Chillblame, I definitely agree with you. The prior scenario was assuming that wizards could both use the wand and fire on the same round, which is not the case. I'm not entirely agreeing with your assessment, but mostly because I've never agreed with some of the (in my opinion) rather silly limitations on perception. If you're on an open plain you could most certainly see a much greater distance than the rules currently allow. However, the rest of your version still holds true. Regardless of the distance at which combat begins, assuming 170 fighters with bows vs. a mere 20 wizards, the wizards will quickly be cut down.
Chillblame, I didn't see it mentioned in your post (apologies if I just missed it) but the spellcaster with a wand of True Strike can only shoot his bow every other round, so his rate of damage is going to be about half that which you seem to have described.
Chillblame, I didn't see it mentioned in your post (apologies if I just missed it) but the spellcaster with a wand of True Strike can only shoot his bow every other round, so his rate of damage is going to be about half that which you seem to have described.
You did miss it. The first part was a quote by someone else who didn't include the casting time of the wand, in the second half Chillblame appropriately cut down on the wizard's damage due to only firing every other round.
Aha! Thanks. Thought I'd missed something: it was the quote. Sorry, CB.
Any army investing in spellcasters can afford to invest in mock armor for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to believe that there is an effective counter for spellcasters, but their sheer versatility means that are likely to be able to have an answer to any problem. So far I have just 2 effective solutions: sneak up on them and ambush them, or shoot them from extreme range with a bow and True strike. Both rely on being able to identify who is a spellcaster (and I don't think they will be wandering around the battlefield with a pointy hat, lol)..They aren't that hard to identify.
1. They won't be wearing armor.
This, at least, is easy to fix. Mock Armor.
I know you put this up a while ago but I have been thinking about it and I believe it is in error.
You have a force of 20 spellcasters (lets call them wizards) vs 170 longbow archers (lets call them fighters). They start at 1100 ft. both...
Good point. I have been thinking myself about the problem of perception, but had not got round to looking into it.
I had assumed that they were not firing at each other but rather at troops advancing to melee, but that does not invalidate your point. At that range, a scroll of fireball would work better. Especially as True strike allows attacks every other round (unless they cast it on the Fighters, but its personal range only).
So, unless there is some way to boost perception so as to be able to fire at extreme ranges, True strike is out.
This, at least, is easy to fix. Mock Armor.I really want to believe that there is an effective counter for spellcasters, but their sheer versatility means that are likely to be able to have an answer to any problem. So far I have just 2 effective solutions: sneak up on them and ambush them, or shoot them from extreme range with a bow and True strike. Both rely on being able to identify who is a spellcaster (and I don't think they will be wandering around the battlefield with a pointy hat, lol)..They aren't that hard to identify.
1. They won't be wearing armor.
That... that's awesome. I've had players do this in game before, but I didn't know had made an actual item of it. Super cool.
As a point of order, yes, in my mind spellcasters will always be the most important asset, simply because no matter how you dice it, one caster will (usually) have a lot more impact on a battle, even at low tiers of power, than a platoon of common fighters.
To continue, on point one, there are several ways to act as anti-magic-artillery, and you touched on one briefly with dispel magic, though you didn't go into detail. Dispel Magic can be used to counterspell any appropriate spell of equivalent level or lower. Most of the standard blasting spell fare are level three or lower, the same as dispel magic. Moving into higher tiers, the way you enact anti-artillery moves from direct counterspelling to field disruption. You do this through careful placement of terrain modifications and effects such as AMF and Wall of Stone. Remember that a wizard can guise himself to be hidden amongst a large group of well-versed fighters, and with an Anti-Magic field he would render not only his own abilities invisible to the prying eyes of enemy spellcasters, but when he finally drops it when they are close enough to the fighting, he can unleash some of his more potent close range abilities. This also allows him to provide protection from long-range bombardment for his group with ease. This also touches briefly on 4, because there are innumerable ways for a Wizard to get in close without subjecting himself to too much scrutiny. Throw a wizard into a middle of a Phalanx and watch the mayhem when even an entire battalion of enemy archers fails to find the mark.
