ability to walk through walls is my personal favorite because it's a bit more subtle. Magic is the same way; it breaks some of the basic assumptions of how society functions. So, society would change.

As for systems, power, and correction, consider this: a democracy is solved by voting, but what if the voting process itself is no longer reliable?


But we still need a time to teach people loads of things. Child needs time to learn to write and read before you can teach it magic missle and it needs to learn to walk before you order it to run 45 miles with full equipment, sneak behind enemy lines and stab them from behind. To effectively train such army you would have to enlist kids. And that's just sick, look at all terrible cases of child soldiers in the world.

I don't think anyone is advocating throwing middle-school wizards at the problem. But you start young, educate them, and make magic a part of that education. When they come of age, they serve the state in some capacity. You offer incentives to serve. You inspire a spirit of service and camaraderie. You play up how they're helping people and making the world a better place. You do the things that elite organizations do to make their members want to be a part of that organization.

We do this even today, and it may not be with magic, but if you've seen some of the things the modern military is capable of doing, well, the difference between some of that stuff and magic is mighty miniscule. And a lot of our technological toys are operated by kids not yet old enough to buy beer!


The problem is, that while Jack of all trades sure would be useful, military would require Master of every one of them, a specialist
-snip-

There are better folks than I who can go into specifics about why a D&D wizard (or cleric) is a master of all trades. The short of it is that D&D magic has spells which solve any problem, often easier and better than the mundane solution.

A cleric just needs to cast a heal spell; he doesn't need to know what it does (because healing spells and healing skills are not in any way connected). All other things being equal, a cleric who pumps his healing skill and a cleric who forgets he even has such a thing still cast the same cure light wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm).

Again, there are better folks than I who can explain why D&D is like this, many of whom are on this very board. Here are two links (not to this board):

Here is a link to the different Tiers of classes. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0)

Here is a link to the Tier One classes. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=ulr2pk3a9526juo0ngvf6g6cc0&topic=4938.0)


And that's why I'm talkig about. Why should Hiacynth from Gray Mountain prepare an army of wizards for the king to fight the Dark Lord Srom if he can pick up street rat, war veteran with big axe, choosen one farmboy and some hot chick and destroy the guy without unnecessary loss of innocent lives?

Careful with phrases like "unnecessary losses" and "innocent lives." Some folks have very different views on that sort of thing. Some of them are heads of state. Words like that are a poor foundation to build on.

In the case of Shadowrun, "disposable assets" exist because the big power players need ways to compete without going to war. They all want to surpass the competition. However, if one megacorporation declares war on the others, the rest just smack the problem child down, divvy up their loot, and go back to business as usual. So they have to be sneaky about it.

For best results, have a lot of major powers each of whom has a lot of major power. Still, a Cold War-style two-party faceoff also works. However, the fewer factions you have, the easier it is for one faction to stop playing the cold war game and kick off the hot war.

In Shadowrun, shadowrunners are useful because of the specific circumstances of the world; they function in very specific ways to fulfill very specific types of tasks under very specific conditions. If a full-blown war kicks off, shadowrunners would still have a place, but they can neither compete with nor replace a professional military. Most of them don't even try.

Sometimes you need a five-man band. But sometimes, you really need an orchestra.


That's my main concern. Too many times when people say that magic would blow the military they don't have belivable world of sufficently advanced magic to back it up, they just doesn't want to read a history book to learn something about war.

That's a fair accusation. Bad authors are bad.


On the other hand, I never liked her assumption that one human with a gun is as good as a wizard, it was going too far into the other direction for me.

This was actually one of the few things I liked about her books. Potter-magic is very limited, and she accepts this. From the world she shows us, a gun really is better than a wand, and it's good of her to not pretend otherwise.


Yeah, I know Iron Kingdoms, it came to my mind when I was writing this post. And it's a good example - magic does infulence the military but doesn't replace it.

The Iron Kingdoms also posits that technology advances alongside magic, rather than one or the other dominating. This works for them, because magic operates in very specific ways. It's rapidly becoming one of my more favorite worlds. I can't wait for the RPG to be released this summer!

Do note, however, that a magical army (with warcasters, jacks, and the like) trumps a non-magical army.


Thanks a lot, I will look into them when I have a chance. I would also add to it Naomi Novik's "Temeraire" - first book showed she cares deeply about integrating the existence of dragons into warfare in a beliveable way.

Temeraire is, at least in my opinion, one of the stealthier example of what not to do. "Napoleonic Wars + Dragons!" sounds exciting (I mean, I bought her first omnibus because that premise does sound exciting), but her follow through was poor.

So she figures, "What if there were dragons in the Napoleonic Wars?" She writes some stuff, and it's decent. Nations try to nationalize bloodlines. Specialist ships and stuff so dragons can land at sea. So on and so forth.

What she doesn't figure is how the presence of armies of dragons radically alters history to the point that the Napoleonic style of warfare would not actually be a thing. While she does a decent job of coming up with neat toys for her characters to use right now, the conventional forces appear to have developed in isolation from the massive, devastatingly powerful, breath-weaponed flying monsters chilling about. She even mentions that dragons were more common in the past, such as the Crusades, which only hurts her story, because massed dragon armies and no gunpowder makes for a sad footslogger.


For those who remember my attack on MLP fandom - this si the same guy.

Well, that only further highlights that MLP wasn't the problem. Your buddy was clearly a man of many issues.

[Beleriphon]

From that description it sounds like exactly what I'm arguing against (granted, only from that description, I would appreciate more data). If one guy can wipe entire army because "wizards!" then there was no reason for an army to be there to being with.

As I recall Rand is the only one in the entire setting that can destroy armies on his own. So even taking into account blowing up armies by his lonesome Rand still can't hold a territory. I admit though that I have not read all of the books, so I don't know what happens in some of the later ones. Rand also has an arse load of artifacts that exponentially increase his own substantial personal power. The only reason he can do so is that he's the only one in however many generations that can do so, thus the armies he's fighting really are more conventional armies that are used to fighting more or less conventional battles.

[Talakeal]

[QUOTE=Incanur;13100322]Sun Tzu's great book of war isn't suddeny obsolete because some old idiot who was dumb enough to come on the battlefield wearing colorfull pijamas can summon a tornado made of bees...

Where can I find this gentleman? I wish to hire him for my next birthday party.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

One thing I don't think anyone has touched on yet is how reliable magic is/could be. In a setting like Warhammer (since it seems to have been cited a lot), magic is everywhere, but it's completely and utterly unreliable. To put it in perspective for those who don't play Warhammer, pretty much half the time you cast a spell, there is a good chance that you'll mess it up, with a good chance that you could die in any number of horrible ways, in addition to potentially killing others nearby. Why would a common soldier trust something so unreliable? However, the assumption in DnD seems to be that magic is generally reliable, so that may affect armies. Something else you need to remember is that low level PCs are rare, so wizards with all sorts of crazy abilities (:xykon: ,:redcloak:, and :vaarsuvius:) would be incredibly rare, so there'd probably be a mad dash for kingdoms or countries or city states or whatever to hire them to fight in their wars. That would create another problem, because there is always the risk that said wizard might be evil, and may mess with you in horrible ways after the fighting is over (or during :eek:).

[jaybird]

That's not necessarily a valid conclusion. An example: Contemporary tanks, helicopters, and/or bombers could rout unsupported infantry, yet foot soldiers still have their place in modern warfare. Riot police would fare even worse, but they exist by the thousands. In the fantasy context, medieval-style armies might remain for the purpose of combating their equivalents even the presence of mages who could annihilate them with ease.


That's not a valid conclusion either - it depends on combat conditions. A real regiment of light infantry in rough terrain will do a number on enemy armour or aviation. Who's to say specialized "magekiller" units wouldn't be developed? Remember, the generals of WW1 thought tanks would dominate the battlefield and render infantry obsolete, then the generals of WW2 thought bombers would dominate the battlefield and render ground armies obsolete :smallwink:

[kieza]

Let's take a step back and start looking at specific examples of magical powers, and see what changes they might bring into play. I'll start:

Power: A wizard can fire blasts of energy that explode on impact. The blasts are long-ranged, but not too big (~20 feet across?). They can reliably kill a conscript-quality trooper in a couple of shots.
Effect: The wizard is now equivalent to a man-portable light artillery unit, with no supply constraints beyond his own rations, no minimum range, and the ability to blend in with any infantry unit.
Tactical Innovations: The wizard's army is probably going to give the wizard a normal infantry uniform, and scatter him in among a bunch of other troops to disguise him and give him a bodyguard. The enemy will need to spread out against infantry like they would against artillery, in case there's a wizard hidden in the infantry unit. They'll also probably invest in magic-detecting methods to sniff out wizards.

Power: A wizard can make moderate-sized infantry units (platoon to company range) stronger, tougher and faster for limited durations.
Effect: For the sake of argument, let's say that this effect is enough to turn green recruits into the equivalent of veterans, or to make veterans truly fearsome. The wizard can take any unit on the battlefield and do this to them.
Tactical Innovations: Again, the wizard will probably wind up disguised among the troops. The buffed troops could be used as a reserve force or put on the front lines as a hidden spearhead. The enemy will, again, put effort into detecting the wizard. If they have a wizard of their own with the same ability, they may wind up keeping theirs in reserve to counter attacks from a buffed unit. (Perhaps both sides hold theirs in reserve as long as possible, and once they commit their buffed troops, they're quickly hit hard with a counterattack?)

Power: A wizard can transport troops from any location to specifically-designated destinations. He needs to be present at either end of the transit, but he doesn't need to go with the troops. It's time-consuming, so can't be done mid-combat, but it can move large numbers of troops (company+) in very short timeframes.
Effect: An army can move troops from a central reserve to anywhere they've established a destination, almost instantaneously. There's no need for any more than a token picket on their borders, and specialists can be sent wherever they're needed on a moment's notice.
Tactical Innovations: Obliterates the concept of front lines. There'll be a lot of intel and counter-intel effort put into planting destinations in strategic locations (i.e. inside enemy perimeters/on their flanks), and finding and disabling (or co-opting) the enemy's destinations. It's also good for communications. Depending on how easy it is to establish a destination, it might be usable for deploying direct into combat.

[Reficule]

That's not a valid conclusion either - it depends on combat conditions. A real regiment of light infantry in rough terrain will do a number on enemy armour or aviation. Who's to say specialized "magekiller" units wouldn't be developed? Remember, the generals of WW1 thought tanks would dominate the battlefield and render infantry obsolete, then the generals of WW2 thought bombers would dominate the battlefield and render ground armies obsolete :smallwink:

We still use both of those, don't we? The line between irrelevant and rendering all other options obsolete is not as thin as you might think




Tactical Innovations: The wizard's army is probably going to give the wizard a normal infantry uniform, and scatter him in among a bunch of other troops to disguise him and give him a bodyguard. The enemy will need to spread out against infantry like they would against artillery, in case there's a wizard hidden in the infantry unit. They'll also probably invest in magic-detecting methods to sniff out wizards.

Tactical Innovations: Again, the wizard will probably wind up disguised among the troops. The buffed troops could be used as a reserve force or put on the front lines as a hidden spearhead. The enemy will, again, put effort into detecting the wizard. If they have a wizard of their own with the same ability, they may wind up keeping theirs in reserve to counter attacks from a buffed unit. (Perhaps both sides hold theirs in reserve as long as possible, and once they commit their buffed troops, they're quickly hit hard with a counterattack?)


I agree completely with the third point, however depending on the time and resources required to train a wizard, they could represent a significant investment on the part of the state. In that case they would be unwilling to put them near the front lines just for the purposes of artillery, barring magic items to teleport them to safety. When each of your wizards takes 5+ years to replace, you don't want to risk them in open combat until they have access to Fly, Protection from Arrows, and Invisibility. And even then they would still have a Teleport contingency on their person at all times

[Incanur]

That's not a valid conclusion either - it depends on combat conditions. A real regiment of light infantry in rough terrain will do a number on enemy armour or aviation.

Perhaps with guerrilla tactics if they have the right equipment for the task. In practice, U.S. air power in Iraq and Afghanistan has experienced minimal loses over the last decade. Taking the guerrilla approach into consideration also complicates the discussion of wizards versus medieval armies. Fireballs and such become less effective if medieval soldiers scatter and focus on ambush.

[Emperor Tippy]

In 3.5 D&D warfare does not exist in a fashion remotely comparable to any time in modern history short of the US today.

Look at one spell. Teleportation Circle. Yes it's 9th level but that doesn't change the fact that it can be cast by a level 11 Warlock or gained from a Wish granted by a Solar called with a Candle of Invocation. Even without permanency (which again that Solar could do) it will last 144 minutes (minimum). In that time period you can move thousands of troops through one easily.

You have just eliminated supply lines of communication as any concern at all.

Anyone can drop any force anywhere on the plane with no warning. The only thing that even begins to provide the kind of large scale protection you need to defend cities or nations is the Weirdstone, and those cost over 200,000 GP per copy and everyone of them has to be secured at all times so as not to open up a critical hole in your defenses.

Now onto some other spells. Take a look at Telepathic Bond. It can be made permanent for a mere 13,150 GP, cheaper if you invest in wondrous architecture to cast it. Every unit will have several people with those bonds with the second part of the pair being back in your nations headquarters. That is instant, undetectable, secure, communication between every force you have. Your spies can also instantly inform you of what they learn without anything to give them away.

Now another, Control Weather. You go to sleep for the night and wake up to a hurricane hitting your camp.

But now let's look at creatures. Take a look at the Shadesteel Golem from MM3. For 225,000 GP you get an immortal creature with a fly speed of 30 feet (perfect), 33 AC, +20 base attack, DR 15/adamantine and magic, immunity to magic, a negative energy pulse with a radius of 40 feet that deals 6d6 damage on a successful fort save and is useable every 1d4+1 rounds, has fast healing 8, and has concealment whenever it's not in full daylight. Create it with Rudimentary Intelligence (+8,000 GP) so it has average Int. Give it a Telepathic Bond with base and any magic items that you feel might be helpful (I like a ring of invisibility). Now, as a construct it's immune to critical hits. The strongest ranged weapon listed in the PHB does 1d10 damage. At max damage and assuming that a fighter has weapon specilization for the heavy crossbow it would max out at 12 damage. And it would only hit on a natural 20. You could literally have an entire army firing at a single one of these golems and do not a single point of damage. These things are immortal and have no upkeep costs as well, they also never tire and don't have moral problems.

---
Warfare in D&D, at least if either side has any real wealth or power (or either side has any high level caster that cares, or can be made to care, about it) is not fought with massed armies. It's fought between incredibly powerful war machines and specialized units.

Numbers simply don't matter in D&D.

[Emperor Tippy]

In 3.5 D&D warfare does not exist in a fashion remotely comparable to any time in modern history short of the US today.

Look at one spell. Teleportation Circle. Yes it's 9th level but that doesn't change the fact that it can be cast by a level 11 Warlock or gained from a Wish granted by a Solar called with a Candle of Invocation. Even without permanency (which again that Solar could do) it will last 144 minutes (minimum). In that time period you can move thousands of troops through one easily.

You have just eliminated supply lines of communication as any concern at all.

Anyone can drop any force anywhere on the plane with no warning. The only thing that even begins to provide the kind of large scale protection you need to defend cities or nations is the Weirdstone, and those cost over 200,000 GP per copy and everyone of them has to be secured at all times so as not to open up a critical hole in your defenses.

Now onto some other spells. Take a look at Telepathic Bond. It can be made permanent for a mere 13,150 GP, cheaper if you invest in wondrous architecture to cast it. Every unit will have several people with those bonds with the second part of the pair being back in your nations headquarters. That is instant, undetectable, secure, communication between every force you have. Your spies can also instantly inform you of what they learn without anything to give them away.

Now another, Control Weather. You go to sleep for the night and wake up to a hurricane hitting your camp.

But now let's look at creatures. Take a look at the Shadesteel Golem from MM3. For 225,000 GP you get an immortal creature with a fly speed of 30 feet (perfect), 33 AC, +20 base attack, DR 15/adamantine and magic, immunity to magic, a negative energy pulse with a radius of 40 feet that deals 6d6 damage on a successful fort save and is useable every 1d4+1 rounds, has fast healing 8, and has concealment whenever it's not in full daylight. Create it with Rudimentary Intelligence (+8,000 GP) so it has average Int. Give it a Telepathic Bond with base and any magic items that you feel might be helpful (I like a ring of invisibility). Now, as a construct it's immune to critical hits. The strongest ranged weapon listed in the PHB does 1d10 damage. At max damage and assuming that a fighter has weapon specilization for the heavy crossbow it would max out at 12 damage. And it would only hit on a natural 20. You could literally have an entire army firing at a single one of these golems and do not a single point of damage. These things are immortal and have no upkeep costs as well, they also never tire and don't have moral problems.

---
Warfare in D&D, at least if either side has any real wealth or power (or either side has any high level caster that cares, or can be made to care, about it) is not fought with massed armies. It's fought between incredibly powerful war machines and specialized units.

Numbers simply don't matter in D&D.

[Reficule]

Hooray! The Great and Powerful Tippy has graced our thread! Tippy=win.
The only thing I want to add to his post is that I would choose a ring with Teleport 1/day over invisibility. They are a bit too expensive to risk destruction, or worse, theft.

[Emperor Tippy]

I load mine down with several hundred K worth of magic items, including boots of teleportation.

Although it's really not necessary against an army made up of 5th level characters. Without magic items they simply don't possess the ability to even harm the golem through raw damage. And it needs to be magical and adamantine to overcome it's DR. At which point it still has over a hundred HP and fast healing 8.

[Reficule]

I load mine down with several hundred K worth of magic items, including boots of teleportation.

Although it's really not necessary against an army made up of 5th level characters. Without magic items they simply don't possess the ability to even harm the golem through raw damage. And it needs to be magical and adamantine to overcome it's DR. At which point it still has over a hundred HP and fast healing 8.

While yes, we do understand the concept of the Tippyverse arising once wizards hit 17th level, what are your thoughts on the effects of magic with a level cap of 5? I would be fascinated to hear them

[Man on Fire]

There are better folks than I who can go into specifics about why a D&D wizard (or cleric) is a master of all trades. The short of it is that D&D magic has spells which solve any problem, often easier and better than the mundane solution.

A cleric just needs to cast a heal spell; he doesn't need to know what it does (because healing spells and healing skills are not in any way connected). All other things being equal, a cleric who pumps his healing skill and a cleric who forgets he even has such a thing still cast the same cure light wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm).

Again, there are better folks than I who can explain why D&D is like this, many of whom are on this very board. Here are two links (not to this board):

Here is a link to the different Tiers of classes. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0)

Here is a link to the Tier One classes. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=ulr2pk3a9526juo0ngvf6g6cc0&topic=4938.0)

I will answer to other things in more genre neutral thread I will make on Media board at the days, okay? Thsi thread is now in 3.5 board so let's keep it 3.5.

1) My point was that a guy who has to fill multiple roles on the battlefield will be worse at them than guy who can do only specific roles. 12 level Cleric will be able to cast more cure light wounds that Cleric6/Wizard 6 guy, right? Your vision of military wizards would equal multiclass build of Fighter/Warlord/Wizard(or other caster). Maybe wizard is better than fighter of the same level, but Fighter 5/Warlord 5/Wizard 5 will be worse Fighter than Fighter 15, worse Warlord than Warlord 15* and worse wizard than Wizard 15. Which means that on the battlefield he will be liability - it's better to hire those three guys who can do their job right, than him. And no, Wizard who has a spell on everything is a bad idea too, because he is too important and causes too much trouble if he gets killed. On the battlefield there would be cleric who has NOTHING but Cure Light/Moderate/Serious Wounds spells, wizard who has nothing but buffing spells, wizard who has nothing but teleporting spells, wizard who has nothing but protective spells etc and they all would have 2 levels in fighter just to keep up with everybody else - this is how military in D&D would work.

Oh, and I will keep these tier lists. When Roy will kill Xykon I will open them, point a finger at them and laugh :smallwink:

* - I assume this is a basic class for the sake of argument, okay?

[Suddo]

D&D 3.X was not developed for NPC in mind. The system is very two dimensional when examined closely. The fact that a Dire Wolf can wipe out large villages and yet they seem to be common place when adventuring leads many to wonder how "small" villages survive at all. Add on to the fact that either Dragons or Demons often told, or ruled, the land thousands of years before now and that some how we managed to beat them off. Personally I'd prefer to stick to the idea that beyond the rare dragon almost nothing high level exists and that magic was developed naturally, this does mean that there are no gods in this world and that divines are simply arcane casters but who use positive and negative energy. This means that Magic is the replacement of tech, the did a similar concept in Full Metal Alchemist where instead of someone finding Nuclear power they found Alchemy and that's how the world got warped to its current standings.
This means that when a spell is developed countermeasures are often taken. This means that probably at some point in the past when Teleport was first found out someone realized its military potential and used it to conjuer large parts of a country but at the same point him and everyone else was probably developing spells to counter said abilities. A good idea I like is where they make something similar to the weird stone except that its more understood, controlable and requires resources after the manufacturing (which is a problem of the 2d world 3.X is built in see her (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231672)). This means that in the center of major cities are these stones that create a no-teleport field, this could just be for only inward travel due to not caring if people leave the city. This will probably be extended outward beyond the basic sides of the city, because a bunch of troops teleporting a couple of minutes from you is still a lot worse than troops teleporting a couple of hours from you. This also will probably mean that on the outer ring of the field there are outpost cities where one of the main things they do is provide horse and wagons to carry goods into the towns. Although they are vulnerable to attacks people prefer not to declare war due to it leading to bad stuff, kind of a Cold War type mentality. This could cause the creation of something like trains for quicker travel within the no-teleport zones. They could also create Portals, think Stargates, where they are closed off unless a previous message is sent through the system to open it, though this would be more used for politicians than merchants, it could also be created with a limited size so only something that can fit through a door can get through.
All this has to be considered when looking at creating a stable high fantasy world. This type of development is also not conducive to how the d20 system works. Its more conducive to how a spend XP gain ability system works, like Shadowrun or Gurps, compared to d20 where you gain X amount of XP and bam you have a lot of cool stuff. If you were going to imagine d20 universe, imagine that breaking the current level cap is hard and often you can't simply take Wizard 7 you have to develop a new prestige class that give some new spells such as maybe only 3rd level Conjuation spells. These presitge classes once developed can be more easily shared and then new ones will be developed. This also means that groups can develop levels in secret and produce things no one has ever seen.

[Emperor Tippy]

While yes, we do understand the concept of the Tippyverse arising once wizards hit 17th level, what are your thoughts on the effects of magic with a level cap of 5? I would be fascinated to hear them

You need 5th level spells before magic really alters warfare in D&D, regardless of how you get them (scrolls, monsters with SLA's, whatever).

Limited to 3rd level spells it's pretty much just large groups of NPC's wailing on eachother. All of the magic that is in the game is pretty much purely tactical. Fireball and Deep Slumber will cause units to spread out more to make single spell kills more difficult, besides that casters will mostly be relegated to unconventional warfare and special operations. They simply are too valuable to put on the front lines and won't do anything to materially alter the battle. The most common class that can use a wand of fireballs will be handed them and put on the front lines as artillery replacements but that's the only real major change (on the battle field its self at least).

Explosive Runes is the primary use for casters. Have them scribe a few thousand of them into a book. Ideally a book enchanted as a one time use, use activated, dispel magic that auto fails it's dispel check, after the triggering condition occurs. Throw the book at a gate or wall and it blows it right down, and doesn't hurt anyone more than 10 feet away.

[Reficule]

Not Even Fly? I the Advent of flight would have a Major effect on battlefields. Magic Items to grant a trained solider permanent flight, protection from arrows, and a command Word item for area spell of choice would be rather major.

And what about Warfare beyond the open field? Many important spells for spying and enchanting Enemy leadership is availible. How would policy change to reflect that?

Edit: Here is an example. Lieutenant Alastor Moody of the Royal Army is kidnapped and beaten unconsious, he is then replaced with an Imperial Master Spy, Mr. Crouch. Said spy is equipped with a supply of potions of Alter Self and Misdirection. How do you defend against that?

