How dangerous is an optimized adventuring party to the authorities?

[MasterCat]

Say you have a party with the most OP subclasses: a 7th level Necomancer (Wizard) who uses his 3rd and 4th level spell slots to cast Animate Dead every morning, walking around surrounded by 10 skeletons (AC 13, 20 HP, +7 to hit with shortbow for 1d6+2 damage), a 7th level Moon Druid, and an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with at least 2 levels of Moon Druid.
Since my DM is using mythic Greece as the setting, assume they're not causing trouble in Faerun. Instead, let's say Skeletor, Beastman and friends are trying to conquer the state of Pylos. It’s a city of (probably) fewer than 6,500 people supported by more than 300 damoi, villages with ~150 people. The damos “was obliged to supply a certain number of men who had to serve in the army.” So the rural population produces some multiple of 300 5E Veterans, unlikely less than 900. Every village would also have, if not a Priest, an Acolyte (“junior members of the clergy” — Monster Manual 342) who can cast 3 1st level spells a day. Knossos, which covered more than thrice as many hectares as Pylos, seemed to be able to field 310 chariots with “knights”, so let’s give Pylos 100 chariot warriors with the Knight stat block.
The weakest stat block for a Mage is a 9th level caster, so I’m going to assume arcane NPC support is rare as hen’s teeth.

How far would you expect these adventurers to get?

[Descole]

If they go after the villages they could probably plunder a few but trying to keep them would be impossible. A hundred or so commoners and soldiers armed with crossbows could pretty much one-shot just about anyone. Even with only a +4 mod that's about 1/4 of attacks that hit Ac 19. So about 25 x 1d8+2 damage (~150 damage disregarding crit chance). The veterans are of course stronger but due to bounded accuracy and ranged weapons enough random people will kill any lvl 1-14 party.

In short, you can fight as a gurellia basically forever but will fold to any semblance of an army.

If you raise an army of your own then that's an entirely different matter.

[fbelanger]

In mythic Greece they will go fine until they been notice and get angry a God.

[MaxWilson]

Say you have a party with the most OP subclasses: a 7th level Necomancer (Wizard) who uses his 3rd and 4th level spell slots to cast Animate Dead every morning, walking around surrounded by 10 skeletons (AC 13, 20 HP, +7 to hit with shortbow for 1d6+2 damage), a 7th level Moon Druid, and an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with at least 2 levels of Moon Druid.
Since my DM is using mythic Greece as the setting, assume they're not causing trouble in Faerun. Instead, let's say Skeletor, Beastman and friends are trying to conquer the state of Pylos. It’s a city of (probably) fewer than 6,500 people supported by more than 300 damoi, villages with ~150 people. The damos “was obliged to supply a certain number of men who had to serve in the army.” So the rural population produces some multiple of 300 5E Veterans, unlikely less than 900. Every village would also have, if not a Priest, an Acolyte (“junior members of the clergy” — Monster Manual 342) who can cast 3 1st level spells a day. Knossos, which covered more than thrice as many hectares as Pylos, seemed to be able to field 310 chariots with “knights”, so let’s give Pylos 100 chariot warriors with the Knight stat block.
The weakest stat block for a Mage is a 9th level caster, so I’m going to assume arcane NPC support is rare as hen’s teeth.

How far would you expect these adventurers to get?

It depends how good they are at strategic thinking. Ten skeletons is powerful, yeah, and BTW they do 1d6+5 not 1d6+2. But a hundred Knights is far, far more powerful. So the party will lose a direct confrontation, and so their advantage lies in their superior mobility and stealth and command & control capabilities. They should avoid fighting wherever the Knights have a local force superiority. If the PCs start using illusions and sneaking around under Pass Without Trace + Invisibility IV / Disguise Self to take out the army's leaders one by one, they might not have to fight all hundred Knights at once.

But if they try to fight them straight up they will die ignominiously.

[Sigreid]

Btw, a relative handful of skeletons and/or zombies pales in comparison to something like cloud kill if your facing something resembling a hopolite fighting force in formation.

Beyond that, the answer depends on how your party fights. A stand up fight against a significant force and you're done. Slaughter villages, burn crops and destroy supplies, high tailing it before a significant force can be brought to bare and the party would be nearly unstoppable.

[Ganymede]

The danger level of an adventuring party to the authorities is inversely proportional to the danger level of the authorities to the adventuring party.

As to your question in general: 6,500 people will, if the PCs don't try to escape, tear an adventuring party limb from limb. In fact, there isn't even much point to running a combat encounter, just narrate the PCs being pinned down and stabbed to death.

[Malifice]

What's stopping the king or local lord from hiring a rival band of heroes to stop them?

'Hey Achillies, I have a problem with domestic terrorism.' Kind of thing.

[Keravath]

I’d just comment that your analysis of local military forces essentially ignores the likely presence of adventurers and other leveled NPCs within the population. If only 1/100 people can become adventurers .. that still leaves close to 100 leveled NPCs with a vested interest in protecting their country.

However, I suspect that there are probably more than 1/100 though that depends on your DM. You do mention Ancient Greece but if there are leveled PCs then then odds are good that there are also leveled NPCs unless the PCs come from another world.

[Malifice]

I’d just comment that your analysis of local military forces essentially ignores the likely presence of adventurers and other leveled NPCs within the population. If only 1/100 people can become adventurers .. that still leaves close to 100 leveled NPCs with a vested interest in protecting their country.

However, I suspect that there are probably more than 1/100 though that depends on your DM. You do mention Ancient Greece but if there are leveled PCs then then odds are good that there are also leveled NPCs unless the PCs come from another world.

