Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

[Ace]

Re: well

How do you deal with a troop of 10
Dust of Disappearance (this cannot be seen by see invisibility or purged by invisiblity purge, it takes a true seeing spell)/flying/blinking or dimension dooring or teleporting/ non-concentrated wizards (ie spread out) who are using wands of (silenced) fireball?

Thats roughly 12,000 sq feet of 7d6 fire immolation within one round. If you have soldiers in formation with one every 5 feet thats 2400 soldiers, so probably around 1500-2000 get hit given non-maximazation. With an army of 10,000 they'll all get hit within a single minute.

Given the best of circumstances, say your're able to nullify/kill/get rid of all 10 wizards, in 30 seconds. Thats still a hella amount of damage. However, IMHO, no army, person, creature or magic, can respond with difinitive/leathal force to a dispersed massively violent threat within a single minute.

I think i'm being very generous here with a 30 second nullification period. Missile weapons won't reach 400 ft in to the air (not that anyone could see the wizards), and most spells won't either. Also if you assume each wizard has put wax in their ears to ignore those verbal spells, and has pumped up on elemental resistant spells, I don't see how you can take them out in less time, if they stay dispersed.

Well to make a short post shorter.. IMHO armies that march, armies that in any form resemble historical armies just simply wont take the field in a world with DnD magic. Can you imagine trying to keep morale under such an attack? How would you maintain your logistic security?

Basically, magic in DnD is simply tremendously distructive and cannot be countered by other magic. (well at least in time for it to make a difference at least )

again, just my opinion.

I see "armies" being composed of small groups of adventurer types. I see kings continualy employing divination magic to attempt to prevent "sneak attacks." I see the threat of retaliation (ie you may get me but my family will get you) being probably the only real restraint on war.

joe b.

Thats my view as well.

I think there is roughly a 3-1 offense to defense ratio inherent in the D&D magic system.

This makes pitched battles very deadly. I tend to see Epic level charcters as strategic weapons and so the powers they wield are rarely unleashed simply to avoid destroying the world.

Heck a few moderate level magic items can change the world beyond recognition

Some examples

Healstone; This device is actaully a bracelet that cast Cure Light Wounds at will (and occupies one slot) it costs 2000GP (about what 20 men cost to buy gear for) and will heal 1d8+1 damage (a swored slash) every 6 seconds. This means that a mangled hero (down 100 points) will be full ready for battle in about 3 minutes, or less time than it would take to check him for injury IRL.

Food- o- Matic casts create food and water at will. This costs 30000GP (pricey) or about the same as 3 months rations for 1000 men. This doesn't seem like that good a deal but 2 of these used with creatively it can feed 1000 men and horses indefinetly

Night Goggles, Boots of Striding and Springing and Ring of Sustenance-- This combination given to a special forces team (high level guys 7+IMC) will allow the team to have an uptime of 20 hours per day, need no supplies and fight as well at night as day for a nearly unlimited amount of time. Even Marine Force Recon isn't that tough

Fireball Generator -- They call this a Firelance in IMC. It is a rod like weapon with Fireball, Heighted Spell (4th level) and 4 levels of energy substituition (costs 0) It costs 56000GP, has a range of 680 feet, does 7d of any energy damage, will pentrate a minor globe (4th level spell) It will blast a formation into ruins in a few seconds and best of all it never runs out of energy.

Blast Rod. Casts Disintegrate at will. This items is spendy (but not epic) costing 135,000GP. Its not a combat weapon (though handy) but instead a tuneling aid! A five man team with one of these can use it to create something roughly equal to the Channel Tunnel in a a month. This is verses 13000 people with modern technology taking several years to do the same task!

There are items that can be made by a spell caster of about mid to high level and the effects are mind boggling.

I can't even imagine what epic magic is like

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: well

Glen Cook is not DnD. His series is, IMHO, very well written (one of my favs) but the basic assumption is a almost no-magic world. There are perhaps 30 big sorcerors and (at least mentioned in the book) only a handful of lesser wizards. Although for continuities sake there'd have to be more cause where else are the big ones coming from Everyone else has zero magic. In DnD (at least according to the DMG) around 1 in every 50 of your populace is some kind of spell caster. That may not be how it is in your campaign, but thats the way it is in the assumed average. Anyway, the Black Company isn't a good barometer of what a DnD war would be like.

