War?
- Thread starter Stormborn
- Start date
Dark Jezter
First Post
Stormborn said:
I don't view mages as being like riflemen. Rather, I view mages as being similar in operation to a bomber or an artillery piece; capable of great destruction, but still haven't eliminated the need for soldiers.
Dirigible
Explorer
In some ways, modern battlefield technology (or rather, the advanced, cutting edge stuff wielded by the US, and to a lesser extent assorted others; after all, an AK47 and a dusty tarp are the most common battlefield technology in most of the world) is comparable to magic; wielded by specialist, it allows frightening mobility, situational awareness and firepower. An invisible, flying wizard with a wand of fireballs vs a stealth fighter; extended meteor swarm vs howitzers; spy satellites vs scrying or clairvoyance.
The point being, modern infantry are a lot like adventurers; tech savvy (magic savvy), well trained (lots of XP) fighters (in the genral sense, rather than the class) with top of the line gear, operating in small teams with complimentary skills. Of course, adventuring parties don't tend to team up as well as groups of soldiers do.
Real world armies haven't used lines of gun-wielding troops since WW I or before; air power and artillery make the tactic pretty much unviable. The same applies to armies of low-level commoners and warriors vs spellcasters; they only function they have is to distract the enemy while a competant assasin deals with them.
That's how it works in one of my homebrew settings, a magocrasy; rival wizards Evoke and Conjure the smeg out of each other, while their bodyguards and soldiers, small bands of Fighters (who all have spell resistance) defend their lieges, skirmish with each other and try to cut down the enemy mage.
A lord who insisted on sending levys against a high-magic enemy army would end up being very unpopular, and probably face revolt. As anyone who's GMed a party of 5th level or higher PCs, the damage they can do single handedly increases geometrically with level. After not too long, four high level adventurers cna do more than an army.
You may still need large numbers of troops for garrisoning and occupying, though; four heroes can conquer the city, but will have a slightly harder time controling them (unless they have a bard, I suppose).
Baah. I'm ranting and rambling, so I'll stop now.
The point being, modern infantry are a lot like adventurers; tech savvy (magic savvy), well trained (lots of XP) fighters (in the genral sense, rather than the class) with top of the line gear, operating in small teams with complimentary skills. Of course, adventuring parties don't tend to team up as well as groups of soldiers do.
Real world armies haven't used lines of gun-wielding troops since WW I or before; air power and artillery make the tactic pretty much unviable. The same applies to armies of low-level commoners and warriors vs spellcasters; they only function they have is to distract the enemy while a competant assasin deals with them.
That's how it works in one of my homebrew settings, a magocrasy; rival wizards Evoke and Conjure the smeg out of each other, while their bodyguards and soldiers, small bands of Fighters (who all have spell resistance) defend their lieges, skirmish with each other and try to cut down the enemy mage.
A lord who insisted on sending levys against a high-magic enemy army would end up being very unpopular, and probably face revolt. As anyone who's GMed a party of 5th level or higher PCs, the damage they can do single handedly increases geometrically with level. After not too long, four high level adventurers cna do more than an army.
You may still need large numbers of troops for garrisoning and occupying, though; four heroes can conquer the city, but will have a slightly harder time controling them (unless they have a bard, I suppose).
Baah. I'm ranting and rambling, so I'll stop now.
AeroDm
First Post
I think it really depends on where you want to take your game. Different games react differently, so a large disparity exists.
In the "Lame worlds" thread someone mentioned the average level of NPCs being 9 so that high level play was still viable. In other games adventurers are notably powerful by 5th level.
Quite clearly a world where 9th level is common fair would not have mass armies because high level spells would hence also be common. A world where 5th level characters were real heroes would see fields of peasants.
I think core D&D would result in small units of high level adventurers working in service of kings battling each other. This would sort of be more humanitarian than the other scenarios and has interesting flavor.
In the "Lame worlds" thread someone mentioned the average level of NPCs being 9 so that high level play was still viable. In other games adventurers are notably powerful by 5th level.
Quite clearly a world where 9th level is common fair would not have mass armies because high level spells would hence also be common. A world where 5th level characters were real heroes would see fields of peasants.
I think core D&D would result in small units of high level adventurers working in service of kings battling each other. This would sort of be more humanitarian than the other scenarios and has interesting flavor.
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
I have been trying to work these issues out for Urbis as well. Yes, you can work out some parallels between magic and aspects of modern warfare.
There will probably a split between "grunts" and the specialists. Grunts will be used for garrison duties and patrols in supposedly friendly territory. They are there to show that "this area is ours", and to report in anything unusual - or show that something unusual is going on if they don't return from a patrol...
(And yes, spells like fireball and lightning bolt mean that the patrols will move spread out instead of small cluster - you don't want your whole patrol to get wiped out by the first area-effect spell that hits them...).
On the other hand, there are the specialists. These are highly trained teams of members of different classes - including spellcasters, rogues, and others. These are called in emergencies. They can't everywhere at once, but they make up for this with a high mobility (probably boosed through spells), and reconaissance spells. Theis missions include taking out tough enemies - monsters, enemy commanders, or vital equipment - and getting out again. They can't be used more often than once or twice a day (after all, there's a limit to how often spellcasters can sling their mojo), but they can be very damaging to the morale of an enemy force if used right...
Oh, and tight infantry or cavalry formations are definietly a thing of the past. And in Urbis, the existence of Nexus Towers mean that the defenders of a city can hurl a few epic spells in the direction of the attackers...
There will probably a split between "grunts" and the specialists. Grunts will be used for garrison duties and patrols in supposedly friendly territory. They are there to show that "this area is ours", and to report in anything unusual - or show that something unusual is going on if they don't return from a patrol...