[Suddo]

Not Even Fly? I the Advent of flight would have a Major effect on battlefields. Magic Items to grant a trained solider permanent flight, protection from arrows, and a command Word item for area spell of choice would be rather major.

And what about Warfare beyond the open field? Many important spells for spying and enchanting Enemy leadership is availible. How would policy change to reflect that?

Are we capping XP at level 5 or playing a E5 type game? Because a ring of continuous swift fly (miniatures handbook) from a bard is 64k gold, which costs 2560xp (about a level) and is well above WBL. Its rather silly to say that a item that a PC in normal D&D wouldn't be allowed to get until level 11 should be allowed in such a world. And besides if we are allowing stuff like that dog fighting would simply devolve into who sunders who's cloak first which then we triple the price and make them an unslotted item, a ring you grafted onto your rib cage, and then you spend 7680 which drops several levels.

[Emperor Tippy]

Not Even Fly? I the Advent of flight would have a Major effect on battlefields. Magic Items to grant a trained solider permanent flight, protection from arrows, and a command Word item for area spell of choice would be rather major.
They cost too much for too limited use, unless you want to break out the trap rules and buff wagon. You can't afford to be dumping 40K or more on individual soldiers unless that gives them a significant ability to alter the battle. No spell or combination of spells of third level or lower really do that. Magic would see a ton of use in special forces and unconventional operations, and would thus have a disproportionate impact on the course of a battle or war but it wouldn't see general deployment.


And what about Warfare beyond the open field? Many important spells for spying and enchanting Enemy leadership is availible. How would policy change to reflect that?
Suggestion and Charm person are the only spells you have that mess with peoples minds, and they can be shut down with an item of continuous magic circle against evil. Clairaudience/Clairvoyance is the best divination spell you have and that has a maximum range of 600 feet.

This is all magic that is useful on a tactical level but it changes nothing on a strategic level. It's also too rare and/or expensive to be cost effective for general deployment. The most likely magic you will see is eternal wands of fireball and eternal wands of wind wall. The first in the role of artillery, the second given to people with readied actions to use them if a large scale arrow barrage is incoming.

[Fatebreaker]

There are better folks than I who can go into specifics about why a D&D wizard (or cleric) is a master of all trades. The short of it is that D&D magic has spells which solve any problem, often easier and better than the mundane solution.

...and here's one of those people now!


In 3.5 D&D warfare does not exist in a fashion remotely comparable to any time in modern history short of the US today.

Look at one spell. Teleportation Circle. Yes it's 9th level but that doesn't change the fact that it can be cast by a level 11 Warlock or gained from a Wish granted by a Solar called with a Candle of Invocation. Even without permanency (which again that Solar could do) it will last 144 minutes (minimum). In that time period you can move thousands of troops through one easily.

You have just eliminated supply lines of communication as any concern at all.

Anyone can drop any force anywhere on the plane with no warning. The only thing that even begins to provide the kind of large scale protection you need to defend cities or nations is the Weirdstone, and those cost over 200,000 GP per copy and everyone of them has to be secured at all times so as not to open up a critical hole in your defenses.

Now onto some other spells. Take a look at Telepathic Bond. It can be made permanent for a mere 13,150 GP, cheaper if you invest in wondrous architecture to cast it. Every unit will have several people with those bonds with the second part of the pair being back in your nations headquarters. That is instant, undetectable, secure, communication between every force you have. Your spies can also instantly inform you of what they learn without anything to give them away.

Now another, Control Weather. You go to sleep for the night and wake up to a hurricane hitting your camp.

But now let's look at creatures. Take a look at the Shadesteel Golem from MM3. For 225,000 GP you get an immortal creature with a fly speed of 30 feet (perfect), 33 AC, +20 base attack, DR 15/adamantine and magic, immunity to magic, a negative energy pulse with a radius of 40 feet that deals 6d6 damage on a successful fort save and is useable every 1d4+1 rounds, has fast healing 8, and has concealment whenever it's not in full daylight. Create it with Rudimentary Intelligence (+8,000 GP) so it has average Int. Give it a Telepathic Bond with base and any magic items that you feel might be helpful (I like a ring of invisibility). Now, as a construct it's immune to critical hits. The strongest ranged weapon listed in the PHB does 1d10 damage. At max damage and assuming that a fighter has weapon specilization for the heavy crossbow it would max out at 12 damage. And it would only hit on a natural 20. You could literally have an entire army firing at a single one of these golems and do not a single point of damage. These things are immortal and have no upkeep costs as well, they also never tire and don't have moral problems.

---
Warfare in D&D, at least if either side has any real wealth or power (or either side has any high level caster that cares, or can be made to care, about it) is not fought with massed armies. It's fought between incredibly powerful war machines and specialized units.

Numbers simply don't matter in D&D.

Tippy has all sorts of threads detailing this sort of thing. Check out his Tippyverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007) as an extrapolation on what magic turns D&D into.

-----


I will answer to other things in more genre neutral thread I will make on Media board at the days, okay? Thsi thread is now in 3.5 board so let's keep it 3.5.

1) My point was that a guy who has to fill multiple roles on the battlefield will be worse at them than guy who can do only specific roles. 12 level Cleric will be able to cast more cure light wounds that Cleric6/Wizard 6 guy, right? Your vision of military wizards would equal multiclass build of Fighter/Warlord/Wizard(or other caster). Maybe wizard is better than fighter of the same level, but Fighter 5/Warlord 5/Wizard 5 will be worse Fighter than Fighter 15, worse Warlord than Warlord 15* and worse wizard than Wizard 15. Which means that on the battlefield he will be liability - it's better to hire those three guys who can do their job right, than him. And no, Wizard who has a spell on everything is a bad idea too, because he is too important and causes too much trouble if he gets killed. On the battlefield there would be cleric who has NOTHING but Cure Light/Moderate/Serious Wounds spells, wizard who has nothing but buffing spells, wizard who has nothing but teleporting spells, wizard who has nothing but protective spells etc and they all would have 2 levels in fighter just to keep up with everybody else - this is how military in D&D would work.

Oh, and I will keep these tier lists. When Roy will kill Xykon I will open them, point a finger at them and laugh :smallwink:

* - I assume this is a basic class for the sake of argument, okay?

Why would a wizard or a cleric multiclass to fighter? That is a baffling decision. There is no benefit to this. Taking a level or two of fighter doesn't make you inherently better at war, because the fighter class is not inherently better at war than any other class. A wizard is capable of figuring out how to cast his own spells. A cleric is capable of being a better fighter, and still having game-breaking magic.

If your DM is insistent, the most you would need is Knowledge: Strategy & Tactics or something.

As for Roy and Xykon, well, Xykon is a bad sorcerer. He doesn't think or plan or reason. He just does whatever, 'cause, y'know, EEEEEEEVIL! That and plot-stuff. The Giant has made a fine world where everyone can play together, regardless of Tier. Which is and always has been my point in this thread -- what fantasy warfare looks like in your world depends on how you build that world.

[Emperor Tippy]

Edit: Here is an example. Lieutenant Alastor Moody of the Royal Army is kidnapped and beaten unconsious, he is then replaced with an Imperial Master Spy, Mr. Crouch. Said spy is equipped with a supply of potions of Alter Self and Misdirection. How do you defend against that?

A few ways. 1) Check everyone entering with Detect Thoughts. If they don't forgo their save then they are taken away for questioning, if they do forgo then their thoughts almost certainly give them away. Misdirection specifically doesn't apply.

Zone of Truth "Are you Mr. Moody, loyal to our cause, and acting of your own free will?" Ask everyone similar questions.

[Reficule]

Are we capping XP at level 5 or playing a E5 type game? Because a ring of continuous swift fly (miniatures handbook) from a bard is 64k gold, which costs 2560xp (about a level) and is well above WBL. Its rather silly to say that a item that a PC in normal D&D wouldn't be allowed to get until level 11 should be allowed in such a world. And besides if we are allowing stuff like that dog fighting would simply devolve into who sunders who's cloak first which then we triple the price and make them an unslotted item, a ring you grafted onto your rib cage, and then you spend 7680 which drops several levels.

My google-fu states the price of a militay aircraft at 350 million dollars, and the per capita GDP at 48 thousand. That is a ratio of 6250. I dont know the WBL of a Level 1 npc, but that would be a way to check the reasonability of a flying Fighter

Also, the spell description specifically states a tree would Not register as lying, so the Zone only checks if the Real Moody is currently stating a lie, not if the statement would be a Lie for him. Detect thoughts works though

[Suddo]

A few ways. 1) Check everyone entering with Detect Thoughts. If they don't forgo their save then they are taken away for questioning, if they do forgo then their thoughts almost certainly give them away. Misdirection specifically doesn't apply.

Zone of Truth "Are you Mr. Moody, loyal to our cause, and acting of your own free will?" Ask everyone similar questions.

And Paladins/Incarnates to detect everyone on mass. This of course though is highly dependent on how you rule alignment rules which is outside of the current discussion, but if you rule LG Incanates to be able to detect people of the opposing faction, spies tend towards evil or chaotic, then you could pull them out of your own troops. This can be out done by potions or item with Conceal Alignment but that just means the opponents have to spend even more to do something to you, and all it costs you is a couple of level 1 Incarnates.

Edit:
@Reficule: Does the place you got that have either statistics you could link or where I could look it up. For both the flying machine and countries total gold produced (which if printed by WotC I'll use not matter how silly).

[Man on Fire]

Why would a wizard or a cleric multiclass to fighter? That is a baffling decision. There is no benefit to this. Taking a level or two of fighter doesn't make you inherently better at war, because the fighter class is not inherently better at war than any other class.

This is an assumption I made. There is said in their describtion they are to be found on the battlefield. I assumed that the most basic soldier training, to give you your standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job equals 2 levels of fighter and I don't care if nonsensical clerics doesn't need them, I assume that military doesn't let anybody who haven't finished their training to the battlefield unless they're already wellknown for their fighting skills. Military will require from you high Strenght and Condition, basic fighting skills and something on your hit dice worth a dog's manure. Nobody gets to dominate the battlefield wih fancy ultramagic, everybody gets prequisite spell list of one type and are trained to use them and stick to it. And your ultra cool officer-wizard is still useless, because one better trained officer (with more Warlock ranks) (and I also assume that several warlor ranks are equivalent of finishing military academy, without which nobody will listen to your wizard's opinion on strategy, no matter how many ranks in Knowledge Strategy he has, because he is too low rank to speak without being ordered to) and one better wizard (with more wizard ranks) overshadows him.

[Reficule]

And Paladins/Incarnates to detect everyone on mass. This of course though is highly dependent on how you rule alignment rules which is outside of the current discussion, but if you rule LG Incanates to be able to detect people of the opposing faction, spies tend towards evil or chaotic, then you could pull them out of your own troops. This can be out done by potions or item with Conceal Alignment but that just means the opponents have to spend even more to do something to you, and all it costs you is a couple of level 1 Incarnates.

Edit:
@Reficule: Does the place you got that have either statistics you could link or where I could look it up. For both the flying machine and countries total gold produced (which if printed by WotC I'll use not matter how silly).

Misdirection is a 2nd Level illusion spell that makes the user register as a Person or object of your choice to divination.

And I was referring to Real Life America and googled the price of a Fighter Jet and america's per capita GDP

[Suddo]

This is an assumption I made. There is said in their describtion they are to be found on the battlefield. I assumed that the most basic soldier training, to give you your standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job equals 2 levels of fighter and I don't care if nonsensical clerics doesn't need them, I assume that military doesn't let anybody who haven't finished their training to the battlefield unless they're already wellknown for their fighting skills. Military will require from you high Strenght and Condition, basic fighting skills and something on your hit dice worth a dog's manure. Nobody gets to dominate the battlefield wih fancy ultramagic, everybody gets prequisite spell list of one type and are trained to use them and stick to it. And your ultra cool officer-wizard is still useless, because one better trained officer (with more Warlock ranks) (and I also assume that several warlor ranks are equivalent of finishing military academy, without which nobody will listen to your wizard's opinion on strategy, no matter how many ranks in Knowledge Strategy he has, because he is too low rank to speak without being ordered to) and one better wizard (with more wizard ranks) overshadows him.

Are we talking real world medieval world? Or are we talking an intellegent nation? Because in the modern world, lets say cold war for a good reference, we had these people called scientists and people who didn't directly fight. And even then we had people who man things like jets which don't need to know as much about group infintry fighting. Also feats like Militia, I want to say its from a Faerun book, could easily be used to justify a military existence.

Edit:
@Reficule: The difference is the amount of speed that jets provide, and the firepower of missles. A fighter with a ring of flight is only twice as fast, versus 17 times (340 is speed of sound people usually don't run faster than 20 mph) and missles could be replicated by the same measure that tippy did with the explosive rune bombs. The main thing is speed though the ability to fly to a point (1 move action), drop something (free action), and fly away (another move) is only really effective if you can go from within their range to outside their range in that time.

[Man on Fire]

Are we talking real world medieval world?

We're talking D&D here. This thread was moved to D&D board so I won't talk about non D&D stuff in it. As i said, I will make thread at media board about points that no longer are about D&D when I will have free moment.

[Reficule]

From what I understand, Tippy's Book bombs would be WAY cheaper than Real missiles, and Blur, Displacment, and Protection from Arrows are all availible, as well as a potion of Blink to be imbibed before going in a bombing run, in which case the obvious comparison is to WWII firebombing raids and the relative price of the planes to the income of an average citizen

[Suddo]

We're talking D&D here. This thread was moved to D&D board so I won't talk about non D&D stuff in it. As i said, I will make thread at media board about points that no longer are about D&D when I will have free moment.

Yeah but the difference between Eberron and Tippyverse are leaps and bounds. People in Tippyverse are intellegent and figure out how to use spells their advantage to make sure everyone is healthy. Versus Eberron still has commoners. There is literally no logical reason for people to be commoners beyond we don't want players to not feel like gods.

[Fatebreaker]

This is an assumption I made. There is said in their describtion they are to be found on the battlefield. I assumed that the most basic soldier training, to give you your standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job equals 2 levels of fighter and I don't care if nonsensical clerics doesn't need them, I assume that military doesn't let anybody who haven't finished their training to the battlefield unless they're already wellknown for their fighting skills. Military will require from you high Strenght and Condition, basic fighting skills and something on your hit dice worth a dog's manure. Nobody gets to dominate the battlefield wih fancy ultramagic, everybody gets prequisite spell list of one type and are trained to use them and stick to it. And your ultra cool officer-wizard is still useless, because one better trained officer (with more Warlock ranks) (and I also assume that several warlor ranks are equivalent of finishing military academy, without which nobody will listen to your wizard's opinion on strategy, no matter how many ranks in Knowledge Strategy he has, because he is too low rank to speak without being ordered to) and one better wizard (with more wizard ranks) overshadows him.

I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas, but let's examine them in the context of D&D. Bear in mind, I want to examine them because I see a lot of assumptions here, and I'd like to know why you make them.


I assumed that the most basic soldier training, to give you your standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job equals 2 levels of fighter

Why do you make this assumption? If your job involves casting spells, then the "standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job" do not come from the fighter class. They come from your caster class.


I don't care if nonsensical clerics doesn't need them

Why are clerics nonsensical for not needing skills which don't help them act as clerics?


Military will require from you high Strenght and Condition, basic fighting skills and something on your hit dice worth a dog's manure.

Why do you think this? In an age of flying invisible dudes who can stop time and summon up armies of solars, having a high strength/constitution or basic fighting skills (I presume you mean a high BAB?) is irrelevant. Save-or-suck and save-or-die spells ignore things like armor or hitpoints. If need be, you can shapechange or polymorph into something big and nasty; your personal physical stats are not important.


Nobody gets to dominate the battlefield wih fancy ultramagic, everybody gets prequisite spell list of one type and are trained to use them and stick to it.

Why doesn't anyone get to dominate the battlefield with fancy ultramagic? They can. What is stopping them?

Why does everybody get a prerequisite spell list?

Limiting the options of casters whose power stems in large part from their sheer variety of options is counterproductive.


And your ultra cool officer-wizard is still useless, because one better trained officer (with more Warlock ranks) (and I also assume that several warlor ranks are equivalent of finishing military academy, without which nobody will listen to your wizard's opinion on strategy, no matter how many ranks in Knowledge Strategy he has, because he is too low rank to speak without being ordered to) and one better wizard (with more wizard ranks) overshadows him.

If the officer really is better trained, he will listen to the wizard, or at least know how to put him to good use.

Why is the wizard automatically low rank?

Why does no one listen to an authority on magic in a world where magic trumps non-magic?

Why is an officer automatically a warlord? Why is a warlord automatically an officer?

Also, did you mean to say Warlord instead of Warlock?

[Knaight]

Why doesn't anyone get to dominate the battlefield with fancy ultramagic? They can. What is stopping them?

Why does everybody get a prerequisite spell list?

Limiting the options of casters whose power stems in large part from their sheer variety of options is counterproductive.

If the officer really is better trained, he will listen to the wizard, or at least know how to put him to good use.

Why is the wizard automatically low rank?

Why does no one listen to an authority on magic in a world where magic trumps non-magic?
Regarding all of these, there's also the matter of military interactions.

Take the first three. As soon as anybody decides to break with the prerequisite spell list tradition and open up the fancy ultramagic, they start winning. People who consistently win see their tactics adapted, though it often takes far longer than it usually would.

The last two are similar. If wizards are high rank, then magical understanding is sophisticated. The side with the sophisticated magical understanding has an advantage. That side is likely to win, which gets back into the adaptation of tactics.

Really, the reason that basic training in the forms it has been in were adopted was because it worked in the real world. Conflict forces adaptation, and where the capabilities of societies are different, the adaptations are thus different as well.

[Man on Fire]

Why do you make this assumption? If your job involves casting spells, then the "standard, most basic abilities necessary to do your job" do not come from the fighter class. They come from your caster class.

On the modern battlefield medic is there to treat the injured. Still doesn't change the fact that he must undergo basic military training as everybody else so command will be sure he can keep up to other soldiers, won't get himself killed and in case of need will pick a gun. Same here - wizard needs to run as fast as other soldiers, know how to act in the middle of big battle, be taught to follow orders and if he'll get in situation where he is out of spells, pick up a sword.



Why do you think this? In an age of flying invisible dudes who can stop time and summon up armies of solars, having a high strength/constitution or basic fighting skills (I presume you mean a high BAB?) is irrelevant.

Those skills won't do wizards any good if they will be exhaused after a day of march. And no he won't fly, he won't teleport, he won't do anything stupid that could alarm the enemy of the army marching at him. He will be ordered to march like everybody else and use his spells to make sure nobody'll see them.


Save-or-suck and save-or-die spells ignore things like armor or hitpoints. If need be, you can shapechange or polymorph into something big and nasty; your personal physical stats are not important.

Again - forbidden. Army has to hold the line, soldiers suddenly turning into dinosaurs will will cause the line to break.


Why doesn't anyone get to dominate the battlefield with fancy ultramagic? They can. What is stopping them?

Why does everybody get a prerequisite spell list?

Because the army would be too dependant on wizard who can do everything for them and if he would be somehow killed, they would be doomed. Army doesn't need to be dependant on say, eight who can all teleport, hide, scry, heal, transform, summon monster, buff and throw fireballs. Instead is better to hire twenty guys two of which can heal, two of which can hide, two of which can scry etc. to make sure they have as much of these spells as possible and that in case of their demise important pillar of the military won't fall.


Limiting the options of casters whose power stems in large part from their sheer variety of options is counterproductive.

Military doesn't work on sheer variety of options, people have assigned function and have to stick to it.


If the officer really is better trained, he will listen to the wizard, or at least know how to put him to good use.

Put him to good use yes. Listen? No. Military is based on ranks. Wizard who is a part of an army will get the rank as everybody else. An officer won't listen to privatee because privatee is not allowed to speak to him until ordered to. And it doesn't matter if he is wizard or not.


Why is the wizard automatically low rank?

Wizard who goes into the battle is a soldier like everybody else so he gets rank, starts from the bottom and goes up the chain like everybody else.


Why does no one listen to an authority on magic in a world where magic trumps non-magic?

Because military does not let everybody say what they think, if that would be the case, if every soldier would burst into general's tent and say what they should do, it would be chaos. Military probably has an officer who is a wizard, either finished military school and magic institute or like everybody else started low and advanced through the ranks. He will speak, because he has both knowledge about magic and about strategy. And if some wizard with no grasp of strategy will try to correct him he will be send to penal company for shooting his mouth off to the superior officer.


Why is an officer automatically a warlord? Why is a warlord automatically an officer?

This is a part of equations I made to represent military structure in D&D terms. Soldier = Fighter, Commanding officer = Warlock.


Also, did you mean to say Warlord instead of Warlock?

Where?

And another question - what about spell failure chance? Soldiers gets the armors and there is no way to get away from it - wizard may have fancy spells to protect himself but military must be sure he will not run out of them or won't notice they stopped working and got suddenly shot and it's more practical for him to have more slots for other spells.

Knaight, I understand your position and I see your point. But you need to understand that in army, D&D or not, it is wizard who have to adapt to the military structure, not the opposite. Military works in certain ways and if we add magic to them, those ways will adapt. They will not, as you insist, change completely.

[Yahzi]

Sun Tzu's great book of war isn't suddeny obsolete because some old idiot who was dumb enough to come on the battlefield wearing colorfull pijamas can summon a tornado made of bees
Best line I've read all week.:smallbiggrin:

You are right that a wizard, even a relatively high-level (9thish) wizard in D&D, does not automatically invalidate medieval military culture and tactics. Like you saidy maybe the wizard isn't interested in politics; he's off doing his research, and as long as nobody bothers him he doesn't get too involved in the "sport of kings," as war was known. Maybe he doesn't even like the King, so no biggie if there's a new one (but start slaughtering the peasantry and that might be a different story). (Read Lyonesse by Jack Vance for a good take on this.)

But... in D&D, you can make wands. Agnicourt might not have been decided by a few assault rifles, but a dozen fireball wands would have made all the difference. Scrolls of Animate Dead and that pearl thing mean that every 1st level cleric can have 20 HD of undead troops. Flight, even for just a few, changes everything - in modern warfare only a tiny, tiny fraction of soldiers fight from the air, but land battles are won or lost because of air superiority. One crystal ball would have foiled DDay.

So it's not wizards that break D&D, it's magic items. In 2E making items basically depended on DM fiat, which meant it was governed entirely by fluff, but in 3E it's a mechanical operation.

In general terms, any time magic becomes a mechanical operation, you should expect it to have a mechanical effect on your society, which means you shouldn't expect your society to look like one with different mechanics (such as feudal medieval military technology). Just consider that medieval military culture didn't need gunpowder to completely invalidate it; democracy as practiced by the Romans would have done the same. I don't there there ever was a medieval army that could have taken Rome in her prime; not even the crusades. The Japanese had no better technology, and arguably their soldiers were better but their armies worse.


But with wizards, who can obliberate entire army? If they will decide to take over, system won't have a way to do anything about it, because the only regulations and means to enforce them were created by wizards themselves (because who else could do that?) who knows the best how to overcome them.
Replace wizards with nobles, and you've just described feudalism. :smallbiggrin:

[Talakeal]

Lots of stuff.

If the military is actually this hard-ass with the wizard they are simply stupid. Most wizards cannot or will not respond to all these demands, and you are not going to be able to force them to comply. Best case scenario you have wizards working at greatly reduced effectiveness, worst case scenario you have made enemies with the most powerful group of people in the world by ordering them around and insulting them with menial tasks.

In the real world the military is based off of discipline and keeping everyone in line, but in the real world we don't have classes as such, or individuals with the ability to alter reality or slay entire battalions on their own.

We do have machines that allow this though, and the people trained to operate aircraft carriers, tanks, and planes do not follow the exact same procedures as infantry.

I am not sure about civilian contractors, but I imagine they don't follow the same restrictions as infantry either.

[Man on Fire]

If the military is actually this harass with the wizard they are simply stupid. Most wizards cannot or will not respond to all these demands, and you are not going to be able to force them to comply.

