War in a fantasy setting

[Rogthnor]

It's pretty obvious that war in Dungeons and Dragons would not really resemble that of the real world from the same era. The addition of magic, monsters, and character classes should have a huge impact on how wars are fought. So I was wondering how the people on this forum tend to imagine wars in a Dungeons and Dragons setting. To start us off I'll give an example of one of the ways I imagine it.

It's pretty obvious that war in Dungeons and Dragons would not really resemble that of the real world from the same era. The addition of magic, monsters, and character classes should have a huge impact on how wars are fought. So I was wondering how the people on this forum tend to imagine wars in a Dungeons and Dragons setting. To start us off I'll give an example of one of the ways I imagine it.

In settings I play, Dwarves tend to be the undisputed masters of war.Living in the mountains as they do, they have to worry about attacks from both the Underdark (Drow, Mindflayers, etc) and from above ground, Orc Hoards, covetous dragons, expansionist humans, etc etc. Exasperating this problem is the traditional insular nature of the dwarves. It is not uncommon for the nearest Dwarven Kingdom to be more than a month away. So, by necessity if nothing else, Dwarves have become some of the toughest fighters in the world.[/INDENT]

[Dwarven armies tend to rely heavily on infantry formations. In the close tunnels of their mountain homes, it is nearly impossible to raise proper cavalry, and the tight tunnels make cavalary units all but useless. Rather than waste time, money, and manpower training units which might never be used, the Dwarves have chosen to focus on their infantry. Dwarven Infantry has many advantages over the infantry of other races. Dwarves breed slower than humans, and tend to be very rich, with more metal than they know what to do with. As a result, every single infantry man is equiped with full plate armor, a tower shield, 3 throwing axes (which could be used to chop wood if needed), and one-handed war pick. In addition, they carry, 15 days worth of food, entrenching tools( with each member of a squad typically carrying a different tool), cooking equipment, a leather satchel, a water skin, a tent and wooden steaks for the construction of a fortified camp. Some of this equipment is only carried by one member of a squad. For instance, only one dwarf carries a tent, and the entrenching tools are split among the squad. Finally, every company has one soldier whose job it is to carry the magical equipment of a radio booster, which allows the Dwarven communication helmets to work within it's range. The Dwarven Armor and Shields are meticulously covered in magical runes, enchanting them to work in concern with nearby Dwarven equipment. When two or more pieces of Dwarven armor are next to each other, they produce a slight magic field which serves to turn away attacks. In addition, they also serve to protect the user from spells, interfering with the arcane formulas which govern magic, and causing it to unravel slightly. This effect increases in intensity with proximity to undamaged Dwarven armor. Dwarven Shields are all exceptionally well crafted and can produce a small force field on demand. On it's own this field cannot take to much damage before running out of energy. However, every shield is designed so that they draw on the energy of nearby shield to sustain themselves, siphoning off a small amount of energy from every shield in proximity to repair itself. Their are only two ways to break through a Dwarven shield wall once it has been activated, deal enough damage to short out every shield simultaneously, or deal localized damage fast enough that an individual shield is overloaded before it can repair itself, punching a temporary hole in the wall. These fields are flat and parallel to the shields surface. For the fields to merge they must all be facing the same direction. Dwarves tend to favor crossbows over the bow and arrow, as they are more easily wielded within the confines of the Underdark, and have greater stopping power and penetration.

Despite this heavy load, and their naturally shorter step, a Dwarven Army on the march is actually faster than all but the most specialized army. Their natural endurance allows them to march for far longer than most armies, despite the heavy load, and so while their pace is slower than can march for farther. While a Dwarven army does use mules to carry supplies, they are trained to be able to function without them, and often abandon the mules in order to set a quicker pace.

The Dwarven army is also heavily organized with army standards comparable to that of a modern military. The Army generally consists of 2-5 corps, each of which is made up of 2-5 divisions. Each division holds 3 brigades which in turn hold 3 or more battalions. A battalion is 3-5 companies which are formed from 3-5 platoons. A platoon is made up of 3-4 squads and a squad is made up of 4-10 soldiers. Every officer in the Dwarven army is equipped with a special helmet, which allows communication between himself and immediate subordinates. The only exception to this is squad leaders, who can communicate with their platoon leader but cannot use the helmet to communicate with their own subordinates. Every platoon contains one low level cleric to provide battlefield healing.

