PDA

View Full Version : Siege Warfare



Berand
2007-11-06, 07:39 PM
Can anyone suggest a good book or other source for technical information on putting a D&D group through a battle at a castle? I'm talking battering rams, catapults, ballistas, boiling oil, archers shooting from battlements, laddermen, siege towers, etc.

I've been searching around, but nothing has come up.

Thanks!

Fax Celestis
2007-11-06, 07:40 PM
Try the Heroes of Battle supplement.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-06, 07:50 PM
Try the Heroes of Battle supplement.

that and possibly arms and equipment guide for some more siege machines and such.

Kaelik
2007-11-06, 08:22 PM
The biggest problem with Siege Warfare is that it shouldn't exist according to the rules. Wizards make it somewhat unlikely. Teleportation Circle automatically negates all starvation problems. Wizards can stand on the Battlements and Fireball your Siege Engines for fun. Walls are easily passable/destroyed. And superpowerful individuals (not to mention Cloudkill) make all the level 1 Warriors obsolete and heavily casualtied.

rankrath
2007-11-06, 08:28 PM
yea, except for the fact that if one side has it, the other side can counter it. Cast cloudkill? an enemy wizard sticks it (or you) in a force cage. teleport? dispell it, or attack while the wizard is away gathering food. Guy behind the wall fireballing your engines? counter spell them or fireball him in return.

AslanCross
2007-11-06, 08:31 PM
Heroes of Battle has actual stats on Siege machines. Heavy Trebuchets are complete beasts at 7000 HP.
Complete Warrior also gives some hints on how warfare works. A no/low magic world would probably have traditional medieval warfare, while with high magic and fantasy creatures it would be a lot closer to what we have now.

BRC
2007-11-06, 08:38 PM
Heres a way I imagine large-scale fantasy warfare working.
First of all, powerful casters are very rare, so an army isn't likely to have a wizard capable of limited-wishing your army out of existance or anything like that. Positions (like seige engines) that would be very vulnerable to casters and protected by casters who do some mumbo-jumbo to protect said seige engines from the enemy. Most casters would be level 1 or 2, which means they won't be capable of doing much more than lending firepower to squads. So powerful casters duke it out in endless rounds of spell/counterspell while weaker casters fight alongside the grunts throwing spells around.

Prometheus
2007-11-06, 08:52 PM
I think the principle of a siege is somewhat rendered meaningless when 1/2 level and 1st level adepts, clerics, druids, can cast create water, purify food and drink, and mending as cantrips.

Alleine
2007-11-06, 11:12 PM
Well, siege weapons would still be useful. After all, that mountain-fortress won't be reduced to rubble all by its lonesome self.

Jack Zander
2007-11-06, 11:24 PM
Purify Food and Drink still requires you to have the food in the first place. Like was stated before, depending on how your world works, not every army has a 20th level wizard leading the charge. Most characters never get past 3rd level and the most elite of all people (aside from truly epic heroes) only reach level 5. So your army might have one or two 5th level wizard's casting fireball twice that day. Real effective against an entire army there. Army's really don't have the truly epic heroes fighting for them because the truly epic heroes are out doing truly epic stuff, not fighting in some trivial political war.

Agraham
2007-11-08, 12:33 PM
Level 5?

All wars last less than 2 and 1/2 months, because thats how long it takes for a level 1 ZERO to become a level 20 HERO, with constant fighting in a level appropriate enviroment; and an Army is a level appropriate challenge for a Level 20 Hero.

All that doesn't even matter, because the next day after a war is declared, divinations are prepared and cast, and all the heroes from one side teleport to all the heroes of the other side and nail all the heroes from the other side to a tree, then go on to headhunt the leadership of whichever side they want to.

Alex12
2007-11-08, 12:48 PM
Actually, there's a few abilities (read: spells and powers) that would be critically helpful with the problem of teleportation. Divert Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/divertTeleport.htm) is the easiest to get at level 13 for Psions, followed by Dimensional Lock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensionalLock.htm) at level 15 for Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers. To solve the problem of how they can have those effects without having a bunch of high-level casters around, they all died.:smallsmile:
To clarify, the devices were created a long time ago by really powerful casters, and would automatically trigger and project the relevant effect around the location in the event of war.

Darkxarth
2007-11-08, 12:59 PM
Level 5?

All wars last less than 2 and 1/2 months, because thats how long it takes for a level 1 ZERO to become a level 20 HERO, with constant fighting in a level appropriate enviroment; and an Army is a level appropriate challenge for a Level 20 Hero.

All that doesn't even matter, because the next day after a war is declared, divinations are prepared and cast, and all the heroes from one side teleport to all the heroes of the other side and nail all the heroes from the other side to a tree, then go on to headhunt the leadership of whichever side they want to.