Then it's not possible to integrate them into military machine without reducing the importance of military. I think that's the problem - you people belive that wizards can solve anything and should be allowed to do what they want. I understand that survival and victory on the battlefield requires strategic knowledge, experience and following rules of warfare that irresponsible wizards would break eevery five minutes. This is army. If you have too big ego to listen to the orders then you do not belong here.

[Tvtyrant]

I understand that survival and victory on the battlefield requires strategic knowledge, experience and following rules of warfare that irresponsible wizards would break eevery five minutes. This is army. If you have too big ego to listen to the orders then you do not belong here.

Yeah, good luck with that. This is exactly the same argument that had people marching in lines towards machine guns in WWI, even after it had become extremely apparent it did not work.

Let us put it this way; if the "rules of warfare" are no longer useful, what it the purpose of subjugating casters to it? Sure, someone might do it for a while, but they will be destroyed by those that do not and so the tactic will die out. Staying in a line means the enemy is capable of spamming AoE spells on you, so consequently you are going to take massive casualties if you continue to do it. A better tactic would be to make small groups of troops centered around individual casters, who spread out so as to avoid AoEs and use camouflage to keep the enemy from finding them. When a detachment of troops gets close (attempting to use belt-buckle tactics, for instance) they re-congregate and fight a holding action while more forces accumulate on that spot. If the enemy tries to remain in a big line, you simply fall back and spam until they have taken too many casualties to defeat you.

[Emperor Tippy]

Then it's not possible to integrate them into military machine without reducing the importance of military. I think that's the problem - you people belive that wizards can solve anything and should be allowed to do what they want. I understand that survival and victory on the battlefield requires strategic knowledge, experience and following rules of warfare that irresponsible wizards would break eevery five minutes. This is army. If you have too big ego to listen to the orders then you do not belong here.
And your nation is destroyed when you neighbor says "Screw military discipline, Wizo McWizardington is incharge of the military (he does have all the relevant knowledge rolls maxed after all)." and Wizo McWizardington then goes and uses his mages effectively in warfare.

Military discipline, along with every other facet of the military existence, is the way it is because it has proven to be the most effective means for a nation to win wars within the societal constraints that they place upon themselves. It continues to exist in the manner it does because it continues to provide the best chance of victory.

The military is eminently pragmatic as an organization, if it works most effectively then it is used. Granted, lots of times the opportunity costs of a switch are too high to make the switch worthwhile (changing the bullets that the US military uses to ones that would be more effective, for example) but that is also a pragmatic analysis.

---
For the same reason, in poor D&D nations you are likely to see everyone who signs up be bitten by a Werebear or Weretiger (makes them lawful good or true neutral) and is then hit with a Psychic Reformation power to max Control Shape and get skill focus (control shape). With their 7-9 HD (both Were forms add 6 HD) that is 9 ranks and Skill Focus is another +3 with a masterwork tool for another +2, and the Wisdom bonus for +1, or a +15 on the check.

It's one the easiest ways to mass produce a very deadly army in D&D. What's even worse is that these people breed, the next generation will be natural lycanthropes.

[Man on Fire]

And your nation is destroyed when you neighbor says "Screw military discipline, Wizo McWizardington is incharge of the military (he does have all the relevant knowledge rolls maxed after all)." and Wizo McWizardington then goes and uses his mages effectively in warfare.

Until he is killed by catapult to the head and army is throw in chaos.


Military discipline, along with every other facet of the military existence, is the way it is because it has proven to be the most effective means for a nation to win wars within the societal constraints that they place upon themselves. It continues to exist in the manner it does because it continues to provide the best chance of victory.

And it will even with god-wizards screwing with time and whatsoever.


The military is eminently pragmatic as an organization, if it works most effectively then it is used. Granted, lots of times the opportunity costs of a switch are too high to make the switch worthwhile (changing the bullets that the US military uses to ones that would be more effective, for example) but that is also a pragmatic analysis.

Yes, but I say that letting the wizards do what they want and sacrificing military discipline is going to be exactly that - costs would be too high to make the change worthwhile. And having five wizards from which each can use one or two schools of magic is more pragmatic than have one wizard who knows ten.


For the same reason, in poor D&D nations you are likely to see everyone who signs up be bitten by a Werebear or Weretiger (makes them lawful good or true neutral) and is then hit with a Psychic Reformation power to max Control Shape and get skill focus (control shape). With their 7-9 HD (both Were forms add 6 HD) that is 9 ranks and Skill Focus is another +3 with a masterwork tool for another +2, and the Wisdom bonus for +1, or a +15 on the check.

It's one the easiest ways to mass produce a very deadly army in D&D. What's even worse is that these people breed, the next generation will be natural lycanthropes.

Now that's what I call creative military thinking.

[Gavinfoxx]

Some time ago, for a D&D experiment, I statted out as low a level of Druid as I could think of to reliably solo an army.

http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=54924

It was level 9.

She's basically a high altitude strategic stealth bomber.

That is kinda a big deal...

Also, she can do other stuff on off days. But that night, she is a strategic stealth bomber.

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, but I say that letting the wizards do what they want and sacrificing military discipline is going to be exactly that - costs would be too high to make the change worthwhile. And having five wizards from which each can use one or two schools of magic is more pragmatic than have one wizard who knows ten.


1. There is a huge difference between slightly more effective bullets and what is the equivalent to saying "no" to gunpowder.
2. This is a false dichotomy. Where is the logic that puts 50 wizards against 1, when all you have done is restrict the number of schools available?

[Emperor Tippy]

Until he is killed by catapult to the head and army is throw in chaos.
Wizo is never going to be on the front lines. And chain of command is one of the things that would be forced onto the military, because it is a critical necessity and works. That doesn't change the fact that the person in command is almost certainly going to be a wizard. He has Knowledge as a class skill and Profession as a class skill, he will be better at them than other classes. He also has a better understanding of what magic can and can't do, and what they will be facing in the field.


And it will even with god-wizards screwing with time and whatsoever.
No it really won't. When individuals can destroy entire armies, the pragmatic thing to do is whatever keeps said individual working for you and delivering the results you want. For some of them that might be unlimited hookers and blow, for others it might be being able to wear a pirate hat and pajamas on the field, for others it might be regular donations to the church of Pelor, for still others is might be establishing schools to teach magic, for others it might be providing them a hundred captives per battle to sacrifice to dark gods.


Yes, but I say that letting the wizards do what they want and sacrificing military discipline is going to be exactly that - costs would be too high to make the change worthwhile. And having five wizards from which each can use one or two schools of magic is more pragmatic than have one wizard who knows ten.
The costs are trivial compared to the results. At least at high levels. If first to third level spells are all that exist then casters will all become crafters, if fourth to seventh level spells exist then casters will all become strategic assets, if eighth and ninth level spells exist then casters will see regular battlefield deployment and stomp anything they are sent against.

[Gavinfoxx]

Until he is killed by catapult to the head and army is throw in chaos.

Why would a Wizard worth his salt be threatened by a mundane army? He obsoletes them in every possible way. He is not threatened by a traditional army in any way at all. He'd be given an officership, a unit of wizards (that he trained or whatever) to use as he wishes, and he would be doing end runs and obsoleting the entire other apparatus of the army, until society changes to reflect that war is only done by Wizards.



Yes, but I say that letting the wizards do what they want and sacrificing military discipline is going to be exactly that - costs would be too high to make the change worthwhile. And having five wizards from which each can use one or two schools of magic is more pragmatic than have one wizard who knows ten.


Why is this true? Wizards win wars. They are flying gods above men. They obsolete 'traditional military discipline', and anything else traditional about military. Eventually, military forms would come to be that allow groups of wizards of varying abilities to be an effective military force, but it wouldn't look anything like normal 'boot camp'.

Normal boot camp for wizards would be stuff like flying, basic polymorph forms (or alter self or whatever), scrying and scrying defenses, burrowing practice, Rope Trick discipline, anti-invisibility and anti-etherealness techniques, flying in inclement weather, scroll management and effective scroll use for an extended campaign, etc. etc. etc.

Those would all become the martial arts of the day.

[Emperor Tippy]

Until he is killed by catapult to the head and army is throw in chaos.
Wizo is never going to be on the front lines. And chain of command is one of the things that would be forced onto the military, because it is a critical necessity and works. That doesn't change the fact that the person in command is almost certainly going to be a wizard. He has Knowledge as a class skill and Profession as a class skill, he will be better at them than other classes. He also has a better understanding of what magic can and can't do, and what they will be facing in the field.


And it will even with god-wizards screwing with time and whatsoever.
No it really won't. When individuals can destroy entire armies, the pragmatic thing to do is whatever keeps said individual working for you and delivering the results you want. For some of them that might be unlimited hookers and blow, for others it might be being able to wear a pirate hat and pajamas on the field, for others it might be regular donations to the church of Pelor, for still others is might be establishing schools to teach magic, for others it might be providing them a hundred captives per battle to sacrifice to dark gods.


Yes, but I say that letting the wizards do what they want and sacrificing military discipline is going to be exactly that - costs would be too high to make the change worthwhile. And having five wizards from which each can use one or two schools of magic is more pragmatic than have one wizard who knows ten.
The costs are trivial compared to the results. At least at high levels. If first to third level spells are all that exist then casters will all become crafters, if fourth to seventh level spells exist then casters will all become strategic assets, if eighth and ninth level spells exist then casters will see regular battlefield deployment and stomp anything they are sent against.

[Gavinfoxx]

Hmmm the forum seems to be eating some posts lately...

On topic:

What would an army designed not to win wars, but to hold territory so it doesn't get taken, and quell population and uprisings look like?

IE, be the boots on the ground that move in, after the Wizards or whatever blow everything away?

Or the people who fight the low intensity wars and stuff? The things that doesn't necessarily warrant the big guns?

[hamishspence]

If first to third level spells are all that exist then casters will all become crafters, if fourth to seventh level spells exist then casters will all become strategic assets, if eighth and ninth level spells exist then casters will see regular battlefield deployment and stomp anything they are sent against.

So the nature of the war might depend somewhat on the nature of the combatants.

A war between two huge empires, with many metropolises and at least one or two planar metropolises each, will be very different from one between two tiny kingdoms, each with a small town as the biggest settlement.

(Though the huge empires might actually limit themselves, for the same reasons that nukes don't normally see use- if their most powerful magical resources have similar risks and side-effects).

[Suddo]

@Man on Fire:
So do you think that we should never have started using gunpowder in the military? Should we have stuck with swords? The exact same argument from using gunpowder to nuclear weapons can be used to explain why a good military structure would include wizards. Even if we aren't talking God Wizards (due to a level cap) you should still include them as something in the military.
The Wizards can do things like be tactical bombers one missions through Fly and Expedious Retreat; Radio Operators through different spells or even by hooking up Telepathy ranges; They will be intregrated into the system yes but say "No mister Wizard you have to wear Plate, no matter how much it mess with your spell failure, and have to take 2 levels of fighter, no matter how much that ruins your ability to be a better wizard." You shouldn't look at wizards and say that they have to be exactly like soldiers they do something else, they are probably a little rarer and need to do different things.
And as far as needing military training Knowledge Skills and a feat (like Militia) are a perfectly acceptable way to say military training.


Also I don't think its been brought up but having 6 bards (each dragon touched to a different element) playing Dragonfire Inspiration (and 1 playing Inspire Courage) and having Song of the Heart feat would provide 15d6+3 damage and 3 to hit. Combine this with Whirl Pounce Barbs with reach weapons and great cleave. Then stick in different things that can increase speed, such as Marshal Aura, and you'll have a pretty crazy army and only at around level 4.

[Emperor Tippy]

Psions are actually more useful in warfare than wizards in an E6 type system.

Sense Link using trained birds and other innocuous animals.

Missive, Mass can let you rapidly pass orders to all your troops (and only your troops) in battle. It also has good range.

Mindlink is 10 minutes/level duration and would see great use with scout groups and officers when you know battle is going to be joined. Take a level 6 Psion, that is up to 7 people linked per use and it will last an hour. It allows a level of coordination that simply was rarely feasible before the advent of radio.

Clairvoyant Sense, the best low level divination in the game bar none. It has no range limit, the manifester just must be familiar with the location or it must be obvious. It's perfectly reasonable to rule that map coordinates qualify as "obvious".

[Man on Fire]

So do you think that we should never have started using gunpowder in the military? Should we have stuck with swords? The exact same argument from using gunpowder to nuclear weapons can be used to explain why a good military structure would include wizards.

I never said they didn't. But even musketeers didn't changed the structure of the military in five minutes, you know? Rules of warfare changed, sure, but not immiediately, s you are trying to insist here. It started slowly - at first there were only few guns in some armies and their role was increasing through hundreds of years before we got into what we have right now. Same would be with wizards - you people claim that they would just hop siup change entire battlefield into their playground. No, it would take hundreds of years, it would be slow and organic process of adaptation that would require increasing importance of wizards in arms race and situation you describe wouldn't be seen until hundreds of years have passed. This is how it works. If you change everything you will throw things into chaos, changes must be introduced slowly and in response to enemy's tactics, . What you want is to give medival society modern military assets. If you want warfare dominated by wizard then estabilish in your settings that they were there since at least 200 or 300 years so it will make sense.

[Fatebreaker]

Ah! I think we've hit upon the heart of the problem:


Again - forbidden. Army has to hold the line, soldiers suddenly turning into dinosaurs will will cause the line to break.

You are under the impression that there will still be a line at all.



On the modern battlefield medic is there to treat the injured. Still doesn't change the fact that he must undergo basic military training as everybody else so command will be sure he can keep up to other soldiers, won't get himself killed and in case of need will pick a gun. Same here - wizard needs to run as fast as other soldiers, know how to act in the middle of big battle, be taught to follow orders and if he'll get in situation where he is out of spells, pick up a sword.


Military doesn't work on sheer variety of options, people have assigned function and have to stick to it.

On the modern battlefield, a medic is limited in function by his ability to learn and his ability to carry the tools necessary for what he has learned. D&D magic allows the "medic" to simultaneously learn medic-magic and commando-magic, fighter-pilot-magic, tank-magic, helicopter-magic, transport-magic, killsat-magic, ICBM-magic, antiaircraft-magic, spy-magic, and pretty-pretty-princess-dress-up-magic, and use all of them equally well. His tools are minimal, mostly internal, and lightweight. If you actually offered a military planner an honest-to-God "do everything" unit which could fill every battlefield role (and better than the original), he'd snap that up and tradition be damned.


Those skills won't do wizards any good if they will be exhaused after a day of march. And no he won't fly, he won't teleport, he won't do anything stupid that could alarm the enemy of the army marching at him. He will be ordered to march like everybody else and use his spells to make sure nobody'll see them.

...how do invisible flyers alarm the enemy in ways that a large, visible, walking army does not?


Because the army would be too dependant on wizard who can do everything for them and if he would be somehow killed, they would be doomed. Army doesn't need to be dependant on say, eight who can all teleport, hide, scry, heal, transform, summon monster, buff and throw fireballs. Instead is better to hire twenty guys two of which can heal, two of which can hide, two of which can scry etc. to make sure they have as much of these spells as possible and that in case of their demise important pillar of the military won't fall.

If each wizard only does one thing, and no one else does his thing, then yes, the army (assuming there still is a relevant non-caster army) would be too dependent on that wizard to fulfill that function. Of course, wizards and clerics and the like can easily fulfill multiple functions, which leads to redundancy and backups.


Put him to good use yes. Listen? No. Military is based on ranks. Wizard who is a part of an army will get the rank as everybody else. An officer won't listen to privatee because privatee is not allowed to speak to him until ordered to. And it doesn't matter if he is wizard or not.


Wizard who goes into the battle is a soldier like everybody else so he gets rank, starts from the bottom and goes up the chain like everybody else.


Because military does not let everybody say what they think, if that would be the case, if every soldier would burst into general's tent and say what they should do, it would be chaos. Military probably has an officer who is a wizard, either finished military school and magic institute or like everybody else started low and advanced through the ranks. He will speak, because he has both knowledge about magic and about strategy. And if some wizard with no grasp of strategy will try to correct him he will be send to penal company for shooting his mouth off to the superior officer.

No, generals don't (generally) invite the opinions of privates. They should, however, invite the opinions of their specialists and experts.

Past a certain point, the general either is a caster himself or is a mundane whose sole purpose is to set his casters up for success.

That point is after folks get tired of watching their traditional militaries be defeated by caster armies.


And another question - what about spell failure chance? Soldiers gets the armors and there is no way to get away from it - wizard may have fancy spells to protect himself but military must be sure he will not run out of them or won't notice they stopped working and got suddenly shot and it's more practical for him to have more slots for other spells.

Wizards use defensive spells instead of armor. If necessary, there are numerous ways to wear armor without spell failure. Making your armor out of mithral (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#mithral) is an example. Other ways exist.

Wizards also have scrolls; scribe scrolls of defensive spells, and on battle-day use those instead of your prepared spells. Wizards can do this at level one.


Knaight, I understand your position and I see your point. But you need to understand that in army, D&D or not, it is wizard who have to adapt to the military structure, not the opposite. Military works in certain ways and if we add magic to them, those ways will adapt. They will not, as you insist, change completely.

The military works in whatever way wins the war. The military which does not do this will lose to the military which does.


Then it's not possible to integrate them into military machine without reducing the importance of military. I think that's the problem - you people belive that wizards can solve anything and should be allowed to do what they want.

In D&D, casters are mechanically superior to non-casters. So yes, you adjust the military machine to match the capabilities of wizards, not the other way around.

A "traditional" military may still exist, but it will not be a relevant traditional military.


I understand that survival and victory on the battlefield requires strategic knowledge, experience and following rules of warfare that irresponsible wizards would break eevery five minutes. This is army. If you have too big ego to listen to the orders then you do not belong here.

If an officer insists that his wizards take levels of fighter, wear armor, neither fly nor turn invisible nor turn into dragons, walk everywhere, and stick to one specific type of spells, then he will soon have neither wizards nor fighters, because he will no longer have an army. He will also no longer have a country.

Man on Fire, I have the utmost respect and gratitude towards the military. It has, aside from a four-year period with Games Workshop, provided for my entire life in one form or another. I've studied it both formally and as a hobby.

But the traditions and history of the military are secondary to the purpose of the military: to defend their nation and project their national will. To win wars. To ensure and maintain their way of life into the future.

D&D magic radically alters how a military does that. And because their mission is too important, the military will alter. The military which does not will not have a chance to rectify their mistake.

--

Consider two countries: Fighteropolis and Magetopia. Each is comprised of a ruling city, along with vassal towns and fiefs. Each is fairly wealthy, with a strong sense of pride and service, and a solid infrastructure. They are largely identical, except in one crucial regard.

Fighteropolis is a land ruled by non-magical nobles and dominated by "traditional" ideas. Magetopia is home to the brightest magical minds in all the land, eager to embrace the possibilities which magic offers.

Tragically, the peace between these two nations is not to last. For fun, we'll say they're fighting over a bucket, because no one would ever do that, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket)

Scenario #1
Fighteropolis marches out its army. Deep blocks of men at arms proudly march beneath fluttering banners, while knights in shining armor ride eagerly to glory. Engineers and their wagons carry the many parts and pieces necessary to construct catapults and other siege engines, but they are not expected to be necessary -- Magetopia, unlike Fighteropolis, is not known for its high walls.

After many days of marching, encumbered by weather, terrain, and a long supply train, the Fightin' Fighters of Fighteropolis arrive at Magetopia. King Fighty McWarrior, ruler of Fighteropolis, along with all his highest-ranking knights, are surprised to see that their wives and children have somehow beat them to Magetopia, where they are held hostage thanks to five minutes of teleporting shenanigans from a couple wizards who were bored and owed King Wizo McWizardington a favor. The war ends without a single casualty, aside from Jenkins McStabberson, who lost an ear due to a tragic mishap along the way.

Scenario #2
The night before Fighteropolis marches out its army, tragedy strikes the capital. Swarms of wraiths boil out of the poor district, killing and converting commoners, all immune to mundane weaponry thanks to being incorporeal, and becoming more numerous with every kill. Teleporting strike teams assassinate the Fighteropolis officer cadre. Invisible flying casters swoop over the city while humming "Ride of the Valkyries," causing such hilarious mayhem as casting cloudkill inside the barracks while soldiers are sleeping, casting confusion on any worthwhile targets, or replacing street signs with explosive runes. Monsters of all sorts run rampant, having been summoned or gated in and told to have fun. Conjured walls block off the major routes in or out of the city, trapping a terrified populace in, which only adds to the chaos. And thanks to divination, Magetopian generals know where and how to best strike at Fighteropolis while avoiding its defenses. By morning, Fighteropolis is in disarray, with its leadership slain or captured, the population decimated, and the city in flames.

The Maulin' Mages of Magetopia teleport home and give each other high fives.

Result
Magetopia keeps the bucket and does a wicked awesome guitar solo.

Now, you might argue that the Fightin' Fighters have their own casters. However, by your own admission, they are all two-levels behind the Maulin' Mages, because they took two fighter levels. They cannot, individually or as a group, match the Maulin' Mages because even characters of equal level are not equal in class levels. Additionally, because Fighteropolis' mundane officers did not listen to their caster advisers, Fighteropolis has not properly prepared to defend against this sort of attack. Furthermore, since Magetopia invested solely in casters while Fighteropolis invested in mundanes, and since they are generally equal in wealth and resources, Fighteropolis is far more limited in the number of casters it can field. In both quantity and quality, Fighteropolis cannot compete in casters, and the traditional army is irrelevant because it will never fight a traditional fight against a magical opponent.

Even if Magetopia is sporting enough to meet Fighteropolis in open combat, it's still not a traditional fight. D&D3.x Magical tactics render historical methods of warfare so obsolete that pursuing them is tantamount to national suicide.

[Suddo]

I never said they didn't. But even musketeers didn't changed the structure of the military, you know? Rules of warfare changed, sure, but not immiediately, s you are trying to insist here. It started slowly - at first there were only few guns in some armies and their role was increasing through hundreds of years before we got into what we have right now. Same would be with wizards - you people claim that they would just hop siup change entire battlefield into their playground. No, it would take hundreds of years, it would be slow and organic process of adaptation that would require increasing importance of wizards in arms race and situation you describe wouldn't be seen until hundreds of years have passed. This is how it works. If you change everything you will throw things into chaos, changes must be introduced slowly and in response to enemy's tactics, . What you want is to give medival society modern military assets. If you want warfare dominated by wizard then estabilish in your settings that they were there since at least 200 or 300 years so it will make sense.

And you assume that magic hasn't been around for thousands of years in the D&D universe. I'd agree that thinking the first wizard to find out Teleportation Circle won't immediately become a god but in a decade it will probably become integrated into the current system.

Edit: Let me expand upon this. In the Tippyverse thesis Tippy doesn't simply state it happens he states that first someone creates a magic circle does it for trade and makes good money and as it becomes more popular people start to think of it for military purposes. He doesn't boom it happens he says it happens slowly. Link to his Thesis. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222007)

[Menteith]

But now let's look at creatures. Take a look at the Shadesteel Golem from MM3. For 225,000 GP you get an immortal creature with a fly speed of 30 feet (perfect), 33 AC, +20 base attack, DR 15/adamantine and magic, immunity to magic, a negative energy pulse with a radius of 40 feet that deals 6d6 damage on a successful fort save and is useable every 1d4+1 rounds, has fast healing 8, and has concealment whenever it's not in full daylight. Create it with Rudimentary Intelligence (+8,000 GP) so it has average Int. Give it a Telepathic Bond with base and any magic items that you feel might be helpful (I like a ring of invisibility). Now, as a construct it's immune to critical hits. The strongest ranged weapon listed in the PHB does 1d10 damage. At max damage and assuming that a fighter has weapon specilization for the heavy crossbow it would max out at 12 damage. And it would only hit on a natural 20. You could literally have an entire army firing at a single one of these golems and do not a single point of damage. These things are immortal and have no upkeep costs as well, they also never tire and don't have moral problems.

Throw enough Ballista at it, armed by Commoners with Point Blank Shot and the Missile Volley teamwork benefit (PHBII, p161), and they'll drop the thing with a single round. There's no limited to how many people can benefit, so they should only miss on a one, and deal 3d8 damage. If Adamantite Bolts are supplied, it would be trivial to drop a Shadesteel on the open field, at a significantly lower cost. I'll admit that there are ways around this, but Siege equipment, especially Ballista with the Missile Volley teamwork benefit, can be a low cost way for hordes of people to deal substantial damage at range.

