Theocracy vs. Magocracy: who would win?

[Humanophile]

One more thing I thought of. If the Mage leaders are sending in strike teams to annihilate civilians (probably the best tactic mentioned), then folks, here's some news: they are evil.

And if they are evil, then *Holy weapons* will hurt them. Badly. Look in the DMG at the holy discriptor. All that is necessary to make one is 7th level. 7th! Assuming the civilian populace is being nuked like that, I'm sure a major tax hike would not be opposed to.

In which case the theocracy would have enough money to create massive amounts of +1, holy weapons with which to arm their fighters and paladins. So now your average phalanx (or skirmish group, or what-have-you) leader, and perhaps his higher ranking underlings, are doing 1d8+2d6+1 damage per strike, minimum. That would kinda hurt, if you're evil.

If you say your theocracy is good and your mages are pure evil, then of course you hand the victory to the clerics. Especially if you hand out significant class levels and magic gear to trops everywhere. (Give me a horde of levelled paladins with holy avengers, I'll tell you where to stuff your fireballs. Throw in a couple of clerics for holy smites, and the mages take damage hand over fist just for torturing kittens. But that's an all around overly simplistic view all around.)

If we're going to come to any agreement here, we're going to have to determing the caster:noncaster ratio, the PC:NPC class ratio, and the level spread that we can work with. Probably the amount of gear available, too. (I fail to see enlistment as guarenteeing high quality gear. If it did, supply raids would be the order of the day, and there's no way your clerics can stop teleport raids on every batch of quality magic items they spent good money and XP on.)

But unless you discount really high level guys at the top of either organization, I still see the victory going to the clerics. This is D&D, the battle is in the hands of the high level folk, and the clerics can send one of their high level heros on a "suicide mission", have him decimate more troops than a barrage of meteor swarms, and bring him back to life by whatever means necessary after that. And of course, I can't help but see the final battle starting by one of the highest muckety-muck clerics burning 5000 XP for a miracle spell, and placing the entire battlefield under an antimagic field.

And as a total aside to everyone who likes piling on druids, rangers, paladins, and possibly even blackguards and adepts onto the theocratic side; don't. Paladins may be OK, but the more classes you hand to the theocracy, the more options and styles they have at their command. Wizards and sorcerers share one spell list, and a given one can probably never even fill that out, while all your divine casters automatically get their full spell lists, and can have obscene variety if you allow them enough classes to pick from.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

For the record, Planar Binding spells don't even come close to matching the Planar Ally spells.

Planar Bindings require extra spells (Dimensional Anchor to keep the outsider from getting away). Planar Allies don't want to get away so the Dimensional Anchor is unnecessary.

Planar Bindings require specially prepared locations (An inscribed summoning circle which has to be done very carefully or the outsider may escape and have you for lunch). Planar Ally can be cast whenever and wherever.

Planar Binding spells generally require payment (in gold, gems, magic, service, or "livestock") up front. Planar Allies require a favor after the service is completed. Furthermore, since the Planar Ally's alignment and deity match the cleric's, it's likely that such service is something the cleric would want to do/be willing to do anyway.

Planar Binding spells require special information--a specific outsider must be named which requires research and preparation. Planar Ally spells just send the ally that the cleric's deity deems appropriate (and the deity may know just a wee bit more about the cleric's future needs than the cleric does).

All told, while Planar Binding spells can be useful for wizards, they don't compare to Planar Ally spells.

Planar Ally is matched by Planar Binding.

As for the wizards not having mass formations, it is likely that they would have fewer casualties for doing so. Clerics do not get effective mass destruction spells until 9th level (flamestrike) (Sound Burst, with d8 damage and close range hardly counts.) Wizards get it at 5th level, and even 1st levels can be a menace en masse (the old 100 magic missiles vs. the general trick).

I concede the point on mobility- but this is an argument for the magocracy. Whose likely to have the hard-hitting mobile troops? The teleporting high-level wizards. An interesting variation on a theme is for to teleport into bustling town centres and decimating clerical civilian population. Not particularly pleasant, but it grinds a town down and they may well surrender rather than continue getting slaughtered: the next day a sorceror with Cosmopolitan (Diplomacy) turns up and informs them that if they do not surrender they will continue to be terrorised: clerics with the Travel domain, what few there are, have alignment prohibitions against such acts. Alternately, attack the clerical economy. Teleport into granaries and burn the food stocks: there is no way that the clerics have enough 5th-level+ priests around to use Create Food and Water on a whole country.

 

[Arravis]

hmm

After all the debates... my money is still on Orcus

 

[Tarin Greenflame]

As a side note, the american revolution was fought with ranged weapons for the most part, not calvary or melee. The 'skirmishers' won because they took cover and did hit and run missions with their ranged weapons, which is actually guerrila tactics, not skirmishing. The brits usually didn't know what was hitting them at first, and when they did, the colonists could retreat with tons of cover and thus suffer very few casualties. If they had run out on the field with the ranked british while scattered instead of staying in the trees, they would have died.

Skirmishing with melee, NOT guerrila tactics with ranged weapons, is inferior to ranked formations nearly every time, as has been restated far too much, and yet some people still don't get it

Also, if you have casters high enough to cast 9th lv spells, don't forget an improved invisibility/teleport/imprisonment (and time stop if needed) combo on important theocracy members. Unless prevented by the high priest(s) never leaving their well warded sanctums, such priests would be completely out of the picture, since only freedom can release them, and it is a 9th arcane spell.

