Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ùìéè äîáåê" data-source="post: 71062" data-attributes="member: 1212">Military NeedsIn many ways, I see the situation as similar to modern warfare. With overwhelmingly strong weapons, on both sides, defense is very difficult. This leads to several results, chiefly that 1) defense is mostly MOBILE. You find no castles in modern warfare, and very few (extremly well-fortified and therefore expensive) permament bases within the war-zone.2) Communication, military intelligence and mobility of your forces are of paramount importance. It seems to me that, much like the modern army, the army in a magic-rich world (as 3E is) would invest more in spells such as Scry, Fly, Messege and similar spells/magic items. While the attack spells are more flamboyant, magic is actually SO effective that assuming you have enough of it (and a wand of fire missiles is definitely enough here!) the problem would become where to aim it - and how to keep the enemy from aiming it at your weaknesses. Military intelligence is the key.As for the castles themselves, in a standard D&D campaign I believe all that investment that is really needed to maintain a castle that would not fall to a bunch of, say, 2nd level sorcerers is just not worth it. A lesser investment would allow you to build a military force that would be their match on the field, as a mobile force, instead of pinned down in a known location just waiting to be attacked.I am not saying that castles should be thrown out. Castles are an important part of the Fantasy landscape. I just don't think they are applicable without seriously meddling with either their construction (requiring, as noted befoe, a LOT of effort) or changing the rules somehow.Personally, I prefer changing the rules. I have not yet decided precisely how, but I intend to make constructing un-scryable and un-passable construction feasible, at a "reasonable" expense in my campaign. The inner core of castles (the Keep, rather then the whole shabang) should be built as such. High-level casters would be able to breach it (as it would normally be made by low-level spellcasters), but they are, indeed, very very rare.Another point I would like to comment on are the levels. How you build your world's population is up to you, but by the DMG rules a Small city would have something like 2 8th-level wizards, 4 4th-level, 8 2nd-level and 16 1st-level wizards. So relatively high level wizards (certainly above 2) should be part of any serious campaign, assuming wizards are "part of the land". I can't imagine ALL those 8th level wizards not participating in a campaign to fight off an Orcish invasion. Afterall, this is their homes, where their families are, where their friends are...The DMG guidelines aside (I really don't think they are any good), have you considered what participating in such a campaign would do to those 1st-level wizards? The military service (assuming a war) would be one long adventure. Even if you will only grant them XP on what they kill themselves, they should either die or be advanced in levels during the campaign. I don't think any would remain 1st level after it. I estimate level 3, perhaps even 4, to be the average "surviving" level of a long war, if you are honest enough to allow the NPCs to receive XP for Story Awards, for outwitting the enemy, for leading their forces and so on - as I, and I believe most, DMs do.This has been long, and as I reread I find I put things sometimes too blantly. I don't mean to say anything you said was wrong, or that I know better. Infact I found your discussion very interesting and ilumminating - or I wouldn't have written a reply. I just thought I'll put in my own thoughts on the mattter, as a former and reserves soldier (not that I am a good proffesional soldier by any means, I don't mean to imply knowledge - just a point of view).</blockquote>

Verification