A decent DM fixes this problem by saying, "NPCs gain XP at 1/2 the rate of PCs." Or by simply saying "That's stupid, it isn't the way this is going to work."

As far as divinations and heroes, heroes ARE the PCs. NPC heroes are generally few and far between, at least in most games I've played in. So, if the PCs are high enough level to be teleporting from place to place and taking out leaders with ease, why are they participating in such trivial wars? Why aren't they off fighting the Demons, Devils, and other fiends that (by a similar line of logic) should've already taken over the Material Plane.

D&D doesn't work like the real world, it works however the DM/players say it works.

Riffington
2007-11-08, 01:10 PM
Well, siege weapons would still be useful. After all, that mountain-fortress won't be reduced to rubble all by its lonesome self.

But the mountain fortress isn't useful in the first place, if armies can magically obtain food/water. The point of the fortress was that an invading army would need a constant supply of food, and the forces in the fortress can destroy those supply lines. But if food is easily obtained, then an invading army can just march right past that mountain fortress, telling its defenders that if they would really like to fight they'll have to come out from behind those walls.

kemmotar
2007-11-08, 01:27 PM
Well...firaballing the siege engines can be solved with one spell...Area dispell magic centered on the siege machine...

As for high level NPCs...it depends on the world...for example in FR you have Drizz't elven queens even some monsters can be viewed as NPCS...for example the wild hunt from MM5 is pretty much an elf possessed with hunting anything worth hunting and is 22CR...

Not to mention kings and queens of the elves who are all exceptional magicians, the archamges and other NPC PrC givers who have have all the requirements for the class+ all the levels of the class in order for them to teach you the PrC etc

elliott20
2007-11-08, 01:37 PM
*waits for someone to jump in and start writing Gary Stu magical armies, completely painting this thread's conversation into a small narrow corner, with extremely specific resource designation and dubious usage of statistics*

Matthew
2007-11-08, 02:46 PM
Yeah, I agree with Elliott20, let's try and answer the question helpfully and not let this devolve into another 'D&D doesn't work like that' Thread.

Berand, you may want to provide additional information as to what the sides are like. What Levels, Races and Classes are the Player Characters? What kind of resources and allies are they expected to possess? How many opponents are there going to be and what are their Levels, Classes and Races?

Kaelik
2007-11-08, 02:50 PM
Well...firaballing the siege engines can be solved with one spell...Area dispell magic centered on the siege machine...

How does that help against an Instantaneous duration spell? Oh, it doesn't, unless you counterspell, which requires knowing a spell is cast from 500ft away.

TempusCCK
2007-11-08, 03:13 PM
Meh, one can assume that if an army is even considering using Seige Weaponry they don't have the ability to defeat their opponents in more efficient manner.

I.E: We are not dealing with an army of super-powered wizards.

Again, it would probably be safe to assume that if an army is marching against a position with siege engines you should be relatively sure that a seige engine is going to work. They are expensive, intricate, and therefore very hard to work/get ahold of in a setting where you don't have a super powerful caster doing whatever a super powerful caster might do.

Therefore, we can assume that there is probably also no uber-powerful magic users on the defenses side either.

Of course, this could all be wrong, and you all could be making very valid points if we're talking about a campaign full of level 20 Wizards.

But the issue I see here is that everyone is making the assumption that this man is playing the same way you always do, which is, in all probability, not the case.

Matthew
2007-11-08, 03:58 PM
Maybe they have Magical Siege Machines?

Actually, that reminds me. I'll recommend Cry Havoc ( http://www.ptolus.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_Havoc) as an alternative to Heroes of Battle or the Miniatures Handbook.

PaladinBoy
2007-11-08, 09:19 PM
Quick point. Any weapon used in warfare will soon be either reverse-engineered by the enemy, or have a counter developed by the enemy. Actually, probably both. Enemy wizards posing a threat to your siege engines with fireball? Why doesn't that nation enchant their siege weapons with SR, or keep spellcasters around to instantaneously repair the damage? Also, siege weapons have a much greater range than spells, unless the enemy has very powerful wizards, or is spending reasonable amounts of money on metamagic rods. In the first case, the powerful guys have much better things to do than destroy siege engines, like fighting their counterparts in the enemy army. In the second case, what has the other army been doing with their money? They could be buying the same things, but then, if they're protecting/repairing their siege weapons....... the enemy's going to waste some spells.

As for the OP's question, I'd say you could use Heroes of Battle. It has siege engine stats, rules for volley fire, sappers, etc.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-08, 09:33 PM
Note: Wars pretty much don't exist in FR, 'cause innkeepers are epic, so level 20 wizzes are a moot point. Everywhere else, wars might break out.


