War in Pathfinder (And its Escalation)

[AMFV]

Howdy (again).

I'm planning a new PF campaign involving a large scale war. My plan is to have it between countries that haven't really had a war in a minute and are therefore fairly unaware of it's conventions. Basically they're starting with rose-colored glasses that get later less and less rosy.

Initially, I'm wanting it to involve starting as an insurgency, that the main government is trying to suppress. What I need are viable (low-level and low-resource, if possible) tactics for an insurgency to use in Pathfinder. I've already thought of using Necklace of Fireballs as a sort of IED. The main goals for them are to be able to use hit and run and ambush tactics as well as set traps. Basically I want it to be as harrowing as possible. If you folks could also give me some ideas for making the development of forces measurable. Essentially the Insurgents are starting out as less experienced and will get more experienced and advanced (and higher level) as the PCs and the war moves on.

The next phase would be a regular ground war. Involving a military force that starts to assist the insurgents. Basically it would also start off more simplistically (I'm aiming for level 6-8 as the point where the campaign moves that direction), and start off with as close to basic tactics as possible. If you folks could give me some ideas for escalating tactics in that venue, that would also be awesome!

Thanks for any responses in advance!

[Florian]

Hm.

Ok, the answer to that will largely depend on whether you plan to use the higher zoom levels for Pathfinder or not (downtime and kingdom), as they change the "worth" of a lot of stuff.

[AMFV]

Hm.

Ok, the answer to that will largely depend on whether you plan to use the higher zoom levels for Pathfinder or not (downtime and kingdom), as they change the "worth" of a lot of stuff.

I'm not entirely familiar with those. The PCs will be likely soldiers and therefore not have that much direct involvement with actual Kingdom administration, as far as the rebels, I'm more aiming for as close to verisimilitude and the feeling of an escalating war as possible.

Edit: What exactly would those rules involve? And where are they found?

[Florian]

I'm not entirely familiar with those. The PCs will be likely soldiers and therefore not have that much direct involvement with actual Kingdom administration, as far as the rebels, I'm more aiming for as close to verisimilitude and the feeling of an escalating war as possible.

The basic thought here is to look at actions and see if they have an impact on the next higher zoom level, deciding on that how said action are going to influence the ongoing development.

To pick up your example with the beads, that has an influence on the character scale, could have an influence on the team scale, and won´t make a dent on the kingdom scale.

The same thing holds true for the time scale in which the developing things will happen. For example, once you have reached a scale that can be compared to kingdom scale, actions will take around a quarter year to fully resolve, as more things will have to be set into motion.

[CharonsHelper]

One big thing - is that warfare in Pathfinder would involve much more skirmish tactics than in the real middle ages. Fireball taking out an entire platoon of 100 soldiers in tightly packed ranks is far too devastating.

Though of note - you have to tell us what vibe your Pathfinder world is. Is it relatively low lever - where level 9-10 characters are legendary? Or is it more Forgotten Realms level, where you might have entire units of gryphon knights etc.?

I'm going to assume the lesser levels - or low level troopers are hardly worth bringing along at all.

One thing that I'd suggest is to houserule in the 3.5 Tower Shield rules. This allows there to be units of infantry which each turn spend a move action on steadily crossing a battlefield and ready an action for full cover. This allows the unit to protect themselves from AOE attacks, though they'd likely want to each bring a backup shield since their shields would take damage from any AOE they block. Those troops should also each have some javelins and a melee weapon.

Skirmish archers might be just the thing. Level 1 human warriors can have Point Blank/Rapid Shot and shoot out a respectable number of shots. Even if they need a 20 to hit, so long as their foe doesn't have DR, a unit of 50 will deal an average of 23.175 damage a round against anyone (28.325 within 30ft). Just make sure that they spread out in a skirmish line with cover. They may also have a couple troops with tower shields whose entire job is to be in full cover mode and have readied actions to run in front of anyone trying to melee the archers - forcing them to swing at the tower shield instead.

Against many foes - equipping whole units with acid flasks could be devastating. Their high AC usually means little against touch attacks - and 1hp is guaranteed.

Not sure if that's what you were looking for - but it might help if you want the war to be fought by troops.

[Florian]

One big thing - is that warfare in Pathfinder would involve much more skirmish tactics than in the real middle ages. Fireball taking out an entire platoon of 100 soldiers in tightly packed ranks is far too devastating.

Actually: No, they don´t. That´s part of why I referenced the Pathfinder zoom levels. (@AMFV: Ultimate Campaign, can also be found on the PRD)
On the character zoom level, one Wiz5 vs. hundred War1 will be a bloodbath. On the higher zoom levels, the Wiz will simply die.

[CharonsHelper]

On the character zoom level, one Wiz5 vs. hundred War1 will be a bloodbath. On the higher zoom levels, the Wiz will simply die.

I never said that a single level 5 wizard would be able to defeat 100 level 1 warriors. Please don't straw-man me.

I was just talking about the formations that troops in Pathfinder would use. With AOEs being prevalent - tightly packed formations wouldn't be used unless they had some way to survive them. (such as the tower shield method I suggested) Troops would be more spread out in skirmish lines. Similar to why modern troops don't line up in Napoleonic lines and march at each-other.

[AMFV]

One big thing - is that warfare in Pathfinder would involve much more skirmish tactics than in the real middle ages. Fireball taking out an entire platoon of 100 soldiers in tightly packed ranks is far too devastating.

This is very true. I suspect that it would be closer to modern mechanized warfare. Actually I was going to do a World War 1 or Civil War type thing, where they initially are using those kind of tactics (tightly packed line formations) until technology utterly obliterates that sort of tactic. That's part of the escalation.



Though of note - you have to tell us what vibe your Pathfinder world is. Is it relatively low lever - where level 9-10 characters are legendary? Or is it more Forgotten Realms level, where you might have entire units of gryphon knights etc.?

I'm actually constructing a setting around this particular thing. At the start it's going to be more of an Eberron or E6 vibe, where there aren't a lot of higher level characters. As the characters (and the military) develops that becomes less and less the way it is as people get more experience.



I'm going to assume the lesser levels - or low level troopers are hardly worth bringing along at all.


It depends. They would be useful if they're spread out enough. And if the Wizard has to spend a spell on them, then that's a spell he couldn't spend doing something else. Canon-Fodder is such for a reason.



One thing that I'd suggest is to houserule in the 3.5 Tower Shield rules. This allows there to be units of infantry which each turn spend a move action on steadily crossing a battlefield and ready an action for full cover. This allows the unit to protect themselves from AOE attacks, though they'd likely want to each bring a backup shield since their shields would take damage from any AOE they block. Those troops should also each have some javelins and a melee weapon.