AMF and Wall of Stone are both higher level spells. I don't think Wall fo Stone is cost effective (My gut feeling has been that anything over a 3rd level spell would not be cost effective, but I could be wrong). AMF might be, despite its expense, though as a sixth level spell it may well be too difficult for a 1st level to cast from scroll and would be limited to higher levl spellcasters (say 4th?). It also has a low area of effect (10' radius, so say 12 tightly packed infantry and 3 or 4 cavalry - not much of a troop). Dispel magic used as a counterspell requires a counterspell roll which I think is spellcraft; for a Fireball that's DC18. A first level would typically have Spellcraft +6; that's a 55% failure rate, much too high for it to be effective.
On two, this is going more in line with the original thread, and I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around the implications. While it's true that it would likely do more damage, I'm not sure about how permanent the aoe damage is in comparison. My train of thought follows in such a manner that, assuming all things relative, an AoE spell will be countered fairly quickly with an AoE heal, combined with reflex saves. A knight may not do as much damage overall as those aoe spells, but more oft than not he will guarantee his kill before moving to a new target, where with AoE spells you'll likely never be sure of the kill unless you continue the bombardment. I think the key here is cost-efficiency and re-use capabilities. You throw a scroll in, and you get maybe a couple confirmed kills, and some damage. You throw armor, a sword, and a horse in, you're likely to get continued use out of it for some time, and over the course of it's use you'll likely gain a higher net benefit from them than from the scroll.
Typically, knights were honour bound to attack each other first. throw two equal knights at each other and who will kill who first could go either way, so after his first engagement your knight hjas a 50% chance of being dead without killing anyone. So much for reusability.
Hit your knights with a fireball and there is a good chance that more than 50% are dead, the rest injured. Even if they spread out you should be able to get about 5; thats probably 3 dead and 2 injured for the fireball against an average 1 for the knight.
On three, I use the terms "fighter" and "rogue" more as a point of description than the class themselves. Even amongst commoners you'll find people more suited to stealth and quick-wits than to brute force. And as I'm aware they're a PC class, I don't particularly feel that this precludes their exclusion from the standard NPC army. You are bound to have groups of "exceptional" individuals, who while perhaps not measuring up to the standard PC group, may merit at least a few class levels. Perhaps depending on the enem, even a few high-level NPC's, though I'm not sure they would waste them on a trivial matter like a few low-level wizards. Another point of order, we most certainly shouldn't preclude Rogues as a "Limited Resource" when we're actively discussing the inclusion of assumed minimum 5th level wizards available en masse to produce scrolls for warfare.
Sure. I also assumed that rangers were included as natural stealthy Martials.
I would call 5th level (and higher) spellcasters a limited resource; but consider how many scrolls of Fireball could a 5th level wizard make in a year? Assuming the state pays costs (so no need to go adventuring or hold down a job). Now consider how many are needed in that year. Being an agrarian society, the season for war would last say 4 months and include lets say 2 full on engagements plus a host of lesser engagements, so lets say 4 engagements. Each level 5 (and above) would have to provide for all the lower level spellcasters, using a rule of thumb that there are twice as many of the previous level there would be 2 4th level, 4x3rd level,8x2nd level and 16x1st level. that's 30 people. assuming 3 fireballs per engagement, that's 30x3x4=360 scrolls or near enough 1/day. I don't know if that's possible ( someone else will have to work out the crafting rules for me), but this is assuming that war takes place year in year out with no peace. If there are periods of peace, those scrolls can be stockpiled for future wars (and they would be).