You are aware that Glen Cook has four different series, correct? I was thinking more of the unending war of the Garrett Series, rather than the Black Company, actually. In both cases, though, the high powered mages tend to counter each other, leaving the dirty work to ground-pounders. [With the obvious exception of demi-gods, like the Dominator and Kahina]. I am curious where you got the 1 in 50 number from, though. Is that in the PHB?

As to a leveling effectof wizards on both sides? Well if you mean that both armies would have the same 10 wizards doing the same tactics, you're right. And both armies' common soldiers would probably be leveled (destroyed) as well. Magic is more effective on the attack than the defense. The conflagration that an honest ta god magical war would be is truly amazing.

Agreed, if both sides are using purely offensive wizard tactics. Add in wizards casting counterspells, defensive spells, and clerics getting involved, then things change. Add in summoning spells and divination magics, and all bets are off. Standard B-S-T tactics mean those tactical nuclear mages do not want to expose themselves if they can avoid it. It's a suicidal mage who shows up on the front line and exposes himself to scrutiny by enemy mages and clerics. He may escape on Day one....but then he's a marked man.

Those 10 mages don't have to HOLD the land. They don't need to. They just have to destroy the enemy, destroy crop production, destroy infrastructure. They just have to chevauchee into enemy territory, rapidly destroy and leave. If they want the land for themselves, they'll eventually get it, because they are only part of a military force. Divination/enchantment spells practically make any form of "freedom fighters" worthless unless they can maintain their secretcy via magic. You can't have friendly villiages not tell the occupying force who and where the "freedom fighters" are given charm spells.

Which brings us back to asking why the enemy spellcasters are any less vulnerable to BST tactics than the villagers. I wouldn't argue that the mages could wreak havoc against a target. I would argue that the long term application of such would not be as efficacious as you think. What sauce for the goose is good for the gander. The spellcasters can't watch everywhere and check on everyone all the time.

I personally see a situation more akin to the cold war. Magic have and have-nots, as opposed to nuclear ones. Armies might favor rogues just as much as fighters, due to their Use Magic Device skill, perhaps moreso. Of course, then martial skill might shift back the other way, when enough rogues take the field. And so on, and so forth.

There are plenty of ways to confound such an army, just are there equal ways to boost them. We could discuss individual tactics ad nauseum, which I'm not inclined to do. If you're going to follow D&D by the book, per se, there are lots of limitations that can logically be implemented, if you so choose.

I agree that normal medieval war probably doesn't directly apply to the standard D&D setting

Magic is almost equal to or better than the war technology we have now, depending on what aspect you want to look at. Magic provides almost 100% accurate intelligence, which everyone knows is often the most important part of any conflict. Magic provides almost 100% stealth. etc.. etc..

Heh. I've got a group of 18th level players....100% is obviously measured differently in your world than in mine.

again, these are just my opinions.

And they're perfectly valid, I just respectfully disagree.

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by SHARK
Greetings!

Well, JBrowning and others are certainly entitled to their opinions--for myself, however, looking at every aspect of competitive human endeavor, especially warfare, there is almost always a dynamic of attack/defense, measure/countermeasure going on, rather successfully, throughout 6000 years of recorded human history. From that, in my opinion, it isn't unreasonable to assume that for whatever spell/magic item/tactical combination created, there is or soon will be, an effective countermeasure. In the meantime, armies still march. In my world, especially, where there are often armies of hundreds of thousands or millions of troops fighting on the battlefield, expending such efforts for effective countermeasures would seem to me quite natural, and even essential. Thus, wizards, spells, and magic items will tend to balance and cancel each other out to a rough degree.

What i think we have here, is a failure to communicate . No, not really. The above makes perfect sense, and, in general, is accurate. There are time periods where certain tactics/tech tends to dominate but usually things even out like you say.

The main thing here that I noticed is that such an idea, although reasonable, isn't necessisarily compatable with DnD concept of magic. In the long run, counter measures in DnD are usually equal to or more expensive than the actual tactic. As you know effective countermeasures must be more cost-effective than the original tactic to truly prevent said tactic from being used.

Ok here I'm going out on a limb and am very interested in hearing what others think about the above statement and my ramblings that follow. This is off-the-cuff, but from my general knowledge of the game, countermeasures tend to be equal-level to more expensive.