I'd go with Aslan, here. If you can get anything with the HP of a heavy trebuchet, siege weapons can be useful. Hmm, idea for a supermech....

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-08, 09:53 PM
Creating food is not going to negate logistics unless either the magic level is high enough that an army is a pointless encumbrance, or you're using such questionable items as the Field Provisions Box (Miniatures Handbook) and have a great deal of money to throw around. If you somehow can get teleport circle but still actually want to use armies, it works much better for the defender than the attacker and pretty much forces you to reduce and storm fortresses since they never run out of food or personnel.

Blowing the fittings off the gates with shatter and infiltrating with sleep, invisibility, silence, and spider climb seem like they'd be useful tricks to add to a relatively normal siege.

GoC
2007-11-08, 10:05 PM
*waits for someone to jump in and start writing Gary Stu magical armies, completely painting this thread's conversation into a small narrow corner, with extremely specific resource designation and dubious usage of statistics*

The Book of Armies thread had some very good rules like limiting the creatures/NPCs to 9th level and making them very expensive.
Of course I used those rules and got a gnome artificer in a flying tank (it used a 182,000gp item of reverse gravity) that would destroy all of them combined...

PaladinBoy: SR is expensive and unreliable and you'd need 4 Repair spells for each Fireball to keep up.

PaladinBoy
2007-11-08, 10:19 PM
PaladinBoy: SR is expensive and unreliable and you'd need 4 Repair spells for each Fireball to keep up.

I just posted whatever came to mind; those two seemed like the most obvious. The point was that effective defenses will quickly be developed, even if those aren't it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-08, 10:24 PM
Fire resistance would perhaps serve better. But you don't really need either if your siege engines can have thousands of hit points. They can't afford all that many fireballs anyway. 2000 caster levels worth is going to take longer to get cast than the wall will stand up.

Stormcrow
2007-11-08, 10:30 PM
Note: Wars pretty much don't exist in FR, 'cause innkeepers are epic, so level 20 wizzes are a moot point. Everywhere else, wars might break out.

Thats a relatively close minded and sterotyped look on the Forgotten Realms. Not only was the place founded on wars but there has been at least two fought in the last fifty years. Canon.

They even have a god of Millitary tactics and a God of Battles. :P

GoC
2007-11-08, 10:35 PM
I just posted whatever came to mind; those two seemed like the most obvious. The point was that effective defenses will quickly be developed, even if those aren't it.

How much does a catapult cost?
An infite use item of Sound Lance costs 56,000gp and does 7d6 damage (bypassing hardness).
If the catupult costs less per point of damage then it might make sense to use it even if they get destroyed.
Though once you can get items of Disintegrate they become meaningless.

EDIT:Oops. An energy substituted Fireball has longer range and a massive AoE. So yeah, catapults suck.

AslanCross
2007-11-09, 12:50 AM
A Heavy catapult costs 800 GP and does 6d6 damage with 200 ft. range increments.

The weakest siege engine apart from the light ballista has 400 HP. A heavy mangonel has 1350 HP and only costs 800 GP; the Heavy Trebuchet is a colossal object that has over 7000 HP and deals more damage than a fireball. I still don't think Wizards would be able to deal enough damage to slow down something like that unless they were epic and dropped apocalypse from the sky or something.

Of course, they could just kill the crew. :P Then again I still don't think a single wizard could neutralize an army equipped with two or more heavy trebuchets, not to mention its own casters.

osyluth
2007-11-09, 12:58 AM
Magic takes the place of most siege technology in a typical D&D setting, but oddly enough there are still some rules for siege equipment in the Dungeon Masters Guide

Jack Zander
2007-11-09, 01:09 AM
Depending on your campaign, siege weapons may or may not be used.

If your campaign has 20th level wizards in every town, then there probably isn't any siege weapons at all. Rather, magic replaces technology.

If your campaign has high level characters, but they are few and far between and have much better things to do than fight in trivial political wars, every army will have some siege weapons.

If your campaign has a mix of economic and magical kingdoms, each army will be unique and while some rely completely on magic, more "primitive" kingdoms depend on their siege weapons, but most will have a mixture of magic and siege weapons.

Dervag
2007-11-09, 01:49 AM
The biggest problem with Siege Warfare is that it shouldn't exist according to the rules. Wizards make it somewhat unlikely. Teleportation Circle automatically negates all starvation problems. Wizards can stand on the Battlements and Fireball your Siege Engines for fun. Walls are easily passable/destroyed. And superpowerful individuals (not to mention Cloudkill) make all the level 1 Warriors obsolete and heavily casualtied.Teleportation Circles probably shouldn't be common in a normal D&D campaign. While the rules allow, in theory, for a Teleportation Circle in every fortress, doing so isn't strictly part of the rules and makess a lot of assumptions about the behavior of the few wizards powerful enough to cast spells of that level.