The only concern I'd have with is by the time the PCs are facing another conventional military unit, they'll be high enough level that these tactics wouldn't be efficient.



Skirmish archers might be just the thing. Level 1 human warriors can have Point Blank/Rapid Shot and shoot out a respectable number of shots. Even if they need a 20 to hit, so long as their foe doesn't have DR, a unit of 50 will deal an average of 23.175 damage a round against anyone (28.325 within 30ft). Just make sure that they spread out in a skirmish line with cover. They may also have a couple troops with tower shields whose entire job is to be in full cover mode and have readied actions to run in front of anyone trying to melee the archers - forcing them to swing at the tower shield instead.


Skirmishing archers would be perfect.



Against many foes - equipping whole units with acid flasks could be devastating. Their high AC usually means little against touch attacks - and 1hp is guaranteed.

Not sure if that's what you were looking for - but it might help if you want the war to be fought by troops.

That's exactly what I'm looking for! That's the kind of escalation that would change warfare especially as it's developed. Anything else like that would be perfect!

[Florian]

I never said that a single level 5 wizard would be able to defeat 100 level 1 warriors. Please don't straw-man me.

I was just talking about the formations that troops in Pathfinder would use. With AOEs being prevalent - tightly packed formations wouldn't be used unless they had some way to survive them. (such as the tower shield method I suggested) Troops would be more spread out in skirmish lines. Similar to why modern troops don't line up in Napoleonic lines and march at each-other.

No straw-man intended here.

I´m just pointing out that there are different bases that one can begin to engage that topic and they lead to different result, mostly meaning that things that are powerful on one level can even be irrelevant on another level and it is interesting to extrapolate from those different bases.

If you start the whole extrapolation from the top level and go downwards from that, a fireball will be less useful than equipping troops with alchemical splash weapons, for example.

[FocusWolf413]

Molotov cocktails (oil flasks) are cheaper and do the same amount of damage as acid. They would also need to make saves or remain on fire, taking 1d6/round. Throwing those would be more effective.

[CharonsHelper]

That's exactly what I'm looking for! That's the kind of escalation that would change warfare especially as it's developed. Anything else like that would be perfect!

Well then - here's a couple more.

To combo with the archer skirmishers - they might use caltrops. Not only is the damage significant against other low level troopers, but the movement penalty can keep their foes from closing to melee range.

Against dragons etc. with high SR - I have all mage guilds have stockpiles of Acid Arrow wands of both acid & other element flavors. If a dragon attacks a city - they get to eat 40+ elemental arrows a round (touch attacks vs. dragon = easy) at long range (520ft minimum). Such things are the main reason that cities put up with with mage guild shenanigans in my world.

On a battlefield - bards are king. An extra +1 to hit/damage for a party of 4-6 is nice. That same extra +1 to 100+ archers is gross. Actually - as touch attacks - it could also be used for the Acid Arrows mentioned above. Though the rounds/day is rough.

I'd guess that kingdoms would have schools churn out level 1 human bards with Lingering Performance & Extra Rounds feats to total a couple minutes a day. (Perform for a round - then let Lingering Performance kick in over & over.) Of course - they'd be the first target of the enemy - so they might just hide behind full cover as they belt out a song.

[Florian]

Molotov cocktails (oil flasks) are cheaper and do the same amount of damage as acid. They would also need to make saves or remain on fire, taking 1d6/round. Throwing those would be more effective.

Grrrrr. Actually did´t want to engage in that kind of discussion.....

Ok, anyways. That is a fine defensive strategy, especially in an urban setting, but doesn´t work out as an reliable offensive weapon.
Key problem to all of that will still be communication and coordination. If this whole thing should not enter the Tiffyverse and every squad everywhere has wands of whispering message, then going too "modern" simply won´t do it.
Mostly, that will mean tightly packed units relying on visual range for communication, wielding a regular primary weapon and equipping alchemical stuff as a first strike and backup, all the while having a caster at stand-by for counter spell duty.

[CharonsHelper]

Mostly, that will mean tightly packed units relying on visual range for communication, wielding a regular primary weapon and equipping alchemical stuff as a first strike and backup, all the while having a caster at stand-by for counter spell duty.

There were plenty of skirmish units before modern communications. Heck - WW2 soldiers barely had radios - and most troopers certainly didn't.

The Spanish guerilla were around in the early 19th century.

Are there disadvantages to being somewhat more spread out? Sure. But they're far less than being clumped up for AOEs.

I will say - I don't think that the Molotov cocktail is likely - but that's because of the 50% chance of failing to light it each round. (and probably take both hands to do) I think it'd be worth the extra 9.5gp for the consistency of acid flasks most of the time and being able to keep your shield out. (only a couple gp if you have a crafter on staff)

[AMFV]

Well then - here's a couple more.

To combo with the archer skirmishers - they might use caltrops. Not only is the damage significant against other low level troopers, but the movement penalty can keep their foes from closing to melee range.


Definitely a good insurgent tactic. Grease, I think as well. One of the most important aspects in an ambush is limiting the ability of the other side to just leave, since there's not a lot of reason to simply remain in a kill zone if possible.

From a military strategy standpoint, an ambushed force will want to either assault through the ambushing force, simply leave, or continue moving the way they're wanting to move. This remains largely true with non-PC controlled forces in D&D, you don't want to necessarily engage your enemy when they have a fair chance of losing.



Against dragons etc. with high SR - I have all mage guilds have stockpiles of Acid Arrow wands of both acid & other element flavors. If a dragon attacks a city - they get to eat 40+ elemental arrows a round (touch attacks vs. dragon = easy) at long range (520ft minimum). Such things are the main reason that cities put up with with mage guild shenanigans in my world.


Well Dragons may come into play, but that'll probably be later. Dragons would probably need to have a few defenses against those kind of things at that point, which is certainly manageable. Although that's a much later in the campaign type thing. Those kind of forces would need to either be conscripted or hired by an actual group with money, somebody like the rebels won't have the funds to interest a dragon (although it's possible one might join them because he commiserates with them)



On a battlefield - bards are king. An extra +1 to hit/damage for a party of 4-6 is nice. That same extra +1 to 100+ archers is gross. Actually - as touch attacks - it could also be used for the Acid Arrows mentioned above. Though the rounds/day is rough.

I'd guess that kingdoms would have schools churn out level 1 human bards with Lingering Performance & Extra Rounds feats to total a couple minutes a day. (Perform for a round - then let Lingering Performance kick in over & over.) Of course - they'd be the first target of the enemy - so they might just hide behind full cover as they belt out a song.