On four, again going back to one, this is about the tactical use of the asset. In 3.5 there was a guide by Treantmonk called "How to play GOD", and was entirely about wizards. The key to Wizards was (and still remains, in my experience) that blasting is not the end-all be-all of casters. In fact, it is usually buffing and debuffing that are the strongest assets at a wizards disposal, and proper application of those abilities will provide much more net benefit than a caster focusing on blasting. Example, a Wizard who prepares a series of buff spells and turns what was simply a "good" group of knights into a force to be reckoned with.
I would agree that this is true for PCs, but assuming that an army is largely composed of low level (i.e. 1 or 2) NPC's alters things.
I really want to believe that there is an effective counter for spellcasters, but their sheer versatility means that are likely to be able to have an answer to any problem. So far I have just 2 effective solutions: sneak up on them and ambush them, or shoot them from extreme range with a bow and True strike. Both rely on being able to identify who is a spellcaster (and I don't think they will be wandering around the battlefield with a pointy hat, lol)..They aren't that hard to identify.
1. They won't be wearing armor.
2. They'll be the ones making funky gestures.
If one army is using spellcasters for artillery, another will be using a unit of spellcasters with enhanced siting magic to find and neutralise them.
Versatility works both ways.
Others have answered point#1, though I would add that kekko armour makes it look like you were wearing no armour, so giving that to some of your troops would further confuse things.
But really I was thinking that fireball range of 600' means you can stand 600' feet from where the troops are fighting, while the enemy spellcaster is 600' the other side and you would be 1200' apart (though with perception limitations it would be more like 320' and 320' for 640' apart) which is beyond the range of fireballs and other spells.
Even if it wasn't, you could have Monks and Higher level Rogues (anyone with evasion basically) running around with no armour (or mock armour or kekko armour) doing funny squiggles. From a distance you would not be able to tell they were not spellcasters. You could also have some of your spellcasters cast illusions of people doing funny squiggles. While you might hit some and some of those you hit will be spellcasters, most will be decoys or illusions. Enough will survive to be able to cast spells.
There's no linguistic drift on commoners. It meant common people then, it means the same now (though it is no longer applied to a modern society, if I use the term "commoner" people would understand it to mean one of the common people (usually from history)). Just check a dictionary if you don't believe me.The clue is in the name. They are commoners.As to your 85/70% commoners, please show me that in the rules, and I'll reconsider.
Yes, and wizards are wise. No, wait, they're not. They're intelligent. Entirely different stat. I guess class names have meanings unrelated to their etymologies.
Shocking thing to have linguistic drift in a book written in a natural language. Almost unheard of. Especially not in a language as tightly controlled as English.
The meaning of the term outside the game has nothing to do with the class.
A commoner is anyone who is not a member of the nobility or a chivalric order. By that definition most everyone that isn't an aristocrat or cavalier/samurai is a commoner. It is blatantly obvious that the real meaning of the term is not the meaning in the game.
OK, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, but:
according to the online English dictionary, a commoner is:
1. a common person, as distinguished from one with rank, status, etc.
2. British .
a. any person ranking below a peer; a person without a title of nobility.
b. a member of the House of Commons.
c. (at Oxford and some other universities) a student who pays for his or her commons and other expenses and is not supported by any scholarship or foundation.
3. a person who has a joint right in common land.
(Emphasis mine)
Clearly for the clas they picked the first meaning.
The same issue comes up with other class names. All PCs fight, but there's still a class named fighter. A Magus is an astrologer from the Persian tradition which has nothing whatsoever to do with using magic to fight.
You can't use class names to define the class because the developers select class names as much for how they roll off the tongue as for how accurately they describe the class.
from the same source:
fight·er[fahy-ter]
noun
1. a boxer; pugilist.
2. Military . an aircraft designed to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft in the air and to protect bomber aircraft.
3. a person who fights, struggles, resists, etc.
4. a person with the will, courage, determination, ability, or disposition to fight, struggle, resist, etc.
5. an animal, as a dog, trained to fight or having the disposition to fight.
(again emphasis mine)
The origin of this word is over 1000 years old, so it was not invented by Gary Gygax when he was putting together the original Dungeons & Dragons.