The biggest weakness of the Dwarven armies are its lack of arcane casters. Very few Dwarven armies can field a wizard of any notable ability, relying instead on their armor to disipate the attacks of enemy casters. However, Dwarves are exceptional engineers, and their knowledge of building gives them some of the best siege equipment and field artillery in the world. While it's nowhere near as potent or mobile as a powerful mage, the Dwarves have a ton of it, and it's all exceptionally well made.

Dwarven military doctirine is as simple as it is devastating. Because the effectiveness of their armies increases with their size, Dwarves tend to simply mass troops and roll over the competition. In addition, despite their relatively low birthrate, Dwarves are capable of fielding some of the largest single armies, as their extensive communication network allows to coordinate large armies with ease. During battles, SOP is to throw one axe immediately prior to charging, another during the charge, and then switch to either the third axe or the war pick, depending on enemy armor.

Conventional military wisdom for fighting Dwarves is to not do it. However, if the fight is inevitable most armies focus on four main tactics. The first is an extensive campaign of hit and run tactics. Never meeting them in a straight fight, and focusing on cutting off their supplies instead of fighting them directly. The second is to use the terrain to break up their formations. Fighting 50 Dwarves is exponentially easier then fighting 100, as their armor's effectivness is reduced. Third, never use area of effect, instead use powerful directed attacks to break up their formation, in an effort to reduce their magical protection. Four, remember they are few, if they lose one soldier for every 3 yours, you are still winning.

The most famous example of a successful military campain was conducted by one General Fabian. Knowing he couldn't defeat the Dwarves in a straight fight, he baited them out of their mountain homes and led them far away into the middle of his country. The whole time he was running, he was covertly replacing his troops with militia from the towns he passed, leaving his trained troops behind. Then once the Dwarves were sufficiently far away, he abandoned his army, at this point consisting of nothing but trained militia, and met up with the soldiers he left behind. By the time the Dwarves figured out his trick, it was too late. He was able to destroy their mountain home before they could return. In their rage they destroyed 2 cities, and the army Fabian left was slaughtered to the last man. But that was all they could do, by the time they had finished the second city Fabian had returned. He refused to do battle with the Dwarves, instead shadowing their army, making sure he could attack as soon as they committed to a siege and crushing them against the walls. With supplies running low and Fabian killing their scouts before they could gather any food, the Dwarves were faced with starvation. With no hope of winning they threw themselves against the wall of the Capital city, attempting to do as much damage as they could before they died.

[Pokonic]

I think a exact ratio of normals-to-PC classes needs to be established before any talk about how the more exceptional members of society can effect the battlefield, along with the prevalence of high levels. This would mean the difference between a mostly 'mundane' army with pikes and bows and all the rest, with perhaps a level 1 cleric attached for advising a healing, perhaps led by a mid-level Ranger, or a entire army fielded by fighters and paladins and wizards flying on dragons.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I tend to view a DnD War in a similar vein to the great mythical battles of the Bronze Age.

You got a couple of gigantic armies of levy and conscripts, and these guys have all the classic stuff armies are supposed to have (weapons, armor, supplies, etc). Now, in some places supply lines are a little more interesting since food can be produced with magic, but how common are such spellcasters and why are they making food when they could be burning the enemy army? Some form of teleportation or swift-movement magic is more efficient in terms of making supply lines safer and more secure. And siege equipment is basically just a couple of dedicated "Mass Destruction" mages doing some unique ritual type magic.

When the armies clash, it's just like it is in RL. Lots of men, lots of blood, tactics, the whole shebang.

And then you have Achilles. Or Ajax. Or Odysseus. Or Hercules. And suddenly you have Hector, and Jason, and Orpheus, and I dunno Pan maybe? But you have them. The Best of the Best. Men and women who can slay entire companies on their own. But you don't have them do that except in midnight strikes and cunning ambushes. Most of the time, they lead the soldiery like officers, and when they meet their opposite number the army gives them some space and busts the popcorn out because a show is about to start.

PCs aren't soldiers. They are the Demi-Gods whose presence on the battlefield will be spoken of in legends for all time, even if they lose. Especially if they lose. Each one is a War unto themselves, and when it all comes down to it the side with more Heroes wins.

[Rogthnor]

I think a exact ratio of normals-to-PC classes needs to be established before any talk about how the more exceptional members of society can effect the battlefield, along with the prevalence of high levels. This would mean the difference between a mostly 'mundane' army with pikes and bows and all the rest, with perhaps a level 1 cleric attached for advising a healing, perhaps led by a mid-level Ranger, or a entire army fielded by fighters and paladins and wizards flying on dragons.

Honestly the ratio is whatever you want it to be. The purpose of this thread is to give people a place to discus how they tend to handle war within the game, rather than a discussion on D&D war in general. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. You are right, that how prevalent magic and character classes are has a huge effect on how war would be waged, but since that changes from campaign to campaign, trying to nail down a specific ratio is simply to limiting.

[Dusk Raven]

One of the D&D 3.5 books - Complete Warrior, I think? - talks about warfare in a D&D setting. The thing I recall most was something like how you could equip a first-level Sorcerer with the fantasy equivalent of a machine gun and rocket launcher (a wand of Magic Missile and three scrolls of Fireball) for half the cost of a suit of plate mail.

It also mentioned how fantasy combat could become a lot more like modern combat, with large magical creatures like giants taking the place of tanks, and most soldiers equipping ranged weapons and favoring cover over open formations.

[Rogthnor]

One of the D&D 3.5 books - Complete Warrior, I think? - talks about warfare in a D&D setting. The thing I recall most was something like how you could equip a first-level Sorcerer with the fantasy equivalent of a machine gun and rocket launcher (a wand of Magic Missile and three scrolls of Fireball) for half the cost of a suit of plate mail.

It also mentioned how fantasy combat could become a lot more like modern combat, with large magical creatures like giants taking the place of tanks, and most soldiers equipping ranged weapons and favoring cover over open formations.

Yes, but is that how you choose to have war waged in your settings? The great thing about D&D is that all that stuff is subject to DM approval, and if you don't like it you can change things to better suit your needs. For example, I tend not to like treating fantasy warfare as modern warfare, as it doesn't fit with the, so I changed it to better suit the feel I want for my campaigns, as seen in the original post on Dwarven tactics. How do you treat war in the game?

[Corneel]

The one thing everyone always goes on about is how magic will absolutely destroy the ideas we have about war. But apart from a small fraction of commanders and possibly heroes, most fighting man were scroundels, ruffians and bandits taking large risks for little pay.

So why would mages and wizards fight in wars, except somewhere behind the line as commanders (their magic abilities in terms of telepathy and such would ensure they don't need to be in the front lines)? And there are only so much positions in the upper lines of the hierarchy. And few people are going to be able to force a mage to what they want. (And don't say patriotism - that's so 19th century and later). As an army commander, handling mages in a war should be akin to transporting nitroglycerin in an old truck with faulty suspension on a bumpy road.

[Maglubiyet]

So why would mages and wizards fight in wars.

Wizards are as affected by economics, famine, and ravaging armies as everyone else. Most are not just going to sit in their extra-dimensional lab while the world outside their tower burns. Unless they're on the path to lichdom they probably still have friends and family or, at the very least, need to hire servants and buy food, clothes, and spell components. Not saying they'd do it for free, of course...

[Maglubiyet]

I think the side with the most magic would usually win, which would cause the militarization of spell-casters.

Kings and generals would provide incentives for wizards to live in their kingdoms and support their armies -- funding spell research, maintaining spell-component farms, tax breaks for spell-casters, etc. They'd provide training and early screening and selection of magic-sensitive children. Those rulers who didn't or couldn't attract enough mages would quickly fall to their neighbors who could field war wizards.

Most of the best magic would end up coming from military programs. As magical warfare became the norm, specialization would evolve. You'd end up with cadres devoted to combat support, reconnaissance, intelligence, flight, long-range bombardment, communication, etc. Teams of spellcasters would mass produce cheap, rechargeable magic items to outfit their rank and file troops and more powerful items for the other wizards.

When wars would be fought they would be brutal. Mundane units would need to be small and fast to avoid being hit by AoE spells. They would be augmented by potions and buffs. Commanders would use magical armor and weapons.

Ranks upon ranks of iron golems would march into battle with magic-users trailing behind lobbing fireballs into their midst to destroy their enemies while healing the golems. Squadrons of flying carpets would be overhead with junior mages firing wands and scrolls. Special units on brooms of flying would drink potions of invisibility and use wands of silence on enemy spellcasters. Groups of summoned earth elementals would glide beneath the battlefield carrying bags of holding full of shock troops to release behind enemy lines. Summoned demons and devils would teleport into the enemy ranks and then Gate in other demons and devils. Necromancers would animate the fallen from both sides to return to the fight as undead.

Overall it would be quite a light show.