(And yes, spells like fireball and lightning bolt mean that the patrols will move spread out instead of small cluster - you don't want your whole patrol to get wiped out by the first area-effect spell that hits them...).
On the other hand, there are the specialists. These are highly trained teams of members of different classes - including spellcasters, rogues, and others. These are called in emergencies. They can't everywhere at once, but they make up for this with a high mobility (probably boosed through spells), and reconaissance spells. Theis missions include taking out tough enemies - monsters, enemy commanders, or vital equipment - and getting out again. They can't be used more often than once or twice a day (after all, there's a limit to how often spellcasters can sling their mojo), but they can be very damaging to the morale of an enemy force if used right...
Oh, and tight infantry or cavalry formations are definietly a thing of the past. And in Urbis, the existence of Nexus Towers mean that the defenders of a city can hurl a few epic spells in the direction of the attackers...
IMC with fairly rare magic I find that large armies are still viable, but offensive operations are highly reliant on 'air superiority', just as in modern warfare. If one side has flying fireballing sorcerers bombarding the enemy, they are unlikely to lose a pitched battle unless ridiculously outnumbered. Siege operations especially are impossible unless you have air superiority.
Allanon
Explorer
Well I compare High magic with Cutting edge technology.
Think of the War in Irak, although everyone saw the stealth fighters and laser guided bombs dropping on the news. Most of the munition dropped there where ordinary 'dumb' boms who were carpeted on an area, mostly because it was more cost effective.
So too would it go with high magic. Although when used, it would be what sticked most in the mind of the ordinary people (and maybe kings as well) it was the team of Fire Giant stone slingers who in the end did the most damage because they could keep going without having to replenish their spells, XP or hefty material components.
Even high level mages (unless truly epic) can only cast so many spells a day. With dispell, anti-magic and Mordekainen's Disjuntion just a gesture away most mages will be very carefull in investing in the high level flashy damage dealers, since the opposition could dispell them with ease. Spells that give normal troops an advantage or prevent the other side's troops from having it would be much more important. Dispelling a fireball doesn't take much. Preventing a meteor storm can be just as easy (can you say wall of force). But preventing 2000 spelled up 5th level warriors from wiping the floor with you're assualt team is a lot harder, especially if they keep in a spread pattern.
In the end although a specialist force can surely inflict a lot of causualties, large numbers do make a difference. Because once everyone has been dispelled and disjunctioned having to face a 1.000 7th level warriors with swords and shields and another 1.000 7th level warriors with bows with just you're masterwork gear will make even a party of 16th level adventurers think about running away.
Think of the War in Irak, although everyone saw the stealth fighters and laser guided bombs dropping on the news. Most of the munition dropped there where ordinary 'dumb' boms who were carpeted on an area, mostly because it was more cost effective.
So too would it go with high magic. Although when used, it would be what sticked most in the mind of the ordinary people (and maybe kings as well) it was the team of Fire Giant stone slingers who in the end did the most damage because they could keep going without having to replenish their spells, XP or hefty material components.
Even high level mages (unless truly epic) can only cast so many spells a day. With dispell, anti-magic and Mordekainen's Disjuntion just a gesture away most mages will be very carefull in investing in the high level flashy damage dealers, since the opposition could dispell them with ease. Spells that give normal troops an advantage or prevent the other side's troops from having it would be much more important. Dispelling a fireball doesn't take much. Preventing a meteor storm can be just as easy (can you say wall of force). But preventing 2000 spelled up 5th level warriors from wiping the floor with you're assualt team is a lot harder, especially if they keep in a spread pattern.
In the end although a specialist force can surely inflict a lot of causualties, large numbers do make a difference. Because once everyone has been dispelled and disjunctioned having to face a 1.000 7th level warriors with swords and shields and another 1.000 7th level warriors with bows with just you're masterwork gear will make even a party of 16th level adventurers think about running away.
Darklone
Registered User
Well... My biggest battle so far: PCs (up to level 10) vs a small army of about 1250 dudes.
But I usually have my average PCs at level 2-6... without the proper NPC wealth (no magics, MW stuff and mighty comp bows is ok).
There are nice skills and feat proposals out there in many books, if you play a little bit with them, you'll end up with bonuses of +6 to hit or more for your soldiers... All you need to take out enemy mages is someone who pinpoints the invisible flying mage. Protection from Arrows is nice... but you'd have to cast it every round
But I usually have my average PCs at level 2-6... without the proper NPC wealth (no magics, MW stuff and mighty comp bows is ok).
There are nice skills and feat proposals out there in many books, if you play a little bit with them, you'll end up with bonuses of +6 to hit or more for your soldiers... All you need to take out enemy mages is someone who pinpoints the invisible flying mage. Protection from Arrows is nice... but you'd have to cast it every round
Greatwyrm
Been here a while...
If you go with the premise that all the magicians are going to use big boom magic and slaughter all the footmen, then no, you don't need footmen. I think that's a flawed outlook though.
That sort of event may happen between forces with drastically mismatched magic capability, but I don't think it would be the norm. I'd think using mostly defensive magic and counterspells would be the best way to go. After all, the only thing you need to shut off a 20th level wizard casting fireball is a 5th level wizard with a fireball and a readied action.
That sort of event may happen between forces with drastically mismatched magic capability, but I don't think it would be the norm. I'd think using mostly defensive magic and counterspells would be the best way to go. After all, the only thing you need to shut off a 20th level wizard casting fireball is a 5th level wizard with a fireball and a readied action.
TracerBullet42
Explorer
Ungh...what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again...
Oh, come on...someone had to do it.
Oh, come on...someone had to do it.
Similar Threads