Like invisibility. Countering invisibility is simple as long as you're within medium range of the invisible creature. Here's what I'm talking about. An improved invisible creature would attempt to remain outside this realm of possible countermeasures to maximize effectiveness.

The expected counter to counter that is to enlarge see invisibility. Well when you do that you've only countered for a little better response for a little more cost (3rd level spell instead of 2nd). You're still doing a bit better (3rd counter for 4th Imp Invis), but the main issue here is that only one person has the counter. Only one person can see invis. If that one person cannot effectively counter other actions of the Imp Invised person, their counter of the invis is not really a counter and if it takes two people to counter one Imp Invised person you've suddenly got two 3rd level spells needed to counter one 4th.

Now this may end up ok if you have proportionaltly more 3rd level spells available (ie you do have 2 3rd level spells to fight every 4th level spell).

Now a glitterdust allows everyone to see the Imp invised creature. BUT it does take a caster who can already see the creature to cast it and it does have that annoying range issue. So again, it looks like more magic is expended to defend than attack.

Anytime you spend more reasources to defend than attack, you better have a lot of reasources (and a damn good reason why you're not on the offensive) if you want to win.

Another good scenerio is to take 4 wizards (two on each side). One group has both wiz's take offensive spells, while the other group has one wiz take offensive spells and the other wiz just counterspell. I think the offensive guys would probably win.

I have a gut feeling, which i haven't taken the time to fully explore yet as i just got it , that trying to use magic to defend against magic will require more magic that it would if you just used magic to attack to begin with.... *Whew*

For example, think about the scope for what epic level spells and magic items can do. Vast armies might concievably have protective clouds that hover over them, absorbing the majority of such energy attacks, and so on. There can be a vast array of defensive measures created, the scope is just as limitless as for attacking strategies. In addition, as my friend Wizarddru pointed out, countermeasures being what they are, wizards are not necessarily likely to be prone to expose themselves too often, or too long, especially high-level wizards. [/B]

I agree to a point. But what i think would happen more than wizards launch'en it with the boys is you'd have more of the "swat team" type PC action going on. You've have elite groups of spell casters who uber-buff before going out to wreck havoc for a few minutes.

And, just because they're wizards, don't mean they aint soldiers just like everyone else and that they wouldn't be expected to take risks. Just means they're tougher, and the risks of failure are greater. Such things have always existed in armies/warfare.

From a state point of view, very high level wizards become almost critical national resources, and exposing them to ruthless elimination could simply be out of the question, considering how long it takes to reach such powerful epic levels. [/B]

This is why i spoke about retaliation being the big thing. Honestly protecting yourself from a determined group of spellusers is pretty much imposible. Eventually you'll make a mistake and *poof* . That's when you want your friends to bring you back and/or retaliate in order to hopefully prevent the attack from occuring in the first place. Here again i think offense is vastly favored over defense.

Magically protecing yourself from magical attacks, (like teleport in, attack, teleport out type stuff) seems again to be less cost effective considering you always have to do it because the one time you don't they'll hit you then.

From this point of view, I can see where high level wizards would be used for intelligence, defense, and support, and actually far lower level wizards would be sent into the front ranks for the direct offensive action and force multiplication. There are always more lower level wizards, but when the high level ones are ripped apart, that side has lost assets--whether it is one, ten, twenty, or fifty of them, that quite literally may take decades or more to replace.
SHARK [/B]

Yep, I tend to agree with you here as well but.... The element of surprise when your big baddass shows up at a combat for even only 3 rounds, and the massive amounts of damage he will cause will, IMHO will probably outweigh the risks.

If you can obfusciate your location and plans for only 30 seconds you could do so much. I think this would eventually win out to where you'd have a situation where the BBguy would show up for a very few seconds, perhaps only one round, at almost every combat to be rather unfriendly to the other side.

I honestly don't see how you'd defend against such things until perhaps epic levels. I'm not terribly versed with the epic rules, but I expect them to follow the "more offensive bang for your buck than defensive bang for your buck" mentality that i think is indicitive of DnD magic.

Anyway, interested in hearing peoples thoughts about this. Good thread.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Re: Re: well

Originally posted by WizarDru
You are aware that Glen Cook has four different series, correct? I was thinking more of the unending war of the Garrett Series, rather than the Black Company, actually. In both cases, though, the high powered mages tend to counter each other, leaving the dirty work to ground-pounders. [With the obvious exception of demi-gods, like the Dominator and Kahina]. I am curious where you got the 1 in 50 number from, though. Is that in the PHB?