[Grek]

So why would mages and wizards fight in wars, except somewhere behind the line as commanders (their magic abilities in terms of telepathy and such would ensure they don't need to be in the front lines)?
Because they are the government. Not in the sense that they work for the government, or that your average clerk is secretly a 1st level wizard, but in the sense that the head of state either is, or is backed by, a powerful spellcaster of some sort. High level wizards, clerics and druids are force majeure in society - they can simply ignore the demands of the common man and strike back with overwhelming force should they desire to. Being a leader means either being powerful enough or broadly appealing enough that nobody from the opposition successfully assassinates you.

Ninjadeadbeard has the right of it, I think. Warfare in a fantasy setting looks a lot like Hector and Achilles squaring off to decide the course of the Trojan War. Or, to give a better example: Dumbledore vs. Grindlewald. You'd have people on either side trying to spy on, distract, sabotage and delay the other side's leader while their allies try to gather up powerful artifacts, amass defenses and prepare ambushes for the other side. Assassination, Scry & Die tactics, decoys and a severe allergy to fair fights are all the order of the day.

[Sullivan]

I think Maglubiyet has got it pinned it down. Large stand up battle would never happen and if they did it would have only been once, then everyone in charge would have learned a very costly lesson. There is probably a strong real world comparison between magic used in war and technology. A nuke it like a wish spell when you think about it, and a harrier jet might as well be a dragon to a dude with a shotgun. I'm listening to a podcast about WW1 right now and I could easily see the same thing happening if instead of machine gun a nation had casters. There is a good reason a war like WW1 will never happen again and it's because WW1 was to deadly. You had large powerful nations sucking every last cent out of there economies to keep sending there citizens to die at a very scary rate. If anyone is really looking into trying to tie in warfare into there campaign, I would recommend reading up on WW1. it was the first "modern war". if you change out technology with spells you'll have one of the greatest, and foolish, stories ever told.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I think the secret to magical warfare is scale. Long range, cheap and accurate weapons would make normal wizard types a risk in combat. In my last D&D campaign Widened Launch Item wands are the center of wars, hitting casters at 1000+ ft. with acid, tanglefoot bags, etc.

[Corneel]

I think the side with the most magic would usually win, which would cause the militarization of spell-casters.
Sides don't have magic, mages have magic. And in the end they are each their own side.



Kings and generals would provide incentives for wizards to live in their kingdoms and support their armies -- funding spell research, maintaining spell-component farms, tax breaks for spell-casters, etc. They'd provide training and early screening and selection of magic-sensitive children. Those rulers who didn't or couldn't attract enough mages would quickly fall to their neighbors who could field war wizards.

Most of the best magic would end up coming from military programs. As magical warfare became the norm, specialization would evolve. You'd end up with cadres devoted to combat support, reconnaissance, intelligence, flight, long-range bombardment, communication, etc. Teams of spellcasters would mass produce cheap, rechargeable magic items to outfit their rank and file troops and more powerful items for the other wizards.
All fun and games until the money finishes and you find yourself a load of people that have power without responsibilities, that are waiting for their incentives.
And you're funding dozens of people that one day might challenge your rule. You're giving people power that by its nature cannot be taken back when they don't uphold their end of the bargain. Each mage is a like a potentially unruly vassal, only much more mobile and whose powerbase you can't confiscate or destroy.

Also those are all very modern ideas, especially in combination. Your average high-fantasy realm is not the US government.



When wars would be fought they would be brutal. Mundane units would need to be small and fast to avoid being hit by AoE spells. They would be augmented by potions and buffs. Commanders would use magical armor and weapons.

Ranks upon ranks of iron golems would march into battle with magic-users trailing behind lobbing fireballs into their midst to destroy their enemies while healing the golems. Squadrons of flying carpets would be overhead with junior mages firing wands and scrolls. Special units on brooms of flying would drink potions of invisibility and use wands of silence on enemy spellcasters. Groups of summoned earth elementals would glide beneath the battlefield carrying bags of holding full of shock troops to release behind enemy lines. Summoned demons and devils would teleport into the enemy ranks and then Gate in other demons and devils. Necromancers would animate the fallen from both sides to return to the fight as undead.
That assumes a lot: that a. there is a significant number of magic gifted people, that b. a significant portion of them is willing to join the military when there are so many other interesting things to do, and that c. those that do have a unity of purpose that coincides with that of the rulers.



