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

[Celebrim]

Interestingly, at the beginning of some of the Welsh rebellions in the period after Edward's Welsh castles were built, they were often garrisoned by small numbers of men- 18-25 men-at-arms.

They made military-economic sense (you raised the economic issue on a later post) because despite the high creation cost, once in place they projected a large amount of presence for a fairly low on-going cost due to the small garrison. And in even this small number of men could hold off much larger forces long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

But in a D&D world, set your mid-level adventuring party the task of taking such a castle and how many would really fail?

This raises alot of points. How common of a threat is a mid-level adventuring party? If the threat isn't very common, then the castle might still be useful against common threats and hense justifiable. If the threat is very common, what is the chance that the castle is defended by a mid-level adventuring party? What disadvantage would a mid-level party be placed at, if they had to attack another mid-level party who were fortified in a castle and had at their command 18-25 men-at-arms of a level appropriate to the campaign world (both 'low level' and 'mid-level' are relative to the demographics of the population).

You could, of course, put a high level lord in the castle but that doesn't seem to be consistent with how those castles were garrisoned.

The question of how you'd have to garrison a castle given the common threats to it hasn't been raised that much (except when several people noted that gaurd dogs and other creatures with the 'scent' ability would be good investments).

We also haven't addressed the strategy of castle buildnig. Garrison castles as were used to project a presence into the Welch frontier, and deter incursions by the Welsh into England, and project English culture into Wales (by encouraging town development in their vicinity) aren't the only strategic use of castles. Even if garrison castles no longer make strategic sense (a point I'm not sure I agree with, since I think 'low to mid-level adventuring party' would be the standard garrison), that doesn't obselete the other uses of a castle like for example, defending a city or strategic point. A castle that housed the garrison of a cities military could be much more strongly defended than a frontier outpost.

Does the castle continue to make sense or are there other alternatives? At what point is the value in the defenders and not in the stone structure? When it tips to the former, why build the latter?

That is the key questions we are trying to answer. What are the alternatives to castle construction?

 

[S'mon]

The 18-25 men/mid level party thing raises what for me is a big issue - it's not castles which are ineffective, but Gygaxian castles with their droves of hapless 0-level men-at-arms. IRL a royal castle garrison would be small, but they'd be hardened veterans, superbly equipped. Even in 1e demographics it makes no sense to rank them below 'Warrior' - 2nd level - with a good number of higher level serjeants, knights etc.

One thing I like about 4e is that it does away with this trope - which somehow survived into 3e. Now I can garrison castles with 3rd level baseline Human Guards from the MM, and no one thinks I'm 'cheating'.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The 18-25 men/mid level party thing raises what for me is a big issue - it's not castles which are ineffective, but Gygaxian castles with their droves of hapless 0-level men-at-arms. IRL a royal castle garrison would be small, but they'd be hardened veterans, superbly equipped. Even in 1e demographics it makes no sense to rank them below 'Warrior' - 2nd level - with a good number of higher level serjeants, knights etc.

One thing I like about 4e is that it does away with this trope - which somehow survived into 3e. Now I can garrison castles with 3rd level baseline Human Guards from the MM, and no one thinks I'm 'cheating'.

This; the men at arms that formed the garrison of royal castles and the core elements of household troops of the richer nobility would be professionals and pretty much mid level by the standards of the time.
0-level are essentially the peasant levies.
Now what consitutes mid level is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Hussar]

This raises alot of points. How common of a threat is a mid-level adventuring party? If the threat isn't very common, then the castle might still be useful against common threats and hense justifiable.

Could I adjust that slightly? Instead of mid-level "adventuring party" could that be changed to "mid-level threats"? After all, it's not just classed NPC's that are the big issue here, but anything that could reasonably threaten a mid-level party could threaten a castle or stronghold as well.

In other words, just how common (to use 3e critters which I'm more familiar with) are CR 5-10 creatures? I guess in 4e you'd have to ask how common are Paragon and high end Heroic creatures?

But, other than that, I agree pretty much completely. And, that's a very good point in that just defense is not the entire point of a castle. Edo Japan had three centuries of peace, yet saw a continuous stream of new castles being built as government seats throughout the country. These weren't being built because in response to any particular threat, but more as a symbol of government, despite the functionality of these castles.

