Should Castles Even Exist?

[Saeviomagy]

Only insofar as you know how they have behaved in the past. Alignment is a long-term average of behavior. At a given instant, a person may choose to do whatever they like. So, knowing the alignment is really no different than knowing the person's history.



Not much. Zone of Truth is nigh useless for legal purposes, as there's no reliable way to tell if the witness made or failed the save. Discern Lies gives information only to the caster. This is useful to an individual adventurer, but not to a legal system, as you then have to depend on the spellcaster to tell the truth. And this is without considerig the effects of magical defenses against such spells (like Misdirection).

But it's still a far, far better choice than
"did you do it?"
"no"
"bugger"

 

[Umbran]

I think you illustrate pretty well why those who rule countries would be the strongest, intelligent and most resourceful people available. Rule by meritocracy is something I've always considered to be the ideal in a D&D world.

Yes, but hte ideal government won't come into being if the world as a whole is not ideal. Human nature will foil ideal solutions at every turn.

You also assume that the attacker and the defenders in this case are of equal strength and that the wizard actually need fear retribution (he is protected by the ruler(s) of the country he lives in).
[...snip...]
You assume that whomever was attacked is in any position to deal with, or even possesses knowledge of (if the attacker(s) used mind blank), the attackers.

Negative on both counts. Instead, I suggest that you are assuming that the attacker and the victim are the only people we need to worry about. They aren't. Once the weapon becomes damaging enough, no use of that weapon is of only local concern.

Nuclear weapons are again the reasonable analog. Just as the real world would not sit still if a major city were turned into a glassy crater by a nuke, the fantasy world would not sit by for the use of similar weapons.

No matter how patriotic, that spellcaster still has an 18 Intelligence - a mind as good as Kissinger's. He's simply not going to be dumb enough to put himself and his nation at risk. He knows darned well that even with Mind Blank, he won't be able to hide what he (and his nation) did from the wisest and most intelligent men in the world. And when they find out, there wil be heck to pay.

Unless you want to posit a situation like the end of WWII, where only one power has access to HL spellcasters, this just isn't a plausible tactic.

Last thought for you - this whole discussion is heavily dependant on metagame thinking! The wizard can attack with impunity, because there's no spell in the PHB that could take him down as he attacks. Specifically, it depends on the fact that he can remain invisible.

Well, excuse me, but Invisibility Purge is a whole whopping 3rd level. That leaves a whole lot of room for someone to develop a more powerful version. So, does your wizard still act as if he can attack with impunity?

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Angcuru:

If your enemy develops a weapon that can cut through plate mail like wet cheese, would you go into battle naked? No. You'd put on the armor, so that you'd be protected against the guys who DON'T have that weapon.

This actually reminds of an interesting discussion we had not so long ago about armor and it's worth in a D&D setting. D&D armor offers far, far better protection than you'd acutally get IRL against L+ critters, even with all the magical bonuses we come to expect. Even powerful magical plate armor and shields would be like wearing... tissue paper against the blows your typical H+ monsters can inflict (that is, those that can throw their weight behind their blows).

Originally posted by Umbran:
Yes, but the ideal government won't come into being if the world as a whole is not ideal. Human nature will foil ideal solutions at every turn.

Oh, I wouldn't worry. Those who don't adapt will get darwinized in a fairly expedient fashion...

Nuclear weapons are again the reasonable analog. Just as the real world would not sit still if a major city were turned into a glassy crater by a nuke, the fantasy world would not sit by for the use of similar weapons.

I don't agree, because there are some very important differences in D&D. HL characters, unlike people IRL, are far closer to gods than they are to "people". They are entirely self-sufficient, they do not fear reprisal or death like we do (both of which are remediable conditions in D&D) and if you want to impose some human motivations on these people, think power corrupts.

Now think of the power you can achieve in D&D...

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Medieval demographics and a medieval society work with D&D magic as long as you assume that high-level characters are fairly rare. But once you assume the opposite, all that goes out of the window.

And of course, exploring how a world with high-level D&D magic would really look like was one of my motivations for creating Urbis...

In this world, castles don't really exist as modern fortifications anymore. There are some border outposts that might resemble them somewhat, but they aren't designed for lengthy sieges - just as a base from where you can send your grunts to combat zones, just like military bases today (which also aren't designed for sieges).

City defenses are centered on Nexus Towers - magical constructs that enable even relatively low-level spellcasters to cast epic spells. Any large hostile army appearing on the horizon is simply going to be toast.

