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

[Hereticus]

Magic's not really a huge problem. GIANTS are a huge problem. Trebuchets are great and all, but, you still have a firing rate to worry about. OTOH, Mr. Giant can lob boulders that are pretty close to trebuchet sized (with a big enough giant anyway) as fast as you could throw baseballs and probably about as accurately. A couple of dozen giants would level a castle in a serious hurry.

True, the giant would do some serious damage to the walls, but it would take a while and require alot of rocks. Assuming as was stated in the above post that the defenders had the advantage in magic, the giants could be taken out or greatly reduced. Especially if the leadership is targeted.

Never mind what you could do with any number of other monsters. Brown mold inside a hollow stone lobbed into the town freezes and kills lots of people, just as an example.

Never mind what you could do with giant insects.

In any such attack it will mostly be the expendable zero levels that are killed. An acceptable loss to the royalty, as long as they aren't threatened.

It's not a problem when you have an army with one high level wizard attacking. It's a problem when you have a fantasy army attacking.

That would be a truly epic battle. Think of the LotR battles at Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith with wizards and sorcerers thrown in on both sides.

 

[Celebrim]

Magic's not really a huge problem. GIANTS are a huge problem. Trebuchets are great and all, but, you still have a firing rate to worry about. OTOH, Mr. Giant can lob boulders that are pretty close to trebuchet sized (with a big enough giant anyway ) as fast as you could throw baseballs and probably about as accurately. A couple of dozen giants would level a castle in a serious hurry.

In my past experience, at least using the 1e rules, nothing knocks down a castle faster than an army of treants. (Now, I wonder why that is?)

Giants can be dealt with. Treants just plow through buildings and curtain walls like they are made of paper.

Of course, this just means that fantasy armies need to emulate the fantasy Roman army at the beginning of Gladiator. Time to break out the Greek Napalm.

It's not a problem when you have an army with one high level wizard attacking. It's a problem when you have a fantasy army attacking.

In our larger battles, we noticed that spellcasters tended to cancel each other out. You are right though about fantasy armies. If one side has a big advantage in units of fantastic creatures, it can really change the battle.

 

[Hereticus]

In our larger battles, we noticed that spellcasters tended to cancel each other out. You are right though about fantasy armies. If one side has a big advantage in units of fantastic creatures, it can really change the battle.

It has been my experience that defending spellcasters would go after the attacking spellcasters, and attacking spellcasters would try to avoid the defending spellcasters and attack the structure of the castle.

 

[Haltherrion]

It has been my experience that defending spellcasters would go after the attacking spellcasters, and attacking spellcasters would try to avoid the defending spellcasters and attack the structure of the castle.

Shades of the evoluation of aerial combat in the WWI

 

[Haltherrion]

If you protest and say, "Well by magic I obviously mean only the magic in the rules of D&D as written and not every fanciful idea every module writer has ever come up with.", my first complaint against that is that no published setting has ever conformed strictly to the rules as written.

That's a flimsy strawman. All I acknowledged about magic is that we would need to define it better to take it the discussion further. I've come no where near defining it in anyway that may suggest your strawman.

I make these observations:

1. I'll admit I have not done a scientific survey but I'm pretty confident that what people mean by castle is a structure similar to those built in Europe over a narrow range of centuries. And given that such a castle only occured in a small place for a small period of time in the only solid military fortification experiement that we have (Earth), it doesn't seem all that likely it would also occur in a world of magic with the plethora of anti-fortification methods already described on this thread. A broader definition of castle will make such a structure more likely but at what point is it no longer a castle?
2. Earth history has shown that those able to exploit available methods can dominate their neighbors (Rome, Mongols, Napoleon until others caught up, Europe in the age of colonialism, and so on). Assuming at least some sentient races that act something like Earth humans, one would expect such dominating realms in the fantasy settings, ones that could exploit somewhat difficult methods, such as magic.

But, so what? Most of us like our castles; use them. We're running games, not fantasy world simulations.

 

[Bullgrit]

We can however deduce something about the 'typical' magical world and society by noting the following: "Castles exist."

<snip>

1) We know magic exists as a given.
2) We know castle exist as a given.

You know, thinking about this just now, really is "castles exist" a fact in D&D? I'm specifically thinking of the latest editions -- D&D3, D&D4. Are there any rules references to castles in the core books? I know the B/X D&D set has castle rules, and the AD&D1 DMG has them. I can't remember if AD&D2 had castle rules in the core books.

I'm not even certain that the D&D3 and D&D4 core books even mention castles as fluff. Surely they do, but if I'm not remembering anything, it must not be an important mention.

Can someone with a pdf version of the core books do a word search for "castle". And compare the results with a search for "magic".

Bullgrit

 

[Hereticus]

You know, thinking about this just now, really is "castles exist" a fact in D&D? I'm specifically thinking of the latest editions -- D&D3, D&D4. Are there any rules references to castles in the core books? I know the B/X D&D set has castle rules, and the AD&D1 DMG has them. I can't remember if AD&D2 had castle rules in the core books.

Castles, fortresses, citadels, palaces, walled cities, underground bunkers... they pretty much existed everywhere throughout human history.

The word "castle" may not be in a core rulebook, but most modules include one of the above.

 

[Hussar]

Now, if we're going to include "bunker" in our definition of castle, things get a bit difficult to talk about. After all, is a cave in the ground fortified by whatevers, really a "castle" anymore? In my mind, when someone mentions castle, I'm thinking high walls, towers, bailleys that sort of thing. The Citadel in Halifax, Nova Scotia is a modern adaptation of a castle (and something that IMO, would likely happen to fantasy castles) but I'm not sure I'd call it an actual castle as such.

