Do castles make sense in a world of dragons & spells?

[countgray]

there may be only one or two strongholds in the world built with the bankroll to protect adequately against ALL of those threats. At some point, the gold runs out and the compromises must begin.

Well, castles (and other types of fortifications) have always been an expensive proposition, and both rich people and governments have bankrolled them for centuries, millennia even.

I think that innovative defenders would gradually come up with techniques for defending against these new offensive strategies as they are introduced. It wouldn't need to be built all at once. Surely they would figure out cost-effective, simple defenses for fantastical attacks would evolve with time through trial and error. I'm not sure that we can figure out what all those defenses would be in this thread in a brief period of time. But I think castle architects would figure them out given time and impetus.

Castles are never built in a day. If money runs out and the protection it affords is not adequate, they can keep adding on and making improvements, over centuries if need be. I don't think that money is necessarily a limiting factor. Especially when there are spells and magical creatures that can help defray construction costs. Some of these were enumerated in the Stronghold Builders Guidebook. If you can summon demons and elementals and celestials, then the construction may go even quicker.

Plus, a lord can use his serfs for little or nothing in pay. Especially if the serfs are motivated to help construct the castle that will protect them in case of attack.

I would think dwarves would be extra helpful with such things as excavation, engineering and stonework, so all the more reason to include them in your community and foster good relations with the people down below. They might be wooed with agricultural products and grain for their beers.

So there are things an enterprising lord could do to reduce construction costs.

 

[Ariosto]

Raising a herd of pegasi or other flying steeds can't involve all that much more cost and effort

Yes, it can!

For a start: There was only one Pegasus! His brother Chrysaor was like either a man or a boar in form, possibly winged. They are usually said to have sprung from the blood of the Gorgon Medusa. Chrysaor is the father of Geryon. Monsters in Classical mythology tend to trace their origins back to Gods (Athena and/or Poseidon in this case), and not to breed true.

Dark Lords of course want fearsome aerial cavalry regiments, or at least such a handful of terrors as Sauron mustered in his nine Nazgul. Unfortunately, their programs often yield such disappointments as Owlbears or Perytons.

It's a matter of one's taste in Fantasylands. Some people like the sort in which one can get a deal (even with bad credit!) at Cal's Used Leathery Winged Avians on Chimera Row.

Others prefer the sort of world in which it is a heroic quest, or at least a mighty patron's gift in aid of such, to acquire a hippogriff mount.

"How shall we find this steed? Few they be, and high they fly above the world, and come to birth but one in three hundred years."

"But if thou be aught less than greatest, beware that steed, and mount only earthly coursers. For if there be aught of dross within thee, and thine heart falter, or thy purpose cool, or thou forget the level aim of thy glory, then will he toss thee to thy ruin."

The architecture of a fantasy castle would need to be adapted to defend against these dangers and more if it were to be an effective redoubt in a fantasy world.

Again, it depends upon the nature of the fantasy world -- and upon the purpose of the fortress.

It is almost a given that flying mounts (or flying soldiers) would be an integral component of fantasy armies.

As a rule of thumb, I reckon it should be about as much or little a given for NPCs of similar stature as it is for player-characters.

The more common it is to keep a stable of wyverns or a pet purple worm, the harder it is likely to be for PCs to stand out as legendary figures.

If fantastic forces are few and far between, then so probably are their appearances in action. Where they pose a threat is where their commanders have so much at stake as to warrant risking such assets.

Strategy is rarely a matter of it being desirable (or even practically feasible) to do everywhere everything theoretically possible. Investment in defense or power projection is wisely contingent upon having something of appropriate value to protect or gain.

 

[Filcher]

He can't feed himself through a hood... Maybe a mask that just covers the eyes. I wonder was the man in iron mask an eladrin.

FWIW, when we capture eladrin we just carve out their eyes. Doesn't everyone?

 

[Filcher]

Raising a herd of pegasi or other flying steeds can't involve all that much more cost and effort, and if the creatures exist and can be used to advantage, armies will do so.

With all our modern know-how, reintroduced California Condors have only just now built the first condor nest in the Pinnacles in more than 100 years ... we're having an even harder time breeding pegasi in captivity. And don't even think about trying to breed war pandas.

When Hannibal tried to march his game-changing war elephants across the Alps, most of them died.

 

[countgray]

There was only one Pegasus!

Sadly, the Pegasus brand has become genericized, and now applies to all avian equines. Pegasus tried to enforce his trademark in Pegasus v. Gygax 1979, but lost on appeal to the 3rd circuit. While there may have been only one Pegasus, there are now many, many pegasi.

it depends upon the nature of the fantasy world -- and upon the purpose of the fortress.

Well, for the purposes of this thread, we shall assume a world with creatures, spells and magic comparable to that of D&D, specifically that which can be found in the Monster Manual(s), Players Handbook(s) and DM's Guide(s) of whatever edition you prefer. The purpose of the fortress is to defend the inhabitants against the same. I think that gives us a good point of reference for discussion.

No point in discussing low-magic worlds. We will stipulate that, in low-magic worlds, castles can remain the same as always and thus low-magic worlds need not be further mentioned in this thread.

The more common it is to keep a stable of wyverns or a pet purple worm, the harder it is likely to be for PCs to stand out as legendary figures.

Granted that is true, but I'm not really interested in talking about how the DM or the author wishes it to be, or needs it to be to serve dramatic purposes, rather, I am interested in how a hypothetical society that lived in a world governed by D&D rules as their physical laws and their everyday reality, would realistically (to the extent we can imagine it) defend against the hazards and perils such a system would impose.