 

[Hereticus]

I think you're proving his point. If you are at the point where you have an 18th level cleric or wizard on call to defend every castle, then why have castles in the first place? Why not use the immense magical power that you have at your command and create extradimensional cities with a small, easily defended gate?

It's very, very unlikely that you will have that kind of power to defend every castle, and, if you do, then the castle pretty much becomes obsolete. I think it's a very interesting question actually, because the attackers don't need Archmages to attack. Many of the creatures have innate abilities - giants, treants, molds and jellies, - that sort of thing that would be fairly easy and cheap to deploy whereas the defender is pretty much required to have massive expenses keeping very high level characters on call to defend.

Most non-adventuring high-level characters get powerful as part of a society, having taken a position of leadership. These powerful humanoids (if not evil) will likely want to remain part of that society.

Most castles will not have these powerful beings, just the most significant ones. Most castles will be grouped together as part of a civilization, and a hierarchy will develop. It may be easy for the dragon to destroy a smaller castle, but if it continues attacks on smaller targets it will eventually run into a trap and lose.

And there will be the evil elite, who are always invisible and flying, and live in small self-imposed prisons.

As far as cities go - well, how do you get the city without the castle to defend it? The reason you got cities is because the castle pacified the area in the first place. Without that pacification, the city would be easy pickings for pretty much anyone. And a walled city without a castle is very, very weak.

Why?

Most major cities will have walls that are unbreachable without magic or a very large number of powerful creatures. In the major cities I designed for my campaigns, there are many fortified structures inside the city and the area around it.

 

[Hussar]

But, how did those cities develop in the first place? Sure, once you have the resources of the city, you can make unbreachable walls that suchlike. No problem. But, you have to start with a village first, which certainly doesn't have those kinds of resources.

So, who protected the village on its way through town and into its growth into a city.

And, note, even by 3e demographics, only the very largest cities should have high level (as in 15+) level characters and you should only have one or two of those in an entire nation state. The vast majority of settlements would be villages.

 

[Hereticus]

But, how did those cities develop in the first place? Sure, once you have the resources of the city, you can make unbreachable walls that suchlike. No problem. But, you have to start with a village first, which certainly doesn't have those kinds of resources.

Send me a PM, and I'll email you the into I sent out with my most recent game. It's too long to post here at once.

So, who protected the village on its way through town and into its growth into a city.

I assume that most civilizations are ancient, and they eventually grew to become powerful just as their enemies grew to become powerful.

And, note, even by 3e demographics, only the very largest cities should have high level (as in 15+) level characters and you should only have one or two of those in an entire nation state. The vast majority of settlements would be villages.

Sorry, but I don't go chapter and verse by the book. Especially for the details that don't involve role playing and core mechanics. I started with AD&D (a home rule heavy edition), and and never threw everything out when the new edition arrived.

 

[Hussar]

Send me a PM, and I'll email you the into I sent out with my most recent game. It's too long to post here at once.



I assume that most civilizations are ancient, and they eventually grew to become powerful just as their enemies grew to become powerful.



Sorry, but I don't go chapter and verse by the book. Especially for the details that don't involve role playing and core mechanics. I started with AD&D (a home rule heavy edition), and and never threw everything out when the new edition arrived.

But, did these opponents just not exist at some point in the past, thus allowing cities to develop? Presumably, in most fantasy worlds, the different races and whatnot develop at about the same time. So, who protected the villages on their way to cities? It doesn't matter if you developed last year or ten thousand years ago. The threats are exactly the same.

Now, it's perfectly fine to handwave it and I think that's what the vast majority of setting do. But, unless the cities popped out full formed (not an impossibility in a world with gods), they still had to progress from hamlet on up. Which means they needed protection.

 

[Celebrim]

The 18-25 men/mid level party thing raises what for me is a big issue - it's not castles which are ineffective, but Gygaxian castles with their droves of hapless 0-level men-at-arms.

While I'm all for Gygax on most things, this ended up being one of the things we rejected most early in Gygax's demographics. I think Gygax was thinking as a war gamer, and his interests were primarily: "I shouldn't let the PC's hire armies of high level characters, nor should I give the impression that the PC's aren't remarkable heroes."