In any such attack it will mostly be the expendable zero levels that are killed. An acceptable loss to the royalty, as long as they aren't threatened.

Well, ignoring for a second the edition specific rules, if you kill everyone in the castle, other than a few nobles, I'm thinking they'll be pretty unhappy. Considering in 1e the vast majority of defenders of a castle would be 0 level, wiping out the zero levels is a pretty serious deal.

And, in 3e, take a look at the damage brown mold does. That's certainly a larger threat than to just 1st level characters.

But, I agree, it would likely be more Minas Turith and less Helm's Deep. Helm's deep was a pretty much standard siege - not many flying/burrowing/teleporting/powered creatures. Isengard is a good model too. Treants would be fantastically deadly with their ability to animate forests.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, if we're going to include "bunker" in our definition of castle, things get a bit difficult to talk about. After all, is a cave in the ground fortified by whatevers, really a "castle" anymore?

The distinction of a 'castle' seems to be that it is a place of residence. Beyond that, it gets harder to define.

In my mind, when someone mentions castle, I'm thinking high walls, towers, bailleys that sort of thing. The Citadel in Halifax, Nova Scotia is a modern adaptation of a castle (and something that IMO, would likely happen to fantasy castles) but I'm not sure I'd call it an actual castle as such.

Other than its star shape, there is no particular feature of Fort George that is unknown in medieval architecture (extending into the high middle ages, that includes the cannon loops). What's different is the degree to which you find these features combined and used. And indeed since it dates to the first half of the 16th century, the star fort is at least as medieval as fully articulated platemail or three-masted ship rigged sailing vessels.

However, the star fort is roughly irrelevant without cannon and firearms. Everything about the star fort is designed around the cannon. A fantasy castle would have no need to spread out to create defence in depth, because it doesn't have the kilometers long range of the cannon to allow for active defence in depth. So a fantasy castle might well be star shaped to maximize fields of fire, but its going to be a relative small space if its going to dual with trebuchet and fireballs and defend itself with arrows because the interlocking fields of fire will be much shorter. The walls may well get thicker just as they got thicker when the trebuchet was perfected, but without flat trajectory cannon mounted defensively, they won't have alot of reason to go lower. And its going to retain the medieval hoardings because its going to have much greater concern with plunging fire and bursts than the people who built star shaped citadels did. Fantasy castle designers are going to design around fireballs, walls of fire, nastiness dropped by flying attackers, dragon breath, and so forth - not around the impact of high speed flat trajectory iron shot and the ability to counter with the same.

And let's not get too dismissive of medieval fortifications. When the 13th century constructed Harlech was besieged by cannon in 1647, it still held out for nine months.

The main overlap between the idea of the star fort and the fantasy castle is that magic is going to necessitate more of an active defence. Fantasy architects won't build castles with the idea that defences will allow the castle to be passively defended successfully. Just as the cannon and perfected trebuchet forced castle builders to start including the means to destroy beseiging weapons in their plans (cannons and other seige weapons on the walls of the castle), so to would aerial attackers and spellcasters force the architect to consider the means to active counter such threats. A fantasy castle must be constructed with the idea of destroying the besiegers, not that you can resist any attack behind your impregnable walls.

For those that want an excellent work covering medieval fortifications, I highly recommend 'The Medieval Fortress' by J.E & H.W. Kaufman.

And, in 3e, take a look at the damage brown mold does. That's certainly a larger threat than to just 1st level characters.

As in the real world, I suspect biological agents will pose a significant hazard to those that deploy them as well as those they employ them against. Brown mold is extremely difficult to handle, and its spores are likely to create numerous hazards when the weapon is stored in peace time.

 

[Hereticus]

Now, if we're going to include "bunker" in our definition of castle, things get a bit difficult to talk about. After all, is a cave in the ground fortified by whatevers, really a "castle" anymore? In my mind, when someone mentions castle, I'm thinking high walls, towers, bailleys that sort of thing. The Citadel in Halifax, Nova Scotia is a modern adaptation of a castle (and something that IMO, would likely happen to fantasy castles) but I'm not sure I'd call it an actual castle as such.

Instead of "bunker", think more of s drow family compound. Having every fortified structure look like a "medieval castle" would be like having every car look like a Ford Focus.

In any such attack it will mostly be the expendable zero levels that are killed. An acceptable loss to the royalty, as long as they aren't threatened.

Well, ignoring for a second the edition specific rules, if you kill everyone in the castle, other than a few nobles, I'm thinking they'll be pretty unhappy. Considering in 1e the vast majority of defenders of a castle would be 0 level, wiping out the zero levels is a pretty serious deal.

Good thing I wasn't talking about "killing everyone in the castle".

And, in 3e, take a look at the damage brown mold does. That's certainly a larger threat than to just 1st level characters.

The greater majority of casualties would be of lower level, which would be an acceptable loss. If I was the lord of a castle, I would value my henchcritters exponentially at higher levels. While the peasants would complain about losing 100 of their friends and family members, I'd value one seventh level cleric alot more.

But, I agree, it would likely be more Minas Turith and less Helm's Deep. Helm's Deep was a pretty much standard siege - not many flying/burrowing/teleporting/powered creatures. Isengard is a good model too. Treants would be fantastically deadly with their ability to animate forests.

Helm's Deep would have been epic, with elementals attacking the walls, and the defenders casting fireballs and hurling puddings into the mass of orcs as they advanced. In a fantasy battle Helm's Deep would have been a death trap for the defense unless they built it twice as big into the surrounding mountains.