Strategy is rarely a matter of it being desirable (or even practically feasible) to do everywhere everything theoretically possible. Investment in defense or power projection is wisely contingent upon having something of appropriate value to protect or gain.

Point taken. For the purposes of this thread, let's assume the something of value to protect would be the lives of the defenders under siege in the castle. While you are right that those defenders cannot do everything everywhere theoretically possible, I am just interested in what they could practically do to defend against a broad range of attacks that are available to evil conquerors under D&D rules.

 

[S'mon]

Well, for the purposes of this thread, we shall assume a world with creatures, spells and magic comparable to that of D&D, specifically that which can be found in the Monster Manual(s), Players Handbook(s) and DM's Guide(s) of whatever edition you prefer. The purpose of the fortress is to defend the inhabitants against the same. I think that gives us a good point of reference for discussion.

No point in discussing low-magic worlds.

No no no - I have around 26 years of experience GMing Gygaxian fantasy worlds with the magic and monsters of 1e/OD&D Monster Manual, including dozens of PC vs NPC castle sieges and battles. Monsters have *never* been a major factor, for a host of reasons, some similar to why there were never war tigers, flights of sea eagles, or even (sub Saharan) African war elephants, IRL.

Just as IRL, most animals & monsters are not domesticable. They won't breed in captivity. They aren't trainable. Powerful magic can overcome these problems, but there are usually much more efficient uses for powerful magic that don't require years of investment.

Secondly, for the minority of animals that will breed in captivity and are trainable (mostly horse analogues like Pegasi and Hippogriffs) they take a huge investment in time, skill and money, following the RAW, to get something that is about as useful as a Fly spell, and can be easily shot down. After ca 25 years of GMing high level D&D, it was only a couple years ago that I saw a player express interest in a flying mount as one of her Ranger cohort critters - a Griffon she acquired during a several-year time jump. And she used it for scouting, not fighting - it was far too valuable to risk in combat.

Spells, by contrast, are easily acquired, and far more powerful and flexible. Invisibility, Fly, Fireball at lower levels; at higher levels Rock to Mud and other mighty magics. These are the real threats to fortresses, not monsters.

Now, you can create a fantasy world where monsters are routinely breedable and trainable. There are certainly examples IMC - the Makyan Barbarian War Bison, the Marrakeen Zeereshi giant lizard cavalry, occasional flying mounts like the ranger with her griffon. But it's entirely the GM's choice whether these change the nature of battle & fortification. That is *not* the case with pre-4e magic; in the absence of extensive house ruling it *will* cause major changes.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with S'mon. Monsters generally aren't game changers in and of themselves, and are even less game changers in 3e than they were in 1e when damage resistance was absolute rather than being some thing like 10/+1 or 10/magic. Pegasi don't generally represent a gamechanging threat. They are 2HD monsters with relatively poor AC and a relatively small hit point reserve before they are shot out of the sky. If they come into range of traditional archers, they have serious problems. I suppose there is a threat of 'high altitude bombing', but its no worse than trebuchets. If the presence of relatively rare but useful aerial forces creates a situation analogous to mid-WW-I aircraft, so much the better, since mid-WW-I is itself analogous (and was recognized as analogous) to medieval knight-craft.

Likewise, even among DM's playing Gygaxian D&D, there is a broad range over how commonly monsters appear 'on the market' and how often they are used by armies. There is no single standard interpretation.

The real game changers are ubiquitous low level spells like invisibility, fly, and fireball which appear fairly reutinely in even low magic worlds. I'm sure they exist, but I've not encountered the DM that created a world that was so low magic that 5th level M-U's were epic and unknown. If there was a world this low magic, it would create it own unique difficulties.

The real test in my opinion is whether your world appears to be one where the PC's are the first to ever test the societies ability to defend itself against magic. I would suggest that for most DM's, they reach a point where they realize this is true and they have to invent solutions to magical threats. I believe that the reason that this is true is that historically the text of D&D has done a very poor job communicating what steps are or might be taken to defend against magical threats.

 

[Stoat]

Two points:

1) I largely agree with Celebrim that flying monsters usually suffer from low hit dice and poor AC, which makes them less of a threat than they might immediately appear. Further, if flyers are a commonly encountered threat, I suggest it makes more sense for the defenders to train up their own flyers instead of trying to build elaborate static defenses.

2) While 5th-level Mages may be relatively common, and it would be fairly easy for such a mage to infiltrate a conventional castle using invisibility, fly, spider climb, etc. I'm not sure what the mage is going to do once he gets in. He'll have to devote most of his spell slots to defense/infiltration with relatively few left over for offense. Even if he can compensate for offense with items (a wand of fireball or lightning bolt might be good) his hit points won't let him stand and fight once he blows his invisibility by attacking. He might cause a lot of damage up front, but I don't think he'll last long.

A lower-level wizard might do better by poisoning the well, sabotaging siege equipment, starting mundane fires, opening the gate, etc. etc. BUT a lower-level thief or rogue can do the same thing. Given the rogue's ability to climb walls, hide and move silently, plus the rogue's better hit points and ability to take out lone guards silently with backstab, I think I'd rather hire a 5th level rogue to infiltrate Castle Perilous than a 5th level wizard.

 

[Filcher]

It seems that with the exception of dogs and cats, most domesticated animals are herbivores. (Correct me if I'm wrong, pls.) So I guess I'd expect the same from my game.

But even assuming you breed and train a suitable number of carnivorous monsters to make an effective war unit, feeding them in the off season has got to be hell.

A flight of dragons? Who the heck feeds those things?

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted