How can nations afford armies?

[clockworkjoe]

Re: Actually clockwork...

This is a discussion about whether low-level armies would be fielded for whatever reason, either to compliment high-level individuals, for administrative purposes, etc. You have artificially narrowed the topic of discussion to one of one-on-one combat effectivness in order to prove your point, absent a more subtle analysis as offered by others on this board.

The soldiers would know where do fire, because they would work in collusion with a mage who has the ability to see the invisible as well as dispel that invisibility...after that, its bye-bye invisible mage...

My point is that high level magic users (and to a lesser extent, high level fighter and rogue types) are too powerful to be stopped by any amount of low level warriors, provided the high level characters can take proper preparation against the low level warriors.

Obviously an army with mages is greater than just a mage but a sufficently powerful mage is greater than ANY number of low level warriors. A single powerful mage in 3e could wipe out any number of low level archers by himself provided he had the right spells and items and the archers didn't have anything else.

In other words, 100 level 1 warriors with bows are less than 1 level 15-20 mage with proper gear.

Besides, in your example, the high level mage could prepare a few doses of dust of disappearence and thus can not be made visible by any means the low level mage could have.

 

[jasamcarl]

You still don't get it...

The question isn't one of whether a a low-level army or high level mage is more POWERFUL, but whether a low-level army COMPLIMENTING a high-level mage is more effective that simply having TWO high-level mages. I think that is the case. Thus, despite the weakness of low-level armies in direct conflict with high-level characters, they would still be EFFECTIVE and worth fielding..

Of course, this is ALL campaign specific. But to make the blanket statement that such armies would not exist is absurd...

 

[Kichwas]

Re: Re: mmadsen...

[BDozens of comrades-in-arms are dying fiery deaths around you, screaming, writhing, leaving the stench of burning flesh, etc. You're effectively getting carpet bombed with napalm while in mass formation under zero cover. [/B]

You should ask this of soilders who have fought in modern warfare and had missles and indirect artillery raining down on them.

You hunker down; identify the source, and take it out with everything you've got.

You might be suprised at how well morale can hold together.

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Re: Re: mmadsen...

You hunker down; identify the source, and take it out with everything you've got.

Without magical support, you don't have any method of identifying the source.

If magical support is included in the army, it ceases to become the "typical army". Instead, I figure that the army would be a mass of fireball fodder, just there to protect the high-level fighters, clerics, and wizards who can hit back hard.

But wouldn't it just be easier for those high-level characters to use teleport and wreak havoc without having to rely on hundreds or thousands of walking dead men?

 

[jasamcarl]

Not...

not without ignoring the amazing damage potentional of such an army BACKED by highlevel characters..it would make much more of a difference that another similar pc..

 

[jasamcarl]

Simplistic Analysis...

Ok, it seems clear that those who deride the notion that thousands of low-level characters would be of consequence are still facing the paradigm of the one-on-one battle as the determinate of balance. In this case balance refers to the plausability that such an army would be fielded in the first place. Those who have actually gone through a disciplined analysis must come to the conclusion that the 'always hit on 20' rule pretty much gives value to numbers relative to levels. Regardless of what ROLE such armies would play, and i fully admit that key individuals would have greater prominence in DnD than the realworld, the fact is that they do HAVE a role, atleast within a narrow tactical sense. Again the strategic role, which is campaign-specific, might very. But the blanket statement that level-1 warriors become utterly and consistently useless at higher levels is old and misleading...

 

[clockworkjoe]

Re: Simplistic Analysis...

Ok, it seems clear that those who deride the notion that thousands of low-level characters would be of consequence are still facing the paradigm of the one-on-one battle as the determinate of balance. In this case balance refers to the plausability that such an army would be fielded in the first place. Those who have actually gone through a disciplined analysis must come to the conclusion that the 'always hit on 20' rule pretty much gives value to numbers relative to levels. Regardless of what ROLE such armies would play, and i fully admit that key individuals would have greater prominence in DnD than the realworld, the fact is that they do HAVE a role, atleast within a narrow tactical sense. Again the strategic role, which is campaign-specific, might very. But the blanket statement that level-1 warriors become utterly and consistently useless at higher levels is old and misleading...

I don't think anyone said that. I certainly didn't. All I said is that they don't have a chance against high level magic users who aren't stupid. Without support. Hordes of low level followers have a place, to collect taxes, keep the peace, pillage the cities, and generally act as red shirt ensigns.

The always hit on a 20 rule isn't that powerful when you know how to work around it.

 

[Corinth]

(Double Post)

 

[Corinth]

Which is why I always use the Instant Kill rule.

 

[Errant]

Re: Re: Actually clockwork...

In other words, 100 level 1 warriors with bows are less than 1 level 15-20 mage with proper gear.

You're forgetting relative costs. 100 level 1 warriors (lets call them mercenary footmen) will cost 40 Gp per day on standard DMG costs (& thats allowing for double/hazard pay) while paying a 15th level wizard to unload all the spells he can cast in one day would cost 15,000 Gp, not including hazard pay. Not including the costs to equip each of them with typical equipment for their respective levels, and assuming you could find a patriotic wizard prepared to risk himself in battle, and how about the time it takes to train those 15th level characters? How many 1st level anythings can you conscript, train & field in the time it takes to do that?

If I was king/emperor/whatever, I'd be treating my 15th level+ wizards (etc) as national assets & keeping them out of harms way, or in reserve, until absolutely necessary.

My wizards would be tucked away in a heavily warded & guarded secret location cranking out wands, scrolls & magic items for the troops. (How much story-award experience would it be worth to spend your time making magic items for your realm - at cost - & studying to make more? Enough to make it self-sustainable in experience point terms, I'm sure)

My fighters would be leading magic-heavily equiped squads held in reserve to protect my generals or to lead strikes against nasty's summoned onto the battlefield by the enemy.

My clerics (those I could 'enlist' from their temples with the promise of continued permission to preach their faiths in my realm) would be kept right next to my generals to protect, heal & keep them alive.

And so on.

High level characters are FAR too valuable to risk unnecessarily. Yes they're effective, but they're also prime targets for the enemy's high level characters & they're far too difficult to replace.

As I see it, costs (in gold AND time) make hordes of low-level grunts, strategically, at least as valuable as high level heroes.

Sure, tactically, your archmage can take out my first thousand grunts without breaking a sweat. But when your archmage is low on/out of spells, the Vrock(s) summoned by my archmage eats your archmage & my next few thousand grunts don't have to worry about your arch-mage anymore.

[edit: corrected spelling/formatting errors]