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

[Jack99]

I largely agree with what you say above. I'll add one note here - rituals. Most of the 4e powers aren't such a big deal for castles, but rituals open a door for castle-busting magics if the GM wants them.

Yeah, like using Raise Land (125k gp) and raising the land around the castle (or even around town) somewhere between 1 and 10 miles up in the air, and then let them starve to death. Baring their own magic, ofc. Still might make for an interesting battle, in fact, I think I will add this to my campaign, once I have figured out what happens.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The Dragon Magazine 1982 forum column called-it wants it's topic back.

Badoom-pa!

Good to see this being discussed again. Will check it out when time permits.

 

[diaglo]

to me it is all about rarity of use.

castles work to keep the mundane common things out.

if everyone has a fireball or passwall spell then no need for a waste of money and resources on a castle.

if every attacker is a flying dragon. again don't bother.

but dragons and casters shouldn't be the norm in a campaign using castles.

much like horse and buggies. why have a horse and buggy if you can teleport all your goods or self to the next town without risk of banditry. teleport ain't on everyone's spell list. and the overuse of it will kill certain industries.

have a cause and an effect on the market when you flood it with stuff. like magic, special monsters, or a dragon hoard of treasure.

 

[Klaus]

A while ago I imagined how a castle might defend against these odd invaders (specifically for an Eberron campaign).

Towers would have a steel frame dome that two soldiers could push a lever to cause a steel shell to encase the tower top (with arrow slits and ballista slits spread about).

In addition to ballistas and catapults, new siege engines would throw nets or bundles of rope that latch onto a flying creatures' wings.

Castle walls would have tiny holes in them leading to plumbing that led to large containers of alchemist fire, alchemist spark or even holy water. Turn your enemy's undead horde into holy goo!

Courtyards would have steel chains crisscrossing above them, reducing the window for a flying creature to land. A crueler variant uses barbed chains.

 

[Celebrim]

Do traditional castles make sense as defensive structures in a fantasy world of dragons and spells?

Yes, but not all traditional castles structures make sense. As you indicate, the castles of a fantasy world would have to take into account additional dangers. However, technology existed in ancient castles to defend against technological attack that can be repurposed for defending against ariel attack or invisible inflitrators. That technology would be employed more universally in a fantasy setting to secure gatehouses from commando raids, and to provide defence against flying attackers. Arrow slits, shuttered windows, hoardings, and counter-seige weaponry still make excellent defences against fantastic attack - 90% 360 degree cover and prepared fighting positions are even more important (not less) when the missiles increase in power.

Rather than lateral attack from swords, arrows, ballistae and battering rams, fantasy defenders need to worry about aerial bombardment. In a world of dragons, flying demons, gryphon-riders, and sorcerors slinging spells, it strikes me that a traditional castle would serve the defenders poorly. A simple Magic missile spell strikes your target without fail, if the wizard can see the archer peer out the arrow slit, then bam, he can strike unerringly and wear him down.

But magic missile is a close range spell. Long before the wizard could get into range, a skilled archer could skewer him with bolts and arrows. This means that the wizard must approach invisibily or behind cover. But if invisible, then his presence is likely to become clear as soon as he attacks unless he's a quite high level wizard indeed.

Dragons breathing fire from above could take out troops on ramparts, set fire to wooden roofs, land in courtyards and munch with impunity. Winged cavalry would have superior position above the castle defenders, and could drop missles, flaming bags of pitch, blast fireballs and lightning strikes down over the walls and gates.

All of this is true. But threats of fire and plunging missiles were not unknown in the middle ages. The technology existed to counter them. All the fantasy situation changes is the relative importance of the technology.

In fact, I recently saw Prince Caspian, which had the most beautiful and creative use of gryphons I have ever seen. Their stealth gryphons dropped advance scouts and strike troops onto the castle walls and tower tops in the dead of night--allowing them to sneak into the castle to lower gates, sabotage castle defenses, even give them the opportunity to assassinate leaders without any notice or alarm sounding.