Finally:
Ma·gus
[mey-guhs].
noun, plural Ma·gi [mey-jahy].
1. ( sometimes lowercase ) one of the Magi.
2. ( lowercase ) a magician, sorcerer, or astrologer.
3. ( sometimes lowercase ) a Zoroastrian priest. Compare Magi ( def 2 ) .
(Emphasis mine).
All these terms were in common usage long before Paizo or Gary Gygax ever used them, and they mean pretty much the same thing as their respective classes. The designers did not just pick them for the way they trip off the tongue, they also chose names that were appropriate to the role they play.
Note that all these definitions are from the first dictionary i opened online; I suspect if you were to open any dictionary and look up their meanings you would get the same or similar results.
What Rank or Status does a ranger have? What Rank or Status does a witch have? What Rank or Status does a monk have?
You do realize that Rank and Status refers to royalty and titles, right? Not what training you had?
To have Rank or Status, you had to have a title (Knight, Duke, Etc), or you had to have Status (Such as being a Priest or Wealthy merchant). Other than knights, no common soldier, no matter how good he was, had Rank or Status until he was Knighted. By the same token, no matter how useless you were as a noble, you were still Ranked, even if you spent all your time in whorehouses and gambling dens.
Rank and Status have nothing to do with classes, it has everything to do with Social Position and Peerage within the Aristocracy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hoo, boy. That was a lot of reading - but fairly interesting. Since the main argument has been "Just how heavily would wizards be implemented in combat?", I think I'll focus my own input there. I'll start with a glance at Ultimate Campaign: the sample armies of humans are predominately armies of 2nd level Fighters sizes 200-1000. If I recall the sample armies from Kingmaker/War of the Riverlands properly, they were mainly 3rd level Warriors sized 100-1000. So let's err on the side of your average footman being 2nd-3rd level (which means they might have around 15-16 HP apiece on average). I was unable to find anything I could adapt to a "ratio of wizards per infantryman", but let's go with around 2 wizards per 100 men. We'll use a small battle (1000 men) just to keep things so that we can easily wrap our heads around them - that means there're 20 wizards (probably mainly L1-3, but a few L5's scattered about) on the field; which is a pretty scary number.
Pathfinder uses a Late Medieval/Early Renaissance-type setting, with guns being available (but fairly rare). During this time period, professional armies were almost unknown (unless I'm mistaken - I very well may be. I'll admit that I'm not the best history major in the field), and units were typically outfitted by their officers - which means that competition for the best supplies was relatively fierce, and a lot of units would be poorly equipped because their captain would simply pocket a portion of the stipend he'd received to outfit his men. Which means you'd see some sections of the line with scalemail, nice heavy shields, and a potion or two of Cure Light Wounds each; and others in leather with spears.
By the same virtue, we have to assume that the wizards would likely be called upon to provide the majority of their own equipment. After all, they're the ones who can scribe the scrolls (or have contact with the master who trained them, who can scribe the scrolls). Chances are they'd be given a decent stipend, and come to the battle with whatever supplies they chose. It's also unfair to assume that every wizard who makes his way into the army is an evoker - illusionists, transmuters, abjurers would all be immensely welcomed as well (though any petty lord would probably go: "I can see by your impressively pointed hat that you, my good man, are a wizard. Get in the line.") - so not all of them would simply dump their slots all on Fireballs.
But lets move onto trying to figure out how a battle would progress. At this time period, many knightly types and professional soldiers still fought for personal glory. Knights in particular, have always demanded respect as the "superior" portions of an army (see: elan). It's highly unlikely they'd fall completely out of use: Instead, they'd now have magical support. Instead of peppering the enemy with arrows and then charging, you might see: Arrows, fireball, charge. Repeat. It's also probably worth mentioning that once the lines actually DO close, wizards would likely cease being used as artillery, and would instead focus on denying portions of the field to the enemy (such as a Stone Call spell being used to secure your flanks, or an Alarm set to prevent an enemy from sneaking around to your rear).