[Reficule]

Throw enough Ballista at it, armed by Commoners with Point Blank Shot and the Missile Volley teamwork benefit (PHBII, p161), and they'll drop the thing with a single round. There's no limited to how many people can benefit, so they should only miss on a one, and deal 3d8 damage. If Adamantite Bolts are supplied, it would be trivial to drop a Shadesteel on the open field, at a significantly lower cost. I'll admit that there are ways around this, but Siege equipment, especially Ballista with the Missile Volley teamwork benefit, can be a low cost way for hordes of people to deal substantial damage at range.

You forgot it flies perfectly, and has magic items including invisibility and teleportation.

[Ranting Fool]

First off I'd like to raise my hat to you all (If I was wearing a hat) for managing to have a reasoned discussion without this turning into a name-calling-hair-pulling type of thread :smallbiggrin: (I do mean this sincerely)

It seems that we've (well you lot but I've been agreeing in my head) that how Warfare in a fantasy setting works depends heavily upon the level of magic in the DM's world the more magic the more war changing (HOW changing is up for debate but I enjoy debate)

Also that the 3.5 system (and many RPG systems) are based on the idea of a small-ish group and most the rules are geared and balanced toward that (ha balanced ha :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:)

The main point I'd like to make is this... any level of magic and it's effect on war is right as long as it follows the DM's worlds own internal constancy of logic (I could make the letters bigger but that would be labour the point a bit :smallbiggrin:)

I like the Trippyvese (what i've read of it) but I would avoid it purely because I know my players like to be almost super hero like rare! If my players liked playing in a world with that much magic then I'd love to sort something like that out.

A few random points / questions



And if mages are simply so dangerous that normal soldiers can do little to resist them. Then the most important job a wizard in an army will have is to intercept and lock down the other side's wizard. ....

... And meanwhile these two titans fight: the rest of the battle will proceed as fighting with that technology usually proceeds.... except with nervous glances at the two dueling mages.

That is the reason given in Raymond E. Feist books as to why magic hasn't really been used in warfare (but in the country the person is talking being a mage is rare and distrusted and almost all the known mages are low level... this changes.)



Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books do this passably well. Rand al'Thor ends up being able wipe out armies more or less by himself thanks to the One Power. Rand approximates a high-level D&D wizard, albeit with more raw power but less control and reliability.

Rand al'Thor CAN and DOES wipe out whole armies... he does have a Major Artefact which gives him power x infinity for some of it and he is the reincarnated saviour of mankind but they do use spell casters in battle... and they do kick large amounts of butt. But in that world they are still relatively rare (despite almost every character turning out to be able to channel or have another rare magic power) and they get tired and assassinated quite a bit so they do use huge standing armies.



@Fatebreaker
Raymond E. Feist did the Riftwar & Serpentwar Sagas. Those were awesome. Prince of the Blood & the King's Buccaneer come between the two sagas. They're very much worth a look, partially because they start low-fantasy, and gradually up the magic and organization thing, so you get to see it develop. They're also just fun to read.


I liked those bits quite a lot... though sometimes I just didn't like/agree with his reasoning why everyone's favourite big mage doesn't just stop the war. "Oh no I can't use my power because there are forces out there I can't see and I'll be all stealthy until I find out that I could have crushed them so now I'm pissed I'll just order everyone to stop fighting or I'll burn them to small crispy bits" but it's been a few years since I've read those books


Oh, dear lord no.
Let's discuss something less controversial, like religion or politics.

+1


As far as Training an army of mages... isn't that what a Warmage is meant to be? The best way the Gov found for mass teaching mages was getting a few high level Wizards to chuck a bunch of blasty spells in their brain and hope they are tough enough not to die.

I've always seen Wizard training to be like that of a surgeon, many years of study and then many years of being an apprentice and a lot of people just aren't smart enough learn or have the money to spend time. But yes the army could pay for your medical training in exchange for a few years service.

Loyalty is a big factor for me, if the government isn't formed up of a lot of really powerful spell casters to begin with then the idea that training up a bunch of people who would be significantly more powerful then you and smarter and could teleport into your home and mind rape you and just take over I mean no military has ever turned on the country that paid for their training and no general has ever abused their power (:smallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:)

In a high-ish sort of magic war I could see a bunch of stealth types making use of UMD doing commando style raids.

Fireball = Nice enough.
But what about illusions? I mean you don't even get a save unless you "interact" with it. Misdirection being the art of war and all, even something as simple as there is no stake pit with spikes here could slaughter a mounted charge. Yes it could be detected with magic. Yes it could be hidden with magic. But I think the utility of magic could be a lot more of a game changer.

Anyway I enjoy a good game of logic "What if" :smallbiggrin:

[Menteith]

You forgot it flies perfectly, and has magic items including invisibility and teleportation.

A Shadesteel wearing a Ring of Invisibility runs 245,000g. Four Hundred Ballista (500gx400) with Four Hundred Adamantine Bolts ( (60g+1g)x400) comes to 224,400g. I'm fairly sure you can staff that with the 20,600g difference in costs. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to a Shadesteel, but having the ability to make attacks against a target with a +400 bonus, dealing 1,200d8 damage is also something worth considering. Even if half those miss due to Invisibility, the Shadesteel is going to drop.

[Man on Fire]

^ I need to change my avatar, there are too many goblins around, even I'm becoming confused.

And I said my last word - you guys thinks that adding wizards would change everything immiediately, I say that such fast and vast change would throw everything into chaos and leave you without military but with bunch of stupid wizards bossing you around. To create an effective magic army it would take hundreds of years and experiments, accomodations, magic arms races and so on. These things doesn't change rapidly, we didn't switched from sword to AK-47 overnight either.

[Menteith]

^ I need to change my avatar, there are too many goblins around, even I'm becoming confused.

And I said my last word - you guys thinks that adding wizards would change everything immiediately, I say that such fast and vast change would throw everything into chaos and leave you without military but with bunch of stupid wizards bossing you around. To create an effective magic army it would take hundreds of years and experiments, accomodations, magic arms races and so on. These things doesn't change rapidly, we didn't switched from sword to AK-47 overnight either.

The question I pose to you is whether or not conventional armies would even occur in certain settings. If powerful arcane magic were part of the setting, then it logically be incorporated into all tactical considerations - to continue your analogy, if there's a tree that grows AK-47s, then no one would bother preparing against swords. Magic is something that is inherent to the setting and permeates every aspect of it, since the dawn of time (unless your setting has magic introduced during a campaign or something). You can't take earth and then apply magic to it, you need to consider what would have changed if a force more powerful than anything we know was an intrinsic part of life.

[Jeraa]

A Shadesteel wearing a Ring of Invisibility runs 245,000g. Four Hundred Ballista (500gx400) with Four Hundred Adamantine Bolts ( (60g+1g)x400) comes to 224,400g. I'm fairly sure you can staff that with the 20,600g difference in costs. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to a Shadesteel, but having the ability to make attacks against a target with a +400 bonus, dealing 1,200d8 damage is also something worth considering. Even if half those miss due to Invisibility, the Shadesteel is going to drop.

The golem has DR 15/adamantine and magic. That 3d8 damage per ballista only averages 13.5 damage. Unless those ballistas are enchanted, the golem will, on average, take no damage. It doesn't matter how many hit, if they do no damage on average. (Sure, there will be ballistas that roll higher then average damage. But they also have to deal with the 50% miss chance from Invisibility.)

And with invisibility, you first have to guess where the creature is. Only if you guess right do you have a 50% miss chance. A flying invisible golem has a lot of empty sky to be in.

[Menteith]

The golem has DR 15/adamantine and magic. That 3d8 damage per ballista only averages 13.5 damage. Unless those ballistas are enchanted, the golem will, on average, take no damage. It doesn't matter how many hit, if they do no damage on average.

Well, sort of. The chance for a ballista to deal 24 damage is 1/512, to deal 23 damage is 3/512, to deal 22 damage is 6/512, 21 damage 10/512, etc. Averaged out, they'll never damage is, but they actually don't always deal average damage - they'll still drop it after 400 rounds.

Still, it's a good point, and DR/magic is common enough that it's a concern. Scale the number of Ballista down to eighty +1 Ballista, which costs only 200,000, giving +77 (due to nonproficincy) to hit dealing 240d8. This also saves 24,400g for reloads, specialty shots, back-up to man the guns, etc.



And with invisibility, you first have to guess where the creature is. Only if you guess right do you have a 50% miss chance. A flying invisible golem has a lot of empty sky to be in.

If it doesn't take an action, then does it matter where it is? The Negative Energy Pulse has a very low ranged compared to the maximum range of the Ballista (1,200ft), and even at maximum distance the benefit from Missile Volley will allow them to hit on everything but a natural 1.

My point isn't that an army of commoners using Ballista is unstoppable - I'm saying that for comparable prices, one has semi-competitive mundane options.

EDIT

Indirect Fire is also an available option. Commoners have Spot on their class list, so enlisting a single person with BAB +6 and See Invisibility basically negates Invisibility as a defense, since enough shots are still going to hit it, and the spotter lets them aim at it as a move action.

[Ranting Fool]

The golem has DR 15/adamantine and magic. That 3d8 damage per ballista only averages 13.5 damage. Unless those ballistas are enchanted, the golem will, on average, take no damage. It doesn't matter how many hit, if they do no damage on average. (Sure, there will be ballistas that roll higher then average damage. But they also have to deal with the 50% miss chance from Invisibility.)

And with invisibility, you first have to guess where the creature is. Only if you guess right do you have a 50% miss chance. A flying invisible golem has a lot of empty sky to be in.

First I think things like Golems would be very effective used as siege weapons (Expensive but chucked in with men charging would draw a lot of fire) if there was a reason that teleport.

Is there a spell of "Mass Magic Weapon"? Since there seems to be Mass everything else.

And a few guys with see invisibility would be rather useful if used as spotters (with either com-stones or Mind link type spells) so the bigger mages know where to chuck off a Dispel Magic / UMD wand of Dispel Magic. Again this is if both armies have equal level of magic, if one side has much better mages then they aren't going to be able to counter it.

Not counting the very high end spells (which tend to have the power to shape the world) for most spells there is some sort of counter and if there isn't then wouldn't one of these oh so smart mages think of one (Since you can learn your own spells if DM allows) if magic warfare is a changing over time thing.... unless one side just wins hands down because they were the first people to ever think to use wide scale magic (And holding a whole world of unhappy people is never easy)

@Man on Fire

^ I need to change my avatar, there are too many goblins around, even I'm becoming confused.

I was JUST thinking the same thing!

[Menteith]

And a few guys with see invisibility would be rather useful if used as spotters (with either com-stones or Mind link type spells) so the bigger mages know where to chuck off a Dispel Magic / UMD wand of Dispel Magic. Again this is if both armies have equal level of magic, if one side has much better mages then they aren't going to be able to counter it.

Actually, if everyone on your side of the battlefield has 3 ranks in spot, and you've trained together, a single person with BAB +6 can be used as a spotter for your entire team through the teamwork benefit Indirect Fire. They just need to spend a move action, and everyone who's a member of their team can aim at something they can't see, negating half of the target's cover bonus and allowing a reroll on the concealment check. This also makes it trivially easy to pick out and snipe invisible creatures.

[Reficule]

Shadesteel golems are beyond the level cap of 5 that we have been using (Any higher turns wizards into flat out gods) Either way though, you wouldn't use it against an army directly anyway, as it is perfect for assassination, strategic strikes, and urban combat. Imagine a tank that could fly in stealth mode (See invisibility exists, but so do ways of detecting aircraft in real life) and Deep Strike behind enemy lines before moving off. The correct response to mass siege weapons would be book bombings.

This thread has caused me to gain a strong urge to play a campaign based in a setting with full strategic use of magic up to a max of 3rd level spells

[Emperor Tippy]

Read the rules in Heroes of Battle about Volley Fire.

If you do indirect fire it's a DC 15 reflex save to take no damage and on a failed save you only take damage from 1 arrow regardless of the size of the volley.

If you do concentrated fire then you are limited to at most 10 attackers and the target gets hit by 1/5 the arrows fired with a DC 15 reflex save for half damage.

So no, under the rules you can't hit for 200d8.

The golem also has effective fast healing 8 and can just flee straight up if it is damaged and wait around for a minute or so to heal up and then go right back in and attack again as if nothing had happened. You have to kill it in one round.

You also just assume that their spot checks will be made. The golem has +32 (12 skill points, 12 racial, 3 racial, 3 skill focus, 2 masterwork tool) on the check. A level 1 character with Spot as a class skill, maxed ranks in it, Skill Focus: Spot, and a masterwork tool would have +9 on his check. He needs a wisdom of at least 18 to succeed on seeing the golem if it was 10 feet away from him and rolled a 1 on it's hide check while he rolled a 20 on his spot check. Without a wisdom bonus the spotter would need to be level 5 to have even a chance of seeing the golem.

Add in range penalties, darkness penalties, etc. and it becomes even more difficult. Just because you can see invisible doesn't mean that you can see the golem.

[Suddo]

^ I need to change my avatar, there are too many goblins around, even I'm becoming confused.

And I said my last word - you guys thinks that adding wizards would change everything immiediately, I say that such fast and vast change would throw everything into chaos and leave you without military but with bunch of stupid wizards bossing you around. To create an effective magic army it would take hundreds of years and experiments, accomodations, magic arms races and so on. These things doesn't change rapidly, we didn't switched from sword to AK-47 overnight either.

At what time point are you looking at? What do you think the world would look like? I'll agree that it takes time but how much is rather dependant I mean sense the industrial revolution we've been going through technology extremely quick. I mean the time it took to go from Swords to Simple Gunpowder Rifles to more modern stuff is a exponential graph. A lot of it is based off of whether the resource was easily created and harnessed, gunpowder wasn't immediately discovered and used it too years to create a stable enough solution to become useable. This doesn't exist when it comes to Magic, at least not in any aparent form, its more I discovered a new spell and I can show you how to do it too.
Also when do you think the first sword was forged by a elf/dwarf versus when they first discovered magic? Is that a 100 years, 10 years? Or did they discover first level spells first. Imagine how that would change warfare if magic was discovered first. You take nothing like this into account when in my opinion would be closer to the truth. I mean it does depend greatly on how several influences. You could equivalate the industrial revolution to when magic was discovered this means that in about 250 years magic would be fully integrated into every day life, as technology has been into ours. This is the approximate time it would take for a Tippyverse to happen in my opinion, if we are using real life reference points.

I got 250 years from Industrial Revolution starting at 1750 and the year 2000.

Edit:

Shadesteel golems are beyond the level cap of 5 that we have been using (Any higher turns wizards into flat out gods) Either way though, you wouldn't use it against an army directly anyway, as it is perfect for assassination, strategic strikes, and urban combat. Imagine a tank that could fly in stealth mode (See invisibility exists, but so do ways of detecting aircraft in real life) and Deep Strike behind enemy lines before moving off. The correct response to mass siege weapons would be book bombings.

This thread has caused me to gain a strong urge to play a campaign based in a setting with full strategic use of magic up to a max of 3rd level spells
Technically the entire thread hasn't agreed to that. Someone quoted that golem, which was stated before you stated that rule, after you stated that rule.

[Ranting Fool]

Actually, if everyone on your side of the battlefield has 3 ranks in spot, and you've trained together, a single person with BAB +6 can be used as a spotter for your entire team through the teamwork benefit Indirect Fire. They just need to spend a move action, and everyone who's a member of their team can aim at something they can't see, negating half of the target's cover bonus and allowing a reroll on the concealment check. This also makes it trivially easy to pick out and snipe invisible creatures.

Wouldn't a Marshal with the whole ability (let everyone near take a move action) be rather useful (not sure what level they take that at.)

Simple spells could be very useful to an army (The one that allows people to be mind linked, Scout to aid in the generals tent so he can change plans) just the basic ability to coordinate an army and dispense orders over distance changes the nature of warfare. Sending spells, Familiar scouts, a good human scout with a few magic items and potions.

Also things like spell range, couldn't a boulder be enchanted to explode after X time when chucked from a catapult (I'm assuming that they have longer range)

Or just Basic Heal Spells... non magic warfare a guy gets wounded and either he's a cripple or he gets a nasty disease or he's fine. Just low level heals turn wounded soldiers into healthy ready to fight ones (Yes that would be limited to the number of Adapts and spells per day)

A huge factor in warfare throughout history has been logistics, is your army equipped, fed, free of disease?

It's not just Wizards that would/could make a major effect turning medieval into magic-modern warfare but all of those spell like and supernatural abilities.

Gnomish confusion squad, check.
Dark Elf spell Res, Check
Shifter Spies, Check
Marshal/Dragon Shammy/Bards for squad leaders/sergeants, check.
Big monster/Rarer for shock troops, check
Giant/heavy armoured troops as "tanks", check (Isn't there an Armoured Dire Bear in one of the MM)

Right that's all my brain will come up with at this time... Since I've got to be up in about three and a half hours I'll leave it at that.

No wait, isn't there a Ranger spell that lets him fire one arrow at each target (not sure if there is a cap but if not machine gun archers)

[Menteith]

Read the rules in Heroes of Battle about Volley Fire.

If you do indirect fire it's a DC 15 reflex save to take no damage and on a failed save you only take damage from 1 arrow regardless of the size of the volley.

If you do concentrated fire then you are limited to at most 10 attackers and the target gets hit by 1/5 the arrows fired with a DC 15 reflex save for half damage.

So no, under the rules you can't hit for 200d8.

Except I'm not talking about Volleying. I'm specifically using the Teamwork Benefit Missile Volley from PHBII, which allows every member of the team to ready an action to fire on the same turn, and if they do, they gain a bonus to attack equal to the total number of readied attacks, so long as they're all made against the same target. If there's a specific reason this benefit can't be applied in this situation, I am not aware of it. Everyone should have Attack: Yes (3d8+1 19-20x2) if they're using this together.




The golem also has effective fast healing 8 and can just flee straight up if it is damaged and wait around for a minute or so to heal up and then go right back in and attack again as if nothing had happened. You have to kill it in one round.

Which Missile Volley should accomplish, provided it functions here (Again, if it doesn't, or isn't applicable, please let me know why)



You also just assume that their spot checks will be made. The golem has +32 (12 skill points, 12 racial, 3 racial, 3 skill focus, 2 masterwork tool) on the check. A level 1 character with Spot as a class skill, maxed ranks in it, Skill Focus: Spot, and a masterwork tool would have +9 on his check. He needs a wisdom of at least 18 to succeed on seeing the golem if it was 10 feet away from him and rolled a 1 on it's hide check while he rolled a 20 on his spot check. Without a wisdom bonus the spotter would need to be level 5 to have even a chance of seeing the golem.

Add in range penalties, darkness penalties, etc. and it becomes even more difficult. Just because you can see invisible doesn't mean that you can see the golem.

That is a fair point. Still, the Indirect Fire Teamwork Benefit requires only that a single spotter notice them, and if they do, they can spend a move action to allow every other team member to focus on the target regardless. This does require a team leader with BAB +6, but with multiple dedicated spotters, they have a reasonable chance of it (+9 Ranks, +2 MW Tool, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Racial Bonus w/Elf, +4 from Wisdom) gives +20. A Wand of Ebon Eyes negates the penalties from darkness. They're going to get ambushed, sure, but it at least prevents the Shadesteel from sniping at -20 all day.

[Reficule]

Correct me if my math is wrong, but a Rubber Stamp of Explosive Runes with unlimited uses is 72k gold, and single use glass panes of Erase set to fail their checks on breaking are slightly over 50g each. How exactly would that affect tactics, specifically? Considering dropping these bombs is just flat out better than fireball and cheaper to boot.

[Man on Fire]

The question I pose to you is whether or not conventional armies would even occur in certain settings. If powerful arcane magic were part of the setting, then it logically be incorporated into all tactical considerations - to continue your analogy, if there's a tree that grows AK-47s, then no one would bother preparing against swords. Magic is something that is inherent to the setting and permeates every aspect of it, since the dawn of time (unless your setting has magic introduced during a campaign or something).

I assume that we're talking here about setting in which before man learned to master magic on a lever worth five bucks humanity managed to build standard medival technology level civilization and now discovered magic that can be usefull on the battlefield.

[Emperor Tippy]

Except I'm not talking about Volleying. I'm specifically using the Teamwork Benefit Missile Volley from PHBII, which allows every member of the team to ready an action to fire on the same turn, and if they do, they gain a bonus to attack equal to the total number of readied attacks, so long as they're all made against the same target. If there's a specific reason this benefit can't be applied in this situation, I am not aware of it. Everyone should have Attack: Yes (3d8+1 19-20x2) if they're using this together.
Well first, page 158 of PHB2 "A team must be made up of at least two members and no more than eight.". That limits you to a +8 bonus on the attack, against an AC of 33 or higher; and tops damage out at 200 (golems being immune to critical hits), which isn't enough to kill said advanced golem.

So against an AC of 33 and making the entire team level 5 fighters (for 5 BAB) they hit one time in twenty. Assuming that they overcome DR and completely ignore miss chance it would take an average of over two hundred attackers to do damage. Then you have the Contingent Dimension Door to get out of the way of massed fire and drop the golem right into the closely packed attackers in the perfect position to use it's negative pulse wave and kill all of them.


Which Missile Volley should accomplish, provided it functions here (Again, if it doesn't, or isn't applicable, please let me know why)



That is a fair point. Still, the Indirect Fire Teamwork Benefit requires only that a single spotter notice them, and if they do, they can spend a move action to allow every other team member to focus on the target regardless. This does require a team leader with BAB +6, but with multiple dedicated spotters, they have a reasonable chance of it (+9 Ranks, +2 MW Tool, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Racial Bonus w/Elf, +4 from Wisdom) gives +20. A Wand of Ebon Eyes negates the penalties from darkness. They're going to get ambushed, sure, but it at least prevents the Shadesteel from sniping at -20 all day.
You only get 1 team work benefit per four HD of the lowest HD creature on the team.



Correct me if my math is wrong, but a Rubber Stamp of Explosive Runes with unlimited uses is 72k gold, and single use glass panes of Erase set to fail their checks on breaking are slightly over 50g each. How exactly would that affect tactics, specifically? Considering dropping these bombs is just flat out better than fireball and cheaper to boot.

Go with the printing press of Explosive Runes, 7500 GP and 600 XP. Call it 8,000 GP for the inclusion of the mechanical bits.

50 GP and 4 XP for each Erase plate.

[Fatebreaker]

First off I'd like to raise my hat to you all (If I was wearing a hat) for managing to have a reasoned discussion without this turning into a name-calling-hair-pulling type of thread :smallbiggrin: (I do mean this sincerely)

I'm surprised my own self.


The main point I'd like to make is this... any level of magic and it's effect on war is right as long as it follows the DM's worlds own internal constancy of logic (I could make the letters bigger but that would be labour the point a bit :smallbiggrin:)

To this, I would add the importance of ensuring that your own internal consistency be able to withstand future external action. It might make sense why things are the way they are right now, but you also want to make sure your players can't spot the pressure points of that logic and make everything in the space of five minutes. Unless, of course, that's what you want to have happen.


I liked those bits quite a lot... though sometimes I just didn't like/agree with his reasoning why everyone's favourite big mage doesn't just stop the war. "Oh no I can't use my power because there are forces out there I can't see and I'll be all stealthy until I find out that I could have crushed them so now I'm pissed I'll just order everyone to stop fighting or I'll burn them to small crispy bits" but it's been a few years since I've read those books

Yeah, that whole thing could have been handled much better. The one time he goes all BIGMAGE! on everyone, he does so spur of the moment and gets burned for it. Granted, he's kinda showing off to a hot chick, so there's only so much I can blame him for not thinking things through, but... it still felt like Feist was trying to come up with an excuse why a mage of such awesome power wouldn't just solve the plot, instead of coming up with a plot where the mage couldn't or wouldn't solve it.