Well bards would definitely be important. Also remember that at the beginning there hasn't been a war in a while, and the sides are using what might be considered traditional tactics. Probably the increased use of bards is going to ramp up as the war moves on. The only substantial disadvantage is the need for them to make noise which isn't always practical.

Also Bards can be completely shut down by a second level spell (which is also incredibly useful in combat), since Silence kills communication. I expect that once Bards become prevalent you'll see more of that. As second level spells become more common.


No straw-man intended here.

I´m just pointing out that there are different bases that one can begin to engage that topic and they lead to different result, mostly meaning that things that are powerful on one level can even be irrelevant on another level and it is interesting to extrapolate from those different bases.

If you start the whole extrapolation from the top level and go downwards from that, a fireball will be less useful than equipping troops with alchemical splash weapons, for example.

Definitely, and the idea is that things start at fantasy typical and move towards the more practical and lethal as the battlefield evolves.


Grrrrr. Actually did´t want to engage in that kind of discussion.....

Ok, anyways. That is a fine defensive strategy, especially in an urban setting, but doesn´t work out as an reliable offensive weapon.
Key problem to all of that will still be communication and coordination. If this whole thing should not enter the Tiffyverse and every squad everywhere has wands of whispering message, then going too "modern" simply won´t do it.
Mostly, that will mean tightly packed units relying on visual range for communication, wielding a regular primary weapon and equipping alchemical stuff as a first strike and backup, all the while having a caster at stand-by for counter spell duty.

Tightly packed is probably going to be a bad idea for a variety of reasons. Communicating over a fairly decent dispersion doesn't require anything beyond hand signals, you only have to be able to see somebody to communicate with them. So you can spread out to eye catching distance from everybody. In modern units the limiting factor is arcs of fire really, not communication.

I probably don't want to get Tippy with it, but I want to be somewhere above standard fantasy battles on that scale. Starting at the level of regular fantasy battles of course.


There were plenty of skirmish units before modern communications. Heck - WW2 soldiers barely had radios - and most troopers certainly didn't.

The Spanish guerilla were around in the early 19th century.

Are there disadvantages to being somewhat more spread out? Sure. But they're far less than being clumped up for AOEs.

I will say - I don't think that the Molotov cocktail is likely - but that's because of the 50% chance of failing to light it each round. (and probably take both hands to do) I think it'd be worth the extra 9.5gp for the consistency of acid flasks most of the time and being able to keep your shield out. (only a couple gp if you have a crafter on staff)

The Molotov Cocktail I could see being useful in a very different way. It might not light every round, but you can throw one and then run off. That's a big thing for insurgents. Hit and run is absolutely critical. That's going to be a principle tactic of the insurgents early in the war.

[Florian]

There were plenty of skirmish units before modern communications. Heck - WW2 soldiers barely had radios - and most troopers certainly didn't.

The Spanish guerilla were around in the early 19th century.

Are there disadvantages to being somewhat more spread out? Sure. But they're far less than being clumped up for AOEs.

I will say - I don't think that the Molotov cocktail is likely - but that's because of the 50% chance of failing to light it each round. (and probably take both hands to do) I think it'd be worth the extra 9.5gp for the consistency of acid flasks most of the time and being able to keep your shield out. (only a couple gp if you have a crafter on staff)

I totally agree that skirmisher units are nearly as old as your basic club/hunting bow/javelin and have always been in use, but they always have been strategic units, not tactical units.

Now, he part where I disagree is what place magic should have and how influencing it will be. There´s a certain ratio on how many cleric/wizards on how many mundanes, and the ratio will get even smaller if we talk about enough class levels to make a difference.

Compare that number to the number of Maxims/08/15s in a WW1 squad and the Wizard coverage will look laughably thin.

[AMFV]

I totally agree that skirmisher units are nearly as old as your basic club/hunting bow/javelin and have always been in use, but they always have been strategic units, not tactical units.

Now, he part where I disagree is what place magic should have and how influencing it will be. There´s a certain ratio on how many cleric/wizards on how many mundanes, and the ratio will get even smaller if we talk about enough class levels to make a difference.

Compare that number to the number of Maxims/08/15s in a WW1 squad and the Wizard coverage will look laughably thin.

Well that depends on the prevalence of magic, which is going to be quite varied. Initially there won't be so much. My thinking is that not a lot of wizards have been drafted or conscripted as magic becomes more influential higher proportions of Wizards/Clerics/What-not will be drafted. Also as average unit level increases magic will become significantly better and able to do things that will allow larger areas to be covered.

[CharonsHelper]

Also of note - spell choices will be different when a wizard expects to need to spell-cast over the course of an hour long battle. Spells which are normally rather weak but have a long duration become far more viable.

[Florian]

Well that depends on the prevalence of magic, which is going to be quite varied. Initially there won't be so much. My thinking is that not a lot of wizards have been drafted or conscripted as magic becomes more influential higher proportions of Wizards/Clerics/What-not will be drafted. Also as average unit level increases magic will become significantly better and able to do things that will allow larger areas to be covered.

I´ve pointed that out in a similar thread some time ago. Magic can´t emulate two very important things:
- Artillery
- Focus Fire

Take a look at what "Long Range" means for spells. Every commander with half a wit will know that, as well as what LoS and LoF means, therefore there will be a rather lengthy "killing field" between two front lines and even a capable wizard will not be able to effect anything further than that.
As a side effect, Summon Monster will get pretty useless as most spell will simply end before the summoned creatures will have crossed that killing field.
Now compare that to, say, a Trebuchet and its ability to fire semi-ballistic, load that up with an alchemical payload, let´s say, a hundred acid flasks as a scatter bomb and watch the wizard run of dear life.

[AMFV]

I´ve pointed that out in a similar thread some time ago. Magic can´t emulate two very important things:
- Artillery
- Focus Fire

Take a look at what "Long Range" means for spells. Every commander with half a wit will know that, as well as what LoS and LoF means, therefore there will be a rather lengthy "killing field" between two front lines and even a capable wizard will not be able to effect anything further than that.

Well I guess you could have everybody stand more than 1,000 feet away, but standing a few thousand feet apart isn't really doing anybody any favors. Archers won't be able to attack reliably over that distance. And Magic DEFINITELY can emulate artillery, that school that everybody frequently bans is pretty outstanding at that actually. The thing is that large area of effect spells can still be effective at 1,000 feet or greater, a level 5 wizard (our supposed fireballer) can hit you from a pretty substantive distance, his longest range spells can potentially hit you at 1,200 ft. Which is a substantial distance for medieval combat. Yes we're not talking modern arty range, but 1,200 feet is definitely considered long range on virtually any battlefield, that's several move actions to cross and that whole time all of those wizards can continue to hit you, at that range.

Why wouldn't magic be able to allow you to focus fire?



As a side effect, Summon Monster will get pretty useless as most spell will simply end before the summoned creatures will have crossed that killing field.
Now compare that to, say, a Trebuchet and its ability to fire semi-ballistic, load that up with an alchemical payload, let´s say, a hundred acid flasks as a scatter bomb and watch the wizard run of dear life.

There aren't Trebuchets in Pathfinder... There are catapults, but you still need to know where something is to hit it. And then there's nothing preventing the Wizard from you know using an enlarged reach mage hand to simply drop an alchemical payload (or an unseen servant), or a familiar, or a flying summon. If you know where the enemy is, you can use a summoned monster to drop death on them from a great height, which will avoid that killing field by being too high in the air. Nasty trick though, that will probably come later.


Also of note - spell choices will be different when a wizard expects to need to spell-cast over the course of an hour long battle. Spells which are normally rather weak but have a long duration become far more viable.

True, most of the early stages are going to be brief ambushes after which the insurgents will run. So probably nova type stuff. Later on protracted battles become more viable.

If I were a commander in those scenarios I would probably cycle wizards through the field, so that way you could keep a moving tally of dangerous nova type spells as well as the long range ones.

[CharonsHelper]

Now compare that to, say, a Trebuchet and its ability to fire semi-ballistic, load that up with an alchemical payload, let´s say, a hundred acid flasks as a scatter bomb and watch the wizard run of dear life.

100 flasks of acid costs 1000gp.

A fireball out of a wand costs 225gp.

If you assume that they both cover the same area (a fireball hits 44 squares) then the acid flasks have just over 2 hit each square. If both flasks hit the target, it'll do 2d6+6 damage, or an average of 13 acid damage. (against which acid resistance 5 would likely make you immune) The fireball would average 17.5 fire damage with pinpoint accuracy. (yes - they may save for 1/2 damage or 8.75 - but the acid flasks above may miss dropping its damage to 8)

Is the acid flask trebuchet longer ranged? A bit. They had a range of about 300 yards vs. the wand's range of 200 yards. But the wand is mobile, cheaper, and does more damage.

Yay math.

[Florian]

@AMFV:

Take a look at Ultimate Combat, Siege Engines, p. 161 for Trebuchet and similar equipment.

@CharonsHelper:

Again, issue of scale. At siege level, those alchemists fire cost 200p per shot, significantly cheaper when you can craft them yourself.
(8d6 dmg, 30ft. radius, splash beyond that, save or burn is no small fry either, indirect fire possible...)

[AMFV]

@AMFV:

Take a look at Ultimate Combat, Siege Engines, p. 161 for Trebuchet and similar equipment.

Ah found it, the d20pfsrd page had them split up. It looks like they top out at 200' though, since that's listed as absolute range and not as a range increment like the Catapult. So that's like a short range delivery system (as compared to the earlier mentioned enlarged spells and the catapult). I would say that would operate more like a mortar than a Howitzer.

You could certainly use it to deliver Alchemical stuff, although things like tanglefoot might be more useful than just damaging things. Or using at a system to deliver gasses.

It's also important to remember that Wizards can fill that killzone with stinking clouds and the like to make travel difficult. They can cast obscuring mist in the air above the units, to make targeting them with siege weapons more difficult. LoS and LoE are as much a problem for siege weapons as they are for wizards. Because, yes you might be able to shoot at something you can't see, but not knowing WHERE you are shooting is still a large problem.

That's the chief problem of artillery pre-communications. You can't hit something 2,000 yards away, because you can't see it, and you can't send up a FO to target it for you because you can't communicate over distance.



@CharonsHelper:

Again, issue of scale. At siege level, those alchemists fire cost 200p per shot, significantly cheaper when you can craft them yourself.

True, but crafting them yourself requires time, which units don't always have. If you have somebody away crafting them, then you have to transport them (which is dangerous), Alchemist's Fire is dangerous to move, wands of Fireball aren't. Of course I imagine both things are somewhat viable. But I don't think that siege weapons can't be emulated by other things in this context.

[Florian]

@AMFV:

Not gonna check it, but I really do think that there´s something wrong with the d20pfsrd entry on them.
The minimum range is 200ft. They have a range increment of 400ft., with the usual -2 penalty for every increment beyond the first. They target normal squares, so hit AC5. They have a -6 penalty or firing semi-balistic w/o a spotter, but gain a +2 bonus on every follow-up shot, so sooner or later, they will hit.

[AMFV]

@AMFV:

Not gonna check it, but I really do think that there´s something wrong with the d20pfsrd entry on them.
The minimum range is 200ft. They have a range increment of 400ft., with the usual -2 penalty for every increment beyond the first. They target normal squares, so hit AC5. They have a -6 penalty or firing semi-balistic w/o a spotter, but gain a +2 bonus on every follow-up shot, so sooner or later, they will hit.

No, they're not listed as having a range increment, and the minimum range is 150. I might rule them to having a range increment. But you still have to know where your target is to have any effect. Arty without an FO, is pretty much worthless. I mean yeah, you might kill some random folks, but you aren't really doing anything really effective outside of potentially some shock and awe.

You have to know where your target is, and then pass the check to hit them. The targetting check starts at DC 15 and goes up to 25 depending on size of ammunition. Which is reasonable.

Again supposing 400' and increasing you're already at a targeting DC of over 30 to hit anything in those ranges (1,200 + ft) and you still have to know where what you're targeting is, which is the big problem of Artillery, it is literally why FOs exist, and that's a crucial job for arty, otherwise you aren't going to be certain that you're doing much more than picking off infantry, which is fun, but not the best use of your time (and you might even be missing completely). I mean look at the Confederate barrages during Gettysburg, they missed completely and weren't even aware of it.

Edit: In any case this is a moot point, since spells can be used at substantive range (as far as one could use Arty given the sight problems) and they can have much the same function, albeit with a few different quirks on either side. Getting bogged down in the Arty thing isn't going to help us devise a truly brutal fantasy war. And yes spells can do both focused fire and artillery with Evokers (and others)

[Florian]

Erm, I have the actual Ultimate Combat book in my hands right now and typed the Trebuchet, Large entry for you?

[AMFV]

Erm, I have the actual Ultimate Combat book in my hands right now and typed the Trebuchet, Large entry for you?