Other notes worth paying attention to: Pitched battles are relatively rare. We hear a lot about them in history books BECAUSE they are remarkable occurances - they didn't happen that often, and thus typically had a decently large impact when they did. Sieges and smallscale skirmishes were much, much, much more common (and ENTIRELY different beasts to handle). Keeping a group of wizards rolling in Fireball scrolls could very quickly bankrupt you over the course of a war (where 3-4 large battles might be fought). It's unlikely every wizard with the army would be deployed all at the same time (sure, you have 20 wizards - but you might only have 5-10 on the field, with the others resting or in reserve). A wizard would be hard to replace in comparison to a regular soldier, and thus would likely be positioned with great care, rather than being stuck in the midst of a battle to toss fireballs.
Or, we could focus on ways to work around the Fireball:
1) Once an enemy wizard is located, have your own wizards cast Resist Energy, Communal on a group of your finest knights - these would probably L3-4 Fighters with good armor mounted on heavy warhorses. They can cover 250 feet per round. The enemies' wizards have already tossed 1-2 fireballs (that's how you've spotted them, infact) so they shouldn't have too many more to trouble the horses as they approach (but with 19-20 HP per horse, and an impressive +7 Reflex save, the horses probably aren't in TOO great of danger anyways).
Counters: Wizards could be positioned behind rough terrain, or have placed it with their magic, slowing the knights from 250 ft per round to 100 ft per round, something much easier to deal with. Wizards may be positioned within masses of plebes, to protect them from such a strikeforce.
2) Keep a few groups of level 2-3 archers in reserve. Once wizards are spotted, deploy them to fire en masse on the position.
Counters: Protection from Arrows is a relatively low level spell, and one that lasts a decently long time. It'd block a solid 30-40 damage for any wizard who'd likely be deployed on this field, giving him at least a round or two to vanish or respond to the archers. That said, with random chance being how it is, they could die on the first round again anyways.
3) Wardogs. Unleash a horde of barking, slathering, half-starved mutts infront of your army to force the enemy to spend resources responding.
Counter: The enemy wizards may not waste their magic on the dogs. That said, if they don't? A horde of hungry dogs can do some pretty serious damage.
4) Mass numbers.
Counter: Wizards can wreak an awful lot of havoc on large groups of weak foes. If it isn't a fireball, it'll be lots of Sleep and Grease. That said, with enough plebes, they'll eventually be overrun.
5) Abandon the field. Let the enemy expend a few of their resources while trying to preserve as much of your own as possible, then retreat to a position that's more fortified or easily defensible against magical assault.
Hoo, boy. That was a lot of reading - but fairly interesting. Since the main argument has been "Just how heavily would wizards be implemented in combat?", I think I'll focus my own input there. I'll start with a glance at Ultimate Campaign: the sample armies of humans are predominately armies of 2nd level Fighters sizes 200-1000. If I recall the sample armies from Kingmaker/War of the Riverlands properly, they were mainly 3rd level Warriors sized 100-1000. So let's err on the side of your average footman being 2nd-3rd level (which means they might have around 15-16 HP apiece on average). I was unable to find anything I could adapt to a "ratio of wizards per infantryman", but let's go with around 2 wizards per 100 men. We'll use a small battle (1000 men) just to keep things so that we can easily wrap our heads around them - that means there're 20 wizards (probably mainly L1-3, but a few L5's scattered about) on the field; which is a pretty scary number.
Pathfinder uses a Late Medieval/Early Renaissance-type setting, with guns being available (but fairly rare). During this time period, professional armies were almost unknown (unless I'm mistaken - I very well may be. I'll admit that I'm not the best history major in the field), and units were typically outfitted by their officers - which means that competition for the best supplies was relatively fierce, and a lot of units would be poorly equipped because their captain would simply pocket a portion of the stipend he'd received to outfit his men. Which means you'd see some sections of the line with scalemail, nice heavy shields, and a potion or two of Cure Light Wounds each; and others in leather with spears.