This thread has caused me to gain a strong urge to play a campaign based in a setting with full strategic use of magic up to a max of 3rd level spells

At that point, I'd recommend using a system other than D&D3.x. Usually I say that because it's not what D&D's designed to do, and there are better systems for it, but in this case it's specifically because strategic-level D&D3.x is a lot of book keeping. Some friends and I set out to do it in a Faerun campaign (set in the Vaast, a nifty collection of city-states that are near a bunch of great powers but largely ignored by them), and three days of statting out cities and units and armies and characters and spells and whatnot still saw us nowhere near done. Regardless of how well the system would have worked, the entry-level paperwork was immense.

Still, whatever system you use, I'd love to hear how it turns out.


And I said my last word - you guys thinks that adding wizards would change everything immiediately, I say that such fast and vast change would throw everything into chaos and leave you without military but with bunch of stupid wizards bossing you around.

(emphasis added)

That is exactly the point.

That is exactly what would happen in a D&D3.x world which functions according to 3.x magic. You may not like that. If so, do not use 3.x. That is the reason I no longer use 3.x -- the world described does not match the world the rules create. As a result, 3.x is lying to you about how it functions, and rather than fix 3.x, I'd rather just use a system that works to begin with (or is less broken or broken in less fundamental ways). But personal preference does not change the extrapolation of "if this is how magic works, then this is the world which would develop."

Note that there's nothing wrong with a world where the traditional military has been replaced by the magical military. It's still a military -- it just looks very, very different than any that has existed in our history.

Historical Tangent!
A fun time period to research is Japan's Meiji Restoration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration). In 1853, the beginning of the end came for the traditionalist Tokugawa Shogunate when Commodore Perry and brought a fleet of warships (dubbed the Black Ships) off Edo (Tokyo) and under threat of force demanded that Japan open its ports for trade with the West. When the Japanese proved less than willing, Perry displayed the superior firepower of then-modern warships.

In the span of (roughly) the next fifteen years, the two hundred and fifty year old Tokugawa Shogunate collapsed; political, economical, and social turmoil engulfed the nation. The Shogunate saw ups and downs until 1864, but by 1865 rebellion against the Tokugawa Shogunate had begun in earnest, as it was clear that the old ways could not compete with the new. In 1866, a modern army from Choshu (southern tip of Honshu Japan, near Hiroshima) defeated a Shogunate army, and by January of 1868, the reign of the Shogunate was over. 1868 to 1869 saw the Boshin War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boshin_War), the last hurrah for the old guard. Modernization continued.

In 1895, Japan defeated the much larger and also-modernizing China, a major upset, but not nearly so much as their 1905 victory over Russia! In the span of fifty years, Japan had gone from a traditional culture to capable of defeating a full-fledged Western power. In less than fifteen, it had gone from swords to guns. This was Very Impressive.

It's a really neat time period. And it's a very cool time to set a campaign in. Now, it's not a perfect analogy, but for our purposes, it's a cool example of a Very Traditional culture that, when faced with a military reality which contradicted and negated their old way of doing things, adapted and prospered within the span of a generation.

[Menteith]

Being Correct

You're right. That's what I get for trying to make arguments AFB. I retract my statement.

[Legendairy]

Crazy double posting!!!!! READ BELOW :smallbiggrin:

[Legendairy]

Ooooo Lots to reply to! Ok I was in the military I was actually a scout sniper and a few points

1)I did talk to Commanding officers not just LT's and Captains but Full Birds, If I said "I think this calls for a tactical lazer guided strike" If they didn't agree they still took it into counsel and sometimes even listened.
2)If I could carry a rifle(high powered long range like a cheytac .408 or an M107 .50) A machine gun(240b) a smaller accurate carbine(M4) a standard radio set up with many many miles range, a tactical missile vehicle, a fast attack jet, a slow one for tanks and dug in positions like the A10 warthog, a B2 stealthy with 2-5000 lb JDAM and Bunker busters, and a camoflauge suit like the predators wears only better, the abilty to call random forces from shadows that can hunt and kill what I tell them then vanish to swarms of crazed dung beetles who would eat the faces of everything in their way then guess what the powers that be would rather put that all in one person and have them out there possibly even alone cause its less likely you will be seen.

The military tradition would be damned, honestly its been said many of times it depends on the OP's setting and how he wants magic. If its low then it wont change a whole lot in the scenario if its high then why even try a comparison?

And in the second example given all those tools against several thousand sword and boards? Forget about it!!!

The reason I even say the last is because thats close key word here CLOSE to what mid level magic could relate to in a battlefield setting.

If you want to make it worse make it two man mage teams one is solely the defense the other is solely offence and intel.

Now after the mages are finished then yes maybe some infantry is nice to do what infantry does deny the enemy movement and terrain, guard the area while the mages do the battle, turning infantry and such into glorified security.

Oh and all this was made under the assumption that the two man mage team does NOT need any survival training or boot camp. Why? Because its a waste of time money and puting a valuable resource through something utterly useless to them.

The physical conditioning that has been spoken of in other posts isn't the bar in current military and in a fantasy world it shouldnt be reflected either.

Great minds are great minds regardless if they know what bugs to eat and can carry 100 lbs of gear for 30 miles without stopping. They also have a huge wealth of knowledge worth learning or at very least heading.

[Anecronwashere]

Assuming Magic and all the Monsters idn't just pop in suddenly, why would traditional armies even start?

General McFighter: "I have an idea, let's get all the Commoners, put them in a line and have them walk towards other advancing lines of Commoners"
Everyone else: "Why in the 9 Hells would we want to do that???"


In a world where Magic works by 3.X rules military will form completely differently. Each spell made causing a shift in power and tactics as each Army has to adapt to both using and countering any new tactics thought up using that spell.
Traditional combat won't exist. It won't have the chance to form.

variables I am using for reference:
D&D levels are 1-20
Setting has native Magic, from Creation
Anyone can be Wizards. It takes as much training as to be a good Doctor/Scientist takes (5-8 years dedicated study) to become a 2nd/3rd level Wiz.
1% of descendants from a casting/supernatural race (dragon, demon, most extraplanar entities) can become Sorcerors

An army I think would form:
-Very fluid: Each new monster tamed, each new spell researched, each new tactic or counter-tactic created could dominate the field completely unless new counters and counter-counters are thought up

-Very Dedicated to Research: Entire groups of Casters are dedicated to researching new spells, improvements of old spells (Metamagic, Mass versions, lowered spell-level versions), Crafting and Scribing.
basically R&D.

-Small Groups of mostly-casters: I'm thinking the average "unit" would contain a mostly even spread of the following (add or subtract due to national culture) Wizard, Sorc, Psion, Melee-Cleric, Heal/Blast-Cleric, *Golem/Undead/Creature*

-Mundanes will be strategists: There is no room on the front-line for a Mundane so they become the Tacticians, trained in how to utilize their magical assets on a macro-scale and develop new tactics in battles. Basically the Mundanes are the guys making the plays, countering any advancement the Enemy R&D and Strategists come up with while also utilizing things their own R&D comes up with.

-Multiplanar/Multi-location Kingdoms: Not really a part of an army but I can see the kingdoms being unbound by location because of something like a Teeport Circle or a Stargate system being made, possibly with access codes or something. If Plane134 is as easy to get too as that mountain a mile away then why should nations colonize the mountain but not Plane 134?

[Suddo]

At that point, I'd recommend using a system other than D&D3.x. Usually I say that because it's not what D&D's designed to do, and there are better systems for it, but in this case it's specifically because strategic-level D&D3.x is a lot of book keeping. Some friends and I set out to do it in a Faerun campaign (set in the Vaast, a nifty collection of city-states that are near a bunch of great powers but largely ignored by them), and three days of statting out cities and units and armies and characters and spells and whatnot still saw us nowhere near done. Regardless of how well the system would have worked, the entry-level paperwork was immense.

Still, whatever system you use, I'd love to hear how it turns out.

Any chance you know of a good system that is still similar? I'd prefer to keep it to the point where individuals are stat-ed up but wouldn't mind simplifying something while running it. I was thinking a system with spend XP gain X skill, I think GUPRs has this system, but I'm not sure where to start. I more just want a system where you don't suddenly gain a bunch of power after intervals but to have a smoother transition. I've dreamed of making it myself but man that is a huge under taking.

[Ranting Fool]

Slightly off topic (but would be useful to know for Fantasy Warfare)

What is the cost of hiring NPC's at higher level
So a level 5 Adapt costs x
and a Level 12 Warrior costs x
I only seem to come across prices for level 1 NPC's or the cost of having them cast a spell.

I'd be greatful if someone could point me in the right direction. Also the cost of armies talk has all been about the cost of gear rather then the cost of Pay, if you were a highly skilled mage you would expect to payed quite a bit more then the rank and file grunts.

[Fatebreaker]

Any chance you know of a good system that is still similar? I'd prefer to keep it to the point where individuals are stat-ed up but wouldn't mind simplifying something while running it. I was thinking a system with spend XP gain X skill, I think GUPRs has this system, but I'm not sure where to start. I more just want a system where you don't suddenly gain a bunch of power after intervals but to have a smoother transition. I've dreamed of making it myself but man that is a huge under taking.

Well, without knowing more about what you want to do, I can't really point you in a specific direction. I'll tell about the systems I use and why, and you can decide which one works for you, or which ones are worth looking into.

Spoiler'd so as not to derail the thread:

Main Recommendations:
Warmaster: Warmaster is a straightforward and awesome system put out by Games Workshop. It's a tabletop fantasy strategy game designed with a couple key assumptions in mind.

First, individuals are not worth counting. Units are. Your basic infantry unit has three hits; do those represent three hundred men each, three thousand men each? Doesn't matter. It's very abstract that way. Characters may have spells or special abilities, but characters caught away from units are removed from play. They exist to augment the army, and their presence can make or break a close fight by tipping the scales to your side.

Second, units require guidance to act, otherwise they default to standing around, defending themselves, and occasionally charging anything that gets too close. Characters give orders, and this is where the game really works. Your general has the best ability to give orders and the least limitations, but if he fails in giving an order, your order phase ends... even if other characters haven't given their orders. On the other hand, if a lesser character fails, only his order phase ends, and other characters can still give orders. Unfortunately, they are less likely to succeed. So if you have several crucial orders to give, do you hedge your bets by letting the little guys go first? Or do you go big with your general, hoping that the dice don't suddenly spite you?

If you're looking for a straightforward system about command and strategy with a minimum of investment or paperwork, I would recommend Warmaster. You can find the rules here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat480010a&categoryId=6700008a&section=&aId=21500023a), and the army galleries here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landingArmy.jsp?catId=cat480010a&rootCatGameStyle=specialist-games).


Exalted: Ah, Exalted! The shining jewel of the roleplaying crown! Exalted is probably your best best. Made by White Wolf, Exalted is primarily a storytelling game which takes place in a fantasy world inspired by blending Asian and Roman mythology and then cranking it up to 11. It features very high levels of magic and fantasy and other fun things, but it can accommodate lower power levels simply by not selecting the less-powerful options. It's a fairly honest system, which is good. The reason I suspect that it's the most up your alley is that the system allows for characters to interact with characters, units to interact with units, and characters to interact with units, all with a fairly integrated system. Long-running games are expected to move from "the four of you do stuff" to "the four of you plus your private armies, your allied nations, and the gods you've conned into fighting for you do stuff." The Scroll of Kings is a book dedicated entirely to war and mass-scale battles, and the various sourcebooks all include descriptions of the armies available to different factions. The world as a whole is designed with high-fantasy in mind, and neatly avoids a lot of the misconceptions which we've seen in a 3.x fantasy warfare thread, because the designers meshed mechanics and story elements to match.

I recommend Exalted as the most flexible system. You can smoothly transition from a small-scale skirmish to a massive battle without changing systems while having a huge variety of options for armies and characters alike. It's more paperwork than Warmaster, but far, far less than D&D3.x. This, by the way, is the system our group eventually went with.


Other Options:
Warhammer/Warmachine: I've lumped these two together because, for all their differences, they share certain similarities which are relevant to where I think you're going. Both are tabletop wargames aimed a power level where characters are powerful and influential, but massive units are still both relevant and required. Warhammer is more high-end fantasy, while Warmachine in magitek steampunk. On the plus side, they have a wide variety of options available (Warhammer more so than Warmachine). On the down side, they require a lot of models.

If you're looking for a dedicated tabletop game which blends both massive armies and powerful characters, I would recommend Warhammer or Warmachine. My group enjoys both of these games for providing a more tactile (not tactical, tactile) experience than a roleplaying game. Painting and building your own models is fun, too. However, at this point, you're distinctly moving away from the roleplaying element of the game, and your RPG characters will be very different from your tabletop characters.


Battlefleet Gothic: Like Warmaster, but with navies! In space! Fortunately, the "space" part is easily ignored, since it hand-waves away the three dimensional aspect. There's even a faction which "sails" the solar winds, giving you options for traditional sailing ships. Also, I hear there's a game called "Dystopian Wars" which is also navy-centric, but I haven't played it.


Legend of the Five Rings: Probably not what you're looking for, but it has an optional mass combat mechanic that is fairly simple and allows players to interact with units. It doesn't really have a great deal of magic, but if you're not looking for magic, then it suddenly becomes a much more powerful contender. It's also a damn fine roleplaying game in its own right. One of the best reasons to go for L5R (for the purposes of this discussion) is that it has a Glory/Status/Honor mechanic which encourages players to behave in heroic ways and rewards them for doing so, without resorting to bribing them with ever-increasing amounts of power. It requires players to care about their goals and motives rather than the next +1 bonus.

[Canarr]

Then you have the Contingent Dimension Door to get out of the way of massed fire and drop the golem right into the closely packed attackers in the perfect position to use it's negative pulse wave and kill all of them.


Huh? Contingency has Range: Personal; how do you cast that on the golem? Even if you're flying invisibly with the golem, Dimension Door has Target: You and touched objects/creatures, allowing objects the use of SR, which - in my interpretation, admittedly - should mean that the golem's magic immunity kicks in against it.

Am I overlooking something here?

[Emperor Tippy]

Craft Contingent. A creature can have up to HD worth of contingent spells on them that last until used and have no level cap.

[Canarr]

Okay, that's just... screwed. One would think they'd at least uphold the target restrictions for the spells.

[Man on Fire]

I'm back with some arguments.

1) I realized that 3.5 wizards have terrible weakness - limited spell slots. Sure they can be gods, but only for so little time, once they overuse their ultra powerful spells they are worthless.

2) Wizards can be defeated by being elastic - by having an army who can quickly change their strategy multiple times in one battle. To counter that army they would have to divide their spells between too many schools, resulting in situation where they are worthless because they don't have enough spells of certain type to counter any strategy on grand enough scale.

3) It is still horribly expensive to create 3.5 wizard who can cast high level spells. Sure, in game it's just few adventuring, but lets face it, crunch and fluff say two different thigs. In-universe of 3.5 settings learning magic takes long time to learn and master, something that is time-consuming and expensive, even creating wizard who can use wands and equiping him will be much mroe expensive than creating traditional army. Kindoms doesn't have unlimited founds.

4) Who is supposed to make that army for you? Okay, how many wizards from 3.5 settings who aren't either a) too focused on their studies to give a damn about anything else and be willing to help create an army b) Not preffering other, more subtle ways of dealing with problems than wars (Elminster) or c) outright evil you know?

5) In many worlds people doesn't exactly trust wizards. They are usually misunderstood and feared. And we tend to destroy things we fear. Wizard commanding an army would have problems with gettin soldiers to listen to him. An army....no, a military unit of wizards would be feared and distrusted because of their tremendous power that people would blow out of proportions. It wasn't unheard of rulers destroying loyal units that won many battles for them out of fear or other reasons - see Sultan Mahmud II who had send the artilery to murder his most loyal soldiers (some even say that he manipulated them into mutiny so he could have an excuse to murder them). Sure, at that time they were corrupted to the core but their motivation was they belived themselves to be crucial to the whole empire, the same can always happen to wizards, just like any other unit.

[NoldorForce]

#1: Even if they employ only battlefield control spells or other effects of short duration, casters still have more bang for their buck than noncasters. And that's a notable "if"; buffed casters can run around beating up noncasters as long as the buffs last. (DMM, anyone?)

#2: Beyond a certain point (level 9, say), a moderately optimized caster has enough resources for this to not matter; there's only so much "adaptation" noncasters can do before they require the help of casters. (And then we're right back to caster-dominated forces.) And as with #1, casters still have more bang for their buck than anything else. Yes, a sufficiently large group of soldiers can overwhelm a single caster - but note the plural. When you're employing many-to-one tactics against approximately at-level opponents your argument falls flat.

#3: As abstract at it is, the concept of "level" is the primary variable involved in the resources necessary to train and equip a unit. (XP requirements to level don't change depending on your class.) Starting ages aren't good for much; while the prepared casters generally use the highest range for random starting ages (with noncasters centered around the middle), the spontaneous casters generally use the lowest range.

#4: Hasty generalization. Just because fantasy wizards have often been written as reclusives (it's a trope, and from a literary standpoint it's more interesting than Merlin and Friends roflstomping a nation) doesn't mean it must happen.

#5: Slippery slope. Just because this can happen doesn't mean it will. (Plus, if the army's got enough casters then they can all keep each other in line.)

[Talakeal]

#4: Hasty generalization. Just because fantasy wizards have often been written as reclusives (it's a trope, and from a literary standpoint it's more interesting than Merlin and Friends roflstomping a nation) doesn't mean it must happen.


It may be a trope, but I think it is a good one. Imagine for a second that you have virtually unlimited power, but are still fundamentally a human. You still have human flaws, you still can only be in one place at once, you still make mistakes. Imagine what it would be like if people knew this?

I imagine people would be lined up around the block to request "miracles" from you, every person you meet would, rightfully, think you can make their dreams come true, and have a sob story about why they are more deserving than anyone else.

And of course, you can give them what they want, but what happens when something goes wrong?

After a couple of years of this I would damn well be a hermit to.

I would imagine that even at high levels this would come up. Your king and country want you to spend every moment "saving the world", or at least guaranteeing them the place in it they feel they deserve. But you just want to chill out in your private demi plane full of nymphs and contemplate the deeper mysteries of the cosmos which anyone without a 40+ INT isn't even aware of.

[Emperor Tippy]

I'm back with some arguments.

1) I realized that 3.5 wizards have terrible weakness - limited spell slots. Sure they can be gods, but only for so little time, once they overuse their ultra powerful spells they are worthless.
Unlimited spell slots of 5th level or lower costs approximately 35,000 GP.

Shapechange is all a high level caster needs to destroy any army of characters 7th level or lower. Literally nothing else is needed.


2) Wizards can be defeated by being elastic - by having an army who can quickly change their strategy multiple times in one battle. To counter that army they would have to divide their spells between too many schools, resulting in situation where they are worthless because they don't have enough spells of certain type to counter any strategy on grand enough scale.
There simply aren't that many available strategies and the kind of coordination you would need doesn't exist without the use of magic. Also, Shapechange.

Shapechange provides 1) unlimited healing, 2) unlimited flight at 200 feet per move action 3) unlimited teleportation as greater teleport 4) unlimited invisibility 5) unlimited breath weapons 6) pretty much an unlimited amount of everything else as well.


3) It is still horribly expensive to create 3.5 wizard who can cast high level spells. Sure, in game it's just few adventuring, but lets face it, crunch and fluff say two different thigs. In-universe of 3.5 settings learning magic takes long time to learn and master, something that is time-consuming and expensive, even creating wizard who can use wands and equiping him will be much mroe expensive than creating traditional army. Kindoms doesn't have unlimited founds.
It's trivial. To produce a clone tank that can turn out one 10th level wizard per turn costs a mere 650,000 GP. That is a ready made, disposable, army of wizards.


4) Who is supposed to make that army for you? Okay, how many wizards from 3.5 settings who aren't either a) too focused on their studies to give a damn about anything else and be willing to help create an army b) Not preffering other, more subtle ways of dealing with problems than wars (Elminster) or c) outright evil you know?
The wizard that is running your country behind the scenes. If he decides that you aren't worth the cost, well then your nation falls.


5) In many worlds people doesn't exactly trust wizards. They are usually misunderstood and feared. And we tend to destroy things we fear. Wizard commanding an army would have problems with gettin soldiers to listen to him. An army....no, a military unit of wizards would be feared and distrusted because of their tremendous power that people would blow out of proportions. It wasn't unheard of rulers destroying loyal units that won many battles for them out of fear or other reasons - see Sultan Mahmud II who had send the artilery to murder his most loyal soldiers (some even say that he manipulated them into mutiny so he could have an excuse to murder them). Sure, at that time they were corrupted to the core but their motivation was they belived themselves to be crucial to the whole empire, the same can always happen to wizards, just like any other unit.
You again assume that anyone has the power to destroy the wizards and other casters. They don't.

Power in D&D derives from magic, nothing more and nothing less. In the real world everyone is created roughly equal and power derives from convincing other people to follow your lead. That is not the case in D&D, first because some people are provable more inherently powerful than others by multiple orders of magnitude and second because some individuals personal power is sufficient to not just break armies and nations but to break entire pantheons and planes.

Using nothing more than the standard spell book of one of my level 20 mid op wizards I could bring to heel every single Eberron realm in under a month. Dropped naked and with nothing save for his spell book in an unknown world lacking casters above 10th level that same wizard could have every single organized group of individuals on the entire world under his sway within a year, without anyone even knowing.

Using some of the more broken and powerful spells it becomes literally trivial.

[Man on Fire]

#1: Even if they employ only battlefield control spells or other effects of short duration, casters still have more bang for their buck than noncasters. And that's a notable "if"; buffed casters can run around beating up noncasters as long as the buffs last. (DMM, anyone?)

"Nec hercules contra plures" - even buffed wizard won't beat such large number of enemies and he is too expensive to be let get killed in such stupid way. Once he is out of spells he is told to retreat because training and equiping him was to expensive and he is too valuable.


#2: Beyond a certain point (level 9, say), a moderately optimized caster has enough resources for this to not matter; there's only so much "adaptation" noncasters can do before they require the help of casters. (And then we're right back to caster-dominated forces.) And as with #1, casters still have more bang for their buck than anything else. Yes, a sufficiently large group of soldiers can overwhelm a single caster - but note the plural. When you're employing many-to-one tactics against approximately at-level opponents your argument falls flat.

a) Optimization is something we, players do, it's rather naive to assume that people living in D&D worlds are aware of their own rules enough to know how to optimize.
b) You underestimate non-casters, creative and fast thinking leaders could adapt to many, many tactics and even predicts several of them in advance. And that army woul probably also use wizard but not on "dominate the army" way, rather as a support because
c) Wizards are rare. They spend a lot of time on learning. That's in most of D&D fluffs, put there to make PCs more special. There simply aren't enough of them in many worlds to make an unit out of them and training them and making all necessary gear for them would be faar to expensive.


#3: As abstract at it is, the concept of "level" is the primary variable involved in the resources necessary to train and equip a unit. (XP requirements to level don't change depending on your class.) Starting ages aren't good for much; while the prepared casters generally use the highest range for random starting ages (with noncasters centered around the middle), the spontaneous casters generally use the lowest range.

You are applying crunch before fluff. And in most of fluffs magic is rare and takes years of study to master. Inclusion of magic into warfare is done so game may be more climatic and realistic. Therefore it should follow fluff first.
There are cases of fluff vs crunch where two parts of the game clashes. This is one of them. In some of these cases crunch is more important - where the main point of importance is to make game playable. In others, where it is about making the adventur climatic and the world interesting, fluff wins. And this is the latter - fluff before crunch my friends. And most of fluffs say certain opposite of what you claim.


#4: Hasty generalization. Just because fantasy wizards have often been written as reclusives (it's a trope, and from a literary standpoint it's more interesting than Merlin and Friends roflstomping a nation) doesn't mean it must happen.

You do realize this is D&D? The game that runs on fantasy stereotypes and probably estabilished or popularized many of them? If people would want to play nonstereotypical game, they would be playing Earthdawn (and even in Earthdawn Adepts are too rare to make an army out of them. And they would EAT 3.5 wizards, I talked about this with long-time D&D and Earthdawn player).