You're looking at Trebuchet, Huge. Which is where the mishap was... however as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't really make a significant difference you still can't shoot things too far away to see, and it gets really easy to hide at that range, and really hard to make specific targets. Not useful as an anti-personnel weapon. Particularly not with the vast targeting DC, and with the fact that personnel can move or take cover when you start raining shells (and missing), nice against fixed points though.

Extended range fireballs don't have that problem, they can target any square perfectly the first time. Now they have their disadvantages (slightly lower range), but in the end they're probably about the same for combat at distance.

Edit: But again getting bogged down in this is kind of pointless, since spells CAN be used for that.

[Florian]

I just want to challenge your point of view, as I do read it as the usual reflex to give magic too much weight and see it too much as a game changer in an environment where it isn´t.

The example with the siege engine is just based on the sheer range and damage a team of Warrior1s can have w/o any magic to it and they can do that all day long.
Compare that to a wizard who actually has to be 8th level to be en par with that and still can´t hide behind total cover to dish that out.

Still, both of that will simply fall under "acceptable losses" and not change anything. That we actually do know from history.

Now if we´d to ramp up all of that to, let´s say, calling and binding a platoon of Barbazu devils, then we´d enter the field where magic changes how war works.

[AMFV]

I just want to challenge your point of view, as I do read it as the usual reflex to give magic too much weight and see it too much as a game changer in an environment where it isn´t.

The example with the siege engine is just based on the sheer range and damage a team of Warrior1s can have w/o any magic to it and they can do that all day long.
Compare that to a wizard who actually has to be 8th level to be en par with that and still can´t hide behind total cover to dish that out.

Still, both of that will simply fall under "acceptable losses" and not change anything. That we actually do know from history.

Now if we´d to ramp up all of that to, let´s say, calling and binding a platoon of Barbazu devils, then we´d enter the field where magic changes how war works.

Sending, Silence, Message, those are all low level and are very significant. Also said Wizard can you know hide. A Huge siege weapon isn't really something you can hide.

Where are you finding cover on the featureless plain you need to be able to acquire targets at range?

Also level 8 isn't significant for wizards and they get plenty of tricks before that.

[CharonsHelper]

Also said Wizard can you know hide. A Huge siege weapon isn't really something you can hide.

This would probably be the biggest issue. Historically - the only thing with enough power/range to threaten the siege weapon itself(rather than the crew) without closing to melee was another siege weapon. But that's certainly not the case in Pathfinder. By deploying one of them - you're putting a big sign out saying to destroy it. And even if it does end up being cheaper than fireball wands (though the first few castings of fireball by a 5th level wizard each day only cost some bat guano) the trebuchet itself isn't cheap either.

Still useful situationally - mostly behind fortifications - but certainly not most of the time.


Also level 8 isn't significant for wizards and they get plenty of tricks before that.

Yes - it's level 5 which is probably the most significant for wizards as to how effective they are in war - since it's when they get access to big AOEs.

Edit: It does make you wonder whether the side with more casters (especially if they have fewer resources for wands etc.) would try to design campaigns to be one relatively short battle each day so that their casters can nova and then go sleep.

[AMFV]

This would probably be the biggest issue. Historically - the only thing with enough power/range to threaten the siege weapon itself(rather than the crew) without closing to melee was another siege weapon. But that's certainly not the case in Pathfinder. By deploying one of them - you're putting a big sign out saying to destroy it. And even if it does end up being cheaper than fireball wands (though the first few castings of fireball by a 5th level wizard each day only cost some bat guano) the trebuchet itself isn't cheap either.

Still useful situationally - mostly behind fortifications - but certainly not most of the time.

They would be plenty useful just not in as many disparate ways as magic. We're also forgetting enchanted siege weapons. Or a ranged magus using Spellstrike through them... If that's legal.



Yes - it's level 5 which is probably the most significant for wizards as to how effective they are in war - since it's when they get access to big AOEs.

Edit: It does make you wonder whether the side with more casters (especially if they have fewer resources for wands etc.) would try to design campaigns to be one relatively short battle each day so that their casters can nova and then go sleep.

Probably cycle reserves as I was saying earlier.

We're getting slightly in the weeds though. The goal here is to figure out what ways the war might escalate, how an insurgency might be more threatening and how the regular forces might evolve from standard stupid fantasy tactics to more better tactics.

[Florian]

Or a ranged magus using Spellstrike through them... If that's legal.

The Myrmidon archetype lets you actually do this.

[AMFV]

The Myrmidon archetype lets you actually do this.

That's pretty vicious. Definitely damage would be probably escalating rapidly, in the conflict, what other things do you think would happen. I mean we'd have gas attacks and all manner of unpleasantnrss fairly soon...

[CharonsHelper]

We're getting slightly in the weeds though. The goal here is to figure out what ways the war might escalate, how an insurgency might be more threatening and how the regular forces might evolve from standard stupid fantasy tactics to more better tactics.

One thing is a few hippogriff (or other flying creature) based cavalry can harass troops on the march nearly indefinitely. Technically ranged weapons have the same range whether shooting straight up or straight down (silly - but there you go) but you can get around that with the +1 Distance enchantment. Technically a comp. longbow shooting flight arrows would have a max range of 2600 or 2400 feet (depending upon whether the flight bonus stacks with the Distance enchantment) - though with some significant range penalties. Even so - they'd be virtually impossible to stop without flying troops to chase them off with, only stopping when they run out of ammo.

Edit: forgot about flight arrows

[Bucky]

At 3rd level, clerics get access to Lesser Animate Dead. Any casualties lost in enemy territory will be used as against their side. And they'll be on fire, since Lesser Animate Dead inherits the ability to make burning skeletons.

Meanwhile, wizards get invisibility for crossing the no man's land.

Put the two together and you get surprise undead suicide bombers every night.

[Forrestfire]

The biggest things that would change war in Pathfinder is, naturally, magic. The question to ask yourself when trying to figure out how warfare would develop is "how prevalent are spellcasters?" As well as "how high level are spellcasters?"

People were talking about the idea of mages using lots of longer-duration spells, but it seems to me that, at low levels, it's the few gigantic spells, and at later levels, the logistical ones that would affect warfare the most. The only question is how common and what level mages are.

For low levels, there's one spell I think would shape the use of battlefield mages: pyrotechnics. With a bullseye lantern, you can turn the spell into a 120-foot cone of save-or-blind. With a flaming projectile fired at the enemy, you can use the spell to create a 120-foot-radius circle of save-or-blind. Imagine the confusion that would result if a cavalry charge was hit by that? Or a larger ranked unit of people? 1d4+1 rounds might not seem like a lot, but in a fight, 6 to 30 seconds of not being able to see at all would play hell with coordination, morale, and strategy, especially if followed up by ranged attacks of some sort by the mage's unit.