I suspect that selection pressures would make such wizards very rare. Adventuring is dangerous, and random NPC wizards can't count on a DM to make sure that all the monsters attacking them are just powerful enough to challenge their skills without being overwhelming. So if an NPC wizard goes on an adventure, there's a good chance he'll end up in a giant's stewpot at low level or something. Adventuring is the only really good way to level up in D&D, so it's likely that most D&D wizards either don't go up many levels, spend a long time reaching those levels, or go up to a comfortable mid-level at which they can support themselves and fund their own projects easily, and then just give up on adventuring and go live in a tower.

Either way, you don't get a lot of people capable of casting 9th level spells.

Fireball and such are more of a problem. But on the one hand, some siege weapons can theoretically fire far enough that even long-range spells may not reach, especially if you're just beating up the walls. And on the other, wizards who have line of sight expose themselves to 'counterbattery' fire by enemy wizards.

If you want siege combat and don't want wizards running everything, perhaps your best option is to improve the list of static defensive spells. As it stands, the rules emphasize PCs and the groups who fight them. Such groups have far more use for offensive spells than defensive spells, so most of the listed spells are designed to bring harm to the enemy. But there's no a priori reason why there shouldn't be lots of spells capable of blocking fireballs and such; if I were a D&D wizard I would be greatly concerned with developing such things because it would make my services very valuable. And if there are lots of such magical wards around on a prepared battlefield, it's risky and wasteful for wizards to throw combat spells around on such a battlefield.


I think the principle of a siege is somewhat rendered meaningless when 1/2 level and 1st level adepts, clerics, druids, can cast create water, purify food and drink, and mending as cantrips.If the goal is to run the enemy out of supplies, yes, that won't work. But if the goal is to bottle the enemy up in a fortress, or to force them to surrender the fortress, then a siege might well be entirely appropriate. The difference is that it won't be possible to outwait the defenders. You'll have to storm the fortress, or smash it with siege engines.


Level 5?

All wars last less than 2 and 1/2 months, because thats how long it takes for a level 1 ZERO to become a level 20 HERO, with constant fighting in a level appropriate enviroment; and an Army is a level appropriate challenge for a Level 20 Hero.Doesn't work that way.

First of all, there has never been a real war in which soldiers fight all the time. On most days, there is little or no fighting and little or no risk of being killed, and therefore little or no XP for the soldiers (and what there is gets split up among the whole army). Second of all, even when you win a battle most of the enemies get away in real life, so you're not going to get lots of cases where your guys can butcher weaker enemies the way PCs do to level up.

Third of all, you have no guarantee of a level-appropriate encounter. Unlike adventuring parties with sympathetic DMs who tailor everything to make sure that the PCs almost always win and are almost always fighting weaker opponents, real armies have to fight other real armies, and are therefore about as likely to win as to lose. Individual soldiers are roughly as likely to kill as to be killed. Therefore, the odds of individual soldiers (or other classes) surviving enough close combat against rival armies to gain many levels (and therefore gain effective immunity against the average enemy soldier) are really slim.


All that doesn't even matter, because the next day after a war is declared, divinations are prepared and cast, and all the heroes from one side teleport to all the heroes of the other side and nail all the heroes from the other side to a tree, then go on to headhunt the leadership of whichever side they want to.And that's where warding spells come in. They aren't part of the standard rules because they aren't very important to adventurers, but common sense and the rules for inventing spells suggest that they should be.


But the mountain fortress isn't useful in the first place, if armies can magically obtain food/water. The point of the fortress was that an invading army would need a constant supply of food, and the forces in the fortress can destroy those supply lines. But if food is easily obtained, then an invading army can just march right past that mountain fortress, telling its defenders that if they would really like to fight they'll have to come out from behind those walls.Alternatively, the purpose of the fortress is to give people a safe place to retreat to in an emergency (if food and water are easily available, having enemy raiders burn your crops isn't as big a concern). Or to act as an unassailable base from which enemy forces can strike your flanks and rear if you try to bypass them. Or to act as an anvil that an enemy army can pound your army against.


Note: Wars pretty much don't exist in FR, 'cause innkeepers are epic, so level 20 wizzes are a moot point. Everywhere else, wars might break out.I keep hearing that; can someone cite a source? It seems really hard to believe just because it's so weird.

AslanCross
2007-11-09, 01:52 AM
I keep hearing that; can someone cite a source? It seems really hard to believe just because it's so weird.

It's just a tongue-in-cheek remark at how many epic-level NPCs there are in Faerun. Most people feel the sheer amount of them is unnecessary.

tyckspoon
2007-11-09, 02:00 AM
It's just a tongue-in-cheek remark at how many epic-level NPCs there are in Faerun. Most people feel the sheer amount of them is unnecessary.