Also if you are assuming the clerics have a cleric with true ress so he can revive the 'hero suicide mission' member (since otherwise such a hero could not be ressed if he died in enemy territory and his remains have been burned etc.), then the mages would have someone who could cast soul bind or temporal stasis on said hero, unless that cleric was already imprisoned by the above tactic

Invisibility sphere/mass invis is also nice for flanking/back attacks (unless a cleric on the field with true seeing spots them and alerts his regiment, and can intercept the invis'd troops)

And, planar ally can be migitated by dismissal and banishment, of course.

Finally, the mages troops may not need to be in skirmish formations, if most the enemy casters have been dealt with at long range, before a short range sound burst could be cast.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

a new proposal

Since we might need to set-up a more rational battle-scene, how about this then:

The "wizards" team can have fighters, rogues, wizards, and even bards (for some healing)~ in any combination.

The "priests" can have paladins, clerics, druids, and monks (but no fighters).

90% of each side is comprised of simply warriors (let's just not bother with commoners).

Of the remaining (classed) 10%, only 1% would be 20th level. Ailgnment could be considered varied, with the "wizards" side tending toward chaos and evil, and the "preist" side tending toward law and good. Lots of neutral participants on both sides, however. Say, 50% of each side is totally neutral.

NOW that it's slightly more of a team effort, who would win? The "holies" or the "unholies?"

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Skirmishing with melee, NOT guerrila tactics with ranged weapons, is inferior to ranked formations nearly every time, as has been restated far too much, and yet some people still don't get it

Who said the war had to be fought hand-to-hand? Under D&D rules, nothing stops the majority of the fighting to be ranged attacks. That's basically how the British Defeated the more heavily armed cavalry of France in the (I think) 100 years war.

If you want to consider a line of bowmen a "ranked formation," that's ok too. In such a case, a fireball would only take out so many of them.

Furthermore, assuming horses are used (as they were heavily during the middle-ages and beyond) I don't think being "in formation" would make any sense at all... At least beyond the formation of a charging line. Under those circumstances, see above.

 

[apoptosis]

I think the theocracy would bide their time and wait for D&D 4ed because if the 2ed to 3ed progression follows.......by then the cleric class will be able to cast all wizard spells, have fighter BAB, and cast all spells ever known just by thinking about it....



sorry couldnt resist.....

and BTW why cant the Theocracy be pure evil and the Mages be pure as the driven snow.....

Apoptosis

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I think the theocracy would bide their time and wait for D&D 4ed because if the 2ed to 3ed progression follows.......by then the cleric class will be able to cast all wizard spells, have fighter BAB, and cast all spells ever known just by thinking about it....



sorry couldnt resist.....

and BTW why cant the Theocracy be pure evil and the Mages be pure as the driven snow.....

Apoptosis

(sorry to keep posting; I'm waiting for a database report to finish running)

Even if the clerics are mostly evil and chaotic, and the wizards were good and lawful, or any other combination, it wouldn't affect the scenario, because just as clerics can create Holy weapons, they can as easily make Unholy, Chaotic, or Lawful weapons for the same "price."

 

[Victim]

Since Forbiddance is permanent, over time protected areas could be made to extend over large portions of major cities.

If we're going to use teleport raids to kill leaders, I think clerics will have advantage. With Miracle they could a drop a substancial force into a wizard's sanctum. The wizard's defenses won't even matter. Maybe both sides teleport to take out the other sides leaders at the same time, and thus storm into empty rooms.

Hero suicide missions still work because of reaction time. The sacrifice teleports to an arbitrary vulnerable location. He kills stuff, then dies. Assuming there's no 17th level wizard on site, then it's a matter of reaction time. Soul bind only works within one round per level of death. So unless the wizard can get there within 17 to 20 rounds, the trick works perfectly. Since a Sending to tell the wizard to come to X location for a soul bind takes 10 min, I can't see the soul bind working very often. Also, Soul Bind has a Will negates save. Clerics and paladins tend to have pretty good will saves. Finally, there's the minimum value for the gem on soul bind, which adds another minor chance for failure.

Lesser Planar ally is lower level than arcane Dismissal, so the LPAs will see more use and thus have more impact for the clerics. Dismissal for clerics is lower level than LPB for wizards, so the clerics once again win out on summoned things.

Out of all the troops in armor addorned with holy symbols, which ones are the low level clerics? I'd imagine that many clerics, being as durable as warriors, would be mixed in with units to provide on the spot healing and magical support. On the other hand, most wizards would be more distinct, thus marking them as targets.

Finally, do the troops actually need to fight in skirmish formation? Couldn't they just deploy in that formation, and then converge into fighting ranks at a point of attack? Besides, what would prevent anyone from using guerilla tactics instead of major formations in the first place, besides stupid paladins or fighters who like massed calvary charges.

 

[Imperialus]

Re: Re: The wizards win a marginal victory.

I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of the American Revolution? The British were in "regular formation," the insurgents were skirmishers. You know the results.

What about the French Indian war? The British were in regular formation the French were not. We all know how that turned out... Well perhaps we all don't seeing as how it is a rather obscure bit of Canadian history but to sum up history in 2 seconds flat, the French lost big time.

To be fair though in both of the above wars skermish groups were relatively uncommon and really probably didn't have much of an effect. Both wars were won on the battlefield. That scrap after the crossing of the Delaware for the Americans, and the Battle of the Plains of Aberham during the French Indian war.