You dont need leveled PCs.

Id presume in a kingdom of the OPs stated size, the local King has NPC Warlords, Champions (to lead the Knights) an Archmage or two and several Mages, numerous Priests and War Priests (heads of local churches etc), Assasins, Scouts, Veterans and Guards in large numbers etc.

If a roving band of mercenaries (the PCs) attacked a villiage, the King has the resources (political and temporal) to enlist the aid of powerful spellcasters (Archmage and War Clerics) to divine/ Scry who the PCs are, their connections (family, churches, etc) and where they are.

I would assume they would be located very quickly and set upon by a very large band of NPCs (an arbitrary number of Knights led by a Champion/ Warlord, a Mage or two, several Guards and a Veteran or two, an Assasin or two and a Priest or two), possibly even Teleported straight to the PCs position by said Archmage.

[Keravath]

You dont need leveled PCs.

Id presume in a kingdom of the OPs stated size, the local King has NPC Warlords, Champions (to lead the Knights) an Archmage or two and several Mages, numerous Priests and War Priests (heads of local churches etc), Assasins, Scouts, Veterans and Guards in large numbers etc.

If a roving band of mercenaries (the PCs) attacked a villiage, the King has the resources (political and temporal) to enlist the aid of powerful spellcasters (Archmage and War Clerics) to divine/ Scry who the PCs are, their connections (family, churches, etc) and where they are.

I would assume they would be located very quickly and set upon by a very large band of NPCs (an arbitrary number of Knights led by a Champion/ Warlord, a Mage or two, several Guards and a Veteran or two, an Assasin or two and a Priest or two), possibly even Teleported straight to the PCs position by said Archmage.

I think you meant leveled NPCs.

I agree. There are quite a few NPCs of the appropriate types like Mage, Archmage etc. However, I always find it a bit inconsistent that PCs have levels but NPCs do not .. so I will usually have leveled NPCs in key roles or for particularly significant or proficient NPCs in addition to the generic NPC types.

In either case, I think we are both making the point that there are likely more and more capable folks available to hunt down the PCs if they become a real problem.

[Ganymede]

I always find it a bit inconsistent that PCs have levels but NPCs do not

Levels are a gamist conceit there to provide a sense of progression and development to the fantasy adventures shared by a group of real-life friends. NPCs don't share this need for a sense of progression, so there is no reason for them to have levels.

You can certainly bootstrap levels up as a way to enhance and differentiate different NPCs, tho.

[Sigreid]

You dont need leveled PCs.

Id presume in a kingdom of the OPs stated size, the local King has NPC Warlords, Champions (to lead the Knights) an Archmage or two and several Mages, numerous Priests and War Priests (heads of local churches etc), Assasins, Scouts, Veterans and Guards in large numbers etc.

If a roving band of mercenaries (the PCs) attacked a villiage, the King has the resources (political and temporal) to enlist the aid of powerful spellcasters (Archmage and War Clerics) to divine/ Scry who the PCs are, their connections (family, churches, etc) and where they are.

I would assume they would be located very quickly and set upon by a very large band of NPCs (an arbitrary number of Knights led by a Champion/ Warlord, a Mage or two, several Guards and a Veteran or two, an Assasin or two and a Priest or two), possibly even Teleported straight to the PCs position by said Archmage.

Depending on the situation and how the players go about it it may be impractical to commit those kind of resources to tracking down what is essentially one band of raiders, not least of which neighboring kingdoms make take advantage of the opportunity to strike.

Add to that that there are plenty of ways for a mid to high level party to counter scrying and if they are smart and very mobile they could be very, very hard to stop unless it's just the DM slapping them with DM omniscience. Heck, a very common way for characters to start their adventuring careers is to be hired to try to stop just such a group.

[ad_hoc]

A party of adventurers will come kill you before long.

[Sigreid]

A party of adventurers will come kill you before long.

They'll no doubt try, but again, unless the DM is basically performing an execution a mid to high level party should be pretty darn hard to stop, provided they put considerable effort into not being cornered.

[LudicSavant]

Obviously it depends on how high-powered your setting is. Against normal people, the party can be a considerable threat, able to plunder a number of villages. Whether they could actually hold them is another matter.

While 6500 people can obviously win in a straight brawl to the death, there's a good chance they can't actually take advantage of all those numbers very effectively against a small force. A large number of civilians can be intimidated by only a couple of armed men, and that's in real life where the difference in physical ability is far less. And of course PCs can use tactics to avoid confronting the entire place simultaneously (in fact, getting your entire force together at once is no small ask). Only organized, equipped, and disciplined enemies are going to be a real threat who can really take advantage of their numbers.

Swarming foes are a thing that are very intimidating to new players, but against genuinely optimized parties are a fair bit more manageable. For example, a "Walking Fireball" cleric using Dodge/SG can totally clear a large number of foes while surviving literally hundreds of low-accuracy ranged attacks (such as those from MM Bandits). The authorities will live or die based on the quality of their tactics... or the ability to call in elites of their own. The PCs, too, will live or die based on the quality of their tactics; nothing says they have to just charge blindly and try to kill everything on an open field.

Note that even in real life small gangs of only a few men have been able to rack up some pretty considerable crime sprees that made a real impact on a territory. Maybe look up some of those cases for ideas.

[BreaktheStatue]

This reminds me of an old joke/question I see floating around the Internet every now and then on how many small children do you think you, as an adult, could beat up in a fight.

The answer is obviously "A lot," but sooner or later, they're going to tire you out and overwhelm you.

[Malifice]

Heck, a very common way for characters to start their adventuring careers is to be hired to try to stop just such a group.

Exactly.

The King hires (or deploys his own) such group to counter the PCs.

[Sigreid]

Exactly.

The King hires (or deploys his own) such group to counter the PCs.

But the party who plans and executes properly shouldn't automatically be found by a force that has just the right tools to take them down.

[Misterwhisper]

A group of level 7s is dangerous, but in ancient Greece they have the strategy "send enough." It works.

[MaxWilson]

But the party who plans and executes properly shouldn't automatically be found by a force that has just the right tools to take them down.

Furthermore, the OP already said their setting is not the Forgotten Realms, and leveled NPCs are rare, especially arcane spellcasters.

[Willie the Duck]

Btw, a relative handful of skeletons and/or zombies pales in comparison to something like cloud kill if your facing something resembling a hopolite fighting force in formation.



Furthermore, the OP already said their setting is not the Forgotten Realms, and leveled NPCs are rare, especially arcane spellcasters.

The hoplite formation thing stuck something in my brain. Somewhere (possibly 3e PHB II) mentioned that you kind of have to choose what kind of game world you want -- one where armies form up in historical formations where overlapping shields are a huge benefit and having everyone close together and within shouting range of a real-world (pre-electronic voice-amplification/communication devices) officer can issue commands... or one that realistically presents how people would behave if Cloud Kill and Fire Ball and dragons breath exist.

That raises a question, which I will simplify to, "Are the PCs the only ones who know they are in a D&D game?" The OP indicated that the game takes place in ancient Greece, but is it ancient Greece where society has adapted to the existence of Druids and Necromancers? That will change the outcome more than any specifics about how much damage a skeleton archer or Cloud Kill spell does. If the king or local lord says, 'oh gods, adventurers! Reports indicate a Long-rest recharging spellcaster along with some Long-rest recharaging spellcasters who have short-rest recharging shapechange abilities (and access to Pass Without a Trace, that's going to be the real pain in the butt). Okay people, you know what to do,' then the PCs are hosed. If not, they will either succeed, or fail only because they screwed up.

[EggKookoo]

Levels are a gamist conceit there to provide a sense of progression and development to the fantasy adventures shared by a group of real-life friends. NPCs don't share this need for a sense of progression, so there is no reason for them to have levels.

Also, it's possible that non-leveled NPCs actually have levels in some abstract sense, but you typically only deal with them at one certain point in their career (often the end of it!). If you encountered those same NPCs a year prior they may have had different, lesser capabilities.

In a way, it's the same for the NPCs when dealing with PCs. The NPCs don't have a sense of the PCs having levels either. They're just "X level of power." For all the NPCs know, the PCs have always been that powerful.

[Sigreid]

The hoplite formation thing stuck something in my brain. Somewhere (possibly 3e PHB II) mentioned that you kind of have to choose what kind of game world you want -- one where armies form up in historical formations where overlapping shields are a huge benefit and having everyone close together and within shouting range of a real-world (pre-electronic voice-amplification/communication devices) officer can issue commands... or one that realistically presents how people would behave if Cloud Kill and Fire Ball and dragons breath exist.

That raises a question, which I will simplify to, "Are the PCs the only ones who know they are in a D&D game?" The OP indicated that the game takes place in ancient Greece, but is it ancient Greece where society has adapted to the existence of Druids and Necromancers? That will change the outcome more than any specifics about how much damage a skeleton archer or Cloud Kill spell does. If the king or local lord says, 'oh gods, adventurers! Reports indicate a Long-rest recharging spellcaster along with some Long-rest recharaging spellcasters who have short-rest recharging shapechange abilities (and access to Pass Without a Trace, that's going to be the real pain in the butt). Okay people, you know what to do,' then the PCs are hosed. If not, they will either succeed, or fail only because they screwed up.

It poses a real problem. The bronze age formations were used in the real world until basically the civil war because it's really hard to balance the needs of being effective with bows, spears and even single shot fire arms with the dangers of explosive cannon balls.

[Hail Tempus]

An active world will react to the PCs logically. A party of 5th-7th level characters could massacre a small village. But then what? Unless they kill everyone to avoid eyewitnesses, someone will survive to give the king or duke a description of the attackers. The king will then put a bounty on their heads and declare them outlaw. After that, they won't be able to rest in towns, replenish their stocks of food, arrows and the like. If they need to purchase spell components, new armor or new weapons, no one will sell to them. And so on. They'll always be looking over their shoulders.

Even a pre-modern society can mobilize significant resources to hunt down bandits and outlaws. And in a setting where magic exists, don't be surprised that the town baker who you murdered for the LOLZ was the beloved aunt of a Paladin of Tyr or powerful Wizard.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I tend to think of 5e characters as functionally the superheroes of their world, so they're incredibly dangerous compared to commoners or even normal guards. That being said, as other people have said, there are always more powerful adventurers around to put them down. Your average optimized party would annihilate the local village militia, but your king/duke/nobles have access to their own people with character levels, and they're the threat.

Your PCs are the adventurers; they tear through the Hydra goons, but it's only when the big bads show up they're actually threatened.

[Sigreid]

So, I've laid it out like this in my world. At level 5, you're exceptionally competent. Among the most powerful individuals in a small village or town. Level 10, you're one of the most capable people in a decent sized kingdom. Level 15, you're one of the most personally powerful people alive in the world today. Level 20, you are legendary, literally one of the most powerful mortals who has ever lived.

So at around level 15, even powerful kings will be cautious to not offend you as putting you down would be very costly. By level 10, they will be courting your favor and support as your support is a significant asset.