This plus the cliche of adventurers retiring to open a tavern. You combine the two, and you get epic bartenders.

GoC
2007-11-09, 09:26 AM
A Heavy catapult costs 800 GP and does 6d6 damage with 200 ft. range increments.

The weakest siege engine apart from the light ballista has 400 HP. A heavy mangonel has 1350 HP and only costs 800 GP; the Heavy Trebuchet is a colossal object that has over 7000 HP and deals more damage than a fireball. I still don't think Wizards would be able to deal enough damage to slow down something like that unless they were epic and dropped apocalypse from the sky or something.

Of course, they could just kill the crew. :P Then again I still don't think a single wizard could neutralize an army equipped with two or more heavy trebuchets, not to mention its own casters.

Ok, so it's much more cost efficient to buy huge siege engines.
The vulnerable part of a siege engine is the people who manage it.
There are too many of them to protect with Protection spells.
So one wizard is trying to destroy the siege engine's engineers while the enemy wizards try to get close enough to hit him with something that bypasses his Protection from Fire and his Fire Shield...

btw: Are you sure about 7000? A 10ft by 10ft by 1ft section of wood only has 120 hitpoints and costs 2400gp.

Berand
2007-11-09, 09:48 AM
Sometimes people try to apply so much logic to a game, that they ruin it. :P

There are siege engines and armies and castle battles in my game because they're potentially awesome. The nice thing about a world with magic in it, is you can answer questions with "Because it's magic." For example "Why don't the defending wizards just blow up all the siege weapons?" Answer: "Because the other side has magic man."

Don't sacrifice fun for technical details. Next someone will suggest a rolling system to govern urination and deification. "Roll a fortitude check, DC 9, or get diarrhea." :)

Anyway, the books people have mentioned gave me exactly what I was looking for, so thanks for that. I'm a big fan of house rules anyway, but it's good to have starting points. I'm a little surprised there isn't a book written strictly around attacking and defending castles though, given how integral a part it is of any medieval or fantasy setting.

Matthew
2007-11-09, 10:03 AM
Well, for 2e there is:

The Castle Guide (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dmgr2.htm) and Castle Sites (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/cast.htm).

For 3e, there's always:

The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/3e/strong.htm).

As they go, they're okay. In combination with Heroes of Battle, The Miniatures Handbook and Cry Havok, you might manage a workable system. Personally, I love gritty siege warfare type stuff.

Now that I think about it, I think Kenzer & Company might have put out something similar. [Edit] Ah yes:

Lord Flataroy's Guide to Fortifications (http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_26_39&products_id=147) and here's the preiview: Lord Flataroy's Guide to Fortifications (Preview) (http://www.kenzerco.com/Orpg/hackmaster/downloads/product_pdfs/HM_castles_preview.pdf)

elliott20
2007-11-09, 10:12 AM
well, now that you have your resources, I'm going to go ahead and say that just because magic is around doesn't mean you should ignore the effects of it on warfare.

what people have said is true. The more powerful and prevalent magic becomes, the less useful siege engines become. Or rather, siege engines would simply be replaced or remade with different kinds of powers on them.

This, however, is where you need to give us more information. i.e. what is the level of power of this campaign? what kind of wizardly resources are available to both sides?

Remember, to make an item of infinite level 1 spell castings that anybody can use it costs 1800 gp. (Which means 72 xp). True, it's not a particularly powerful spell. but once this item is created, it can dramatically change the way that some of the assumptions of warfare works. Take, for example, cure light wounds. An item of cure light wounds can dramatically lower the mortality rate of the wounded. An alarm spell can easily make a key location nearly impossible to break into without other magical aid. A hold portal spell can make rushing a gate that much more difficult.

Granted, these things are all just level 1 spells and with other mages around it won't be sufficient. But against the more mundane? it is more than enough to change how people operate.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-09, 10:32 AM
Or a good example of high level fighting: An item of infinite Maw of Chaos, or infinite Sphere of Ultimate Destruction. I shudder of the XP cost, or to think what would happen if someone create an item of infinite uses of those, but it could be the equivalent of a small tac-nuke.

Segial
2007-11-09, 10:34 AM
In my campaign, there will be a castle battle soon, and the attackforce will have a small cabal of mid-level wizards as support, while the defenders dont. What spells would be best to ensure a quick victory? Blaster-spells, or better support spells on the own troops or summoning spells to overrun the fortifactions by force?

GoC
2007-11-09, 10:36 AM
Or a good example of high level fighting: An item of infinite Maw of Chaos, or infinite Sphere of Ultimate Destruction. I shudder of the XP cost, or to think what would happen if someone create an item of infinite uses of those, but it could be the equivalent of a small tac-nuke.

A multiple use tac-nuke.

EDIT: Infinite use Widened Blistering Radience is deadly against low level armies and only costs 90,000gp.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-09, 10:37 AM
It would depend on the forces. A Web or Solid Fog item could be VERY useful against a lot of meleers, and an item of chain lightning can be devatating. And if you wanted to screw the opposing forces, you could always use Mass Charm.

Berand
2007-11-09, 10:41 AM
I'm certainly not denying the affects of magic on siege warfare. But I don't think magic necessarily favors offense over defense. As long as both sides are approximately equal, magic can easily become a non-factor.

Sure, an item of perpetual cure light wounds can greatly reduce mortality. But if both sides have one, it basically just slows down the war of attrition. So, unless drawing things out is your goal, just don't allow the armies to have those. And if you do chose to allow them, it leaves the balance unchanged.

The great thing about these games is the flexibility a DM has in a sandbox world. You can easily emphasize or de-emphasize magic to whatever degree you like in a battle. You could just say "Both sides have equal magic power, so magic is a non factor." Then have it fought out by more mundane means. Or you could leave magic as a variable and let each side have at it.

GoC
2007-11-09, 10:41 AM
It would depend on the forces. A Web or Solid Fog item could be VERY useful against a lot of meleers, and an item of chain lightning can be devatating. And if you wanted to screw the opposing forces, you could always use Mass Charm.

Or Confusion.

elliott20
2007-11-09, 10:42 AM
Again, people, we have to remember that all of this depends upon the scale and scope of the campaign itself. 90,000 gp might not seem like much, but when we're just talking about a small keep of say, 300 people, 90,000 could mean a hell of a lot of money.

At the same time, we would need to know the exact number of casters, and their levels to be certain. the more information you can set for yourself, the better you can prepare for this sort of thing. Otherwise, you will have the potential batman wizard problem where every single spell in the book is fair game.

But yeah, without knowing all the parameters that we're working in, this is all just vacuum talk.

Kaelik
2007-11-09, 10:46 AM
I'm certainly not denying the affects of magic on siege warfare. But I don't think magic necessarily favors offense over defense. As long as both sides are approximately equal, magic can easily become a non-factor.

Sure, an item of perpetual cure light wounds can greatly reduce mortality. But if both sides have one, it basically just slows down the war of attrition. So, unless drawing things out is your goal, just don't allow the armies to have those. And if you do chose to allow them, it leaves the balance unchanged.

The great thing about these games is the flexibility a DM has in a sandbox world. You can easily emphasize or de-emphasize magic to whatever degree you like in a battle. You could just say "Both sides have equal magic power, so magic is a non factor." Then have it fought out by more mundane means. Or you could leave magic as a variable and let each side have at it.

Firstly, when it comes to protecting anything bigger then a single individual, D&D magic heavily favors offense over defense.

Secondly, if both sides have magic, that doesn't mean that magic cancels itself out and they use normal tactics. That's what we've been saying. Magic necessitates new tactics. If both sides have mid-level Wizards, then neither side uses siege weapons, because magic completely replaces that role. A couple mid-level Druids/Wizards, can deal with a wall much better then any siege.

elliott20
2007-11-09, 10:48 AM
I'm certainly not denying the affects of magic on siege warfare. But I don't think magic necessarily favors offense over defense. As long as both sides are approximately equal, magic can easily become a non-factor.

Sure, an item of perpetual cure light wounds can greatly reduce mortality. But if both sides have one, it basically just slows down the war of attrition. So, unless drawing things out is your goal, just don't allow the armies to have those. And if you do chose to allow them, it leaves the balance unchanged.

The great thing about these games is the flexibility a DM has in a sandbox world. You can easily emphasize or de-emphasize magic to whatever degree you like in a battle. You could just say "Both sides have equal magic power, so magic is a non factor." Then have it fought out by more mundane means. Or you could leave magic as a variable and let each side have at it.
Oh I agree. In essence, magic, when available to both sides, will balance each other out. However, this doesn't mean that the way warfare is conducted won't be changed.

for example, siege weapons before might just launch flaming boulders and such. But with magic, you could also be lobbing magical projectiles. i.e. a boulder with an entanglement spell on it. Or a boulder of poisonous clouds, etc.

On that same token, the defensive side will see the same thing happen.

In essence, the more powerful and more common you let magic become, the more likely that even the most mundane soldier will be using magic in some capacity, be it a simple quiver of temporarily enchanted arrows, or soldiers with their own magic missile wands.

This doesn't mean that mundane means such as a bunch of soldiers rushing each other and hacking at each other with melee weapons will necessarily go away, but chances are it would be a last resort.

elliott20
2007-11-09, 10:51 AM
Firstly, when it comes to protecting anything bigger then a single individual, D&D magic heavily favors offense over defense.

