Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dispater" data-source="post: 171291" data-attributes="member: 683">What this debate really depends on is the sort of campaign the DM is running.I'll give two examples:---If its a high magic campaign, with many archmages and powerful magical items, I think warfare would be dramatically changed. Fewer induviuals would participate in a battle, yet of these would be of high level and w. magical items and spell casting abilities. Lets' face it: no general would try to match a dozen archmages with thousands of 2nd - 3rd level warriors. He would rather have a band of perhaps 200 high level fighters, paladins, clerics and wizards who could stand a chance against their magic. A battlefield would more or less look like an inferno of fireballs, lightning bolts, ice storms, summoned monsters and the like. No way a lowly solider is going in there!---Then there's a low fantasy campaign where magic items äre rare and magic users far inbetween. Here the one who controls magic has a great advantage. A 5th level wizard would be ultra-powerful, for he could toss a fireball and kill a dozen men-at arms in one stroke. But then he would vulrnable, given that he is not of too high level and don't have a lot of magic items to protect him. So ultimately, he would need an army of his own to win a batle. Someone with a wand of lighting bolts, horn of blasting or equivalent item would also have poweful offensive cababilities, since there is no other magic to counter it. But in general, the threat of magic is not sufficient. Battles will still be fought the traditional way.---I think people are wrong when confuse those two styles of play. You have to consider the logical causes of magic and its effect on the campaign world.</blockquote>

Verification