Because they are the government. Not in the sense that they work for the government, or that your average clerk is secretly a 1st level wizard, but in the sense that the head of state either is, or is backed by, a powerful spellcaster of some sort.
Why? On what do you base that assumption?
It also assumes that the "Government" is some homogenous group, instead of a group of individuals that might have some or even most goals in common, but also compete against each other for influence. So that wizard that backs up your ruler? He might be spending most of his time fending of attempts of other people like him to takes his place, meanwhile letting the credit of his good actions go to his ruler, but taking the blame for any mistakes. Not a life that all wizards, not even many wizards might like that kind of life.


High level wizards, clerics and druids are force majeure in society - they can simply ignore the demands of the common man and strike back with overwhelming force should they desire to. .
They can't forever - there are other beings as powerful around, and beings of somewhat lesser power can gang up on those more powerful. Or they will be ostracised from the community of man or mages.


Being a leader means either being powerful enough or broadly appealing enough that nobody from the opposition successfully assassinates you.
That, or of course legitimacy (and no, that isn't the same as being broadly appealing). According to you Louis XIV should never have ruled.


Ninjadeadbeard has the right of it, I think. Warfare in a fantasy setting looks a lot like Hector and Achilles squaring off to decide the course of the Trojan War. Or, to give a better example: Dumbledore vs. Grindlewald. You'd have people on either side trying to spy on, distract, sabotage and delay the other side's leader while their allies try to gather up powerful artifacts, amass defenses and prepare ambushes for the other side. Assassination, Scry & Die tactics, decoys and a severe allergy to fair fights are all the order of the day.
But overall that does not actually need magic, so why didn't this happen in the past? And it assumes that the world is in a perpetual state of warfare of all against all which is untenable (unless it's low intensity war).

[Grek]

Why? On what do you base that assumption?
High level spells. A 7th level wizard can cast Greater Invisibility, Fly, and operate a Wand of Fireballs. That's enough to credibly challenge a government all by yourself, while leaving enough spell slots left over to defend yourself after the bombing run. It isn't even the best plan for doing so, just the most obvious one.

And no, the assumption is that the Government is a homogenous entity because it consists of a single person, ruling autocratically, and their personally appointed representatives, plus or minus some lieutenants and mercenaries, plus or minus a figurehead leader who sits on the throne and attends all the public ceremonies. The deal is that in exchange for not having the wizard turn invisible and fireball the army, the king doesn't command the army to enforce any laws the wizard strongly objects to. Things the wizard only mildly disapproves of (not enough to blow things up over) is fine, just the big things.


They can't forever - there are other beings as powerful around, and beings of somewhat lesser power can gang up on those more powerful. Or they will be ostracised from the community of man or mages.They absolutely can. Every sort of caster has available methods to either provide for or replace their own food, water, clothing, maintenance and shelter requirements. If a sorcerer really wanted to, he could walk around naked in the rain and eat nothing but boiled leaves every day and be fine - that's what Endure Elements and Prestidigitation: "Make this taste like chicken noodle." is for. Something breaks? Mending. Ostracization is only really a severe punishment for a wizard, and that's only because he would like to retain the ability to copy other wizard's spells. But he has Disguise and Alter Self for that - either do to all of his controversial actions in his fictional persona, or to show up disguised as someone else for social dealings.

And yes, the existence of a power bloc stronger than you which is interested in maintaining the current status quo precludes you defying the will of society. This is because that group (or person) is the de facto government, and you aren't. Legitimacy is about being credibly able to enforce laws. If there is someone who is willing and able to prevent the enforcement of any laws they dislike, that person is either a de facto part of the government, or the government is illegitimate. No such person existed for Louis XIV.


But overall that does not actually need magic, so why didn't this happen in the past? No. This state of affairs does need magic to work. Magic is the whole reason why some people can turn invisible and throw fireballs and other people can't. If you take out the magic that's concentrating all of that power in the hands of the few and instead make it so that everyone in the world dies when stabbed, war looks completely different. It looks like masses of people with swords (and later guns) squaring off against each other, and total number of combatants being an important metric in deciding who will win the war.


And it assumes that the world is in a perpetual state of warfare of all against all which is untenable (unless it's low intensity war). No again. This does not assume perpetual war. I have no idea where you got that idea. Wars get people killed, particularly those fighting the war. In fantasy land, that means the leader of each side. You only go to war if having the other side is doing something so intolerable to you that risking a Finger of Death to the face is worth it to stop them.