By the same virtue, we have to assume that the wizards would likely be called upon to provide the majority of their own equipment. After all, they're the ones who can scribe the scrolls (or have contact with the master who trained them, who can scribe the scrolls). Chances are they'd be given a decent stipend, and come to the battle with whatever...
Very helpful, thankyou.
This is the first time I have seen any evidence that the average troop would be 2nd - 3rd level. My entire premise is that the average troop has kit less than 1000gp, which makes him 1st level (or 2nd level NPC class). Even poor knights would cost only about the same as a scroll of fireball, making them 1st level (assuming they are PC Classes). Richer knights would be 2nd - but only if you follow the rules for equipment as listed in the core rulebooks. If there are other rules, it would be helpful to know.
Also I have always assumed there would be more 1st level than 2nd, more 2nd than 3rd, etc. (though it depends on what distribution method you use). This means that when you recruit your army, most of them would be 1st level. Since they don't come with a label saying "1st" evel, "2nd level", etc. it would be difficult to divide them into exact level troop types, so rather than a first level troop ther is likely to be a mixed level troop.
As to the idea that they were self equipped, this is true for the western mediaeval model (it may be true of others) but given a fantasy world we can assume that other models exist. Or we can assume that the local lord is willing to equip his troops. Or, what I have really been thinking, is that the wizard would replace the knight as the standard battlefield unit and also in society, meaning that he would have estates from which to equip himself.
I like the idea of holding back your knights until the mages have been committed then charging in, but do remember that 250' is in range of both perception and fireballs. Fireballs are cheap, long range and effective. The point about the horses high reflex save is a good one, though, it would be good to see what effect that has on a potential combat.
The true effect of mages needs to be calculated: what spells do they need to deploy to make themselves safe, how much would it cost and is it cost effective? would it be cheaper to just give them a horse and let them evade?
The question of just how many mages also needs to be resolved. I and others have postulated that you could encourage more mages by providing them with prestige/status/rank and estates/money, as well as aptitude tests to find them, and training once they are found. This would give you a higher percentage than 2% but just how high can you go? and what percentage would be the limit?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind, NPCs typically get inferior gear to PCs of similar level. Even when they're a PC class themselves.
I still wonder where all the mages are coming from. Is it some sort of benefit for the kingdom on the literacy tree?
Also, as stated earlier, the Laffner curve is a bitter mistress, especially for kings who attempt to force all competent people into Government service. The Feudal system isn't really an economic powerhouse as its based on enabling subsistance farming (I'm in charge because I can give the King soldiers, and my men make food!).
Most of DnD is based on more of a European Dark Age or Rennissance era with the addition of free movement, religious freedoms and a more active and open economy. This means in general a lot of the people who'd be dragooned into military/governmental service could be earning cash or producing value in the active free market instead of tossing their work down the gullet of the crown.
To whit, the king might decide that every merchant should make swords. Swords. Swords. Swords.
The appearance to a blacksmith might be that he's getting paid well, but the need for government swords is essentially finite as money (even the king's treasury) is finite. Production of material to serve the private sector however would provide /value/ and not just money. IE: Making plows for the farmer improves his yield, that adventurer who wants armor spikes can grapple the great Worm of Grappling more effectively, and so on. Ultimately this would improve his living standard by providing things people want and thus enable him to get what he wants.
Having free corn is good and all, but if I don't like corn its annoying if I can't go and buy something else because the king has everyone making corn.
If the king just devours up every int 12+ guy in existance, sticks a pointy hat on him and says 'go fight my wars!' the interior infrastructure is going to degraded (and yes, he might order his wizards to fix it from time to time) and very few innovations are going to be accomplished because one of the primary motivation to innovate (improving value) won't be present. The wizard has his 20gp a week, he doesn't really need to think about how to improve getting water out of the well like he would had he ended up a "mere" expert working for his Dad's inn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how does a better well help us avoid conquest by our neighbors?
