Should Castles Even Exist?

[Dark Jezter]

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.

And then those plans are thwarted by the druid casting Creeping Doom on the army of peasents, the dragon eating the dragon hunters, and the cleric summoning a few Planar Allies to guard his temples.

The best way to counter high-powered adventurers or monsters running rampant in your realm would be to get some high-powered adventurers of your own. Though there are some other counters. A high-level spellcaster could suddenly find themselves in deep trouble if they anger a person in possession of an item that generates an anti-magic field, for example.

 

[S'mon]

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...

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to treat D&D warfare (3e especially) is as a late-medieval 'War of the Roses' paradigm, where armies are centred around fairly small numbers of elite fighters (knights) - well armoured, well equipped and for most world, well supported by magic. Masses of 1st level warriors is ok for World War I or Fall of the Roman Empire, but doesn't really fit either 15th century warfare or the world implied by the D&D ruleset (leaving aside some DMG comments). In a 15th century army, the 1st levellers with padded armour are little more than cheerleaders for the full plate-armoured knights (level 4+ Fighters in D&D terms). Even troops who aren't knights are mostly highly trained and extremely well equipped - units of English longbowmen or Swiss pike wear equipment costing hundreds of gp, train hard for many many years and are certainly going to average over 1st level.

IMO trained heavy infantry can still have an effective role on the D&D battlefield, but need to be more than 1st-level mooks.

Eg: Pikeman Ftr-2 ST 14 CON 14 DEX 10 IN 10 WI 10 CH 10 AC 17 (half plate) HP 22 (Toughness) ATT: +5 (wpn focus) dam: 1d10+3 (halberd, etc) Other Feats: Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes.

If fireballs are common, magic counter-measures like potions of fire resistance would be likely. A unit of several hundred with good discipline could stand up to a lot of fireballing, just as Swiss pike stood up to a lot of artillery barrages.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Assorted musings

1) Generally, only spells of level 3+ will have an immediately apparent effect during the battle.

Magic missle and cure light wounds are nice, but aren't likely to turn the tide in the heat of battle. Charm person can certainly be useful, but only under specific circumstances. Web is pretty potent, but rather flimsy when fire is around. So, unless there are lots of level 5+ spellcasters, magic is a complication, but not a determining factor. Maybe high-level druids do not bother with mundane politics? Or maybe there aren't very many of them?

2) Defensive magic can neutralize offensive magic.

Assuming that the defenders have approximately the same resources as the attackers, defeneders can use magic defensively. Wizards hiding behind castle ramparts could ready counterspells to prevent the obvious attacks (fireball, lightning bolts, flying opponents, etc). Gusts of wind can destroy the really dangerous cloud spells.

3) Cover always helps.

Cover always gives you bonuses not just for AC, but also for reflex saves. So, the defenders will have an easier time of it than attackers.

4) Defensive magic

Plenty of spells can really help castle defenders. For example, when the attackers trash the front gates, a quick wall of fire (or better yet, wall of iron) will keep the inside of the keep safe. Rock to mud outside the castle walls will make approach difficult. Dimensional anchors keep out the teleporters. Protection from evil circles keep out the summoned monsters.

5) Lots of attackers may not have magic.

There is always the horde of barbarians/undead/humanoids/peasants that has limited magic but wants to attack a community. If a mob of trolls comes in rampaging, do you want to face them on open ground? Walls definitely help here. So even if your keep can't stop a 15th level druid, you can deal with mobs of low-magic creatures.

6) Not all spellcasters have exactly the right spells.

Maybe invisibility is rare? Or what if lightning bolt/fireball are banned by some sort of wizard's conventions. What if most wizards are necromancers or diviners?

7) Narrative imperative

Fantasy stories are always filled with great sieges. So, you probably want them in your games. Powerful magic can certainly be used to turn the tide, but it's because it's your players who are using them, or its the baddies using them against the players.

 

[reiella]

Hmm, bit odd there. In general, only a handful of spells would create a situation where the Castle is more of a disadvantage than an advantage (Earthquake, transmute rock to mud, other situations that would result in the castle Falling in on the inhabitants inside). As another note however, if you don't have a castle (With some sort of cover), your forces would suffer -alot- from Storm of Vengeance (although it would possibly be similiar to the level of suffering from earthquake).

I'm a bit challenged however, as to how you pre-emptively protect against Earthquake or Transmute Rock to Mud? For the later I guess you could use a metal foundation (Expensive.... but also a level of protection from underground assaults). For for earthquake? I can see nothing beyond having the castle floating above the ground.

 

[A'koss]

Again if your HL demographics allow your kingdom (and/or the opposition) to muster 2 or 3 groups of HL characters, don't bother with the army until you have neutralized the opposition's HL forces first.

I see a lot of people think that just because the defenders have the same number of HLers as the attackers, it all comes out in a wash. In practice however that couldn't be further from the truth...