[YossarianLives]

Wizards are as affected by economics, famine, and ravaging armies as everyone else. Most are not just going to sit in their extra-dimensional lab while the world outside their tower burns. Unless they're on the path to lichdom they probably still have friends and family or, at the very least, need to hire servants and buy food, clothes, and spell components. Not saying they'd do it for free, of course...
You haven't played with many wizards have you?

[Maglubiyet]

All fun and games until the money finishes and you find yourself a load of people that have power without responsibilities, that are waiting for their incentives.
There are always peacetime armies. They spend their time training and drilling. Money doesn't run out, wealth is generated by the producers of the society and that wealth supports the soldiers.


That assumes a lot: that a. there is a significant number of magic gifted people, that b. a significant portion of them is willing to join the military when there are so many other interesting things to do, and that c. those that do have a unity of purpose that coincides with that of the rulers.
Yes, it does make assumptions. But people used to assume that nobility was superior to commoners, that the "blue bloods" were inherently better. It turns out, though, that if you feed, equip, and educate any reasonably healthy person they can be decent administrators and combatants. Maybe the reason there aren't more wizards is because the average subsistence-level oat farmer doesn't have vials of basilisk blood lying around for their kids to play with.

As to the second and third points, there are plenty of people who want to become engineers and doctors who join the military today. They do it for a variety of reasons -- adventure, patriotism, money for college, everyone in their family does it, etc.

Wizards are not gods. They need a minimum of resources to survive -- food, clothing, sleep, a roof over their heads. They also have other human needs -- recognition of peers, mates, pride in appearance, a feeling of accomplishment and contributing. And they have very specialized needs in the form of spell components and arcane training, which will likely require some form of social contact. Most will be low level, only able to produce a couple of bursts of fire per day, so they can't flat out ignore the rules of society.

Even the highest level spellcasters, of which there will be very few, will still have an investment in the society they grew up in. Presumably they weren't always immortal, plane-hopping paragons -- they have a mom and dad, siblings, children, neighbors, mentors, drinking buddies. They will probably be as susceptible to nostalgia, pride, patriotism, fashion sense as anyone else.

It's possible today to be totally self sufficent, grow all your own food, make all your own clothes, etc., but how many people actually do that? It's much easier to get a job and buy high-quality goods produced by teams of other people. Wizards would probably face the same choice.

[Rogthnor]

Heading this off before it derails the thread

Everyone seems to be misunderstanding the point of this thread. It is not meant to discuss D&D war in general terms. Everyone plays in different campaigns, with different magic levels, societal developments, economies, and tones. This means that how war is handled will very from campaign to campaign, and there is no right answer. I do not want to see another thread devolve into a bunch of arguments.

The point of this thread is to state how you as an individual tend to treat war in your campaign. Talk about how you view war and then provide examples from your campaigns. If you need an example of the kind of thing this thread is supposed to cover, try rereading the first post where I talk about dwarves.

[Tvtyrant]

In my E6 campaign (D&D 3.P that caps at level 6) warfare was based around sniping and super units. Snipers with wands of Launch Item would conceal themselves in bushes and behind rocks, flinging alchemical weapons at the opponent from hundreds of yards away. This wasn't enough to win battles but it worked to incapacitate the best members of the opponent's army. Common soldiers used crossbows and mostly attempted to bury themselves in whatever niches the landscape could afford. To prevent being rolled by cavalry the army employs war elephants, high level fighters and dragons who intercept large numbers of cheap cavalry who would otherwise cut up the crossbowmen.

Attacking an enemy requires larger numbers and a very slow envelopment effect, as direct attacks tend to lead to the death of your whole army. Small groups of elite units skirmish at night, trying to penetrate the opponent's position and push your crawling cloud of crossbowmen closer, while during the day everyone tries to stay out of sight.

Occasionally new commanders or ones from regions with less developed magical warfare attempt to lead open armies into the field and take alarming casualties. The party had this happen to them on a few occasions, and they decided to opt into armies flown by magical beast who would conquer regions via night raids. Good times.

[LordVonDerp]

The one thing everyone always goes on about is how magic will absolutely destroy the ideas we have about war. But apart from a small fraction of commanders and possibly heroes, most fighting man were scroundels, ruffians and bandits taking large risks for little pay.