Secondly, if both sides have magic, that doesn't mean that magic cancels itself out and they use normal tactics. That's what we've been saying. Magic necessitates new tactics. If both sides have mid-level Wizards, then neither side uses siege weapons, because magic completely replaces that role. A couple mid-level Druids/Wizards, can deal with a wall much better then any siege.
I disagree with that assertion in a fashion. Siege engines have the benefit that those without magic can still use them, albeit with far less flexibility. The presence of magic, however, does mean that the nature of that siege engine itself might change. After all, risk having your wizard getting exposed out there throwing fireballs when the wizard can just make an item with several fireball charges and give it to a bunch of soldiers who are going to be the artillery team?

AslanCross
2007-11-09, 11:29 AM
btw: Are you sure about 7000? A 10ft by 10ft by 1ft section of wood only has 120 hitpoints and costs 2400gp.

Yes, that's exactly what it says in Heroes of Battle. Not sure why it costs so much less and why it's so incredibly tough. It threw me off as well when I saw it, and I was wondering how players would be able to damage it enough in time to prevent it from seriously messing up allied fortifications.

Berand
2007-11-09, 11:49 AM
9 times out of 10, when wooden siege equipment is in use, the opponents are going to try to set it on fire. I couldn't find a list of rules for burning them, but in my game I've just been having it take a bit of effort, then be unusable in a few rounds after it catches on fire.

Another thought I had was to let the attackers roll a use disable device check with a modifier if they're familiar with siege equipment. On a successful one they can disable it (but not destroy it), usually in 1d4 rounds.

elliott20
2007-11-09, 01:36 PM
Something tells me the people who wrote up those stats never actually had to deal with machineries on those scales. Siege engines, even if they are sturdly built, are very easy to throw off and malfunction. I'm even less skeptical as to how they came upon the hit point numbers too.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-09, 02:11 PM
Seriously, seven thousand hit points? That's more than an Iron Colossus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/colossus.htm#ironColossus)! A Construct with that much HP would need to have 692 HD and be a god! The Hecatoncheires, abandoned children of ancient and primal gods, could hit it with each of its one hundred boulders and the trebuchet would still be standing! That's insane!

GoC
2007-11-09, 03:07 PM
Seriously, seven thousand hit points? That's more than an Iron Colossus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/colossus.htm#ironColossus)! A Construct with that much HP would need to have 692 HD and be a god! The Hecatoncheires, abandoned children of ancient and primal gods, could hit it with each of its one hundred boulders and the trebuchet would still be standing! That's insane!

It also has twice the hp of a greater deity...

elliott20
2007-11-09, 03:52 PM
I'm pretty sure it was a case of massive typos. I'm pretty sure it was actually meant to be 70 hit points as oppose to 7000.

Dervag
2007-11-09, 06:36 PM
Ok, so it's much more cost efficient to buy huge siege engines.
The vulnerable part of a siege engine is the people who manage it.
There are too many of them to protect with Protection spells.
So one wizard is trying to destroy the siege engine's engineers while the enemy wizards try to get close enough to hit him with something that bypasses his Protection from Fire and his Fire Shield...I still think there ought to be more area-of-effect protective spells; the demand for them would be huge in any D&D world where it is possible to invent them.


Yes, that's exactly what it says in Heroes of Battle. Not sure why it costs so much less and why it's so incredibly tough. It threw me off as well when I saw it, and I was wondering how players would be able to damage it enough in time to prevent it from seriously messing up allied fortifications.Counterbattery fire?

For that matter, I imagine it has a very low armor class and is a stationary object. If PCs had time to work on the engine unopposed, they certainly could do that much damage to it in time- the same kind of time it would take to, say, chop down a tree.

But yeah, giving any wooden construction more hit points than an iron golem is messed up.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-09, 06:43 PM
For that matter, I imagine it has a very low armor class and is a stationary object. If PCs had time to work on the engine unopposed, they certainly could do that much damage to it in time- the same kind of time it would take to, say, chop down a tree.

PCs are ridiculously powerful. By all rights, the twentieth-level Barbarian should be cleaving ten trees with each swing of his axe. And he won't even make a dent in the trebuchet.


But yeah, giving any wooden construction more hit points than an iron golem is messed up.

Iron Golem? The gods themselves die faster than this monstrosity.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-09, 07:41 PM
I think I just found a new reason why casters shouldn't be allowed to have their way with material. I'm glad the trebuchet can't be animated (hope you can't, at least), because if not.......it won't be pretty.