IOCs, we've run many of these kinds of battles over the years, what you find is that you require many, many more HLers to defend anything than it does to attack a large target like a city or a army for example. And these HLers will have to stick together in groups for the most part or risk becoming easy targets themselves. The attacker has all the advantages - he can attack where he wants, when he wants and in whatever manner he wants. Defensive magic in D&D is way too limited in ability and area to be able to counter these kinds of attacks. With a little stealth, a little coordination and a little intelligence you can make devastating hit and run attacks with little to no fear of reprisal. See my previous example for ideas.

Marching an army and laying seige to your enemy is a cool notion, but the way D&D is geared, particulary with teleportation, flight, invis., endless variety of attack spells, etc. an army is a huge, slow moving, nigh impossible to defend target. An army is simply too weak and too vulnerable unless there are very, very few HLers in the world. And if you're marching an army, you'll require an inordinate number of HLers just to provide even the most meager defense, leaving your cities even more defenseless against the kinds of city attacks I mentioned in an earlier post. The HLers defending the army would have to scramble back to their cities to try and defend them (leaving the army vulnerable) or leave the cities to burn while you're on the march, It's a lose-lose situation. Win the war first, then bring in the army.

In my new campaign I've been very careful about the levels of magic, monsters, and in particular, a few of the powers that can really be civilization breaking. There is no teleportation, spell-based planeshifting (with the exception of a very few Druid-built gateways), or spell-based flight (but a flying mount is possible). Scrying-style divinations can only be done through a kind of ritualized astral projection (which has dangers of it's own) and there are no greater than 5th-6th level spells period. There is no spell-based polymorphing/shapeshifting, but there are a couple of supernatural PrCs that allow for some limited shapeshifting. That said, you can astrally project through a spell and "possess" an animal which I think is kinda neat. If you're powerful enough you can try and possess another person, which essentially replaces domination in the game. That probably gives you a good enough idea of how I'm weeding out the problem children...

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[S'mon]

IOCs, we've run many of these kinds of battles over the years, what you find is that you require many, many more HLers to defend anything than it does to attack a large target like a city or a army for example.

I definitely haven't found this to be the case. It would only be the case if the attackers had perfect knowledge of all enemy dispositions while the defenders were a static 'zoo dungeon'. Generally, I find that the (smart) attackers initially have the advantage, as they choose where to attack. The prepared defenders then respond, concentrating forces on the incursion. The HL attackers are mobbed by a mix of low, medium and (if available) high level opposition, whose casters have time to take several rounds buffing et al while the attackers' casters are already in combat. Unless the attackers are several levels above the best defenders, they are likely to get squelched - I've seen many many over-confident attackers die like this (PC & NPC). AIR one time in a 1e game a 21st level teleporting Fighter got taken out by a 1st level Command spell.

 

[A'koss]

S'mon, um... don't take this the wrong way but I think you need to brush up on your HL tactics a little...

Even a moderately prepared HL party can completely ignore and remain out of reach of LL attackers while being able to attack them with impunity. See some of my previous posts...

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

Well for one thing, I can't imagine a fantasy world without castles. If fear of destruction by magic was the logic behind building every type of dwelling, than no one would live anywhere. . .

But also, how likely is it that your castle would be attacked by a high level cleric? I should think your DM would not put you up against a spellcaster (or monster) of that level unless you or other PCs or allied NPCs had the magic to be able to fairly combat it. Can you use magic to protect the castle?

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Djata:

Well for one thing, I can't imagine a fantasy world without castles. If fear of destruction by magic was the logic behind building every type of dwelling, than no one would live anywhere. . .

Necessity is the mother of invention - even if it meant you had to live deep underground to limit the types of attackers that could get to you. Again, it's very heavily dependent on demographics and monster populations.

But also, how likely is it that your castle would be attacked by a high level cleric? I should think your DM would not put you up against a spellcaster (or monster) of that level unless you or other PCs or allied NPCs had the magic to be able to fairly combat it. Can you use magic to protect the castle?

Clearly this more an exercise in "what if's" than it is of "what you should's".

The point of the game is to have fun, but I don't know many who want to run campaign setting called "Bunkerworld" (although, I admit I did once... ) The main point I'm trying to get across is that while it is possible to saturate a keep with magic (at no small expense, mind) to make it fairly safe, it does nothing to protect your populace. Cities are entirely too exposed and D&D magic really makes it easy to lay waste to them. And whatever defenses you've put into that castle can be brought down again, so even that is no guarantee. More than likely though your HLers would be lured out of the castle anyway to defend their cities and towns so it's real utility is somewhat in question.

Cheers,

A'koss.

 

[pogre]

One avenue to consider is perhaps only in a desperate war would someone unleash the power of magic. Consider for instance the use of nuclear weapons. We could have accomplished some objectives in Iraq much more quickly with nuclear weapons - but that would be abhorent to everyone for the most part.

Countries continue to build conventional arms for that reason - the expectation that no one would bring nuclear arms into the conflict. This expectation is overt in Sep's world through a wizards' covenant.

As I employ a reduced version of D&D magic its of less concern for my campaign.