So why would mages and wizards fight in wars, except somewhere behind the line as commanders (their magic abilities in terms of telepathy and such would ensure they don't need to be in the front lines)? And there are only so much positions in the upper lines of the hierarchy. And few people are going to be able to force a mage to what they want. (And don't say patriotism - that's so 19th century and later). As an army commander, handling mages in a war should be akin to transporting nitroglycerin in an old truck with faulty suspension on a bumpy road.
Oh, most fighting was done by underpaid scoundrels? Not in Italy, where most of fighting was done was done by mercenaries paid anywhere from 1000-7000 florins (about equal to a gold piece) per month, with exact rates depending on abilities, experience, and basic economics.
Oh, and most bandits were soldiers who deserted.
As for why mages are on the front lineslines mages get paid 10-20 times what anyone. Also the army that puts mages on the front can easily disperse enemy formations, allowing for easy victory.
Any leader who can't make mages obey him is either incompetent or unprepared to fight a war.

[Tim Proctor]

I model mine with the same paper rock scissora mentality that we had in the bronze/iron age. Instead of light calvary > skirmishers (rogues) > heavy infantry (fighters) > light calvary (barbarians), we add two unit types in there light artillery (mages, rangers) and heavy calvary (knights, paladins). You can add two more for a seven unit model if you split light artillery from mages and rangers, and then add in support units (clerics, bards).

Now I use this model in an algorithm for calculating massive battles.

t doesn't related to how armies are built, but I think an E6 model is preferred where a Fireball will take out a squad but leave the army intact, so a high level wizard can take out 4 squads but then a Ranger can take out a number of Wizards. So it is designed to stop one unit type from dominating the battlefield.

I generally use the armies listed in the Heroes of Battle book. I think they did a good job there.

[Roxxy]

The one thing everyone always goes on about is how magic will absolutely destroy the ideas we have about war. But apart from a small fraction of commanders and possibly heroes, most fighting man were scroundels, ruffians and bandits taking large risks for little pay.Pretty sure that's way too much of a generalization.


So why would mages and wizards fight in wars, except somewhere behind the line as commanders (their magic abilities in terms of telepathy and such would ensure they don't need to be in the front lines)? And there are only so much positions in the upper lines of the hierarchy. And few people are going to be able to force a mage to what they want.This is assuming there aren't high level warriors who can fight a mage, that the rulers don't have tools specifically to deal with mages like antimagic, and that the rulers themselves don't have access to magic. This need not be so. I could easily see a system where it is considered perfectly natural that a young prince or princess should learn some magic, because magic is power, and royalty should have power. Knowing wizardry is also a symbol of having a good education, and princes and princesses would want to have good educations.

...I totally need to use that in a setting, now.
(And don't say patriotism - that's so 19th century and later).D&D uses 19th and 20th century social mores all the time, so I don't see why that's a problem. If we can have relative gender equality, why not nationalism, too? I see both all the time.

[Roxxy]

My imagining is that magic is pretty common, especially alchemy (I use Pathfinder, so the Alchemist class exists). Wizardry takes years to learn in my setting, and if you don't start a couple years before becoming a teenager you'll never be good enough not to be dangerous (it's like learning a language, except thick accents can kill you). Alchemy, on the other hand, can be safely picked up by anyone reasonably intelligent in a matter of months. So, Alchemists outnumber Wizards by a massive margin among NPCs. This carries over to the military, where they are the main healers, produce buffs for soldiers, preserve food, and create artillery. Alchemical artillery is, in fact, the biggest killer on the battlefield. To compensate for the threat, soldiers fight in loose, widely spaced groups rather than standing close together, and they use cover and concealment when the can. Bows and crossbows (with autospanners) are common, as are swords, axes, and short polearms, with the main reason firearms aren't being carried by everybody being that volley fire isn't effective, muzzle loading takes too long, and the smoke and bang gives away your position. Most martials are switch hitters (A bow or crossbow and a bastard sword [proficiency costs a trait, not a feat]) or shield carriers protecting the switch hitters, while Alchemists frequently take to the front lines to provide direct fire support and medical assistance to the martials. Individual command initiative at the platoon, company, and battalion level is very important do to the deemphasis of large formations. Generals generally don't like to fight on large, open fields if it can be avoided. Not enough cover for the infantry. Cavalry are mostly used as scouts, emergency reinforcements (in which case they typically fight dismounted), flanking units, pursuit units, and such. Calvary charges are considered extremely risky. The average soldier is either a member of a professional standing army (level 1, 2, or 3 Fighter or Ranger) or a militia (level 1, 2, or 3 Warrior), and professional soldiers have months of training before seeing battle. Military Alchemists often learn their craft after enlisting, because militaries have found that it is practical to take a recruit who is reasonably smart but without any Alchemy experience and spend half a year teaching them all the parts of Alchemy the military uses. A lot of poorer people see such service as a way to climb up the social ladder, as they can go into business as Alchemists after several years of military service.