The spell would revolutionize the medieval battlefield. Any third-level wizard can use it. 4th-level bards (already incredibly useful in large units) and sorcerers can learn it. Clerics with the Smoke domain can get it, as well (in addition to the general usefulness of clerics for logistics). If there's enough people of that level to go around, the spell would likely be incredibly important, and a major force of change.

There are cantrips that might also change how things are done, on a smaller scale. Purify food and drink off of even a single person would make logistics significantly better for an army, as would create water. Mending covers many minor repairs that an army on the move might need, and cooks packing prestidigitation would do wonders for an army's morale. If mid-level mages are around, create food and water allows smaller groups to be entirely self-sufficient.

That's just with lower-level magic being in play, though. Once we get to higher levels (around character level 9-10), we get a couple other game-changers online, such as the ever popular scrying + teleportation trick. Defenses against teleporting death squads will be of paramount important, as will be arranging them. If one side of a war has someone capable of doing it and the other doesn't, then that's a huge advantage to the side that does. If the other side doesn't have defenses against it, then they may as well have lost, because their higher-ranking people will be dead, their cities will be vulnerable, and their armies will be leaderless.

The other big game changer comes online if there's at least one 13th or 14th-level mage running around. Control weather is a spell that can nearly destroy an army all on its own, by giving any supply trains they have a miserable time, killing their morale, and utterly ruining logistics. Fly, invisibility, teleport, and control weather together on a wizard means the mage can teleport unseen high into the sky, cast the spell, and leave, before a couple minutes later the weather turns south. Thunderstorms in Pathfinder have 30 to 50mph winds (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/weather). If it's winter, you can cover the enemy army in snow and sleet. In late winter, you can toss around hurricanes with the spell, and in the spring, a bunch of tornadoes. If mages of this level are a factor, then war as we normally think of it in fantasy worlds may as well not exist—magic is a WMD, and should be treated as such.


... And now that I've written all of this, I'm just now remembering the fact that the wightpocalypse and shadowpocalypse are a thing, so that'd cause major problems too if someone decided to use undead. Another potential world-ender is that ceremony (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/ceremony) cast by a cleric with the Fire domain allows its targets to set fires that cannot be put out by nonmagical means. Take a look at the wildfires in California right now, and imagine if they could not be put out by pretty much anything, because on the scale a fire that can't be put out would get, the magic dedicated to putting out fires (such as quench) isn't going to be able to keep up.

Some of these things won't apply to an insurgency (until the PCs get to the levels where the nastier tactics come online), but at the very least, a low-level caster has all the tools they need to alter the flow of a battle. A mid-level caster can completely change how a war is fought. A high-level caster existing at all is likely to irrevocably alter the world the moment they put their mind to it.

[Yahzi]

1st lvl Magic Missile wands are quite cost-effective, and squads can coordinate their fire against harder targets. They are short-range compared to guns, but more accurate (in the whole never missing part). 2-3 charges from a wand of MM is a cheap price to pay for a dead enemy soldier.

[Florian]

1st lvl Magic Missile wands are quite cost-effective, and squads can coordinate their fire against harder targets. They are short-range compared to guns, but more accurate (in the whole never missing part). 2-3 charges from a wand of MM is a cheap price to pay for a dead enemy soldier.

That would be making the step over to the Tiffyverse. Magic replaces everything as the only thing that counts is magic.

[CharonsHelper]

1st lvl Magic Missile wands are quite cost-effective, and squads can coordinate their fire against harder targets. They are short-range compared to guns, but more accurate (in the whole never missing part). 2-3 charges from a wand of MM is a cheap price to pay for a dead enemy soldier.

I don't think that would be very effective at all.

1. Most people can't use wands of magic missile at all - so whoever you have using the wand is, themselves, a very limited resource.

2. The max range (110ft) is the same as a range increment for a comp. longbow (but the comp. longbow has 10x the max range). While it always hits, the damage is less. And while 3-4 charges (3.5 damage average vs a level 1 warrior's 11hp) will take down a level 1 warrior (but not kill them - since it'd only drop them to -2hp or so), that same warrior will be shooting a longbow which is cheaper, much longer ranged, and do more damage - putting down wizards (6hp) with 1-2 hits and hitting nearly 1/2 the time assuming no range/cover penalties. So - for a fraction of the gold to equip them, a level 1 warrior with a longbow will be on close to equal footing with a level 1 wizard with a level 1 wand of magic missile (excluding taking them out past the base range increment).

3. #s 1&2 prove that it would be a bad idea to base a strategy around.

[Tuvarkz]

Hmmm...I'm reminded of a conversation that happens within the Overlord LN (Whose system is pretty much 3.5), where it is discussed the potential use of adventurers in a war. However, the idea is quickly discarded, as it would only lead to an escalation of forces where the lethality rates skyrocket amongst the regular soldiers (Funny thing is, a lot of people actually made it through battles in ancient times because pre-firearm weapon wounds were less lethal overall while more disabling of a soldier's capacity)-namely, adventurers are often left out because the other side would only answer in kind, and states that relied on either a levy army (and thus from their own common folk) or an extremely trained army (and thus taking long time and effort to create a fully ready soldier) would suffer unnecessary losses.

[AMFV]

The biggest things that would change war in Pathfinder is, naturally, magic. The question to ask yourself when trying to figure out how warfare would develop is "how prevalent are spellcasters?" As well as "how high level are spellcasters?"


We hear this fairly often. I think the significant problem with this is that it isn't likely to remain constant throughout the duration of the war. Spellcasters would probably (following most settings stereotypes) be less interested in serving in a standing Army. So the number will fluctuate in the following ways: If there is a draft of mages, then compulsory service will rapidly increase the number of low level mages. And since as you and I have noted the significance of low level mages (and other mages) they would rapidly become targets. So they would be attrited fairly rapidly (that d4 hit dice, or d6 with area damage spells doesn't help much either).

So my plan for the setting is to have very few spellcasters (probably inefficient and flashy ones) at the very beginning of the war. As it gets quagmired and a draft is instituted there's going to be a lot of low level casters. Then as those are depleted and the ones remaining get less and less experienced as the war drags on. Which is a paradigm that's very similar to what we've observed in real life.



People were talking about the idea of mages using lots of longer-duration spells, but it seems to me that, at low levels, it's the few gigantic spells, and at later levels, the logistical ones that would affect warfare the most. The only question is how common and what level mages are.

