Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5123920" data-attributes="member: 58197">Dude, I agree with your arguments, but chill. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Castles will be useless, or use-impaired, only in a setting where both of the following are true:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Powerful spellcasters are common.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The spell list presented in the rulebooks is exhaustive (these are all the spells that exist) rather than representative (these are the spells that are generally useful for adventurers).</li> </ul>If the first is not true, then one cannot rely on having a high-level wizard available for offense or defense, and the army that does have such a wizard will use him or her with great care. Or, more accurately, the wizard will use him- or herself with great care, since high-level wizards are smart enough to make their own decisions and powerful enough that they don't have to take orders.If the second is not true, then defensive magic can be used to counter offensive. A castle with layers of defensive wards built up over decades or centuries (or even millennia, considering the sort of time scale many fantasy settings operate on) could be a tough nut for even a high-level wizard to crack.</blockquote>