But again, technology existed to counter this threat. The threat of a castle being inflitrated was not unknown at the time. The means to lock down a sector of a castle so that the remainder of the castle could isolate it self from the inflitrated sector and then, from a superior position counter attack the exposed attackers existed. This is why keeps were designed with concentric defenses, why major towers were built with there own mini-gates houses and sometimes drawbridges, and why inner courtyards were covered with arrow slits by the main keep.

All this makes me think that a practical, realistic fortification in a typical fantasy world would have to look very different than a medieval castle.

I think that they would look very different from some castles, but that most of their features would be entirely familiar to expert castle architects of the middle ages. The one major difference other than the ubiquitousness of permenent hoardings would be that fantasy castles would have to be designed to counter-attack aerial attackers, which means you might see shuttered arrow slits in the roof of hoardings, skyward pointing balistas, and greater emphasis on being able to quickly pivot such weapons.

I think you get it mostly right so far as you go, except you need more familiarity with actual castle defences.

Those picturesque crenellations would be useless and thus would not be seen in a fantasy world. All towers and walls would have roofs to protect the soldiers; probably angled roofs to deflect missiles and shed acids and liquids over the side.

What you seem to fail to realize is that walls and towers would be roofed in the anticipation of a seige or attack anyway. Your image of a castle is based off the ruins of castles. You think of walls and towers as not having roofs because the hoardings were made of wood and generally haven't survived. The main difference is that rather than building the hoardings right before the battle as temporary structures to save on maintenance costs, they would be built as permenent and essential structures from the beginning.

A courtyard presents some danger as a place to land attackers, but you fail to realize that one of the primary purposes of a courtyard was to provide a space in which to contain an attacker where they would be exposed and without cover from defensive fire. It doesn't really matter whether the attacker got into the courtyard by going through the wall or over it, the castle is going to be designed such that you can kill whoever got there.

I really think the main threat that 'low level' warriors have difficulty facing is invisible attackers. Successful castle defense is going to have dedicated systems for responding to invisible threats. The front line of this defense is probably going to be trained creatures with the scent ability, and ideally sectors of the castle that purge invisibility spells when they are entered, backed up with the castles own spellcasting defenders to respond to these threats.

My biggest complaint against D&D is that the standard spell list makes protecting an individual no harder than attacking one, but makes attacking an area much easier than defending it. I would very much like to see more permenent spells (or spells that can be made permenent) which defend areas and structures, and I believe that such spells ought to be roughly comparable in level to the spells they defend against. That is, there ought to be relatively low level spells (4th and under) that defend areas against invisibility, divination, teleportation, fire, and so forth. There are some mundane things that counter these effects (lining structures with lead, the aforementioned gorgon's blood in the mortar) but I think that 'defensive magic' is an area insufficient interest has been placed in because its seldom of use to a PC (until relatively late in their career and they start building strongholds of their own).

 

[Ariosto]

Do fortifications make sense in a world of nuclear weapons? Do minefields and barbed wire, walls and trenches and tank traps make sense in a world of aircraft?

It is not a matter of having a perfect defense (which a fortress never was). It is a matter of having a cost-effective defense -- something that somehow slows down an attack and/or makes it more costly -- versus expected threats. It can also be a matter of visible power projection that intimidates potential trouble makers internal or external, perhaps as a reminder of powers held in reserve.

 

[Teemu]

I think that a very interesting ommission from the 4e rules are ritual warfare magic - rituals which attackers can use to cast massive fireballs and rituals which defenders can use to proof their castles against said fireballs, rock to mud and other 'traditional' D&D attacks on castles.

Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide has a small section on circle magic, which can turn a power into a war spell, a ritual like spell that has better range, area, damage, etc.

I also remember reading somewhere about using skill challenges for mass combat, and skills like Arcana and Religion could be used for war rituals.