For low levels, there's one spell I think would shape the use of battlefield mages: pyrotechnics. With a bullseye lantern, you can turn the spell into a 120-foot cone of save-or-blind. With a flaming projectile fired at the enemy, you can use the spell to create a 120-foot-radius circle of save-or-blind. Imagine the confusion that would result if a cavalry charge was hit by that? Or a larger ranked unit of people? 1d4+1 rounds might not seem like a lot, but in a fight, 6 to 30 seconds of not being able to see at all would play hell with coordination, morale, and strategy, especially if followed up by ranged attacks of some sort by the mage's unit.

The spell would revolutionize the medieval battlefield. Any third-level wizard can use it. 4th-level bards (already incredibly useful in large units) and sorcerers can learn it. Clerics with the Smoke domain can get it, as well (in addition to the general usefulness of clerics for logistics). If there's enough people of that level to go around, the spell would likely be incredibly important, and a major force of change.


Well that's not terribly unlike a lot of other things that we see in the start of modern warfare, since obscuring vision is a side effect of the use of explosives and arty. Those sort of things would probably make Cavalry Charges obsolete, or at least seriously alter how they would operate. Much as many things at the start of modern warfare would.

This is also a tactic that an insurgency could use.

The issue I'm seeing in terms of folks thinking about escalation is that most folks seem to be not exactly thinking about counters. As Warfare evolves the counters to particular strategies become increasingly vital. Since it is unlikely that people wouldn't think about countering these sort of strategies. I suspect that this kind of flashy spells would become less and less used after an initial uptick. This would be because the value of mages would rapidly outpace the value of a cavalry platoon. So you'd not find it worth exposing your mage in order to stop a cavalry charge that could be stopped other ways.

I do agree that this would be incredibly useful initially and might continue to increase in use throughout the war. But again mages' numbers would likely decrease throughout the war, particularly since they require such large amounts of time to train, so we'd probably see an increase in the relative numbers of bards or sorcerers.



There are cantrips that might also change how things are done, on a smaller scale. Purify food and drink off of even a single person would make logistics significantly better for an army, as would create water. Mending covers many minor repairs that an army on the move might need, and cooks packing prestidigitation would do wonders for an army's morale. If mid-level mages are around, create food and water allows smaller groups to be entirely self-sufficient.


True and that's very good for the verisimilitude aspect (since D&D doesn't actually have rules for food spoiling or dysentery). Again bringing D&D warfare to the level we have in terms of modern war, which is about that way already. I doubt that mages would be improving the quality of food though after a certain point, since there would be rapid depletion of the number of mages.

Create Food and Water would be most useful for those who have to spend time in pillboxes, they could make the defensive forces last for a very long time. Otherwise small units tend not to be separated for long enough that it would actually matter, except in some very fringe cases. Distant OPs could use that sort of thing though, but at higher levels scry and speak with animal would probably make observation posts virtually obsolete (unless there is some significant change past that point, which there probably would be).



That's just with lower-level magic being in play, though. Once we get to higher levels (around character level 9-10), we get a couple other game-changers online, such as the ever popular scrying + teleportation trick. Defenses against teleporting death squads will be of paramount important, as will be arranging them. If one side of a war has someone capable of doing it and the other doesn't, then that's a huge advantage to the side that does. If the other side doesn't have defenses against it, then they may as well have lost, because their higher-ranking people will be dead, their cities will be vulnerable, and their armies will be leaderless.


I think the closest analogue to teleportation in modern warfare would be parachuting/airborne assaults. It would have many of the same limitations... A.) You're putting a unit far away without any support. B.) Without a proper chain maintaining logistical flow and therefore holding any objectives will be pretty much pointless. C.) You're putting valuable resources (a unit that would be in the middle of enemies, and a mage capable of casting teleport, which wouldn't be terribly common) into harm's way. And D.) Very few commanders/officers/officials are irreplaceable during war, so it might create a lot of problems, but assassinations outside of mid-battle (and then teleport is about as good as many other methods) don't tend to have as drastic an effect as you'd expect.

Now we might see things like teleport used to develop footholds and beach-heads where it would otherwise be impossible (similar to our present use) to rescue high-value prisoners. And yes, for assassinations, although I suspect that would be more rare.

Now teleporting a suicide attack into someplace might be really useful, or at least less wasteful. Especially if you're going after a high level caster, since that's a resource that takes years to replace.



The other big game changer comes online if there's at least one 13th or 14th-level mage running around. Control weather is a spell that can nearly destroy an army all on its own, by giving any supply trains they have a miserable time, killing their morale, and utterly ruining logistics. Fly, invisibility, teleport, and control weather together on a wizard means the mage can teleport unseen high into the sky, cast the spell, and leave, before a couple minutes later the weather turns south. Thunderstorms in Pathfinder have 30 to 50mph winds (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/weather). If it's winter, you can cover the enemy army in snow and sleet. In late winter, you can toss around hurricanes with the spell, and in the spring, a bunch of tornadoes. If mages of this level are a factor, then war as we normally think of it in fantasy worlds may as well not exist—magic is a WMD, and should be treated as such.


That's definitely awful, although I don't think it comes up to the level of a WMD, we have a lot of things that cause destruction on that same scale. The other thing is that there are also spells to reverse that, so that would be part of the effect. You'd have to send allied wizards/clerics/mages around to counter that particular tactic.

Probably how you would see that used is preceding an attack, or to keep mages from recharging spells, to deplete their spells by forcing them to counter that tactic. The thing is that regular troops have dealt with these kind of bad weather deals for a very long time, so it would be awful on moral, but not an army killer, although it might be used to attrit valuable resources.



... And now that I've written all of this, I'm just now remembering the fact that the wightpocalypse and shadowpocalypse are a thing, so that'd cause major problems too if someone decided to use undead. Another potential world-ender is that ceremony (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/ceremony) cast by a cleric with the Fire domain allows its targets to set fires that cannot be put out by nonmagical means. Take a look at the wildfires in California right now, and imagine if they could not be put out by pretty much anything, because on the scale a fire that can't be put out would get, the magic dedicated to putting out fires (such as quench) isn't going to be able to keep up.


Firebreaks. There are ways to stop this. The wightpocalypse is only a problem where there are large concentrations of civilians. I'm probably going to actually ignore those (through handwavium) since I'm fairly sure that would cause a genre shift on a major scale. The fire one is definitely an awesome idea though, I imagine that they would use firebreaks to stop it, although that doesn't always work.



Some of these things won't apply to an insurgency (until the PCs get to the levels where the nastier tactics come online), but at the very least, a low-level caster has all the tools they need to alter the flow of a battle. A mid-level caster can completely change how a war is fought. A high-level caster existing at all is likely to irrevocably alter the world the moment they put their mind to it.