I haven't read any of his other stuff. Mostly because it a bit harder to get a hold of.

The 1 in 50 number is taken from the DMG demographics section. If you break the assumed populace down into the communities listed and use the statistical averages for spellcasters you end up with something like 1 in 50. I did it once, actually i think the number was closer to 1 in 40 (damn, maybe 1 in 35?, can't remember), but i was trying to be conservative.

Agreed, if both sides are using purely offensive wizard tactics. Add in wizards casting counterspells, defensive spells, and clerics getting involved, then things change. Add in summoning spells and divination magics, and all bets are off. Standard B-S-T tactics mean those tactical nuclear mages do not want to expose themselves if they can avoid it. It's a suicidal mage who shows up on the front line and exposes himself to scrutiny by enemy mages and clerics. He may escape on Day one....but then he's a marked man.

Well, almost all defensive magical tactics, IMHO, are rendered moot in a situation where the wizards are responsible for defending such a large group of people. True, they aint peasants their soldiers, but they still have no way outside of magical counterattacks/countermeasures to defend themselves against a flying improved invised fireballwanding wizards.

A lot of the traditional countermeasures are only effective under small group situations. No surprisingly, because that'swhat the rules are designed for .

I totally agree with your "he's a marked man." statement. Yep he is, but unfortunately he's probably already a marked man because he's in an opposing force. Outside of chivalric/humanistic conventions he's already in trouble with the other side.

But that's what i'm talking about when i speak of retaliation. Some people won't fight you if they think you'll have their family killed if you attack them.

Which brings us back to asking why the enemy spellcasters are any less vulnerable to BST tactics than the villagers. I wouldn't argue that the mages could wreak havoc against a target. I would argue that the long term application of such would not be as efficacious as you think. What sauce for the goose is good for the gander. The spellcasters can't watch everywhere and check on everyone all the time.

I personally see a situation more akin to the cold war. Magic have and have-nots, as opposed to nuclear ones. Armies might favor rogues just as much as fighters, due to their Use Magic Device skill, perhaps moreso. Of course, then martial skill might shift back the other way, when enough rogues take the field. And so on, and so forth.

This might be the case, but i'd find it very hard to believe that once one side starts losing they'll just give up without starting the "unfriendly" big magical type of war. Unless your dealing with massive epic level type magic, the cold war anology probably doesn't hold. I kinda view what your saying more like "We agree to not use magic too much, because that will get us all killed real quick." But again, once a side starts to lose, IMHO, maintaining that kind of pact would be difficult.

There are plenty of ways to confound such an army, just are there equal ways to boost them. We could discuss individual tactics ad nauseum, which I'm not inclined to do. If you're going to follow D&D by the book, per se, there are lots of limitations that can logically be implemented, if you so choose.

I agree that normal medieval war probably doesn't directly apply to the standard D&D setting

I'm not so much interested in tactic either as every tactic is pretty situational. But i do think there is a bais to DnD to favor offensive over defensive magic (see my other post here, interested in your opinions) that determines what type of stuff is possible. ie. what is balanced.

Heh. I've got a group of 18th level players....100% is obviously measured differently in your world than in mine.

Double heh. Yeah, but i was more concerned with troop movements, army compositions, logistic resources etc... That type of info would be impossible to hide in a DnD world.

And they're perfectly valid, I just respectfully disagree.

Agreed, and Vice Versa. This is one reason why i like ENworld over other places. By now most people would be shouting at each other and calling each other's game ideas stupid. Ah, civility is sorely missed.

joe b.

 

[Endur]

Epic DnD High Magic

I both agree and disagree. I think that Spell Casters will be the premiere characters at Epic Levels, but there will still be some role for armies (and fighter-types).

For an example of the increasing importance of Epic Spellcasters, just look at the ELH book and the FR example characters -- of the eleven characters, all have spell caster levels and only one has more non-spellcaster levels than spellcaster levels (Shuruppak). Now, part of this is due to a problem with translating fiction characters into levels, its easier to say that a wizard must be 21st level (or higher) so he can have access to the cool epic levell spells; on the other hand there is no reason why a tough fighter like Drizzt or Conan has to be higher than 8th level to accomplish everything he accomplishes in a novel (slaying enemies with a melee weapon).