Instead, when you try to conquer a city-state or other strategic location, you send in high-level "special ops" to take out key defenses - fortifications, Nexus Towers, or high-level or politically important NPCs. If you cann pull that off, then you can send in your low-level grunts. You don't expect them to fight high-level enemies or dangerous monsters on their own and win. Instead they are there to "pacify" the area and cow the normal population.

And if a patrol or two goes missing in a certain area... Well, then you know to send in your specialists to investigate.

I've written a short essay on various forms of warfare in Urbis, which you can find here - most of it should be applicable to most D&D worlds with lots of magic...

 

[A'koss]

Well, excuse me, but Invisibility Purge is a whole whopping 3rd level. That leaves a whole lot of room for someone to develop a more powerful version. So, does your wizard still act as if he can attack with impunity?

Sure, Why not?

Defensive and offensive magic can improve but they still follow the ground rules for magic in the game. That is, AoE tend to be quite small and there are always some limitations. For example, you will never be able to come up with a spell that purges invisibility in a large enough area to make a difference against these sorts of attacks. If the attacker is flying high above, at night (even if it's dispelled, it doesn't help if you still can't see him), he has an enormous area (think long range spells and what area, in 3 dimensions, he could attack from) from which he can act. That's a huge area to consider.

One thing about D&D that has always held true is that offensive has always been better than defense. This is why adventurers are so successful! If an immortal demon prince can't protect himself from a bunch of mortals coming down to the Abyss to lay the smack down on him, what chance does anyone else really have?

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If you think castles are obsolete, what do you think of standing armies? Formations of pikemen are just begging to be Fireballed, and a cavalry charge is destroyed by Blade Barrier.

I think if you have lots of D&D magic, warfare will resemble modern special ops far more than anything medieval. You don't pack your people in tight formations - if a single grenade or machine gun salvo can take them out if they huddle together, the same can be said for fireballs and lightning bolts.

So, just as in modern warfare, the goal is to spot the enemy before he spots you, and kill him before he even knows that you are out there. Lots of small squads are more useful than massive hordes.

And naturally, training becomes vital. Just as modern Western combatants are highly trained specialists, the people who do all the real combat probably aren't 1st-level characters - those would only get slaughtered. That doesn't mean that such people wouldn't have a place in an army, but they will likely be in a support role, or police conquered areas that haven't been fully pacified. For the assault you send in the elite troops who will have been trained in all sorts of "unconventional warfare" - and with D&D magic and magic items, "unconventional" can get very unconventional indeed...

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

One thing about D&D that has always held true is that offensive has always been better than defense.

Which is, again, similar to modern warfare...

 

[AeroDm]

Some things that should be remembered is that if you are attacked by something, you can retaliate. A druid destroys your castle with earthquake, so you send 1000 peasants into his forest with axes. A dragon blasts your battlements, so you send countless dragon hunters after him. A cleric leads an army at your castle, so you outlaw his religion and burn his temples.

For every attack there is a retaliation. People don't do things because of equal or greater consequences. In a D&D world it is easy to hurt stuff because of the awesome offense (as mentioned above), but in that same token, when those offenses are turned back at you what you love is also easily destroyed.

 

[Paka]

We also need to ask ourselves, is D&D there to simulate the fun and adventure of fantasy literature or is the setting there to simulate the outcome of D&D's magic system?

Like AC/DC sang, "Who made who?"

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

We also need to ask ourselves, is D&D there to simulate the fun and adventure of fantasy literature or is the setting there to simulate the outcome of D&D's magic system?

Neither, actually - D&D doesn't really simulate most fantasy literature all that well, and so far few settings take the impact of D&D magic to a logical conclusion...

Which isn't to say that D&D isn't fun. It is, and if you just want to play your usual high fantasy adventure where the PCs lay the smack down on their enemies, then that's OK - I know I have played in plenty of campaigns like that myself.

On the other hand, it is a fascinating intellectual exercise to work out how D&D magic can change a world. Such an exercise can be lots of fun, but isn't for everyone.

In the end, it's all a question about what is the most fun for you. And for many people it is a lot of fun to ask questions like that. Apparently it isn't for you - but that's OK, since there are plenty of other threads on this board that might be more interesting to you.

There isn't one single way of playing D&D appropriately. It's just that I, and several other people in this thread, like to look at D&D from a particular perspective...