Sure, wizards patriots would happen, but so would all other kinds of guys. If you have, from your already limited number of wizards, futher limit yourselves only to those who actually want to serve in the army, won't teleport themselves back to their studies, won't try to manipulate everybody to achieve their own ends, sometimes from good and sometimes from bad will, and won't give magic missle in the back the moment you turn around (and those, because of being more interesting from adventuring point of view, would be in majority) you will be left with pretty small number, too small to make an army out of it.


#5: Slippery slope. Just because this can happen doesn't mean it will. (Plus, if the army's got enough casters then they can all keep each other in line.)

You don't understand me. People fear what they doesn't understand. People doesn't understand magic. People fear magic. Why do you think they wouldn't be afraid of wizard army? Why shouldn't King Biggus Duckus XIII be afraid that if he will let Wizo McWizard and his buddies from Invisible Institute defeat Dark Lord Srom, they won't turn around and kill him, to rule themselves? Sure, it may be irrational, but people are irrational and make mistakes, game should also reflect that. "People doesn't trust wizards" is a vaild reason why there won't be wizard army.

[Man on Fire]

It's trivial. To produce a clone tank that can turn out one 10th level wizard per turn costs a mere 650,000 GP. That is a ready made, disposable, army of wizards.

Crossbow - 50 gp
Longbow - 75 gp
Ammunition x15 - 1gp
Short sword - 10 gp
Longsword 15 gp
Spear - 2 gp
Studded Leather - 25 gp
Heavy Wodden Shield - 7gp
Tent - 10 gp

For the cost of making one wizard tank I could buy:
* 65, 000 sets of crossbow, 30 bolts, short sword, Studded Leather, tent
* 101, 000 sets of longsword, heavy wodden shield, studded leather and tent
* 141, 000 sets of spear, studded leather, short word and tent
* 5,000 sets of longbow, studded leather, short sword and tent

I could equip army composed of 70 thousand shooters and 242 thousands infary. Even if we assume that training that many people would double that price (it wouldn't really) it still means that I could have set an army of 312,000 (three hundred twelve thousands) soldiers for the cost of ten wizards. Which means that when you will have 200 wizard tanks I will have 6 millions 240 thounsand people. To compare, USRR in 1939 had over 2 milions. Your wizard army would be more expensive than training and equiping entire population of a small country.


You again assume that anyone has the power to destroy the wizards and other casters. They don't.

Which is why they don't make an army of them - because if it woud become corrupted or turned out against them, they wouldn't be able to do anything. Even in any existing military or government structure if they become corrupted or start planning mutiny, king may just call them all to a large plaza and order archers to shoot every single one of them. With wizard it wouldn't work, which is why nobody makes an army of wizards.

[Rubik]

For the cost of making one wizard tank I could buy:
* 65, 000 sets of crossbow, 30 bolts, short sword, Studded Leather, tent
* 101, 000 sets of longsword, heavy wodden shield, studded leather and tent
* 141, 000 sets of spear, studded leather, short word and tent
* 5,000 sets of longbow, studded leather, short sword and tentOr you could have infinite level 10 wizards, each of which (if spell load-out is properly calibrated) can take down the tarrasque and set up an all-you-can-eat Big T's Barbecue.

[Emperor Tippy]

Crossbow - 50 gp
Longbow - 75 gp
Ammunition x15 - 1gp
Short sword - 10 gp
Longsword 15 gp
Spear - 2 gp
Studded Leather - 25 gp
Heavy Wodden Shield - 7gp
Tent - 10 gp

For the cost of making one wizard tank I could buy:
* 65, 000 sets of crossbow, 30 bolts, short sword, Studded Leather, tent
* 101, 000 sets of longsword, heavy wodden shield, studded leather and tent
* 141, 000 sets of spear, studded leather, short word and tent
* 5,000 sets of longbow, studded leather, short sword and tent

I could equip army composed of 70 thousand shooters and 242 thousands infary. Even if we assume that training that many people would double that price (it wouldn't really) it still means that I could have set an army of 312,000 (three hundred twelve thousands) soldiers for the cost of ten wizards. Which means that when you will have 200 wizard tanks I will have 6 millions 240 thounsand people. To compare, USRR in 1939 had over 2 milions. Your wizard army would be more expensive than training and equiping entire population of a small country.
That single tank turns out 14,400 10th level wizards per day (although I would use Elan Psions). In a single month that is 432,000 utterly loyal 10th level wizards in my army (or Psions).


Which is why they don't make an army of them - because if it woud become corrupted or turned out against them, they wouldn't be able to do anything. Even in any existing military or government structure if they become corrupted or start planning mutiny, king may just call them all to a large plaza and order archers to shoot every single one of them. With wizard it wouldn't work, which is why nobody makes an army of wizards.
Irrelevant. You again assume that the non magical have any power in D&D. They don't. 10% of the population has PC class levels, they are all that matter at all. About 1% of that is made up of high level casters. That 1% is all that matters in D&D, they have sufficient personal power to defeat and destroy every single other entity in the world.

In D&D power derives from magic. The more magic you have and the more you can do with that magic, the more powerful you are. Literally, absolute, immortality is one 9th level spell away. There is nothing you can name that can not be done with magic in D&D, from creating entire species to teleporting entire planets to turning entire stars to dust.

[Man on Fire]

That single tank turns out 14,400 10th level wizards per day (although I would use Elan Psions). In a single month that is 432,000 utterly loyal 10th level wizards in my army (or Psions).

And I still have three times more people than USRR in 1939. Probably much mroe than I need to defeat any army your wizards could defeat by sheer numbers.


Irrelevant. You again assume that the non magical have any power in D&D. They don't. 10% of the population has PC class levels, they are all that matter at all. About 1% of that is made up of high level casters. That 1% is all that matters in D&D, they have sufficient personal power to defeat and destroy every single other entity in the world.

In D&D power derives from magic. The more magic you have and the more you can do with that magic, the more powerful you are. Literally, absolute, immortality is one 9th level spell away. There is nothing you can name that can not be done with magic in D&D, from creating entire species to teleporting entire planets to turning entire stars to dust.

Are you even listening to me?! I agreed with you! I said that this, this tremendous power is why no king will make an army out of wizards - because they can do that and to have hundreds of them in military unit that may turn against you is too much risk to take! What part of "People fear wizards" you don't understand?

[Jeraa]

The wizard tank also has the benefit of the wizards being fully capable after immediately after creation. To replace mundane soldiers, you have to wait 15-20 years for the replacement to age.


And I still have three times more people than USRR in 1939. Probably much mroe than I need to defeat any army your wizards could defeat by sheer numbers.

No, you have the equipment for those people. Your army is limited to the number of people you have available. So the actual army size would be far, far smaller then "millions". The wizard tank, however, doesn't rely on already existing people - it creates its own.

[Man on Fire]

The wizard tank also has the benefit of the wizards being fully capable after immediately after creation. To replace mundane soldiers, you have to wait 15-20 years for the replacement to age.

Who cares? I just zerg rushed every single army in the land with 6 millions soldiers, I don't need those wizards anymore.

Oh, and cloning...I wouldn't trust that really. You know, clonning blues, "Who am I? Do I have soul? Do I even have idientity" angst - yeah, last thing you need is those 432 thousands 10th level wizards blowing your kingdom in a fight over who is the real one.


No, you have the equipment for those people. Your army is limited to the number of people you have available. So the actual army size would be far, far smaller then "millions". The wizard tank, however, doesn't rely on already existing people - it creates its own.

And I still need to feed them as anybody else. The yalso need to sleep somewhere. If you can have sustain that many people so can I. And at this point I just don't need your wizards.

[Rubik]

Who cares? I just zerg rushed every single army in the land with 6 millions soldiers, I don't need those wizards anymore.

Oh, and cloning...I wouldn't trust that really. You know, clonning blues, "Who am I? Do I have soul? Do I even have idientity" angst - yeah, last thing you need is those 432 thousands 10th level wizards blowing your kingdom in a fight over who is the real one.*Sigh*

Have you even READ the 3.5 rulebooks?

[Emperor Tippy]

And I still have three times more people than USRR in 1939. Probably much mroe than I need to defeat any army your wizards could defeat by sheer numbers.
In a year that one cloning tank will turn out 5.25 million wizards. It would take it a mere two thousand years to exceed the entire current population of earth. It would match the population of the US in a mere 57 years to match the US's current population.

Oh, I did remember to mention that said cloning tank is set up on a fast time demiplane where a day passes for every 6 seconds that pass on the prime material?


Are you even listening to me?! I agreed with you! I said that this, this tremendous power is why no king will make an army out of wizards - because they can do that and to have hundreds of them in military unit that may turn against you is too much risk to take! What part of "People fear wizards" you don't understand?
The King has no power to decide the make up of the army. The army will be made up of whatever the caster running the nation decides it is made up with, and if he wants the nation that is his puppet to win then that will include a significant amount of magic users.

[Emperor Tippy]

Who cares? I just zerg rushed every single army in the land with 6 millions soldiers, I don't need those wizards anymore.

Oh, and cloning...I wouldn't trust that really. You know, clonning blues, "Who am I? Do I have soul? Do I even have idientity" angst - yeah, last thing you need is those 432 thousands 10th level wizards blowing your kingdom in a fight over who is the real one.
They are utterly incapable of disobedience.


And I still need to feed them as anybody else. The yalso need to sleep somewhere. If you can have sustain that many people so can I. And at this point I just don't need your wizards.
That is why I would use Elan Psions for my clone army. But Elan Wizards, or Warforged Wizards, work just fine.

No need to feed them.

[Rubik]

No need to feed them.Also, I think Apple took its cue from magic.

Food: There's an app a spell for that.

[Man on Fire]

The King has no power to decide the make up of the army. The army will be made up of whatever the caster running the nation decides it is made up with, and if he wants the nation that is his puppet to win then that will include a significant amount of magic users.

Wizard is murdered in his sleep by asassin because people fear him and distrust him and he is stupid enough to be bossing around. Or good wizard comes in and murders him because he belives wizards shouldn't rule the nations and this guy is clearly evil. Or loads of other things.

And army still won't be made out of wizards because fluff says there are only few wizars.


In a year that one cloning tank will turn out 5.25 million wizards. It would take it a mere two thousand years to exceed the entire current population of earth. It would match the population of the US in a mere 57 years to match the US's current population.

Oh, I did remember to mention that said cloning tank is set up on a fast time demiplane where a day passes for every 6 seconds that pass on the prime material?

You know what your problem is? You think entirely in crunch. If something is possible by the rules it is possible. Do you even thought about implications of creating @#$% of clones? You need to feed them, you need to dress them, you need to equip them. Your army will kill your entire economy. And they are bound to break in conflicts - cloning drama + people's tendecy to arguing. This army couldn't be able to sustain it's own weight and is bound to break apart by common logic. 3.5 rules cannot override common sense no matter what is written in which rulebook!

[Jeraa]

Food: Automatic resetting traps of Create Food and Water. (Or a custom magic item). Yeah the food is rather bland, and it only produces water. But wizards get Prestidigitation as a 0-level spell for a reason.

Now the wizards only need housing.

[Emperor Tippy]

Hmm, to prove a point.

Come up with any army you want with 1 caveat, nothing magical is allowed.

I'll defeat it using nothing more than a single core spell. Do you think you can defeat my level 20 wizard that will only use a single core spell with an entire army? You could fill it with nothing but level 20 warblades if you wanted.

[Man on Fire]

What are you going to do with those guys once war is over? they are people, you need to do something with them, give them job and work - you just won't be able to sustain those guys.


They are utterly incapable of disobedience.

This is what every sciencist says in every movie before his creation stabs him in the back.


I'll defeat it using nothing more than a single core spell. Do you think you can defeat my level 20 wizard that will only use a single core spell with an entire army? You could fill it with nothing but level 20 warblades if you wanted.

Black Company. You lost, they kill guys that would make 20 level wizards cry all the time. Their rules override your rules because Black Company books are better than D&D.

[Ranting Fool]

Everyone KNOWS that clones always turn evil and try to kill their maker/each other :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[pffh]

What are you going to do with those guys once war is over? they are people, you need to do something with them, give them job and work - you just won't be able to sustain those guys.


This is what every sciencist says in every movie before his creation stabs him in the back.

If we use say warforged psions they do not need to eat, sleep or work and they are completely loyal to you because this is not movie science this is very well defined magic so just have them stand around providing service to the populace with their spells or scrap them or whatever really.

[Emperor Tippy]

What are you going to do with those guys once war is over? they are people, you need to do something with them, give them job and work - you just won't be able to sustain those guys.
They aren't people, they are disposable assets. I'll just throw them into stasis. An object to put them into stasis costs 33,000 GP. I can just stack them up like cord wood.


This is what every sciencist says in every movie before his creation stabs him in the back.
Good for them, that doesn't happen in D&D under the rules.


Black Company. You lost, they kill guys that would make 20 level wizards cry all the time. Their rules override your rules because Black Company books are better than D&D.
...what's the point of even attempting to discuss with you?

[pffh]

After reading a bit about the most powerful wizards in the black company books they sound like they would be tops mid level wizards around levels 8-12 max.

[Rubik]

After reading a bit about the most powerful wizards in the black company books they sound like they wold be tops mid level wizards around levels 8-12.And since wizards scale geometrically (going into exponential later on once they get things like Wishes)...

[Man on Fire]

They aren't people, they are disposable assets. I'll just throw them into stasis. An object to put them into stasis costs 33,000 GP. I can just stack them up like cord wood.


That's just amoral and inhuman and only complete monster in any universe would do that. They are people, nobody will get away with just proposing to create millions of then and then murder them.


Good for them, that doesn't happen in D&D under the rules.

Fluff > Crunch. That's my second most holy rule of RPGs. My first is Common sense > everything else.


...what's the point of even attempting to discuss with you?

Sorry, but you sound like you're mad I weaseled myself out of your uber-ultra example you tried to weasel me into. I'm not stupid, I can recognize when somebody is offering me a bet made on the rules that ensures his victory, I just out rules-lawyered your rules lawyer.
Second, I don't care about whatever any crunch says, I'm in these games for the story. And in no story your invicible wizard clone army isn't anti-climatic. In no story such army doesn't make PCs reundand. In no story there is simply a point of making this nor sensible reason to. In these games rules aren't important, they're about making players feel like heroes. If you are so obsessed over making your tier 1s the best and proving it, then your players who just like playing fighters or ranger will feel insulted - what are they good for if wizard army can solve anything? These games aren't about optimizing everything, they are about creating stories. It doesn't matter if your wizard an kill entire army with one spell, if it doesn't ake for a good story, for a good adventure for the party. Sometimes mechanics must shut up and listen.

[Rubik]

That's just amoral and inhuman and only complete monster in any universe would do that. They are people, nobody will get away with just proposing to create millions of then and then murder them.But they're spell effects. They're not even necessarily sentient; they're extensions of their creator's will.

Do you refuse to use your arms and legs because they are separate from your torso?

[NoldorForce]

Sorry, but you sound like you're mad I weaseled myself out of your uber-ultra example you tried to weasel me into. I'm not stupid, I can recognize when somebody is offering me a bet made on the rules that ensures his victory, I just out rules-lawyered your rules lawyer.
Second, I don't care about whatever any crunch says, I'm in these games for the story. And in no story your invicible wizard clone army isn't anti-climatic. In no story such army doesn't make PCs reundand. In no story there is simply a point of making this nor sensible reason to. In these games rules aren't important, they're about making players feel like heroes. If you are so obsessed over making your tier 1s the best and proving it, then your players who just like playing fighters or ranger will feel insulted - what are they good for if wizard army can solve anything? These games aren't about optimizing everything, they are about creating stories. It doesn't matter if your wizard an kill entire army with one spell, if it doesn't ake for a good story, for a good adventure for the party. Sometimes mechanics must shut up and listen.Then you're not interested in actually participating in the OP's discussion.

Edit: Lets state for guidlines that:
-Assume standard Pathfinder/DnD spells, classes, monsters, etc.
-Assume a more standard caster to non-caster ration, as in most DnD settings(Golarion or Forgotten Realms, for instance). And wizards would require longer training, say 10 years or more, and require a decent intellect to master the basics.
-Multiple powers, mostly N or LN, but some stretching across most other alignments. How would this effect combat? Are there inherent advantages to certain alignments?
Stating that "mechanics must shut up and listen" is at best irrelevant to the discussion, and at worst it's an instance of the moralistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy).

[Man on Fire]

But they're spell effects. They're not even necessarily sentient; they're extensions of their creator's will.

Do you refuse to use your arms and legs because they are separate from your torso?

Not true, issue of if clone is a real person is a real life issue upon which many heaten debates are made. This what you're offering here? That's a sick caricature of that moral dilema. In real life doing such thing would be found amoral by many people. In D&D, sure mechanics may say this and this, but people should still act like people, so in good written campaing moral dillema of clone should have arisen and many would find disposing the clones to be mass murder.

[Emperor Tippy]

That's just amoral and inhuman and only complete monster in any universe would do that. They are people, nobody will get away with just proposing to create millions of then and then murder them.
They are nothing more than facsimiles of life. In D&D terms they lack souls (they can't be resurrected).


Fluff > Crunch. That's my second most holy rule of RPGs. My first is Common sense > everything else.
Good for you, that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You have repeatedly made the, provably false, claim that magic does not dominate warfare in D&D.


Sorry, but you sound like you're mad I weaseled myself out of your uber-ultra example you tried to weasel me into. I'm not stupid, I can recognize when somebody is offering me a bet made on the rules that ensures his victory, I just out rules-lawyered your rules lawyer.
You didn't "weasel your way out", you just refused to defend your position.


Second, I don't care about whatever any crunch says, I'm in these games for the story. And in no story your invicible wizard clone army isn't anti-climatic. In no story such army doesn't make PCs reundand. In no story there is simply a point of making this nor sensible reason to. In these games rules aren't important, they're about making players feel like heroes. If you are so obsessed over making your tier 1s the best and proving it, then your players who just like playing fighters or ranger will feel insulted - what are they good for if wizard army can solve anything? These games aren't about optimizing everything, they are about creating stories. It doesn't matter if your wizard an kill entire army with one spell, if it doesn't ake for a good story, for a good adventure for the party. Sometimes mechanics must shut up and listen.
...in D&D fluff those armies are irrelevant. Elminster, Simbul, Larloch, Szass Tam; they can all defeat armies on their own with minimal effort in fluff.

If you can't come up with a fun and interesting story for your players operating under the rule set that you have chosen to play in then change the rules so that they support the story that you want to tell or use a different rule set. That doesn't change the fact that under the rule set you have chosen to use, your position is utterly, completely, and provably wrong.

Play under E6's rule set and magic doesn't dominate to anywhere near the same extent, as one example.

[Man on Fire]

Then you're not interested in actually participating in the OP's discussion.

1) Seeing these guidelines - so is everybody in this thread.
2) Nothing I said contradicts what OP said, I just pointed out that fluff must be more important than crunch.

[pffh]

1) Seeing these guidelines - so is everybody in this thread.
2) Nothing I said contradicts what DM said, I just pointed out that fluff must be more important than crunch.

Why? If I cast spell A I want it to do what Spell A's description says it will do otherwise it's not Spell A. Then later if I cast Spell A again I want the same effect to happen again.

Fluff does not equal story and crunch does not equal not story both are important to the overall narrative and you can't and shouldn't change one on a whim without informing your players about the changes of one you are making for the sake of the other before the game begins. Since every change you make will massively affect what your players will pick and do and will thus change how they interact with and view the world.

But that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about how magic and currently the magic of 3.5 would affect how war is conducted and thus the rules should be followed.

[Man on Fire]

They are nothing more than facsimiles of life. In D&D terms they lack souls (they can't be resurrected).

And now we enter the soul debate, probably crosses out to the terms we cannot discuss here, namely religion.
What players know and what/s written in rulebook =/= what people know. Try to explain D&D souls to bunch of clone rights activists.


Good for you, that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You have repeatedly made the, provably false, claim that magic does not dominate warfare in D&D.

It is because otherwise it would make players irrevelant. If there is no need for players, there is no need to play.


You didn't "weasel your way out", you just refused to defend your position.

I didn't, I just added my own rules to yours.


...in D&D fluff those armies are irrelevant. Elminster, Simbul, Larloch, Szass Tam; they can all defeat armies on their own with minimal effort in fluff.

Which is done to make those specific people special and cool, by making entire army out of wizards you kill the coolnes, therefore you go against the purpose of fluff.


If you can't come up with a fun and interesting story for your players operating under the rule set that you have chosen to play in then change the rules so that they support the story that you want to tell or use a different rule set.

I can come up with fun and interesting story for my players in any ruleset I know and understand. But I know which ideas won't make cool and interesting story in that ruleset or in any ruleset at all and those where players are made irreveland by, I don't know, wizard army, are at the top of the list.


That doesn't change the fact that under the rule set you have chosen to use, your position is utterly, completely, and provably wrong.

I haven't choosen anything, I was trying to bring this discussion out of D&D into something that gives two cents about common sense and isn't dominated by power-player mentality. I even complained about moving this thread to 3.5 board to the moderation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240672). Don't you dare telling me I chosen to discuss this in D&D terms, it is you people who had choosen it for me. I choose to continue this discussion because I belive your reasoning makes no sense but it is you, who had choosen the rule set.

[pffh]

I can come up with fun and interesting story for my players in any ruleset I know and understand. But I know which ideas won't make cool and interesting story in that ruleset or in any ruleset at all and those where players are made irreveland by, I don't know, wizard army, are at the top of the list.


Then you aren't approaching this from the right angle. You are thinking about this from the angle of a low level party while for a high level party fighting or using a wizard clone army would be an amazing adventure.

[Man on Fire]

Then you aren't approaching this from the right angle. You are thinking about this from the angle of a low level party while for a high level party fighting or using a wizard clone army would be an amazing adventure.

According to our emperor friend here, it wouldn't because such army would be invicible. If the army could be defeated then yes, it would be an amazing adventure. But what he describes is infinite number of mages who according to him can do everything, therefore this isn't material for an adventure but toilet paper.

[pffh]

According to our emperor friend here, it wouldn't because such army would be invicible. If the army could be defeated then yes, it would be an amazing adventure. But what he describes is infinite number of mages who according to him can do everything, therefore this isn't material for an adventure but toilet paper.

A high level party would hopefully have a few casters of their own so they would be able to use the same tricks. An army of 10th level casters is almost as useless against a party of 20th level casters as an army of mundanes is against the caster army.

So while your infinite army is fighting the enemy infinite army you can focus on the real threat which is the wizard.

[Man on Fire]

A high level party would hopefully have a few casters of their own so they would be able to use the same tricks. An army of 10th level casters is almost as useless against a party of 20th level casters as an army of mundanes is against the caster army.

This doesn't make for a good adventure either. What's the fun in going through army of guys who cannot hurt you because you're twice their level?

[Menteith]

This doesn't make for a good adventure either. What's the fun in going through army of guys who cannot hurt you because you're twice their level?

And yet Red Hand of Doom is consistently ranked among the best adventures published...

[Anecronwashere]

Who cares about parties of adventurers in War?
I thought this Thread was about what would happen if the Rules were ~correct in a war.

Fluff is mutable here. If Fluff says that Wizards are not in War at all then we throw it out. We are specifically adding casters and all the rest of the stuff in Fantasy into War.

Fairness or climax/anticlimax mean 0. why would NationA refuse to use CloneWizards simply because the Adventuring Party in NationB wouldn't find it a good adventure?

EDIT: Oh and souls in D&D is very cut and dry. Clones do not have Souls because they can't be rezzed. They aren't Human (or race-of-origin) because of this.
They may have rights and feelings but they are still animated objects with imbued memory and power.
And if they don't like it I have this wonderful Psion Psychologist who will forcibly remove that objection

[Man on Fire]

Who cares about parties of adventurers in War?
I thought this Thread was about what would happen if the Rules were ~correct in a war.

Nope, OP wanted to include magic in warfare in his setting, not to make everybody go into with the rules that quite frankly are agains what he stated - in his setting training a wizard takes ten years but nobody here cares about it.


Fluff is mutable here. If Fluff says that Wizards are not in War at all then we throw it out. We are specifically adding casters and all the rest of the stuff in Fantasy into War.