[MaxWilson]

It poses a real problem. The bronze age formations were used in the real world until basically the civil war because it's really hard to balance the needs of being effective with bows, spears and even single shot fire arms with the dangers of explosive cannon balls.

Under 5E rules though the problem is simpler: ranged weapons are absurdly effective so you might as well train your army to use them, and adopt skirmish formations wherever possible. The only real advantage to dense formations would be psychological, not mechanical. (Maybe dense hoplite formations improve morale by giving you a solid sense of being a team, and it takes more teamwork training to fight together in skirmish formation, similar to how assaulting a fixed position takes more training than defending one.)

5E makes longbows more effective than real life rifles, so you'd expect to see rifle-era tactics, and armies not bringing knives to gunfights.

[MaxWilson]

An active world will react to the PCs logically. A party of 5th-7th level characters could massacre a small village. But then what? Unless they kill everyone to avoid eyewitnesses, someone will survive to give the king or duke a description of the attackers. The king will then put a bounty on their heads and declare them outlaw. After that, they won't be able to rest in towns, replenish their stocks of food, arrows and the like. If they need to purchase spell components, new armor or new weapons, no one will sell to them. And so on. They'll always be looking over their shoulders.

IMO a more interesting consequence than "the NPCs squash you like a bug" is, "okay, you win, the king surrenders/abdicates, you're the new king, and now you've got a kingdom to defend, and you know perfectly well that you're the kingdom's only defense. What now?"

[Sigreid]

Under 5E rules though the problem is simpler: ranged weapons are absurdly effective so you might as well train your army to use them, and adopt skirmish formations wherever possible. The only real advantage to dense formations would be psychological, not mechanical. (Maybe dense hoplite formations improve morale by giving you a solid sense of being a team, and it takes more teamwork training to fight together in skirmish formation, similar to how assaulting a fixed position takes more training than defending one.)

5E makes longbows more effective than real life rifles, so you'd expect to see rifle-era tactics, and armies not bringing knives to gunfights.

I would expect a hopolite army to be trained in the protection fighting style, actually. We are in formation because the guy to my right is imposing disadvantage on the guy across from me. I'm providing that benefit to the guy on my left.

[MadBear]

As a white wall theory discussion, I think this conversation is interesting, but as an actual game I think it really comes down to:

1. The DM is totally into an evil party that wipes out villages, and will produce interesting and challenging encounters for the party to face to match what the PC's are doing

or

2. The DM is not really into an evil party that wipes out villages. Instead of figuring out how to outwit the DM, or the DM trying to outwit the party, stop that current game, roll up new characters that fit what the DM wants to do (or conversely have someone DM who wants to run that kinda game), and those evil PC's can be the Big Bad's of the new adventure.

TLDR: Conversation irrelevant and:
1. DM will design appropriate encounters.
OR
2. Game needs to be reworked to fit what everyone wants to do.

[Sigreid]

As a white wall theory discussion, I think this conversation is interesting, but as an actual game I think it really comes down to:

1. The DM is totally into an evil party that wipes out villages, and will produce interesting and challenging encounters for the party to face to match what the PC's are doing

or

2. The DM is not really into an evil party that wipes out villages. Instead of figuring out how to outwit the DM, or the DM trying to outwit the party, stop that current game, roll up new characters that fit what the DM wants to do (or conversely have someone DM who wants to run that kinda game), and those evil PC's can be the Big Bad's of the new adventure.

TLDR: Conversation irrelevant and:
1. DM will design appropriate encounters.
OR
2. Game needs to be reworked to fit what everyone wants to do.

The party doesn't have to be evil. A party could have a legitimate (to them) reason to believe that a kingdom needs to be brought down. In one of the movies Captain America has a line about how they had to stop the Nazis, even if some of the things they had to do made them not sleep so well.

[MaxWilson]

As a white wall theory discussion, I think this conversation is interesting, but as an actual game I think it really comes down to:

1. The DM is totally into an evil party that wipes out villages, and will produce interesting and challenging encounters for the party to face to match what the PC's are doing

or

2. The DM is not really into an evil party that wipes out villages. Instead of figuring out how to outwit the DM, or the DM trying to outwit the party, stop that current game, roll up new characters that fit what the DM wants to do (or conversely have someone DM who wants to run that kinda game), and those evil PC's can be the Big Bad's of the new adventure.

TLDR: Conversation irrelevant and:
1. DM will design appropriate encounters.
OR
2. Game needs to be reworked to fit what everyone wants to do.

In this case it's "actual play" that's irrelevant. The thread is explicitly about predicting what the PCs are *capable* of, what you call "white wall" discussion.

(Also you're overlooking some actual play possibilities at granularities above the encounter level.)

[Hail Tempus]

IMO a more interesting consequence than "the NPCs squash you like a bug" is, "okay, you win, the king surrenders/abdicates, you're the new king, and now you've got a kingdom to defend, and you know perfectly well that you're the kingdom's only defense. What now?" That could be funny, in a "be careful what you wish for" sort of way. The current king never really wanted to rule, and only ended up in charge because his older brother died in combat. He's happy to retire to the coast and write poetry. The kingdom is actually broke, the nobles are about to start rebelling, and neighboring monarchs are eyeing its territory hungrily.

[Willie the Duck]

IMO a more interesting consequence than "the NPCs squash you like a bug" is, "okay, you win, the king surrenders/abdicates, you're the new king, and now you've got a kingdom to defend, and you know perfectly well that you're the kingdom's only defense. What now?"

