Castles are worthless against armies with mages?

[Dandu]

Please cut way back on the passive aggressive stuff.

Sorry, I was assuming a basic familiarity with the Players Handbook and Monster Manual. Mea culpa.

Ok, that was unfair of me. I will apologize and cut back on it. I would like to ask that you do the same, if that's ok.

Yes, I do, in fact know a decent amount about actual war, which is why I'm arguing against Hollywood tactics.

Military experience?

Which is, of course, how hordes have always done it and why it's more frightening for the defenders to deal with than a bunch of wizards, ultimately. If a handful of wizards attack, you mostly have to worry about them scurrying off with the pipeweed and spellbooks when they're done. The invading army of orcs wipes out everything in the kingdom, so even if you ultimately win, your country is devastated.

If I'm an evil magocrat, that's the way I'd want to go: Make it so expensive to win that no one is willing to stand up to me.

What the... did you miss the part of my post where I pointed out that key supply areas (the places with food) can be expected to be defended by things like castles?

There are definite ways for a mage to be more effective than a catapult or what have you. You can also kill a cockroach with a shotgun, but it doesn't make it a reasonable use of resources.

Can I get an example? I considered Fireball, but while that kills people it doesn't inflict structural damage. Sneaking in while invisible allows for acts of sabatoge and assassination, but given that See Invisibility is all the rage among defenders these days...

Well, using Silent Image to create a fog that your own archers can see though will probably be a good idea.

Except, you know, for all those countless times it's actually happened in the real world.

You do raise an interesting point. How often have mercenaries turned out to be reliable, vs becoming a bigger pain later on? Machiavelli was clearly drawing on experiences that Italy had with mercenaries when he wrote the condemning passages in The Prince about them. Counterexamples?

The better-equipped/higher CR wizard you want to hire, the more said wizard is going to want to charge, and that's without factoring in the cost of spell components or charged items.

How does hiring mercenaries work? Presumiably they'll send you invoices for their expenses as well?

 

[Pergentile]

1. How many mercenaries would one need to hire? Sounds like a LOT of unaccounted for sword arms for any well-run country.
2. Siege weapons are made willy-nilly are they? I would've thought a well-run government would restrict and monitor such things. My bad.
3. So now someone powerful is dead. You think you are the person in the best position to take his spot? Regardless, sounds like a coup d'etat and not a siege to me.
4. Because those are common and cheap.
5. Wow, I think you are assuming a lot more available wealth then everyone else is.

Yes, people will argue that the sky isn't blue, but not REASONABLY. You'd swear that that word is key in any populace of governing. Sorry if using "easily" without the context of reasonable confused you. My bad. For all of my posts, assume "reasonably" is scattered throughout.

Knee deep in humanoid tribes... that would kill you as soon as look at you, or else its reasonable that the governing power in the area would already have them in heel, eh?

The thing is, hiring a few individuals who are 5th level casters is more realistic then gaining control of an army of brutes, and hence tactics with such are seen as more viable. Technically one could gain Divine rank by hiring a couple hundred thousand commoners to worship them, but that doesn't mean that a couple hundred thousand commoners are available. (Remember that worship is done with self interest... as in 'going to heaven' as motivation, so this method of gaining divinity is technically sound)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What the... did you miss the part of my post where I pointed out that key supply areas (the places with food) can be expected to be defended by things like castles?

At most, you have military forces stationed in castles in the region, which is why you send a giant horde in that will overwhelm with numbers and set fire to what they cannot take.

Can I get an example? I considered Fireball, but while that kills people it doesn't inflict structural damage. Sneaking in while invisible allows for acts of sabatoge and assassination, but given that See Invisibility is all the rage among defenders these days...

I am agreeing with you here, remember?. I am not going to recite your own arguments back to you as proof of it. And I'm not the guy saying everyone is going to bust out See Invisibility.

You do raise an interesting point. How often have mercenaries turned out to be reliable, vs becoming a bigger pain later on? Machiavelli was clearly drawing on experiences that Italy had with mercenaries when he wrote the condemning passages in The Prince about them. Counterexamples?