But in practice, we noticed Gygax rejected his own demographics. Gaurds and bandits in modules and dungeons were quite frequently not 0 level fighters. I also noticed as a DM that the good guys generally lacked the ability to defend themselves creditably from the bad guys in the absence of the PC's. I didn't mind so much if the PC's could turn the tide in the good guys favor (that's the point after all), but if on one side you had forces that could challenge a 10th level party and on the other side you had mostly 0-level fighters, it raised the issue of how the good guys had survived until the PC's came around. I wanted all the various cultures where a status quo had persisted for some time to have creditable defence against all their neighbors. This meant more than 0-level fighters. Also, I worried as a DM that the good guys would have no means to deter players from turning their characters against the good guys as easier targets. This was a form of derailing I didn't really want to deal with. Also, my sense of wargamer was to want to pit Sparta vs. Persia, or Rome vs. Gaul and there was a feeling that the elite military units of history ought to be differentiated in various strong ways from the run of the mill. All these things led to by the end of the '80's creating the idea of elite units composed of 1st or even 2nd level fighters.

Then we encountered Forgotten Realms, and there we saw a DM with a published setting where he was not afraid to suggest elite units of up to 4th or 6th level. Now, I didn't think much of the FR and considered that more of the typical power creep in the game, but it did get me to open up and think hard about my Gygaxian biases and I stopped fearing my biases and started considering what sort of upper limits I'd be willing to accept and what sort of demographics I really believed in.

Then I got involved in a campaign that used alot of Battlesystem and one thing I noticed is that units of high level characters were great heroic talismans just like magic swords or magic rings. Players got really enthused by them, especially if you kept them suitably rare and special (but not obviously, unknown). Power gamers loved to create potent maximized armies. Roleplayers loved to create armies of less than faceless individuals. Keeping NPC's just 0-level went contrary to what I felt were the real needs the game. So I pretty much abandoned the idea of abundant 0 level characters by the early 90's.

A small border garrison of an average nation would IMC contain 40 or so 2nd and level fighters, a handful of experts to maintain the place and provide for the troops, some gaurd dogs, some war horses, and what would in essence be an NPC party of 5th-6th level (commander, mage, cleric, scout). They'd differ from the PC's in various ways. They'd not be as well equipped. They'd have unexceptional attributes. They'd have skill and feat selections more geared to mundane affairs and a general fear of uncanny things and crawling into dark holes, but they could handle most things up to CR 8 fairly well.

One thing I like about 4e is that it does away with this trope - which somehow survived into 3e. Now I can garrison castles with 3rd level baseline Human Guards from the MM, and no one thinks I'm 'cheating'.

But it restores another 1e trope that I liked no better: that NPC's and PC's are simply made of different things. Just as I tossed away Gygaxian demographics, I also tossed away the trope that NPC's couldn't gain levels like PC's could. 4e brings it back.

And Gygaxian demographics didn't even survive into the 90's. As I said, FR, for better or worse, killed them.

 

[Ariosto]

Gygaxian castles with their droves of hapless 0-level men-at-arms.

The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, page 15 (adapted for clarity):

Type of Guards/Retainers in Castle
​

(The number after indicating the type die to use to determine how many)

(D6) Occupant
Then 1d4 for Retainers
(1) - Lord (Fighter 9)
1: L7 Ftrs. 8 2: Griffons* 6 3: L6 Ftrs. 10 4: Giants 4

(2) - Superhero (Fighter 8)
1: L6 Ftrs. 8 2: Rocs* 4 3: Ogres 4 4: L5 Ftrs. 10

(3) - Wizard (Magic-User 11)
1: Dragons 4 2: Chimeras 4 3: Wyverns 4 4: Basilisks 4

(4) - Necromancer (Magic-User 10)
1: Chimeras 4 2: Manticores 6 3: Lycanthropes 12 4: Gargoyles 12

(5) - Patriarch (Lawful Cleric 8)
1: L4 Ftrs. 20 2: L8 Ftrs. 6 3: Treants 10 4: Hippogriffs* 8

(6) - Evil H.P. (Chaotic Cleric 8)
1: Trolls 10 2: Vampires 6 3: White Apes 20 4: Spectres 10

*With a like number of L4 Fighters riding these creatures.

In addition ... From 30 to 180 men, half crossbow armed light foot, half be heavy foot. Everyone mounted who/that can be. Possible others in party:

Fighter: 25% Magic-User (Level 5-8), 50% Cleric (Level 3-6)
Magic-User: 25% Fighter (Level 5-8), 505 Apprentice (Level 4-7)
Cleric: 50% 1-6 Assistants (Level 4-7)