Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 171267" data-attributes="member: 463">For most worlds a mix is best - a few hundred soldiers plus a wand of fireballs gives a good mix of capability, much better than 2 wands or twice as many men without magical support.It's a fact of D&amp;D that 'armies' of a few hundred without magical support are easy meat to high level PCs.&nbsp; Armies of a few thousand or tens of thousand with moderate magic support (say NPC casters half the level of the PCs) are almost never stoppable by PCs, when I've seen it tried the PCs usually come to grief - and that was in 2e when Protection from Normal Missiles was far more powerful.Still, D&amp;D battles do resemble 20th century warfare in that offensive actions rely on air superiority for success, an army without air superiority will suffer a lot of attrition from flying fireballers.&nbsp; Maybe not enough to stop a large army, but it certainly hurts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 171267, member: 463"] For most worlds a mix is best - a few hundred soldiers plus a wand of fireballs gives a good mix of capability, much better than 2 wands or twice as many men without magical support. It's a fact of D&D that 'armies' of a few hundred without magical support are easy meat to high level PCs. Armies of a few thousand or tens of thousand with moderate magic support (say NPC casters half the level of the PCs) are almost never stoppable by PCs, when I've seen it tried the PCs usually come to grief - and that was in 2e when Protection from Normal Missiles was far more powerful. Still, D&D battles do resemble 20th century warfare in that offensive actions rely on air superiority for success, an army without air superiority will suffer a lot of attrition from flying fireballers. Maybe not enough to stop a large army, but it certainly hurts. [/QUOTE]

Verification