 

[Jack7]

I think that a very interesting ommission from the 4e rules are ritual warfare magic - rituals which attackers can use to cast massive fireballs and rituals which defenders can use to proof their castles against said fireballs, rock to mud and other 'traditional' D&D attacks on castles.

Then it would be possible for PCs to be the commandos sent to spoil the other sides rituals in order to foil the attack/foil the defence.

PS, that's an interesting idea for a number of reasons, and could be employed in a number of different ways. Both tactically and strategically.

My biggest complaint against D&D is that the standard spell list makes protecting an individual no harder than attacking one, but makes attacking an area much easier than defending it. I would very much like to see more permenent spells (or spells that can be made permenent) which defend areas and structures, and I believe that such spells ought to be roughly comparable in level to the spells they defend against.

It's an interesting set of observations. I'm assuming that area defense is considered so much more problematic because of the idea of equating magic with technological and scientific power/physics. For instance in order to safely secure an area the defensive measure must either be in effect at all times (to protect against ambush and sneak attacks), have a corresponding or parallel system of Early Detection and Warning, or be able to anticipate and thwart attacks ad hoc, or at least moments before such an attack is successfully executed. It is useless to raise even a perfect defense too late to be truly effective, no matter how grandiose in nature, or impressive in theory. All of these strategies would require enormous energy and manpower reserves (as do real word defensive measures), whereas offensive attacks are of relatively brief duration, if successful (nor requiring protracted siege or battering), and can be concentrated into a relatively small area for maximum destructive effect. (Defense is often as much a matter of dispersing force, which requires huge amounts of energy and/or materiel, as it is of avoiding force, which is generally much easier to accomplish, but effective offense is almost always a matter of the concentration of force.) Defense eyes a much more energy intense (in the long run, defense is a slow burn of energy, offense an acute and violent one) and problematic function than is offense. (Though depending on circumstance and the forces and weapons involved an effective defense may be much easier to execute than an effective offense, once the actual circumstances of the engagement are known.)

But that set of analyses is naturally dependent upon equating magic with science and technology and physics, of which I personally am not a huge fan. Still, just as a pragmatic matter, there are many inherent problems associated with effective and long term area defense and I can see how many would naturally equate high cost and restrictive energy consumption rates with such a set of problems.


As for the Castle idea itself I agree with those who have said the actual situation would be circumstantial, and dependent upon "conditions upon the ground."

And I agree with those who state that castle, and defensive design parameters would naturally adapt to any change in conditions of offensive strategy and tactics. Then again, to take the analogy a bit further, one could easily adapt the castle (the nature of a fixed, tough, concentrated fortification) into a trap (tricking the offensive force into attacking an area or fixed target which is designed only to slow or attrit the enemy while the real counter-attack is then delivered external to the presumed target - as Caesar did in Gaul), and into a facade. For instance underneath the castle could easily be an underground system of countermining, reserve forces, supplies, a transpiration and communications system, etc.

Then again with sufficient magic, or with cooperative magic, need castles be fixed emplacements as we normally think of them? Could they not become mobile command centers, perhaps even a type of FOB able to be transported or teleported into and out of the areas of an engagement as necessary? One could even imagine, with enough power expenditure, or trasnformative magic, a walking castle, or one that transforms into other things.

Castles could be adapted as to design and function to serve any number of new and necessary roles as regards both defense and counterattack/countermeasures. How effective these countermeasures might be and for how long they would function effectively against offensive forces would depend a great deal on espionage and communications and security. But I suspect castles could be redesigned, or modified in design, or altered in function to where they become less instruments of fixed emplacement and fortification, and more a sort of multi-purpose operating base from which could be launched both effective defensive measures and effective counterattacks/countermeasures. (Of course such castles might be very rare and the exception to the rule, most castles may remain more or less traditional in design and function, but some castles could become an entirely new kind of thing.)