Every paid military that ever won a war. This thread is getting a little weird if the plausibility of mercenaries is being questioned but magical bombardiers are seen as more reasonable.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

1. How many mercenaries would one need to hire? Sounds like a LOT of unaccounted for sword arms for any well-run country.
2. Siege weapons are made willy-nilly are they? I would've thought a well-run government would restrict and monitor such things. My bad.
3. So now someone powerful is dead. You think you are the person in the best position to take his spot? Regardless, sounds like a coup d'etat and not a siege to me.
4. Because those are common and cheap.
5. Wow, I think you are assuming a lot more available wealth then everyone else is.

None of this is on-point. Yes, it is possible for a wizard to lay the magical smack down on a castle. Yes, it makes real world castles sort of silly in the default D&D universe. No, it's not going to make them go away in D&D games because castles, like fezzes, are cool. And no, superhero Mage war is still not going to be the default, because, while all war is expensive -- and please just use Google instead of asking for proof of that -- it's not as cost-effective as more mundane or more surgical solutions. It'll happen, but it won't be the default.

 

[Dandu]

At most, you have military forces stationed in castles in the region, which is why you send a giant horde in that will overwhelm with numbers and set fire to what they cannot take.

I also mentioned something about chokepoints. Admittedly, it's possible that the place in question has no chokepoints.

I am agreeing with you here, remember?

Well, I did want to see if you had anything novel in mind. Sorry if I conveyed that poorly.

Every paid military that ever won a war.

Did paid militaries using mercenaries lose wars as well? If we're just looking at it from the perspective of "they were used", well, both sides used them so that's not really definitive evidence for them being an asset or a hindrance.

The traditional reasons against mercenaries were that they were unreliable, loyal only to their paycheck, liable to desert if the going got tough, and could be bribed by the enemy. Seems to have been the rule in the Renessance, and probably still holds true today, if the news is any indication. I'm not much familiar with mercenaries that perform well and admirably.

This thread is getting a little weird if the plausibility of mercenaries is being questioned but magical bombardiers are seen as more reasonable.

Within the context of Dungeons and Dragons, flying around dropping things on people is perfectly conceivable, as are sellswords who would rather live to see their money than die in a desperate battle.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

What constitutes destruction? Would taking their heads be enough, or would it require a full-on acid bath or something? I can't remember offhand.

Taking their head bumps it to resurrection, which is Clr 7 and 10,000 GP. There has to be nothing left to bump it to true resurrection, so your best bet is to stuff the whole body into a portable hole and dispose of it properly at your leisure.

On the other hand, while a living king might make his save against disintegrate, his corpse is much less likely to do so. A scroll of disintegrate plus a scroll of gust of wind is only 1,800 GP, and an assassin with levels in Wizard or Sorcerer can use these with a DC 7 caster level check. (It's a DC 26 UMD check otherwise.)

Clerics can provide sustenance for small cadres of elite troops with magic.

At least 15 men per 3rd level spell slot. 5th level Cleric with Wisdom 16 can take care of 30 men, while a 6th level Favored Soul with a Charisma of 13 is good for 54. This scales very quickly with level, even assuming you want to hold a couple of slots back for prayer.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Let's keep things civil guys. If it doesn't turn that way, some mods might show up and ask people in a more official way than I can. Things to remember during this discussion.

(1) This is a discussion, not an argument. You can debate in a discussion. Don't argue.
(2) D&D is exceptionally, highly unreasonable when it comes to power in a fantasy genre.
(3) You do not have to prove something in order for it to be true. Yes, in certain cases it should be called for. Calling for it to be argumentative is a childish move, however. Let's avoid arguing semantics.
(4) You can mess up a castle with pebbles. You can defend against pebbles. I seriously doubt anyone reasonable disagrees that either can be done successfully. Yay, we've established both.
(5) This shouldn't be personal. Calling people illogical, unreasonable, assuming they are saying something they aren't to make them look worse, or otherwise aggressively engaging in this thread further is highly discouraged. Let's not get the mods involved over something so small; their time is valuable.

 

[Pergentile]

Let's keep things civil guys. If it doesn't turn that way, some mods might show up and ask people in a more official way than I can. Things to remember during this discussion.