True, although I would be impressed with a third option, "NPCs put up spirited defense. Occasionally they find the PCs when they are trying to get in a Long Rest and the PCs escape by the skin of their teeth. Eventually PCs start running out of places to resupply. They realize that this is a lot harder than they thought, and either change their tactics or find somewhere else to be."

I'm all for PCs to eventually become leaders and rulers. I'm a little less for them doing so by literally swinging their own individual swords (or, as mentioned, shooting their own bows). I'd much rather encourage player inventiveness in bringing forces to them, forming up an army, and conquering a nation through military might (or political campaigning, or whatnot).

[Sigreid]

True, although I would be impressed with a third option, "NPCs put up spirited defense. Occasionally they find the PCs when they are trying to get in a Long Rest and the PCs escape by the skin of their teeth. Eventually PCs start running out of places to resupply. They realize that this is a lot harder than they thought, and either change their tactics or find somewhere else to be."

I'm all for PCs to eventually become leaders and rulers. I'm a little less for them doing so by literally swinging their own individual swords (or, as mentioned, shooting their own bows). I'd much rather encourage player inventiveness in bringing forces to them, forming up an army, and conquering a nation through military might (or political campaigning, or whatnot).

I have to admit that I've been discussing from the perspective of a destroyer, not a conqueror. Where the objective is to break the kingdom and the players don't care what happens after that. A much easier task.

[MadBear]

In this case it's "actual play" that's irrelevant. The thread is explicitly about predicting what the PCs are *capable* of, what you call "white wall" discussion.

(Also you're overlooking some actual play possibilities at granularities above the encounter level.)

Fair enough.

[MaxWilson]

That could be funny, in a "be careful what you wish for" sort of way. The current king never really wanted to rule, and only ended up in charge because his older brother died in combat. He's happy to retire to the coast and write poetry. The kingdom is actually broke, the nobles are about to start rebelling, and neighboring monarchs are eyeing its territory hungrily.

Even if you don't go out of your way to give them troubles like that, I've always found that giving adventurers a steady-but-vulnerable income stream and a home base is a great way to generate emotional investment by players and therefore adventure hooks. "Hey guys, you know that copper mine in the southeast? Your grand vizier has an urgent report for you about it. The mine has stopped producing income and the miners refuse to return to work until some kind of a cannibalistic invisible ghost is gone. Maybe you should check it out."

[MaxWilson]

True, although I would be impressed with a third option, "NPCs put up spirited defense. Occasionally they find the PCs when they are trying to get in a Long Rest and the PCs escape by the skin of their teeth. Eventually PCs start running out of places to resupply. They realize that this is a lot harder than they thought, and either change their tactics or find somewhere else to be."

I'm all for PCs to eventually become leaders and rulers. I'm a little less for them doing so by literally swinging their own individual swords (or, as mentioned, shooting their own bows). I'd much rather encourage player inventiveness in bringing forces to them, forming up an army, and conquering a nation through military might (or political campaigning, or whatnot).

Well, as mentioned previously, I think inventive tactics will be required anyway even if high-level NPCs aren't in the equation, because the OP's hundred Knights are actually pretty tough to beat in straight-up combat. So the "interesting consequence" (winning) requires interesting methods to achieve, because boring straightforward methods (swinging their own individual swords/shooting bows) leads to the boring consequence (defeat) possibly followed by an interesting problem (prison break? exile?) and then maybe another shot at conquering the kingdom with better methods.

Also note that necromancers are pretty vulnerable to the kind of counterplay you conjecture--if a platoon of twenty Knights on horses show up at the inn where the PCs are hiding out but the PCs manage to sneak away/flee instead of dying, the skeletons probably won't be able to keep up without a bag of holding, and the necromancer will have to start all over. Not saying that's bad, just that it's true.

[Max_Killjoy]

Levels are a gamist conceit there to provide a sense of progression and development to the fantasy adventures shared by a group of real-life friends. NPCs don't share this need for a sense of progression, so there is no reason for them to have levels.

You can certainly bootstrap levels up as a way to enhance and differentiate different NPCs, tho.

That's certainly one way to look at it, if you take a "gamist" approach.

An alternate viewpoint is that levels are how certain kinds of competence of persons "in fiction" are represented "in mechanics". If a PC is a person in the fictional reality of the game's setting who is good at combat and thus gets levels in classes to make that happen in the mechanics, why is it that some other persons in the same fictional reality and same RPG system who are also good at combat wouldn't also get levels in classes?

I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that PCs are special people within the fiction layer simply because they're PCs -- rather than being "eligible to be" PCs because of the sort of people they are within the fiction layer.

[Hail Tempus]

Even if you don't go out of your way to give them troubles like that, I've always found that giving adventurers a steady-but-vulnerable income stream and a home base is a great way to generate emotional investment by players and therefore adventure hooks. "Hey guys, you know that copper mine in the southeast? Your grand vizier has an urgent report for you about it. The mine has stopped producing income and the miners refuse to return to work until some kind of a cannibalistic invisible ghost is gone. Maybe you should check it out." I'd just turn the game into a management sim, where the PC's spend all of their time in budget meetings, state dinners, and tedious inspections of infrastructure.

That's way more fun than killing monsters and rescuing beautiful princesses. :smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

That's certainly one way to look at it, if you take a "gamist" approach.

No position one way or the other, but I find a calling one side of a discussion over certain characters getting "levels" to be "gamist" a little funny.


An alternate viewpoint is that levels are how certain kinds of competence of persons "in fiction" are represented "in mechanics". If a PC is a person in the fictional reality of the game's setting who is good at combat and thus gets levels in classes to make that happen in the mechanics, why is it that some other persons in the same fictional reality and same RPG system who are also good at combat wouldn't also get levels in classes?