[Tvtyrant]

That doesn't really deal with the tremendous effect of trained/dominated monsters on a battlefield. The first side to get Bullets or Purple Worms has suddenly destroyed your army, as they aren't liable to ranged attacks and are overwhelming in power.

[Roxxy]

That doesn't really deal with the tremendous effect of trained/dominated monsters on a battlefield. The first side to get Bullets or Purple Worms has suddenly destroyed your army, as they aren't liable to ranged attacks and are overwhelming in power.Depends on how such creatures are portrayed in the setting. In mine, it remains vulnerable to artillery (and poses a big target), nations keep high level monster killers on standby who can intervene, and trained monsters aren't much a tool of war do to the difficulties in procuring them (No idea how the things breed, so can't make more of them sexually, capturing them requires high level warriors better used killing demons, and training them requires having high level people around all the time. A CR 7 creature is incredibly difficult and dangerous to handle.). Not to mention that they are very hard to control. It can be done, but it takes a very large resource investment, and for something that the opposing army will respond to by sending in PC types or what Wizards they have.

Also, trained monsters bore me.

[GreatDane]

That doesn't really deal with the tremendous effect of trained/dominated monsters on a battlefield. The first side to get Bullets or Purple Worms has suddenly destroyed your army, as they aren't liable to ranged attacks and are overwhelming in power.
Bulettes. I got really confused about the connection between bullets and purple worms for a second. :smalltongue:

My campaign has some focus on interspecies warfare, and it goes a lot like Ninjadeadbeard described above: lots of sword-and-shield soldiers, but every army has its "big gun" heroes armed with magic and lots of class levels.

Since the two big armies right now are elves and dwarves, I've got it laid out something like this:

Elf foot soldiers are typically level 5 fighters, with good Dexterity and Strength (lots of wood elves) who take feats that improve their mobility and proficiency with racial weapons. Tactics are usually to soften the enemy with longbows and magic, then close in to slice up the remains. The elven army also has more wizards than most, generally levels 3-5, who focus on versatility. Their "big guns" are typically spellsword-types, who embody the elven ideals of magic and combat skill. (Duskblade is pretty much an elf-only class in this campaign.)

Dwarven foot soldiers are mostly level 4 fighters, using the first racial substitution level in [I]Races of Stone. With their good Strength and high Constitution, they wear heavy armor and take feats like Shield Wall and Dwarven Armor Proficiency. Dwarves fight best in their cunningly carved homes, which are filled with traps for times of war and allow them to set up shield walls in tight corridors and bowl enemies over. Dwarven heavy hitters are like tanks, protected by armor enchanted by generations of master craftsmen.

[The Mentalist]

In addition to a lot of these there's something to be said for taking a page out of Frank Herbert's book(s) and going with a war of assassins. Open warfare is frowned upon and absolutely shocking when it finally occurs but poisonings, stabbings, power-plays, and coups are so well defined as to have different words for applying poison to your enemy's food or drink. This will obviously have very different connotations in a magical setting but I also think that some of us are looking too much "within the rulebooks" for our approaches here. In my example of course there are spells to detect any poison you care to throw at someone and ways to cure it if you do get hit by it, but why could a mage not develop spells to be applied to poisons to counteract those, or an alchemist brew something, or a rogue apply it in such a subtle way that no-one notices until its too late?

Add to this the various specialized armies that each faction would inevitably maintain (with in-world and world specific countermeasures for each other in many cases) and you have something that I think is quite interesting. The dwarves don't field mages but have cold iron golems that radiate anti-magic fields, counting on their formidable tactics and armor to save them, they can be countered by terrain that prevents their advances, and the druids that produce such terrain are at risk of the mages getting pissy and releasing a portal to the nasty places in their forests. This is all of course an over-simplifed example but I think that a combination of chess/rock+paper+scissors+lizard+spock is a good method of developing a warfare system for whatever world you'd like to develop and as I said before don't limit yourself to rule books, obviously we're (mostly) discussing an RPG world so there needs to be rules but those can be built separately. Imagine if they had tried to build Ebberon without artificers or warforged? or Ravenloft without well... scary stuff. There does need to be custom material for each world and it can often be the crux of what makes your warfare system feasible.

IMHO+YMMV