OP has also set the rules, like :


Assume a more standard caster to non-caster ration, as in most DnD settings(Golarion or Forgotten Realms, for instance). And wizards would require longer training, say 10 years or more, and require a decent intellect to master the basics.

Which I argue would make army of wizards impossible.

This never was thread for power players to go in and brag about how awesome wizards are.


Fairness or climax/anticlimax mean 0. why would NationA refuse to use CloneWizards simply because the Adventuring Party in NationB wouldn't find it a good adventure?

No, they would refuse out of being afraid of wizards.


Oh and souls in D&D is very cut and dry. Clones do not have Souls because they can't be rezzed. They aren't Human (or race-of-origin) because of this.
They may have rights and feelings but they are still animated objects with imbued memory and power.

But they have rights and feeling so killing them IS mas murder.


And if they don't like it I have this wonderful Psion Psychologist who will forcibly remove that objection

Which is also amoral.

[Fatebreaker]

Man on Fire, I'm disappointed at the turn your attitude has taken. Earlier, you were all set to discuss the subject and learn alternate viewpoints. Now, you've resorted to flat-out claiming that everyone who supports a position you disagree with is wrong, and the only reasons you give have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but stem entirely from your vision of what "should" be. This will never be a convincing argument to anyone who does not already agree with you, because aside from the already-existing divergence of "should," there is the simple fact that reading the rules of the game demonstrates that "should" and "would" are two different things.

Wizards "should" not render other classes obsolete. If we examine the rules, however, we see that they would. A level of wizard costs the same experience as a level in any other class (making magic equally difficult or equally easy to obtain/earn/learn as any other source of power), costs the same to equip (due to the same wealth-by-level), and yet wizards and clerics gain power which far outstrips their "equivalent" counterparts in the non-caster world. A method of power which is equivalent in cost and greater in gain is the method of power which the powerful will use.

If you want to arrive at a fluff destination (wizards somehow not dominating the world), then the best thing for you to do is to alter the rules so that the mechanics support the fluff. To do so, you need to understand how the mechanics work. Instead of fighting against the folks trying to explain to you how the mechanics actually function, it behooves you to try to listen and learn.

A strong narrative is supported by the world built around it. Arguing that the narrative should exist contrary to the mechanics of the world the narrative takes place in is a recipe for a bad narrative.

All sorts of older movies are ruined if you add in cell phones, because a fair chunk of the drama stems from people not knowing information that other people know, and most of the conflict is derived from those people trying to connect the pieces. Add a few cell phones and all that goes away. If cell phones are a thing, you need to understand how cell phones work so you can understand what conditions to put in place so cell phones don't interfere.

Just saying "cell phones don't work because that makes it boring" creates a terrible narrative, because when the audience (or your players) recognizes your plot hole for what it is, all the dramatic tension is diffused. Losing the willing suspension of disbelief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) of your audience is a great way to lose your audience.

If story really is your "second most holy rule of RPGs," then you should be interested in ways to help rather than hinder your story.

Some good reading is both Magic A is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA), which describes the importance of maintaining an internally-consistent world. Compare and contrast with Reed Richards is Useless (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless), which discusses how stories will create these super-advanced technologies or magical abilities... and never use them to actually do anything beyond solving some ridiculously contrived element of the plot. Bonus points in that it calls out Tippy's "teleportation replaces traditional travel" economy style.

WARNING: TvTropes! Management is not responsible for time-sink syndrome.

Whether you like it or not, the thread has been moved to the 3.5 section. If you want to discuss fantasy warfare in other settings, you are free to create your own thread on the subject (though I recommend being specific to avoid a moderator locking it due to the "one topic/one thread" rule). The 4e guys did it over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240783).

You could also start a thread which puts forward a setting, and ask what conditions are required to reach that setting.

But trying to argue that casters don't overpower non-casters in D&D3.5? Man, that dog won't hunt.

[Anecronwashere]

Nope, OP wanted to include magic in warfare in his setting, not to make everybody go into with the rules that quite frankly are agains what he stated - in his setting training a wizard takes ten years but nobody here cares about it.

Alright fine. It takes 10 years to train a Wizard.
Now that Wizard is put into a Clone Machine and you start pumping out dozens of identical Clones
Rinse and repeat with every type of caster you have, from Clerics to Psions.



OP has also set the rules, like :

Which I argue would make army of wizards impossible.

This never was thread for power players to go in and brag about how awesome wizards are.

It's not bragging if it's completely true and even then I don't see it as bragging, simply having well-reasoned arguments for the exclusion of most, if not all, typical military tactics (eg. line formations and large units)
While not all the ideas can work we are still in the middle of the discussion and so are unlikely to have a finished picture.


No, they would refuse out of being afraid of wizards.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No offence but all it takes is 1 dictator to make a Wizard regiment, then everyone else (barring Adventurer meddling) has to start getting their own Wizards simply because they can outdo Mundanes.
This kicks off my scenario, despite any, and probably because of, the fear of casters.
Any who don't comply get roflstomped by the Kingdom of WizoArmy or the Empire of CaughtOnFast


But they have rights and feeling so killing them IS mass murder.

So? They aren't living by the standards of D&D Cosmology.
No Souls = Not Human (/insert creature of origin here)
Besides, look at Human history and count the human rights violations in any given century. Or better yet, look up how many Clone Armies are in Sci-Fi.
The Military takes what is best for it. And in the world of D&D, the best are Clone Machines with a Wizard, Cleric, Psion and maybe some other things hooked up.


Which is also amoral.

Tell me where. In D&D everything is Black, White or Gray. It doesn't hurt any Souls, it is actually beneficial as no Real People (read: souls) are beaten on the winning side, and a lot less than normal from the losers.
Where is removing the compulsion to rebel for rights from Soulless beings wrong? That's like saying not implanting Free Will into a Homing Missile is wrong.



If I were ruler I would train a Psion, a Wizard, a Sorceror and a Warlock. Change their minds into that of the perfect soldier, heroic and selfless then Clone them.
Undo the change to the Original and let them continue, studying or working or even living out their days on a pension.
Clone the Clone and from there make an army of those 4 people and an array of magical beasts.

The Clones have no souls and their minds are perfect for War. They are fleshy robots of war. Created to fight and kept in stasis between those fights.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

i should point out why is a lvl 14+ wizard still on his home plane, he should be off on the other planes for arcane knowledge to boost they power.

in dnd you will have 99.9999999% of the total population of the world lower than lvl 8, even if there is high level wizards at most there will only be 3-4 of them and none of them will allow a wizard army to be made. Wizards dislike other wizards who can be a threat to them.

[Man on Fire]

Man on Fire, I'm disappointed at the turn your attitude has taken. Earlier, you were all set to discuss the subject and learn alternate viewpoints. Now, you've resorted to flat-out claiming that everyone who supports a position you disagree with is wrong, and the only reasons you give have nothing to do with the rules of the game, but stem entirely from your vision of what "should" be.

1) I'm sorry to dissapoint you.
2) In my defense I got pissed after Tippy started to suggest things that I cannot describe oter way than amoral.
3) I would be discussing warfare in fantasy in more open minded way if it still was general thread, by dragging it into only 3.5 this discussion was forced into rules, giving advantage of people I'm argui with. To balance that I brought rules of narrative that I find to be as important as rules of th game if not more.



Wizards "should" not render other classes obsolete. If we examine the rules, however, we see that they would. A level of wizard costs the same experience as a level in any other class (making magic equally difficult or equally easy to obtain/earn/learn as any other source of power), costs the same to equip (due to the same wealth-by-level), and yet wizards and clerics gain power which far outstrips their "equivalent" counterparts in the non-caster world. A method of power which is equivalent in cost and greater in gain is the method of power which the powerful will use.

If you want to arrive at a fluff destination (wizards somehow not dominating the world), then the best thing for you to do is to alter the rules so that the mechanics support the fluff. To do so, you need to understand how the mechanics work. Instead of fighting against the folks trying to explain to you how the mechanics actually function, it behooves you to try to listen and learn.

Then we're going into alerting the rules, wich I find unnecessary. You don't need to alert the rules, throwing game out and probably destroying fun for anybody who wanted to play wizard. Just don't apply them to world building, not to the level Tippy demonstrates.


A strong narrative is supported by the world built around it. Arguing that the narrative should exist contrary to the mechanics of the world the narrative takes place in is a recipe for a bad narrative.

Mechanics, as in crunch, rules, exist to reflect the narrative, not the opposite.


All sorts of older movies are ruined if you add in cell phones, because a fair chunk of the drama stems from people not knowing information that other people know, and most of the conflict is derived from those people trying to connect the pieces. Add a few cell phones and all that goes away. If cell phones are a thing, you need to understand how cell phones work so you can understand what conditions to put in place so cell phones don't interfere.

Just saying "cell phones don't work because that makes it boring" creates a terrible narrative, because when the audience (or your players) recognizes your plot hole for what it is, all the dramatic tension is diffused. Losing the willing suspension of disbelief (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief) of your audience is a great way to lose your audience.

Who said I don't give any explanation? I jsut say what's the real reason. But I can and am bound to provide explanation for things like that. "The story takes place before invention of cellphone" is as vaild reason to not have cellphones as "People fear wizards" for not having wizard army.


If story really is your "second most holy rule of RPGs," then you should be interested in ways to help rather than hinder your story.

That's why I'm set fluff above crunch - it is crunch that is more likely to hinder my story, forcing me to add something anticlimatic, outright stupid or amoral where it doesn't belong.


Some good reading is both Magic A is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA), which describes the importance of maintaining an internally-consistent world. Compare and contrast with Reed Richards is Useless (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless), which discusses how stories will create these super-advanced technologies or magical abilities... and never use them to actually do anything beyond solving some ridiculously contrived element of the plot. Bonus points in that it calls out Tippy's "teleportation replaces traditional travel" economy style.

I'm not saying anything you likned doesn't apply. But it needs to be applied with sense. Reed Richards is useless if his inventions are too expensive to mass produce for example. What Tippy argues about may work in the rules but is utterly ridiculous from storytelling perspective.


WARNING: TvTropes! Management is not responsible for time-sink syndrome.

I recently deleted my account there in protest of their new policy, this site stopped being time-sinking or plain fun long time ago for me.


Whether you like it or not, the thread has been moved to the 3.5 section. If you want to discuss fantasy warfare in other settings, you are free to create your own thread on the subject (though I recommend being specific to avoid a moderator locking it due to the "one topic/one thread" rule). The 4e guys did it over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240783).

Very well (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13139237#post13139237)

[Ranting Fool]

Some good reading is both Magic A is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA), which describes the importance of maintaining an internally-consistent world. Compare and contrast with Reed Richards is Useless (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless), which discusses how stories will create these super-advanced technologies or magical abilities... and never use them to actually do anything beyond solving some ridiculously contrived element of the plot. Bonus points in that it calls out Tippy's "teleportation replaces traditional travel" economy style.


Hehe one thing that bugs me a lot in quite a large chunk of science fiction/fantasy is inconstant power levels. One minute the hero has X super power/can use his power in a funky way to defeat the bad guy. The next the power/use is never used or mentioned again. (X-Men I'm looking at you here)

Which is why I personally tend to limit high level NPC casters in the world.

An actual question for you guys though is this: Can you do that same sort of power with an army of Clerics? Are they as weak as mundane compared to wizards?

oh and if you had a clone army i'd make a construct army (Which would lose) but I could shout "Arrrgggg attack of the clones!"

[Canarr]

I believe that the positions, "Wizard Clone Army would never happen!" and "Wizard Clone Army is the logical conclusion!" are both wrong. Both *could* be right, but they don't have to be; in the end, it's a question of the game the group wants to play.

Say Tippy's supposition is right and there's a powerful wizard secretly controlling my country's leadership. If that is so, the army will not be what the military wants, or what is best for the people, or most efficient or most rational. It will be whatever suits the wizard's plans. And, since presumably he could take over any other country the same sneaky way he took over mine, where's his incentive to build an unstoppable wizard army, when he could invest that 650,000 gold in his own demiplane?

It might suit his needs more to let the mundanes build the army without his interference. Have them use traditional, mundane military doctrines. Parade around, have pride in their country and their ideals, knowing that ultimately, it doesn't mean anything, since he's calling the shots. Perfectly plausible, IMO.

Equally plausible would be the wizard bent on conquest. He might beggar a kingdom or two to get the money for his clone tank, crank out his wizard army, then go all Genghis Khan on the other realms.

Both settings would serve as basis for a campaign. You just have to decide what game you want to play.

[Fatebreaker]

1) I'm sorry to dissapoint you.
2) In my defense I got pissed after Tippy started to suggest things that I cannot describe oter way than amoral.
3) I would be discussing warfare in fantasy in more open minded way if it still was general thread, by dragging it into only 3.5 this discussion was forced into rules, giving advantage of people I'm argui with. To balance that I brought rules of narrative that I find to be as important as rules of th game if not more.

Man on Fire, I want you to re-read what you just wrote: "this discussion was forced into rules, giving advantage of people I'm argui with." Your opponent has an "advantage" and so you get pissed?

Things like " rules override your rules because Black Company books are better than D&D" is the kind of argument you use when you have no argument.

Calm down, man.


Then we're going into alerting the rules, wich I find unnecessary. You don't need to alert the rules, throwing game out and probably destroying fun for anybody who wanted to play wizard. Just don't apply them to world building, not to the level Tippy demonstrates.

...you keep saying "alerting the rules." I don't think alerting is the word you're looking for.

See, the thing is that people do enjoy a narrative that is internally consistent with the rules of the world. Whether those rules are hard crunch printed in a gaming book, or just observations about how the world works, having internal consistency is a positive support for a good narrative.


Mechanics, as in crunch, rules, exist to reflect the narrative, not the opposite.

No.

A thousand times, no.

In a game, mechanics and narrative exist to support one another.


Who said I don't give any explanation? I jsut say what's the real reason. But I can and am bound to provide explanation for things like that. "The story takes place before invention of cellphone" is as vaild reason to not have cellphones as "People fear wizards" for not having wizard army.

The difference between "cell phones don't exist" and "people fear wizards" is that one is an absolute and the other is irrelevant. D&D3.5 wizards are so powerful that it doesn't matter if people fear them. Ants may fear us (they don't (http://www.cracked.com/article_19651_7-reasons-ants-will-inherit-earth.html)), but their fear is irrelevant in the face of the power we possess.

In your movie, you have people who own cell phones, talk about cell phones, and order out for pizza with their cell phones, but the moment the plot gets going, they stop using cell phones even though they resolve the plot in space of thirty seconds.


That's why I'm set fluff above crunch - it is crunch that is more likely to hinder my story, forcing me to add something anticlimatic, outright stupid or amoral where it doesn't belong.

Then you change the crunch. Saying, "my story is so awesome, it doesn't need to make sense!" means you have a bad story.


I'm not saying anything you likned doesn't apply. But it needs to be applied with sense. Reed Richards is useless if his inventions are too expensive to mass produce for example. What Tippy argues about may work in the rules but is utterly ridiculous from storytelling perspective.

Why is it ridiculous? Magic in D&D takes the exact same experience cost to learn as non-magical abilities, and it outperforms its mundane equivalents with ease. It is far more cost efficient. It would be ridiculous for people to have these abilities and not use them.

Your agrarian society pours most of its effort into farming. My magical society creates a few food & water traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createFoodAndWater.htm) and turns its population to other roles.

Your coastal society pours resources into sailing ships which take days, weeks, or months to carry cargoes across the seas. My magical society creates a few permanent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) teleportation circles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm) and delivers more cargo, faster, for less cost, allowing it to invest in other things.

Your martial society pours resources into swords and spears. My magical society summons up wraiths and uses invisible flying mages augmented with all manner of defensive spells who teleport everywhere raining hellfire from the skies.

Magic is, by the rules D&D3.5 puts forward, simply better. From a storytelling perspective, the idea that no one would use the abilities magic provides to achieve their goals is what's ridiculous.

See, the problem with defending your position with "narrative" is that there are plenty of games (http://www.white-wolf.com/exalted) which tell awesome stories (http://eclipsephase.com/) in spite of ultra-powerful mechanics (http://www.shadowrun4.com/). Exalted starts the players off as mortals invested with the power of gods, and only gets more powerful from there. Eclipse Phase has societies which exist in a post-scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy) world. Shadowrun puts players in a society dominated by technology and magic, but it's one of the most fascinating and internally consistent worlds I've come across in gaming in terms of matching crunch to fluff and fluff to crunch.

The thing is, for all that the details change, the stories remain the same. The Legend of the Five Rings (http://www.l5r.com/) core book has a list of 36 basic plots and the minimal elements necessary to pull them off. It doesn't matter that it takes place in a light-fantasy version of Japan. A revenge story featuring samurai is fundamentally the same story as one about post-human sentient space cyborgs. Character A perceives that Character B has wronged him. Violence ensues. Whether that violence takes place with ancestral daisho in a mountaintop shrine surrounded by cherry-blossoms or with nuclear broadsides amongst the rings of Saturn doesn't change the fundamental nature of the story.

So calm down, man. You can still tell awesome stories in powerful worlds. You can still tell awesome stories if the setting changes. Instead of fighting it, why not see how you can tell the stories you want to tell within the mechanical context of the world? You'll be a better storyteller for it.

--


Hehe one thing that bugs me a lot in quite a large chunk of science fiction/fantasy is inconstant power levels. One minute the hero has X super power/can use his power in a funky way to defeat the bad guy. The next the power/use is never used or mentioned again. (X-Men I'm looking at you here)

Oh yeah. That's the sort of thing that gets me to stop watching, reading, or playing. It's just bad writing.


An actual question for you guys though is this: Can you do that same sort of power with an army of Clerics? Are they as weak as mundane compared to wizards?

oh and if you had a clone army i'd make a construct army (Which would lose) but I could shout [B]"Arrrgggg attack of the clones!"

Honestly? I know clerics have many of the same advantages as wizards, and they can also do the melee dance. I mean, heck, clerics alone make a mundane army irrelevant, because they don't have to study for their spells (faith! It's awesome!), get super-powerful magical abilities, and outperform melee at melee. If clerics can acquire access to arcane spells, then I'd imagine that they would be functionally equivalent to wizards, but Tippy'd be a better judge than I.

[Man on Fire]

Man on Fire, I want you to re-read what you just wrote: "this discussion was forced into rules, giving advantage of people I'm argui with." Your opponent has an "advantage" and so you get pissed?

Things like "[Black Company] rules override your rules because Black Company books are better than D&D" is the kind of argument you use when you have no argument.

Look at thsi from my perspective, will you? I express the stance that military in fantasy wouldn't be as alerted by magic as people say, because of things set in common sense and understnding of human nature. People I argue with represents stance that rules of fantasy world should be submited to the rules of game that I find to be unbalanced and unfairly favorizing casters. Because it is, rules of D&D make casters walking gods. So of course I got mad when this thread was moved to 3.5 forum because it was a sign that even moderation told me that those people are right. Which is why I initially left the discussion. I returned when I remembered that D&D is more than just rules, but it also must follow narrative structure as it's a game about telling stories for your players with them as the stars. Therefore every setting must first be crafted to make a good place for players to shine and only then rules shall be adapted over to reflect that. It's like in what I did with Tippy's challenge - he had a perfect way to defeat me, but it was perfect way crafted into crunch, the mechanics and rules. I just applied specific fluff to the rules. because if I bring Black Company, then we shouldassume confrontation takes place in world crafted by 3.5 ruleset based on Black Company's books. Players are probably fans of Black Company if they are playing this. Therefore what players are expecting is for things to turn outlike in Black Company. To not give them what they want, to go against what is written in the books because of D&D rules would be wrong and insulting - they had come here to experience specific narrative and to not give it to them would be utterly wrong. And that narrative ovverrides the rule that wizard can destroy entire army with one spell.


...you keep saying "alerting the rules." I don't think alerting is the word you're looking for.

If rules would have force me to put something that I don't want there because it's anticlimatic, stupid and wrong from moral standpoint, somethign that would break the game, then I ignore them or probably change the game enteirly. I won't succumb to DnD rule that entire race are of specific alignment, that orcs are all chaotic evil and goblins all neutral evil - I just ignore it. Gm is not a slave of the dices and RPGs are much more than crunch. If you force me to ignore everything else for the sake of rolls, you do terrible thing - you cut many possibilites because of stupid rules that are second to the narrative.


See, the thing is that people do enjoy a narrative that is internally consistent with the rules of the world. Whether those rules are hard crunch printed in a gaming book, or just observations about how the world works, having internal consistency is a positive support for a good narrative.

You make a setting and then you make crunch consistend with what is written in the fluff, problem solved. And I disagree about your eqution of crunch with hwo the world works - crunch is there to make fun game for the players that is supposed to capture the feel of the game, how the world works depends entierly on the setting and narrative you use. Savage Worlds has mechanics made to capture the feel of pulp literature - fast paced action, simple fight rules simple use of supernatural powers - but can be used to tell all kinds of stories, from superhero, through fantasy, science fiction, historic adventures to horror and political triller and it's mechanic doesn't have to be used only in specific type of game. Now, in Dungeosn & Dragons you are supposed to tell all kinds of fantasy stories. You are supposed to be able to play low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy - just because the mechanics are favorizing the wizards you cannot just block these posibilities. If you do you are pandering to people like Tippy who use the rules to the point it ruins fun for anybody who doesn't play like them.


No.

A thousand times, no.

In a game, mechanics and narrative exist to support one another.

Yes. But mechanics cannot dominate the narrative, never. If they don't support the narrative, if they can be abused to make an army of wizards who will solve every problem, then narrative should ovveride the mechanics.


The difference between "cell phones don't exist" and "people fear wizards" is that one is an absolute and the other is irrelevant. D&D3.5 wizards are so powerful that it doesn't matter if people fear them. Ants may fear us (they don't (http://www.cracked.com/article_19651_7-reasons-ants-will-inherit-earth.html)), but their fear is irrelevant in the face of the power we possess.

In your movie, you have people who own cell phones, talk about cell phones, and order out for pizza with their cell phones, but the moment the plot gets going, they stop using cell phones even though they resolve the plot in space of thirty seconds.

Lack of connection. Hero had smacked the cellphone. Hero is trapped undergound. Villain has took his cellphone. He had his cellphone stole. Person he needs to call went shopping and had left her cellphone on the table. Person he needs to call has an important meeting and cannot answer. Person he needs to talk just plain won't answer his calls because she is mad at him. There is more to the storytelling than "no wizards" black or "I am the wizard, suck my @#$%!!" white, there are many shades of gray in between, more than we can count.


Saying, "my story is so awesome, it doesn't need to make sense!" means you have a bad story.

Never said that. What I said is that I'm not going to put something that just plain doesn't fit in the world I created for my players because of ruleset. If my players want to play low-magic adventure then just because it's theoretically possible to create clone-wizard army, I won't do it because it's not what my players want.


Why is it ridiculous? Magic in D&D takes the exact same experience cost to learn as non-magical abilities, and it outperforms its mundane equivalents with ease.

In crunch, not in fluff. In fluff it's hard to master and rare.


From a storytelling perspective, the idea that no one would use the abilities magic provides to achieve their goals is what's ridiculous.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that everyone using magic to do everything would be ridiculous and lazy on writer's side, because people would be able to magic all their problems away. Sure, it may make interesting story but not the kind of story players come on the session for, not the kind of story that calls for adventurers.


See, the problem with defending your position with "narrative" is that there are plenty of games (http://www.white-wolf.com/exalted) which tell awesome stories (http://eclipsephase.com/) in spite of ultra-powerful mechanics (http://www.shadowrun4.com/). Exalted starts the players off as mortals invested with the power of gods, and only gets more powerful from there. Eclipse Phase has societies which exist in a post-scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy) world. Shadowrun puts players in a society dominated by technology and magic, but it's one of the most fascinating and internally consistent worlds I've come across in gaming in terms of matching crunch to fluff and fluff to crunch.