You certainly can do so. 3rd edition vaguely did so (although NPC levels/HD were not the same as PC levels, so the comparison was not spot on), and in most editions, it is stated that you can used leveled, PC-style characters to represent NPCs if you want to. The primary distinction isn't that you can't it is that you don't have to. NPCs have stats befitting what the DM needs them to be able to do, not what fits the progression and balance system designed for PCs to travel through, as they advance.



I'm deeply skeptical of the notion that PCs are special people within the fiction layer simply because they're PCs -- rather than being "eligible to be" PCs because of the sort of people they are within the fiction layer.

PCs do not have to be special people "within the fiction." PCs are not "eligible to be" PCs, they are "required to be" PCs. NPCs... well they can't actually be PCs, but they can be completely the same as PCs, they just get to be anything else as well (as the needs of the game require).

If you specifically choose to view PC build structure as an "in the fiction" perk, that's fine, but that's you actively choosing to layer this additional filter and meaning to PC-like-ship the does not exist there inherently.


I'd just turn the game into a management sim, where the PC's spend all of their time in budget meetings, state dinners, and tedious inspections of infrastructure.
That's way more fun than killing monsters and rescuing beautiful princesses. :smallsmile:

Well, that sounds like you deliberately making his 'find out the mystery of the mine ghosts' plot more boring for some reason. However, lots of people like playing 4X style computer games like Civilization. Why not have a TTRPG equivalent. The game of D&D pretty much was the outgrowth of fantasy-supplement Chainmail (a battlefield wargame) and Braunsteins (a Diplomacy analog with management-sim-like qualities), and someone deciding to shrink down to a more micro level with individual soldiers and wizards.

[Max_Killjoy]

No position one way or the other, but I find a calling one side of a discussion over certain characters getting "levels" to be "gamist" a little funny.


First, I'd have phrased it differently if the post I was replying to hadn't already referred to levels as a "gamist conceit".

Second, "gamist" is not an insult, under the old "GDS" model it's simply one way that gamers look at or engage with RPGs under ye olde GDS model.

[The Jack]

That could be funny, in a "be careful what you wish for" sort of way. The current king never really wanted to rule, and only ended up in charge because his older brother died in combat. He's happy to retire to the coast and write poetry. The kingdom is actually broke, the nobles are about to start rebelling, and neighboring monarchs are eyeing its territory hungrily.

This is always a **** move unless you forshadow it heavily, Most players in this circumstance will wisely cut and run.



Back to the topic at hand.

Everyone forgets about morale. Who cares if there's 6k+ peasants after you? If you can funnel them somewhat, they aren't a significant problem.
People don't want to die. If every turn your players are killing 2-3 peasants, they're going to be scary. Only in very gamey worlds will the peasants zerg rush their enemies in suicidal charges (inspiring leaders or player attrocities might get some very motivated, but most of them aren't going to be)
The players just need slightly advantageous terrain (which they will get, they're players after all) and they'll make a meat grinder nobody'll want to brave.

Also, peasants can't afford crossbows in any number, they're one of the most expensive weapons in the game. Slings and rocks. In a greek setting, slings are the ranged weapon of choice.



As for formations.
Hoplites are elite. Their stats would be like the knight or veteran; much health, multi-attack. They have a shield, worse armour and I think a martial D6/8 reach versatile weapon would fit the spear.
Given such powerful warriors, It would hardly be a nightmare to try put an abjurer in each formation.
Heavy infantry specialists will generally have the shield master/PM feats. In the case an abjurer fails, many could still survive.
Given that Hoplite gear is cheaper than knight stuff, some light magic items to protect from big AoEs could be in the budget.

[noob]

I'd just turn the game into a management sim, where the PC's spend all of their time in budget meetings, state dinners, and tedious inspections of infrastructure.

That's way more fun than killing monsters and rescuing beautiful princesses. :smallsmile:

But somehow when you will want to set up a new shop and have people transport stuff from the storage to the shop you will have to do an epic quest longer than killing 34234234546465675435345 demon lords.
Seriously I dislike all those people who decides that commonly done actions should not become as simple as declaring them.
After killing 50 demon lords in a campaign killing the next one should be a formality.
After setting 50 trade routes and other structures like that one more should be a formality too.
There is a reason why fairy tales usually does not repeat parts more than seven times.

[MaxWilson]

Given such powerful warriors, It would hardly be a nightmare to try put an abjurer in each formation.

The OP said that's not an option, and it wouldn't help much anyway, since Counterspell only works against spells and Abjurors can't use Arcane Ward to protect groups against breath weapons/auras/etc.

[The Jack]

Did the OP say that's not an option? he uses a lot of words with some numbers mixed in and it's not super clear.

If we're doing a greek style military, where areas are supposed to provide X amounts of soldiers, I believe it would be extremely logical for them to also ask for X amounts of 5th level wizards/anyone who can give us a counterspell/dispell magic. Greeks are famous for their education, no? I'm sure in a fantasy setting that can be arcane education.
Third level spellcasting would be so relevant to war that the states would agressively educate and recruit such mages. It would just become part of their system.

-Does the necro armour his undead
-How does the necro control his undead? Does he use the spell to keep them under control, does he use cages, does he set them lose? How smart is your necro?

The druid can bring plenty to the table but the barbarian's almost irrelevant. Would you believe me If i told you the conquest paladin was great for conquest?

Is there a face and do they recruit followers?