And yet, Drizzt and Conan have slain Epic Spellcasters in the novels. So their levels are probably comparable to the Epic Spellcasters they defeated.

In the books, how did the fighters win? By somehow foiling the plots of the spellcasters, either attacking the source of the magic power or striking first or finding a defense against the supernatural powers of the spellcasters.

In DnD terms, how does an epic fighter defeat an epic spellcaster, either through striking first or through having some sort of defense against spell casting (anti-magic area, SR, high saves, etc.).

When everything is said and done, I would expect magic warfare on an epic scale to be sort of like modern warfare. Yes, we might have countries that raise million man armies. But we would also have countries that rely upon highly trained specialists and magical equipment. The ten mages example in this thread might be the equivalent of Stealth Bombers. So what is the magic equivalent of a tank? Maybe localized anti-magic areas that move.

Yes, the Stealth Bombers are dangerous. But the opposition has the magical equivalent of Radar as well as the magical equivalent of its own fighters and anti-aircraft guns.

The Black Company series of novels is interesting, but I think a more relevant system for DnD epic would be Cook's Dread Empire series.


Tom

Honestly, i don't think most of what is traditionally part of a DnD war would even happen.

Magic is almost equal to or better than the war technology we have now, depending on what aspect you want to look at. Magic provides almost 100% accurate intelligence, which everyone knows is often the most important part of any conflict. Magic provides almost 100% stealth. etc.. etc..

Arguably they may have a mindset that precludes them from using their abilities in the most effective manner, but assuming magic has evolved the entire time with the culture, certain uses are not that unreasonable.

Well, im tired of typing . I think the only reason why people have combats in DnD that resemble historical combats is because thats what they want. It has a more traditional heroic feel and leads to a hell of a lot of fun. I just dont think thats the way it would be, though.

again, these are just my opinions.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Epic DnD High Magic

The Black Company series of novels is interesting, but I think a more relevant system for DnD epic would be Cook's Dread Empire series.

Tom

Allright, allright.... I'll get the books!

joe b.
*off to e-bay*

 

[The Fifth Elephant]

Eh... you could fairly easily have all-out magic warfare be anethma to most people. If there had been a major magical war far in the past, the effects of which were still prevalent(you don't go near the hill off the main road to the city unless you want to come back with a different number of limbs) then I could see a wizard guild forming that would make itself, by force, the depository of all wizardly knowledge, and that would go after any members that participated in nationalistic wars. Of course, they would participate in planar wars, I would bet, especially if the enemy was using them.

However, in all of your guys' discussions on magical warfare, I think you're missing something. The spells in the PHB aren't the spells that a world used to magical warfare would have. They're the spells that you get in a normal D&D type world.

In a world used to heavy magical warfare, someone is going to develop effective counters to spells. Someone is going to figure out a way to prevent mass fireballings, someone is going to figure out a way to destroy magical devices, etc. Modern warfare isn't static; I doubt magical warfare would be either.

If anything, I think magical warfare would tend more towards how the US army is starting to go; smaller forces, higher technology, more mobility, more options. You wouldn't have 100,000 soilders for enemy wizards to attack; they're too hard to defend, too easy to hit. You'd have small groups, no more than 50, all decked out with magical items and highly trained. They would work together, but they wouldn't group together and make themselves targets.

 

[jgbrowning]

However, in all of your guys' discussions on magical warfare, I think you're missing something. The spells in the PHB aren't the spells that a world used to magical warfare would have. They're the spells that you get in a normal D&D type world.

In a world used to heavy magical warfare, someone is going to develop effective counters to spells. Someone is going to figure out a way to prevent mass fireballings, someone is going to figure out a way to destroy magical devices, etc. Modern warfare isn't static; I doubt magical warfare would be either.

My opinion on this is that, given the nature of the existing spells in DnD, any countermeasure spells would be less cost-effective than offensive spells and less effective. (see my invisibility bit in the above post, you can counter it but you use more magic to counter it and you pin down your wizardly offensive capablities in more magic intensive/less fruitful magical countermeasures **even were you to stop the wizard after one fireball, he still got one fireball off. you however have not damaged your opponant**).