(1) This is a discussion, not an argument. You can debate in a discussion. Don't argue.
(2) D&D is exceptionally, highly unreasonable when it comes to power in a fantasy genre.
(3) You do not have to prove something in order for it to be true. Yes, in certain cases it should be called for. Calling for it to be argumentative is a childish move, however. Let's avoid arguing semantics.
(4) You can mess up a castle with pebbles. You can defend against pebbles. I seriously doubt anyone reasonable disagrees that either can be done successfully. Yay, we've established both.
(5) This shouldn't be personal. Calling people illogical, unreasonable, assuming they are saying something they aren't to make them look worse, or otherwise aggressively engaging in this thread further is highly discouraged. Let's not get the mods involved over something so small; their time is valuable.

LOL! Where did this come from? I haven't read anything offensive in anyone's posts.

 

[Dandu]

Sounds like someone has a guilty conscience.

 

[a-d]

Why not just teleport over the target with a shrunken mountaintop, teleport away, then as it nears the target revoke the shrinking?
Wouldn't the increased size and weight reduce the effectiveness of Feather fall?
If they used a force teleport spell the boulder or mountaintop could be protected by anti-magic field.
Of course both of these would require multiple wizards working together to create a permanent teleport launcher for large things and to actually shrink a mountaintop...

Then how about just teleporting over the top of the target and scattering bags of shrunken boulders before teleporting away and revoking their shrinking as they near the target?

Short time for detection and hard to see weapons until almost right on top of you.

Plus, if there is a way to put an anti-magic field around some of them wouldn't they go through magical defensive walls like armor piercing rounds?

Perhaps none of these would work. I remember earlier on I thought using shrink item, teleport back to owner, and permanency on a boulder when coupled with a few eternal teleport pads and magical necklaces would allow for constant bombardment but that wouldn't work since the boulders would probably shatter on impact.

But it still seems like a kingdom with a number of Artificers, especially Artificers who took the Work Together Feat(Don't remember real name.) and the Epic Craft at 10,000 gold instead of 1,000 gold a day Feat(Efficient Crafting Feat, I think.) could make some very effective and efficient squads.
Heck, give them a permanent teleport item and a contingency teleport item in case someone tries to trap them in an anti-magic field or hit them with dimensional anchor.
...In fact, contingency spells should probably be all over these soldiers.
Low on health? Auto teleport.
Hit by a charm spell? Auto teleport.
Blah blah blah? Auto teleport.

Eventually their standard equipment will get out and be replicated by opposing kingdoms as well as be imitated by commercial and criminal organizations, but that's what generally happens anyway, right?

It's been mentioned that there are more efficient ways to spend the money needed to make these items but if they're all permanent then they can sit in a vault for years on end long after their original creators are gone and in a real fight the spells they'd hold would be used over an over again in such numbers that it would be cheaper in even the medium run to have just made a permanent item to do it.

If it's claimed that spellcasters wouldn't do this kind of thing in the first place so the price isn't justified then it opens the point that having these options be constantly available to the military while the mages are otherwise occupied gives them more options in combat, reduces the need for mages to enter dangerous situations, lets them protect their own troops more easily, and destroy an opponents side faster which also protects their forces.

Which all comes back to the original question, What's a realistic defense? Are castles worth it?

I think it was Pergentile who said, "No. Mobile forces work better."
Nope, sorry. It was Dannyalcatraz.

Armies went away from strongpoints built like castles for 2 main reason: the armaments of the day too easily bypassed the protection they offered- which was obtained at great cost in time, effort, and money- and an increased emphasis on force mobility.

Such concerns led to trench-building and partially or completely subterranean bunkers.

If you look at the creatures and magic of the game, those factors are multiplied.

Too many creatures have abilities or access to powers that:
Bypass walls- teleports, dimensional shifts, burrowing, intangibility, earthglide, flight
Destroy or breach walls- rock to mud, disintegrates, etc
Manipulate defenders- charms, illusions, enchantments, shapechanging/polymorphing
Conceal, transport, or enhance weapons or special units: reduction, shrink item, etc.

Yes, they all have counters...but consider the time it takes to build a castle vs. how much time it takes to dig trenches & a bunker. Sure, walls still have a purpose, but you're not going to find it cost effective to spend huge amounts of money and loads of time making them 30' tall and 40' thick at the base when trenches & bunkers can go up in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, for essentially the same protection.