7th level is good enough if they're smart enough, but that goes for a lot of things. If they want to brute force it, there are probably people in that state that'd beat them at that game, but not many.

[MaxWilson]

Did the OP say that's not an option? he uses a lot of words with some numbers mixed in and it's not super clear.

Really? I thought this was clear:


...so let’s give Pylos 100 chariot warriors with the Knight stat block.
The weakest stat block for a Mage is a 9th level caster, so I’m going to assume arcane NPC support is rare as hen’s teeth.

How far would you expect these adventurers to get?


If we're doing a greek style military, where areas are supposed to provide X amounts of soldiers, I believe it would be extremely logical for them to also ask for X amounts of 5th level wizards/anyone who can give us a counterspell/dispell magic. Greeks are famous for their education, no? I'm sure in a fantasy setting that can be arcane education.

Assuming that education is all that is necessary, and not some kind of innate magical talent. It's very much a question for the setting creator: is this game Magic As Esoteric Mystery or Magic As Ubiquitous Technology? Ancient Greece or WWII? In the OP's question it's clear at any rate that no abjurors will be forthcoming in this setting.


Third level spellcasting would be so relevant to war that the states would agressively educate and recruit such mages. It would just become part of their system.

If it is possible, sure. But if that's the case, why aren't all hobgoblins Devastators? Why are there any hobgoblins at all that just shoot arrows? 200 Dimension Doors plus 200 readied Fireballs trumps 400 arrows any day.


-Does the necro armour his undead
-How does the necro control his undead? Does he use the spell to keep them under control, does he use cages, does he set them lose? How smart is your necro?

These questions are mostly irrelevant, since the undead are both outnumbered by and weaker than the army troops. "How smart is the necro" matters, but only in the same sense as "how smart is the party?" Will they pick their battles wisely and defeat the enemy in detail?


Is there a face and do they recruit followers?

Yeah, that's super important. The Barbarian could conceivably be relevant here as a leader of those followers, and if they can make single combat between champions a thing the Barbarian (who is also a druid) could be relevant there as well.

If the Necromancer ever picks up Seeming, possibilities go through the roof.

[The Jack]

I don't know where he's getting his 'weakest stat block is a 9th level caster' from. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, and I don't think DMs limit themselves to what's in the book, especially when it comes to enemies that function like PCs

Skeletons can be very relevant if you use them like an absolute madman, and in conjunction with other things. For starters, you can pack them together; put them all in a box or bury them quickly with earth meld. This way you can accumulate the undead without worrying about controlling them, you can then release them on your opponents whilst you get out of dodge. You can build fortifications to take great advantage of uncontrolled skeletons, and you can sneak boxes of skeletons around fairly easily for distractions and attacks in the flank. There's a lot you can do with the creative positioning of skeletons, and they work well with the druids conjurations and any followers you might have. You can use your skeletons as bait too since they're worth so little but your enemy are likely to form together to deal with skeletons in clumps and thus your AoEs become very effective.
Summon greater demon is a riot of fun and I'd highly recomend it.

The druid and the necro have lots of opportunities to play General.

[Steel Rune]

So, to go to your question they don't get very far.

6,500 people in the city. 150 villages of lets say an average of 450 people. So the kingdom has a population of 74,000. Assuming that they can arm and dispatch 10 percent of their population, that's an army of 7400 that they can send after the three pcs in your example party. Lets call these draftee's guards.

You said each town has a priest. So that's an additional 150 low level clerics.

In addition the kingdom has access to 100 Knights and 300 veterans to serve as the core of their army. Paradoxically, as this is the professional corp they should be significantly easier to mobilize and dispatch after the PCs. Unlike militia men they're not busy tending the fields.

Knights have 52 HP, Armor 18, and do 2d6+3 damage with multi attack. Veterans have surprisingly similar combat stats. So what really sets the knights apart is their leadership ability that gives EVERY ally an within thirty feet an additional d4 to an attack or save. For level 7 PCs these guys are no pushover.

Assuming the PCs are just trying to brute force their way to the problem they aren't going to get very far. They might start out absolutely crushing the local Constabulary. After one or two massacres the government will send a strike force to deal with the bandits. That force might just be one knight leading a few Vets and a force of local militia. Not an unreasonable encounter for Mid-Level PCs.

After they deal with the initial response, and maybe destroyed another isolated farming town the government will know that they're a serious threat that won't go away on its own. It would be like killing a cop. One knight and his retainers isn't that big a deal for a strong party. But a detachment of knights each with a retinue of Vets and a dozen or so militia men would just wear them down with multiple encounters in a single day. The PCs are very formidable, but once they run out of Rages, Spells, and Undead minions they're screwed.

[noob]

So, to go to your question they don't get very far.

6,500 people in the city. 150 villages of lets say an average of 450 people. So the kingdom has a population of 74,000. Assuming that they can arm and dispatch 10 percent of their population, that's an army of 7400 that they can send after the three pcs in your example party. Lets call these draftee's guards.

You said each town has a priest. So that's an additional 150 low level clerics.

In addition the kingdom has access to 100 Knights and 300 veterans to serve as the core of their army. Paradoxically, as this is the professional corp they should be significantly easier to mobilize and dispatch after the PCs. Unlike militia men they're not busy tending the fields.

Knights have 52 HP, Armor 18, and do 2d6+3 damage with multi attack. Veterans have surprisingly similar combat stats. So what really sets the knights apart is their leadership ability that gives EVERY ally an within thirty feet an additional d4 to an attack or save. For level 7 PCs these guys are no pushover.

Assuming the PCs are just trying to brute force their way to the problem they aren't going to get very far. They might start out absolutely crushing the local Constabulary. After one or two massacres the government will send a strike force to deal with the bandits. That force might just be one knight leading a few Vets and a force of local militia. Not an unreasonable encounter for Mid-Level PCs.

After they deal with the initial response, and maybe destroyed another isolated farming town the government will know that they're a serious threat that won't go away on its own. It would be like killing a cop. One knight and his retainers isn't that big a deal for a strong party. But a detachment of knights each with a retinue of Vets and a dozen or so militia men would just wear them down with multiple encounters in a single day. The PCs are very formidable, but once they run out of Rages, Spells, and Undead minions they're screwed.
Unless the adventurers have some way of getting to varied very hidden and trapped lairs and rest in those.
Like going in the first few dungeons they cleared and fixing the traps.
As many people figured out armies are good at besieging dungeons but not at lightning fast skirmishes into dungeons.

[Fat Rooster]

What's stopping the king or local lord from hiring a rival band of heroes to stop them?

'Hey Achillies, I have a problem with domestic terrorism.' Kind of thing.

Nothing, but our adventuring group was ready with a plan. The adventuring group hired to stop us was... us. :smallamused: Faked our own deaths, and got paid by both sides.

[Willie the Duck]

Unless the adventurers have some way of getting to varied very hidden and trapped lairs and rest in those.
Like going in the first few dungeons they cleared and fixing the traps.
As many people figured out armies are good at besieging dungeons but not at lightning fast skirmishes into dungeons.

We can come up with all sorts of explanations, 'what-ifs,' and intricate scenarios. Hopefully, if the PCs are trying to do this, they too will get this creative, and if they are sufficiently creative, well then the DM should reward them.

At some point, I think what we really have to ask is, realistically, should they succeed? By game mechanics, it is a too-many-variables situation. Do we think it reasonable at some point that the kingdom pull in NPC equivalents? Divination magic? When is does the DM throwing a group of opposition specifically designed to counter the PC's specific mechanics stop being 'DM execution' and start being 'completely reasonable reaction by the world to the invading entity which is the PCs?' In real life, the times that a small little group has seized control of a whole nation or region, it has traditionally been more of a coup (attacking a vulnerable command structure, and making most of the violence-capable individuals in the region cede authority without actually fighting) than by them actually killing a huge percentage of the violence-capable individuals. In genre fiction, the closest example I can think of is The Princess Bride (movie) where the PCs conquer the entire capital city garrison... because that garrison is apparently 40-50 people, most of whom can be scared off by a fireproof giant (and again, that's more of a coup than defeating an entire kingdom).

[Steel Rune]

We can come up with all sorts of explanations, 'what-ifs,' and intricate scenarios. Hopefully, if the PCs are trying to do this, they too will get this creative, and if they are sufficiently creative, well then the DM should reward them.

At some point, I think what we really have to ask is, realistically, should they succeed? By game mechanics, it is a too-many-variables situation. Do we think it reasonable at some point that the kingdom pull in NPC equivalents? Divination magic? When is does the DM throwing a group of opposition specifically designed to counter the PC's specific mechanics stop being 'DM execution' and start being 'completely reasonable reaction by the world to the invading entity which is the PCs?' In real life, the times that a small little group has seized control of a whole nation or region, it has traditionally been more of a coup (attacking a vulnerable command structure, and making most of the violence-capable individuals in the region cede authority without actually fighting) than by them actually killing a huge percentage of the violence-capable individuals. In genre fiction, the closest example I can think of is The Princess Bride (movie) where the PCs conquer the entire capital city garrison... because that garrison is apparently 40-50 people, most of whom can be scared off by a fireproof giant (and again, that's more of a coup than defeating an entire kingdom).

You also touch on part of the reason no one would really do this. Unless your goal is destruction for destruction sake, your not going to achieve anything meaningful just traipsing around the countryside. The villages likely don't have enough liquid wealth to be worth the trouble of looting. And neither will the opponents kingdoms soldierly. If they want to actually keep the land that they're conquering they'd need an army. In which case the question goes more into their Roleplaying and leadership skills and has less to do with Mechanics.

[Sigreid]

You also touch on part of the reason no one would really do this. Unless your goal is destruction for destruction sake, your not going to achieve anything meaningful just traipsing around the countryside. The villages likely don't have enough liquid wealth to be worth the trouble of looting. And neither will the opponents kingdoms soldierly. If they want to actually keep the land that they're conquering they'd need an army. In which case the question goes more into their Roleplaying and leadership skills and has less to do with Mechanics.

It depends really. Perhaps the entire motivation is that they feel the king has wronged or cheated them and their goal is not to enrich themselves but to force the king and his heirs to abdicated and flee an angry populous. In this case the message left at every crushed village is "No peace while the line of xxx rules!".

[Steel Rune]

It depends really. Perhaps the entire motivation is that they feel the king has wronged or cheated them and their goal is not to enrich themselves but to force the king and his heirs to abdicated and flee an angry populous. In this case the message left at every crushed village is "No peace while the line of xxx rules!".


That may be me, but I fell like that would backfire spectacularly. People would be more likely to rally around the flag then capitulate unless the king was really, really unpopular to begin with.

[sithlordnergal]

You will last for a while, but to be honest I find little point in asking stuff like this. You can survive well enough against guards, and most things. But I've yet to find any build or any party that can perfectly survive anything. To put things into perspective:

I suspect your party would survive an encounter with a group of guards, a wizard, and maybe one or two strong frontliners.

I also suspect your party would fall to 3 10th level NPC Moon Druids if they cast a good damage over time spell, then sunk underground.