I'm interesting in seeing what others here think about this idea specifically. Do you guys think magic defense is inherantly less effective than magical offense? Both from a SRD spell list only, and from a blanced "homebrew" spell list possiblities?

I tend to think it is because, were magical defenses cost-effective (and time/opportunity effective) against offensive magic, the balance of the game would be skewed (CRs etc the game balance of the D20 system). Magic has to be more offensive or else spellcasters would simply negate each other and then the fighters would hack. I know this happens sometime in regular PC games, but on a large scale.....?

just my .002$

joe b.

 

[reapersaurus]

joe b - you went way past what you needed to to prove your point. LOL

It is easily proven that you cannot properly use 3E magic to defend against 3E magic - it's not practical.
Even if you hypothesize an unspecified whole school of anti-magic magic , you just can't ignore the fact that it _costs_ more to defend against magic attacks than it does to attack.

Q.E.D. Let's move on to SHARK's reply of how exactly he doesn't have this problem in his world.

SHARK -

From that, in my opinion, it isn't unreasonable to assume that for whatever spell/magic item/tactical combination created, there is or soon will be, an effective countermeasure. In the meantime, armies still march

You have ignored our points.
And don't take this personally, but I must point out that this is common for you to ignore rules-based problems with your world, in my loong experience in enjoyably talking about your incredible (yet firmly unbelievable and flawed) world.

Can you maybe address the issue at hand clearly, with in-game examples as to how exactly your world stops mages from Invisibly Teleporting over any congregation of grunts, casting Time Stop, then a bunch of spells, then Teleporting away?

That's just one example, and I'm not a mage player.

I don't think you would be extreme enough to argue that high level magic can't kill hundreds of even high-level grunts, would you?
Unless ground forces are all protected by incredible magics over the majority of men, than it is a given that entire platoons would be wiped out without ever seing the enemy.
There is no way to avoid that in 3E.

Even if they are protected, there's no way that powerful magics can cover everybody in the battle.
The enemy mages would take out the ones that weren't protected.
Further, if they COULD all be protected, enemy mages would simply wait until they weren't all protected (on the march, in occupation, etc).

Unless you have the fortitude to make your world NOT have many spells that cause this fact of battles involving magic, than you are ignoring the realistic impact of magic in your world, and concluding that "The Armies Must March" based on an ignorance of that aspect of 3E.

What say you to these direct queries, SHARK?
I hold great faith that it makes sense to you, as the world's creator, why this isn't a fatal problem that I and others see.
I implore you, please directly respond to our examples, and don't go into a long, drawn-out digression about motivations, diplomacy, and non-existent rules that somehow would blunt the insane dominance that high-level magic undeniably has in 3E.

Don't wave your hand and compare 3E magic problems with real-world history.
I know your knowledge of history is voluminous and quite impressive, but it really has no business being brought up in a discussion about the reasons why magic wouldn't dominate in your world.

There.
That's my task to you, SHARK -
directly defend your world against the onslaught of crumbling reality, against the evil of loss of cohesiveness, against the heathen masses of 3E spells. <--big wink, because you know we both enjoy discussing.
Sit back with a cigar and ruminate awhile, SHARK.

 

[Dragonblade]

I'd really be surprised if your "Nightmare" of a mage player is really that fiendish with his use of magic. If he was as good as I've seen mage players be with high level magic, than NONE of your epic battles could have occurred.

Sorry, man but you are dead wrong. I am a master wizard player and it was all I could do to stay alive in SHARK's world!

I played a 20/20 Sor/Mnk in SHARK's world and I could barely stay alive. I almost died in my first battle!

I'm used to my mage's tactics sweeping the DM's armies aside with ease but it took all my tactics just to stay alive in SHARK's world.

In my first battle my mage was taking on a horde of beastmen, each one with with well over 50 HP and probably closer to 100! Each one! And we fought hundreds of them!

At the same time 15th level fighter Fire Giant archers with +5 Unholy Flaming Burst Mighty (sized for giant strength!) long bows peppered us with magical arrows!!

I cast Haste and had to use my bonus partial action to use a Wish spell to cast Heal on myself EVERY single round just to survive the over 200 hp of damage I sustained EACH round! And I was playing a 40th level character with an AC of around 40 via spells and magic items!

And did I mention that some of the Fire Giants could See Invisible at will?

But that was nothing....

Now when we fought 40 Winter Wights... now that was hard!!