The thing is, for all that the details change, the stories remain the same. The Legend of the Five Rings (http://www.l5r.com/) core book has a list of 36 basic plots and the minimal elements necessary to pull them off. It doesn't matter that it takes place in a light-fantasy version of Japan. A revenge story featuring samurai is fundamentally the same story as one about post-human sentient space cyborgs. Character A perceives that Character B has wronged him. Violence ensues. Whether that violence takes place with ancestral daisho in a mountaintop shrine surrounded by cherry-blossoms or with nuclear broadsides amongst the rings of Saturn doesn't change the fundamental nature of the story.

What you're not seeing is that not every story is a good story to tell in the game. Lets take a look at Tippy's wizard clone army. Would they make interesting story? Quite frankly, yes. You could have either set wizard who creates this as big bad or explore socio-political rammifications of the mass cloning wizards. Would it make interesting game? In both cases yes. However, not in the case Tippy describes, because his wizard army is completely and totally invincible, can solve every problem and he cuts out all rammifications with conviniet excuses like "they don't need to eat", "they are incapable of rebelling" or "they don't have souls". Therefore he cuts out every story angle possible and brings things down to "My Mary Sue is totally awesome - she can create army of wizards to kill dark lord and then dispose them at ease with no consequences". He is abusing the rules to make his little vision of wizard utopia come true and doesn't care if it's good from narrative perspective. If he would throw at me something like that in the game, I would as a player, expect that either I'm going to be this guy who kills the evil lord creating the army (I can't because they're invincible so I won't be able to come anywhere near the guy) or they guy who will be sent to the quest of finding the way to substain so large army and save kingdom's economy (I can't because magic solves all these problems) or smash the head of bastard who was cremating them, fighting over their rights (I can't because they don't have souls). As DM I would throw all these things at Tippy if he would pull out wizard army because the game is not about his wizard overshadowing everyone else. if Tippy wants everything to be about how awesome his wizards are, then he shouldn't play the game but write fanfictions or something.


So calm down, man. You can still tell awesome stories in powerful worlds. You can still tell awesome stories if the setting changes. Instead of fighting it, why not see how you can tell the stories you want to tell within the mechanical context of the world? You'll be a better storyteller for it.

I know that, but see above - it's not that the setting changes, it's that Tippy abuses the rules to ruin all stories and fun for everybody else.

[Anecronwashere]

Can I refute your whole basis for arguing with 1 sentence?
"There are no Players!"

What we are discussing is a Theoretical Exercise of what would (most probably) happen IF specific things were true (10yrs for Caster to start casting, D&D rules from there, Caster Ratio without outside influence is similar to standard fantasy settings)

Mr EvilA**Hole isn't going to say "Oh, I cant use this Clone Army to roflstomp, the Planes because then how will a ragtag bunch of adventurers stop me"
He is going to start funding more Clone Machines.

We are considering HOW a world will develop military IF Magic is involved.
And we have a lot of options, some refuted some ongoing.
You can't use Climax or Narrative in this debate, because there is none. This is the Real World + Magic. No Main Characters, no Players, just nations of people doing what people do best. War.

If NationA is scared of Wizards and refuses them from being patriotic and serving in the army then they will be curbstomped by NationB who has less of an aversion to such a thing.
NationB would then try to curbstomp Nations C-Z and only those who can combat the Casters (which by the basic crunch that most if not all the rest is based on can't be combated unless by other magicals) can survive.
Nations B-Z who arent dead or conquered now have Wizard/Caster troops.


And just because someone is afraid of something doesn't mean it won't be used.
How many people were afraid of guns? or swords? or nukes?

[Man on Fire]

We are considering HOW a world will develop military IF Magic is involved.

Now we're doing this in 3.5 rules and all worlds in 3.5 rules are made for players and must follow RPG rules of the narrative. Would we be discussing this outside ruleset of any game, it would work, then the world must be logical and make sense and we can apply realism to it. But worlds of Dungeons & Dragons must also be build with players in mind and if we forget that then there is no point of discussing this in 3.5 terms. That's exactly why I'm so opposed to this being 3.5 discussion, it would look completely different without dragging it to the world where most important are player characters. You guys wanted to set it in world where rules are in favors of wizard but you also imposed it upon the rules of narrative which are in favor of players, you cannot buy one without another.

[Fatebreaker]

Now we're doing this in 3.5 rules and all worlds in 3.5 rules are made for players and must follow RPG rules of the narrative. Would we be discussing this outside ruleset of any game, it would work, then the world must be logical and make sense and we can apply realism to it. But worlds of Dungeons & Dragons must also be build with players in mind and if we forget that then there is no point of discussing this in 3.5 terms. That's exactly why I'm so opposed to this being 3.5 discussion, it would look completely different outside dragging it to the world where most important are player characters.

...so, in your D&D world, do the NPCs know that they're NPCs?

[Emperor Tippy]

Look at thsi from my perspective, will you? I express the stance that military in fantasy wouldn't be as alerted by magic as people say, because of things set in common sense and understnding of human nature.
Your understanding of common sense and human nature are deeply flawed. Humans are willing to do nearly anything to support their tribe. We have committed atrocity after atrocity simply because the people we were committing them on were not us. Power is the most potent drug in the world and everyone who ever gains power becomes an addict, they are also the leaders of groups and societies. Someone will use magical forces in combat; either because they don't care or recognize the downsides, because they have nothing to loose, or because they are magical themselves. Once that occurs, Pandora's box has been opened and it won't be closed again.


People I argue with represents stance that rules of fantasy world should be submited to the rules of game that I find to be unbalanced and unfairly favorizing casters. Because it is, rules of D&D make casters walking gods. So of course I got mad when this thread was moved to 3.5 forum because it was a sign that even moderation told me that those people are right. Which is why I initially left the discussion. I returned when I remembered that D&D is more than just rules, but it also must follow narrative structure as it's a game about telling stories for your players with them as the stars. Therefore every setting must first be crafted to make a good place for players to shine and only then rules shall be adapted over to reflect that.
Incorrect. In 3.5 the rules, by and large, are the rules of the world. They were explicitly created to be so, and there are very few stories that you can't tell under those rules (I can't think of any but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any). If your group can't tell the story that they want to tell then change the rules.


It's like in what I did with Tippy's challenge - he had a perfect way to defeat me, but it was perfect way crafted into crunch, the mechanics and rules. I just applied specific fluff to the rules. because if I bring Black Company, then we shouldassume confrontation takes place in world crafted by 3.5 ruleset based on Black Company's books. Players are probably fans of Black Company if they are playing this. Therefore what players are expecting is for things to turn outlike in Black Company. To not give them what they want, to go against what is written in the books because of D&D rules would be wrong and insulting - they had come here to experience specific narrative and to not give it to them would be utterly wrong. And that narrative ovverrides the rule that wizard can destroy entire army with one spell.
Then don't tell that story using unmodified 3.5 rules. This thread asks a question; what would warfare be like under the 3.5's rules set? You are complaining because the answer doesn't please you.


If rules would have force me to put something that I don't want there because it's anticlimatic, stupid and wrong from moral standpoint, somethign that would break the game, then I ignore them or probably change the game enteirly. I won't succumb to DnD rule that entire race are of specific alignment, that orcs are all chaotic evil and goblins all neutral evil - I just ignore it. Gm is not a slave of the dices and RPGs are much more than crunch. If you force me to ignore everything else for the sake of rolls, you do terrible thing - you cut many possibilites because of stupid rules that are second to the narrative.
No one ever said anything about forcing you to do anything. I've said before and will say again; if you and your group don't like the rules then change them. I sure as hell do. That is irrelevant to this thread (or most other threads on these boards) though.


You make a setting and then you make crunch consistend with what is written in the fluff, problem solved. And I disagree about your eqution of crunch with hwo the world works - crunch is there to make fun game for the players that is supposed to capture the feel of the game, how the world works depends entierly on the setting and narrative you use. Savage Worlds has mechanics made to capture the feel of pulp literature - fast paced action, simple fight rules simple use of supernatural powers - but can be used to tell all kinds of stories, from superhero, through fantasy, science fiction, historic adventures to horror and political triller and it's mechanic doesn't have to be used only in specific type of game. Now, in Dungeosn & Dragons you are supposed to tell all kinds of fantasy stories. You are supposed to be able to play low fantasy, high fantasy, heroic fantasy - just because the mechanics are favorizing the wizards you cannot just block these posibilities.
There is no story you can't tell under 3.5's rule set. I have run everything from high end, culture level, sci-fi to hard scrabble wilderness survival to wars in heaven to the awakening of the old ones under 3.5's rules without any real issue. It's not particularly hard to run high, low, or heroic fantasy in 3.5.


If you do you are pandering to people like Tippy who use the rules to the point it ruins fun for anybody who doesn't play like them.
On a forum where the only basis for common ground is the rules as they are written in the game books I use those rules as the basis for my statements. When outside of said forums I use whatever rules I feel like using. I have no intention of ruining anyone's fun, hell half the reason I mention stuff that I do is so that people know about potential problems before they arise.

If you are trying to create a setting where warfare plays a major role, well then you need to be cognizant of the fact that teleportation circles eliminate lines of communication, or that permanent telepathic bonds provide instantaneous information sharing between widely dispersed forces, or that anyone with greater invisibility cast on them and the ability to fly can destroy most traditional middle aged armies with a single wand of fireball.


Yes. But mechanics cannot dominate the narrative, never. If they don't support the narrative, if they can be abused to make an army of wizards who will solve every problem, then narrative should ovveride the mechanics.
No, if the mechanics don't support the story you want to tell them you change the mechanics so that they do support said story. That doesn't change the fact that such things have no place in this thread.


Never said that. What I said is that I'm not going to put something that just plain doesn't fit in the world I created for my players because of ruleset. If my players want to play low-magic adventure then just because it's theoretically possible to create clone-wizard army, I won't do it because it's not what my players want.
Then change the rules so that it isn't possible. Otherwise you leave open a giant gaping plot hole waiting for the players to take advantage of.


In crunch, not in fluff. In fluff it's hard to master and rare.
Master? No one ever masters magic as it's an ever growing field. But rare? Magic is horribly common in pretty much every D&D setting.


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that everyone using magic to do everything would be ridiculous and lazy on writer's side, because people would be able to magic all their problems away. Sure, it may make interesting story but not the kind of story players come on the session for, not the kind of story that calls for adventurers.
Those with magic do magic away all their problems. At least all the ones that they can.


What you're not seeing is that not every story is a good story to tell in the game. Lets take a look at Tippy's wizard clone army. Would they make interesting story? Quite frankly, yes. You could have either set wizard who creates this as big bad or explore socio-political rammifications of the mass cloning wizards. Would it make interesting game? In both cases yes. However, not in the case Tippy describes, because his wizard army is completely and totally invincible, can solve every problem and he cuts out all rammifications with conviniet excuses like "they don't need to eat", "they are incapable of rebelling" or "they don't have souls". Therefore he cuts out every story angle possible and brings things down to "My Mary Sue is totally awesome - she can create army of wizards to kill dark lord and then dispose them at ease with no consequences". He is abusing the rules to make his little vision of wizard utopia come true and doesn't care if it's good from narrative perspective. If he would throw at me something like that in the game, I would as a player, expect that either I'm going to be this guy who kills the evil lord creating the army (I can't because they're invincible so I won't be able to come anywhere near the guy) or they guy who will be sent to the quest of finding the way to substain so large army and save kingdom's economy (I can't because magic solves all these problems) or smash the head of bastard who was cremating them, fighting over their rights (I can't because they don't have souls). As DM I would throw all these things at Tippy if he would pull out wizard army because the game is not about his wizard overshadowing everyone else. if Tippy wants everything to be about how awesome his wizards are, then he shouldn't play the game but write fanfictions or something.
D&D 3.5 is a game system where casters do overshadow everyone else. Both in crunch and fluff.


I know that, but see above - it's not that the setting changes, it's that Tippy abuses the rules to ruin all stories and fun for everybody else.
No they really don't. There are plenty of perfectly fun things you can do.

[Water_Bear]

Yes, logically speaking a world with Epic Wizards run on D&D 3.5 rules will turn out looking like an optimizer's wet dream, and there isn't really room for conventional warfare there.

HOWEVER!

That doesn't help anyone; with the exception of Emperor Tippy*, that kind of game wouldn't be much fun to DM or to play. It's the same reason why Reed Richards will never replace all fossil fuels with fusion power and Wakanda won't release their cancer cure; it would remove a lot of potential plot-lines from the Marvel Universe and make the world even harder for the readers to relate to.

My solution is a kind of Middle-Op compromise;
+Guys like Human Warrior 1's use Heroes of Battle Arrow Volley rules or the DMG II Mob template (Swarm of ~50 Medium creatures, CR 8) to have an actual impact on the battle.
+Squads of ~8 3rd-6th level NPCs with PC class levels exploit Teamwork Benefits and certain group-oriented feats to fight much more effectively than their CR would normally allow.
+Mages (and people with Wands) are living Artillery, hard to kill and capable of raining destruction on large numbers of mundane troops.
+PCs and other Adventurers of 9th level or higher are the Champions of each army; their job is to fight the other side's Champions and/or giant monsters to prevent their side from getting squished.

Is it a perfect simulation of what warfare would look like in a world with D&D 3.5 rules as physics? No, of course not. But it's fun, cinematic, it makes sense and doesn't rely too much on NPC stupidity.

*I actually like the guy, great understanding of the rules and a top-notch creative mind. Still, I would hate to play at the same table as him, Player or DM. I'm a Narrativist/Simulationist and that kind of Gamist attitude drives me up the walls in actual play.

[Man on Fire]

Your understanding of common sense and human nature are deeply flawed. Humans are willing to do nearly anything to support their tribe. We have committed atrocity after atrocity simply because the people we were committing them on were not us. Power is the most potent drug in the world and everyone who ever gains power becomes an addict, they are also the leaders of groups and societies. Someone will use magical forces in combat; either because they don't care or recognize the downsides, because they have nothing to loose, or because they are magical themselves. Once that occurs, Pandora's box has been opened and it won't be closed again.

And you are underestimating human adaptability and assume they will just left wiard throw fireballs in the battle and also overestimate our capability of fear - we fear what we don't know and we fear people with more power than us. Wizards throwing the fireballs on the battlefield could result in witch hunts. Your assumption is that once magic is introduced, everybody accept it, there is no fear, lack of trust, envy, greed, misunderstanding, conflicted interests, plays of power - you assume that once the wizard throws fireball everybody kneel before him and he becomes main general.


Then don't tell that story using unmodified 3.5 rules.

Even if the players want me to?


This thread asks a question; what would warfare be like under the 3.5's rules set? You are complaining because the answer doesn't please you.

You know what? I do. I do because your concept of wizard army is so against everything I like in fantasy and why I read it that I just can feel my blood boiling. This is how I react on easy "wizard solves everything with no consequences" fantasy, the lazy fantasy. Therefore I should leave this discussion, I probably lost the obiective view on the concept.


No one ever said anything about forcing you to do anything. I've said before and will say again; if you and your group don't like the rules then change them. I sure as hell do.

I will probably change the game first. In fact, I did. You reminded me why I hated D&D and never dmed anything in them before discovering Order of the Stick.


There is no story you can't tell under 3.5's rule set. I have run everything from high end, culture level, sci-fi to hard scrabble wilderness survival to wars in heaven to the awakening of the old ones under 3.5's rules without any real issue. It's not particularly hard to run high, low, or heroic fantasy in 3.5.

And in every one of them wizard forced everything to kneel and lick his feet because he was a wizard? Then it was the same game just with different scenery.


On a forum where the only basis for common ground is the rules as they are written in the game books I use those rules as the basis for my statements. When outside of said forums I use whatever rules I feel like using. I have no intention of ruining anyone's fun, hell half the reason I mention stuff that I do is so that people know about potential problems before they arise.

Well you sure educated me, now I think about if I should resign from games where I play casters, I don't like overpowered classes. And on this forum the only common groud for me is that we all like Order of the Stick, not some rules I'm not really interested it.


If you are trying to create a setting where warfare plays a major role, well then you need to be cognizant of the fact that teleportation circles eliminate lines of communication, or that permanent telepathic bonds provide instantaneous information sharing between widely dispersed forces, or that anyone with greater invisibility cast on them and the ability to fly can destroy most traditional middle aged armies with a single wand of fireball.

I'm not saying they don't, I never said magic would be useless on the battlefield, but I say that you're overestimating it's values. For example - even your chep clone army would be expensive - you need to equip them and even if all you give them are uniform and headband of intelect to maximalize their spells, they are goint to cost you much more than normal army. Kingdoms doesn't have unlimited founds.

Emperor Tippy will post another horrible abuse to the rules that would create unlimited number of magic items in 3...2....1...


Then change the rules so that it isn't possible. Otherwise you leave open a giant gaping plot hole waiting for the players to take advantage of.

"In my world no one had ever invented clone tank." - no change to the crunch, problem solved.


Those with magic do magic away all their problems. At least all the ones that they can.

And the ones that can should be PC casters, because if peasant's wife can summon infernal cat to eat giant rodents in her basement, they players aren't needed anymore.


D&D 3.5 is a game system where casters do overshadow everyone else. Both in crunch and fluff.

Thanks, you killed a lot of fun of the games I play on this forum, mostly the one where I play mystic theurge. What's the point playing privileged class unless you're a jerk who wants to show off how good he is to other players?


No they really don't. There are plenty of perfectly fun things you can do.

According to about everything you said in this thread, heck, in previous sentence, only if I'm a caster, otherwise I don't matter. I want to play Fighter? Sorry, wizards are tier 1, my character will be nicknamed "Load McUseless" while Smart Mr. Wizard will blow everything with his magic.

But, as I said, I lost obiectivity in this discussion, so I probably should stop posting in this thread.

[Jeraa]

I'm not saying they don't, I never said magic would be useless on the battlefield, but I say that you're overestimating it's values. For example - even your chep clone army would be expensive - you need to equip them and even if all you give them are uniform and headband of intelect to maximalize their spells, they are goint to cost you much more than normal army. Kingdoms doesn't have unlimited founds.

Emperor Tippy will post another horrible abuse to the rules that would create unlimited number of magic items in 3...2....1...

Emperor Tippy ,without a doubt, knows more then I do about it, but...

Wish has no limit on the value of magic items produced*. A candle of invocation is only 8400gp, and can be used to cast a gate spell. Gate in something capable of casting multiple wishes (like Efreeti). The first 2 wishes are for whatever items you want, the third wish is for another Candle of Invocation. Repeat as necessary. (Also note, that spell-like abilities have no material components or XP components. Normally, casting Wish requires expending XP, but as the Efreeti has it as a spell-like ability, no XP or gold has to be spent.)

So, for an initial expense of 8,400 gold, you have all the items you could ever want.


"In my world no one had ever invented clone tank." - no change to the crunch, problem solved.

No one invented it yet. Without changing the rules, the method is still there and usable. Problem not solved. Without removing the method of creating it, anyone can still make one. In order to solve the problem, you would have to remove whatever is necessary to crate the tank in the first place, which involves changing the crunch.

It is possible to play in a world where wizards don't dominate everything. But that involves either changing the rules of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, or playing a different game.

*
Wish does have a limit of 25,000gp, but only for mundane items. There is no limit for magical items.

[Anecronwashere]

And the ones that can should be PC casters, because if peasant's wife can summon infernal cat to eat giant rodents in her basement, they players aren't needed anymore.


Thanks, you killed a lot of fun of the games I play on this forum, mostly the one where I play mystic theurge. What's the point playing privileged class unless you're a jerk who wants to show off how good he is to other players?


According to about everything you said in this thread, heck, in previous sentence, only if I'm a caster, otherwise I don't matter. I want to play Fighter? Sorry, wizards are tier 1, my character will be nicknamed "Load McUseless" while Smart Mr. Wizard will blow everything with his magic.

But, as I said, I lost obiectivity in this discussion, so I probably should stop posting in this thread.

Um wow.
I'm not the best at Logical Fallacies so correct me if I'm wrong but that seems like a massive Strawman to me.
Nothing, at all, is stopping you from playing a Mystic Thuerge, or a Fighter or anything else.

Not once did we say a peasants wife should be able to summon Infernal cats. We have kept to the 10yr training time stated by the OP just pointed out that from then (lvls 2+) a Caster gets more bang for their XP.

This discussion is about Warfare. If you want to DM a setting that operates with no Clones, with armies that line up and are terrified of casters then do that.
This is a Thread to make people think. To apply their RL know-how and rules-lawyering and psychology to Magic and Warfare and Fireballs.


I mean no offense, but you have the wrong attitude for this discussion. If you can ignore the PCs, the specialness and the plots and make the worlds more Real then you will be a great contributor, but unless you do take into account the fact you are focused on a different topic than everyone else is then you hinder the discussion and could even, if you get outraged enough, look like a troll.

[Ranting Fool]

You know why I like this thread....

I'm learning all the things that I would need to Ban / Change before my players get high enough to brake me world :smallbiggrin: Trippy is teaching me lots of endless lops / spell combo's that would have totally made large plot wholes within my campaign (Players are exploring a post-apoc mage land-type thing at the moment) so I can now think of good answers for when my players say "If they were such powerful mages why didn't they just do X since I've got that spell"

I was going to have an empire with Wizard lords but now they are lovely Sorcerers (Less choice so less God-like at mid level but could be still hard as nails for a good fight)

As far as it taking years to master magic or anything... in the rules of D&D you could make an all powerful Wizard by sticking two in a room and have them beat each other with soft rubber bats doing subduel damage... one would win and have "Defeated" an equal challenge rated foe... EXP :smallbiggrin:, cast heal on the loser. Order them to go at it again! A weak later they could make an endless army of clones without ever having cast a single spell :smallcool:

[Man on Fire]

I'm not participating in a discussion anymore, because, as I said, I cannot be objective anymore.

But, I talked to my friend abotu this. He has a big knowledge about RPGs and D&D and he said that, while he finds it extremely stupid and against everything magic is about (for example, he finds rule stating that souless clones can use magic to make no sense whatsoever, because for him magic shouldn't be tied to the body), he said tht mass militarization of wizards in D&D is possible. therefore I owe you an apology, I was wrong.

He had also pointed me out to the setting that already did it and took to the logical conclusion:

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/265302-ad-d-dark-sun-online-crimson-sands-windows-screenshot-title.png

[Knaight]

But, I talked to my friend abotu this. He has a big knowledge about RPGs and D&D and he said that, while he finds it extremely stupid and against everything magic is about (for example, he finds rule stating that souless clones can use magic to make no sense whatsoever, because for him magic shouldn't be tied to the body), he said tht mass militarization of wizards in D&D is possible. therefore I owe you an apology, I was wrong.

He had also pointed me out to the setting that already did it and took to the logical conclusion:

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/265302-ad-d-dark-sun-online-crimson-sands-windows-screenshot-title.png
Dark Sun isn't really the logical conclusion at all, as it depends on a fair few major tweaks to work. Plus, it uses 2nd edition magic, which isn't anywhere near as completely absurd as 3rd edition magic.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

I'm learning all the things that I would need to Ban / Change before my players get high enough to brake me world :smallbiggrin: Trippy is teaching me lots of endless lops / spell combo's that would have totally made large plot wholes within my campaign (Players are exploring a post-apoc mage land-type thing at the moment) so I can now think of good answers for when my players say "If they were such powerful mages why didn't they just do X since I've got that spell"


A lot of things Emperor Tippy says about magic spell combos with not work that way, some of it will only work if no one looks at the rules or the spell wording.

[Man on Fire]

Dark Sun isn't really the logical conclusion at all, as it depends on a fair few major tweaks to work. Plus, it uses 2nd edition magic, which isn't anywhere near as completely absurd as 3rd edition magic.

Wizards wage war, the world is destroyed - pretty logical for me and would probably look even worse with stronger 3e magic.

[Ranting Fool]

A lot of things Emperor Tippy says about magic spell combos with not work that way, some of it will only work if no one looks at the rules or the spell wording.

True and since I'm the DM if it's dodgey wording (And there is sadly a fair bit) then I get the final say. Though the point is that it's good to know what type of things can brake a game so you can figure out the best way to avoid it braking without saying "err wait no no you can't do that now" (Letting players know what IS and ISN'T allowed long before they are able to even think about doing it is much better then mid game when they catch you out)

Also I no longer think of my players as high op types :smallbiggrin: there small little combo's seem silly now.