Artanis
2007-11-09, 08:15 PM
The problem with debating "what warfare would be like" is that it depends almost entirely with the setting. Not only is current magic level a huge factor, but past magic level as well*. So you'd have to lay out not only how many mid- and high-level spellcasters were available at the time, but the history of the world's magic level, and anything else that might provide some sort of advantage (even something as relatively simple as a Decanter of Endless Water would be a HUGE advantage to a besieged force).



*For example, there was ever a level 17 Wizard, there would be former fortress locations with all the goodies for outlasting a siege that would still exist even if the magic level fell between then and "present day". Even a level 3 moron could figure out to build a fortress around that permenancied Teleportation Circle that would allow it to bring supplies and reinforcements through even the toughest blockade.

dwagiebard
2007-11-09, 08:24 PM
Why don't you all just read the section in Complet Warrior and Stronghold Builder's Guide that specificly addresses this topic?

Mewtarthio
2007-11-09, 08:25 PM
I think I just found a new reason why casters shouldn't be allowed to have their way with material. I'm glad the trebuchet can't be animated (hope you can't, at least), because if not.......it won't be pretty.

Actually, when animated, the trebuchet takes on the states of a Colossal Animated Object, reducing it to a mere fraction of its hitpoints (256 hp). Thankfully, one can only animate a number of HD equal to one's caster level, and a Colossal Animated Object has 32 HD.


Why don't you all just read the section in Complet Warrior and Stronghold Builder's Guide that specificly addresses this topic?

In short, we don't trust them to get it right. Remember, this is a world where farmers can theoretically earn as much money as kings if they're as good at farming as the king is at ruling.

shadow_archmagi
2007-11-09, 08:45 PM
I imagine that magic would be like superior weaponry. I have a picture of a dozen soldiers with enchanted crossbows.. ballistas that fire massive magic missles, fortresses with a point-defense lightning system...

PaladinBoy
2007-11-09, 10:24 PM
Firstly, when it comes to protecting anything bigger then a single individual, D&D magic heavily favors offense over defense.

I would say that the spells provided in the PHB and other sources are more focused on offense than defense. Given that rules are provided for developing new spells, I see no reason that area-defense spells wouldn't eventually be developed, to forestall exactly the effects that you're saying will happen.

For that matter, there's globe of invulnerability. Why wouldn't an intelligent wizard, adviser, king, or whatever think of the devastating effects that magic can have on their army and commission an enhanced version of that spell?


Secondly, if both sides have magic, that doesn't mean that magic cancels itself out and they use normal tactics. That's what we've been saying. Magic necessitates new tactics. If both sides have mid-level Wizards, then neither side uses siege weapons, because magic completely replaces that role. A couple mid-level Druids/Wizards, can deal with a wall much better then any siege.

True. But doing so exposes them to enemy attack. If the enemy has wizards at about the same power level as yours, then you're basically committing to a fight. And as you've devoted spell slots to opening up the wall, you're already at a disadvantage compared to the other wizard.

Also, siege weapons have several advantages over spellcasters. For one, siege engineers are easier to find and train than wizards. This almost ensures that many armies will have more siege engineers. Siege weapons are also capable of much more sustained performance than wizards. Granted, there are limits and situations where this is not the case, but in general, with good logistics, a siege engine can launch hundreds of projectiles in an hour. Or it can blunt the force of several attacks with a dozen or so shots all day. A mid-level wizard going nova is done in about 2 minutes - counting some spells, like cantrips, which will do little good. Then he's useless for the next 8 hours. Let's hope the enemy doesn't decide to follow up their failed attack in those 8 hours. Except - they know the weaknesses of wizards, including the rest period; I don't think they're going to be nice and let your wizards' usefulness return.

I do agree that magic necessitates new tactics. If every army has a 5th level wizard around, massed formations become rarer, or magical countermeasures are developed. Wizards with teleport face vigilant internal patrols at least and forbiddance at worst.

GoC
2007-11-10, 09:53 AM
For that matter, there's globe of invulnerability. Why wouldn't an intelligent wizard, adviser, king, or whatever think of the devastating effects that magic can have on their army and commission an enhanced version of that spell?

Because Widening it enough to be useful would require an epic character.

And stop talking about clerics and wizards going to war. They don't. They create several infinite use (or 10 use if they're expensive) items and give them to the soldiers.

So it's not wizards who rule the D&D world, it's the artificers.

elliott20
2007-11-13, 10:18 AM
I think a more practical application of this kind of thing would not be a huge area of protection with a single spell, but many many pocket areas of protection through many many castings by someone who is a specialist in casting said spell. (be it through the caster casting it himself or by giving a magical item to an expert who knows all the functions of the wands)

for example, a possible package for a protection specialist would be an expert with ranks in UMD, using a wand of shield, a wand of fire resistance, and other magical items to lay down protection spells on key areas.

It would make sense for spells like globe of invulnerability to be cast multiple times on certain areas.