Until they're killed, which would happen fairly rapidly if they're causing trouble on that scale. Unless the enemy side has no mages of that same level then it would be only a matter of time till they're a target, and there would certainly be an attempt to kill them. And a mage takes years to train (even to level 1), so you'd see not a huge amount of new ones as the war drags on. You'd see attacks on their training locations as the higher level ones murdered each other. Basically you'd have a huge effect (and escalating in my case) then as the numbers shift tactics might revert back.


1st lvl Magic Missile wands are quite cost-effective, and squads can coordinate their fire against harder targets. They are short-range compared to guns, but more accurate (in the whole never missing part). 2-3 charges from a wand of MM is a cheap price to pay for a dead enemy soldier.

Well you'd have to be able to cast them effectively, and the people who can do that reliably can use other better wands or other tactics. So I expect that you'd see more of that than you would them using magic wand. Although that could definitely be interesting for assassinations and ambushes, since they don't miss and therefore can be used to ensure successful assassinations.



That would be making the step over to the Tiffyverse. Magic replaces everything as the only thing that counts is magic.

Tippyverse.

Magic isn't as important as tactics isn't as important as strategy. So it's commanders that make the difference in the end, them and NCOs.


Hmmm...I'm reminded of a conversation that happens within the Overlord LN (Whose system is pretty much 3.5), where it is discussed the potential use of adventurers in a war. However, the idea is quickly discarded, as it would only lead to an escalation of forces where the lethality rates skyrocket amongst the regular soldiers (Funny thing is, a lot of people actually made it through battles in ancient times because pre-firearm weapon wounds were less lethal overall while more disabling of a soldier's capacity)-namely, adventurers are often left out because the other side would only answer in kind, and states that relied on either a levy army (and thus from their own common folk) or an extremely trained army (and thus taking long time and effort to create a fully ready soldier) would suffer unnecessary losses.

This is actually pretty untrue. Battles have been roughly similar in lethality for pretty much the history of war. They appear to grow more lethal as time goes on because the populations involved were larger. In modern war you remember, it's rare to die from a scrape, but that was terribly common before. Any wound that disables somebody's capacity in ancient times, is almost certain to kill him with gangrene later. That's only changed in modern war. In fact that's one of the most significant changes in the most modern wars, the fact that there are so many survivors of serious wounds.

We've seen that same sort of tactics used before. The idea that people wouldn't use a method that is likely to give them quick victory, wouldn't use it, is patently absurd. There is little to no historical precedent for that. (You could argue gas, but that's a whole different ball of wax). You want to kill the enemy soldiers, so many of them that the enemy has to surrender and can't keep killing yours.

[CharonsHelper]

It also makes you wonder if, when the war became so deadly to them, wizards & sorcerers etc. would start to become draft dodgers. They would have to be extremely well paid for their efforts to not just book it - and even then some of them likely would.

[AMFV]

It also makes you wonder if, when the war became so deadly to them, wizards & sorcerers etc. would start to become draft dodgers. They would have to be extremely well paid for their efforts to not just book it - and even then some of them likely would.

Definitely a possibility. It certainly is often that way with critical skills folks presently. So I expect it would have to be for them. It would depend too on how the enemy was. An equal strength enemy (or a really cunning one) would definitely try to kill Wizards and Clerics whenever possible, since they're a huge resource. Against a much weaker enemy though, once the wizard's have no equivalents, they'd simply mow through them, kind of like air superiority in concept today.

[CharonsHelper]

Much also depends upon how much magical creatures of different sorts become involved.

For one thing, there are some which wouldn't be that great against opposing armies but would be vicious against enemy casters.

Ex: a half dozen CR 3 shadows could take out just about any caster which they could get the drop on

Edit: A counter to such attacks would be to equip most troopers with a vial of holy water - though it would be of limited use if the shadows got the drop on a caster.

[Firest Kathon]

I've already thought of using Necklace of Fireballs as a sort of IED.
Once you hit level 10: Get the Explode Head (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/explode-head) spell, make any (low-level) person an IED. What's the color for evil again?

[stanprollyright]

So I might only be making this connection because The Force Awakens just came out, but I think Star Wars deals with a similar situation pretty well. Obviously the technology is way different, but in both the Prequels and the KotOR-era stuff you start out with a whole bunch of Jedi/Sith, and by then end of the war all the low-level Force-users have been killed due to always being sent in the most dangerous places and being targeted by the other side. The ones that are left are the ones who are either in hiding (not actively participating in the war) or are just the most badass, high-level, unkillable dudes in the universe. Those guys are absolutely devastating to a mundane battlefield if left unchecked, which is why they spend most of their time and resources going after each other in grudge matches.

[deathbymanga]

a major thing to take note of is Magic makes warfare a whole lot more modern. Fireballs? Hah, think Controlled Napalm dispersal. Illusion magic to strike decoy maneuvers. Mass Sleep spells to decrease large enemies. Transmutation spells to give buffs to weak soldiers. Conjuration and Necromancy spells to triple an army's size.

Having an issue with the enemy general being better at tactics and is killing off so many of your soldiers? Start turning them into zombies. Then start small skirmishes that result in both sides loosing a bunch of soldiers and turn the enemy's dead soldiers into zombies as well.

Have a moral obligation against the undead? Start Conjuring Hippogriffs to provide aerial support in battle. Have alchemists ride on them and drop Bombs from above.

And of course use Divination wizards to predict the enemy's positions and tactics.

And rely on Rogues to go assassinate targets. Rangers and Scouts for Scouting. Druids for providing combat support and rations control.

Monks make great support to take out the enemy in multiple locations at once.

[CharonsHelper]

So I might only be making this connection because The Force Awakens just came out, but I think Star Wars deals with a similar situation pretty well. Obviously the technology is way different, but in both the Prequels and the KotOR-era stuff you start out with a whole bunch of Jedi/Sith, and by then end of the war all the low-level Force-users have been killed due to always being sent in the most dangerous places and being targeted by the other side. The ones that are left are the ones who are either in hiding (not actively participating in the war) or are just the most badass, high-level, unkillable dudes in the universe. Those guys are absolutely devastating to a mundane battlefield if left unchecked, which is why they spend most of their time and resources going after each other in grudge matches.

While I agree somewhat - there are a couple of major differences to take into account before doing comparisons.

1. Jedi line up more to high level martials or semi-casters (pali/rangers) than they do to full casters, with the possible exception of Force Meditation (extremely rare talent if it's big enough to sway battles).

2. Technology changes things - even technology as loose as Star Wars's. Sure that Jedi/Sith is scary - but you can blow up the whole ship that he's on with a few dozen torpedoes.