You'd just have to think of Castles not as what they appear to be traditionally, and more of what they could become out of necessity or new use.

 

[Dausuul]

It depends on the prevalence of magic and monsters.

Yeah, this is really what it comes down to. In a low-magic world, castles work pretty much the same as always. Wizards are rare, mysterious, and not inclined to let themselves be used as artillery pieces. A bold and daring hero might tame a griffon and use it for a mount, but nobody is fielding armies of griffon cavalry. Dragons are terrifying incarnations of elemental fury; the idea of recruiting one into your army is a joke. All in all, warfare looks mostly like it did in the real medieval era.

In a high-magic world, with most powerful nations having a spellcaster corps, aerial forces on winged mounts, and so on and so forth...

Castles are still functional but require some adjustments. To ward off aerial bombardment, there would be a trend toward self-contained, roofed keeps rather than the elaborate arrangements of baileys and curtain walls seen in later-era real-world castles. In cases where there were curtain walls, the battlements would be roofed and there would be protected passageways for defending troops to move around in. Most castles would have heavily protected "eyries" to accommodate friendly flyers.

While D&D magic can substitute for modern technology to a degree, there are some key differences. In particular, a fireball spell lacks the "punch" of high explosives when attacking fortifications. Mid-level wizards, or lowbies with charged wands, can blast unprotected defenders off the castle walls, but actually bringing down the walls themselves takes serious mojo... even in a high-magic world, wizards capable of such spells are not common, and you probably wouldn't want to risk them on the front lines.

The biggest danger is wizards who are capable of teleporting or opening portals directly into the enemy keep, bypassing the defenses entirely and allowing invaders to pour in. To help defend against this, castles could be divided up with "bulkheads," so that a breach in one sector could be sealed off and the invaders contained--much like a submarine or a spacecraft sealing off a hull breach. Each sector would be capable of functioning independently, with its own food supplies, armory, sleeping quarters, latrines, and so forth.

(Edit: Per Celebrim, apparently most of this was standard operating procedure in the real world! Medieval armies were more sophisticated than we give them credit for.)

Of course, there is also the question of defensive magic. If it's possible and reasonably economical, anti-teleportation wards would be standard operating procedure on every substantial fortification; a couple of rooms would be exempted for the benefit of friendly wizards, but those rooms would be designed so the defenders can turn them into killing zones if hostile casters try to port in. Castles would maintain stockpiles of spell/ritual components for defending wizards.

In the extreme case, major castles would maintain a network of teleportation circles, allowing each castle to bring in thousands of defending troops at a moment's notice! This might actually be the thing that changes castles more than anything else. If every castle can be reliably reinforced via permanent portals, then there's no need to waste space on supplies or even living quarters for more than a skeleton crew... and to a great extent, no need for a castle at all. Most castles would be designed around protecting the portal itself. "Real castles" would be limited to a handful of truly massive fortifications at the heart of the realm, where the king and nobles reside with the bulk of their armies.

Then again with sufficient magic, or with cooperative magic, need castles be fixed emplacements as we normally think of them? Could they not become mobile command centers, perhaps even a type of FOB able to be transported or teleported into and out of the areas of an engagement as necessary? One could even imagine, with enough power expenditure, or trasnformative magic, a walking castle, or one that transforms into other things.

The Dragonlance novels had this with the flying citadels, which totally wrecked the defensive plans of people accustomed to more traditional modes of warfare. In fact, the whole Chronicles trilogy is a case study in what happens when you drop a high-magic army (the dragonarmies) into a low-magic world (post-Cataclysm Krynn).

 

[Rykion]

Castles might look a bit different, but they certainly still make sense in a fantasy world. They're perfectly suited against mundane ground-based enemies. Ballistas and netting could be added to help defend against aerial attacks. In a high magic world, I'd expect a castle to be warded against hostile magic and wizards would be included in the forces defending it.