Survival is at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy for a reason. Once we have enough military might to merit comparisons to Switzerland we can worry about better wells.
It's not like there's any innovation in fantasy worlds anyways. If you had innovation your ancient relics and sealed evil in a can would cease to matter.
Let me put it this was, what's being supposed by the 'all living resources turn to battlefield and stats' being presented in this thread is the fantasy equivalent of like North Korea.
I could turn all the roads in landing pads for my planes! Everyone would spent 8hours crafting masterwork longswords, and training wizards all day!
We could have the less effective wizards spending all day long making scrolls in dark sweatshop rooms for the glory of dear Leader.
Its a common flaw in gamist thinking in pathfinder and DnD. The idea that no one cares what the food is like since nobody tastes it, that everyone sleeps the minimum hours a day, that everyone wants to be what's "optimal" for them, and that a country where everyone's in the military will mean that military is stronger.
If /everyone/ who can meet the minimum intelligence requirements gets dragooned into wizardly-warrior service, nobody knows how to properly repair a roof, or manage a sewer system, or balane the books for logistical support.
And if not everyone can become one of these government wizards, well, you don't have enough to throw away as battalion strength archer and frontline combatant replacements.
The King or leader of this group would end up reigning over a kingdom of dirt huts with rampant disease and a crumbling infrastructure, pushing ever outward to extend his brain-draining belligerant empire to devour the other nations and subject them to the hell of forced conscription, ceaseless warfare and no culture to speak of.
Survival is important, yes. But even a kingdom's not going to start gnawing its own legs off at the drop of a hat to assure it. Unless that kingdom's insane.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but its a huge brain drain.
And there are situations that call for actual experts that frequently arise.
And thats not the case, perhaps for the serf class, but throwing everyone into Government military service is not the ideal.
There's a reason that the feudal situation kept things so bad and its because of this exact reason. People were kept in certain positions and locked in by rules of class and lack of education.
You are an A that means you must do B. Even if you're not really suited for it, or if you don't want to do it.
It wasn't the King suddenly becoming benevolent and giving everyone jobs that fixed this, it was relaxing the usual requirements of people belonging to the state as productive property that essentially freed people to become merchants and the like and begin improving their society.
Being treated as a living magic missile battery is nto the ideal, and having your fate to live as the King's sentient machine gun for your entire life on the battlefield is something I doubt everyone'd leap at.
Even if the pay is alright.
Actually the strongest fantasy army will be the one that has the best training program across as many classes as possible.
Seriously, If your kingdom can field efficient training up to 5th level in 4 classes and your neighbor can only train up to 3rd level in one class then you will pwn him on the battlefield every time.
An army of 200 1HD orcs facing your military of 100 5th level fighters/wizards/clerics/rogues will be demolished almost without effort.
It's all about the training in fantasy warfare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you want your setting to turn into Eberron? If so, go ahead and declare that anyone can be trained into any class irrespective of stats. Most folks that play PF aren't comfortable with that high of a level of magic.Actually the starting point is deciding whether or not someone can be trained in the base class. If thats possible, then the whole % is moot. A government or other large organization can simply actively train people in a given class. So far I dont see a consensus on whether or not a character can be deliberately trained in a class (though the ultimate campaign retraining rules seems to indicate you can).Kolokotroni,
I started with the 3rd edition DMG and applied a bit a reasoning to estimate what could be done with a nation that more aggressively developed its human resources. My point isn't this specific set of numbers though, my point is that there needs to exist SOME set of baseline numbers so that discussions like this one have something to ground themselves in.
5% PC classes lets you sweep up most of the people who are +2 sigma in one of the relevant stats (+2 sigma is around 2%), and that's about the fraction you get with the old DMG system.
You say that like its a bad thing. Eberron happens to be one of my favorite settings. I am quite content with elemental powered airships and trains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the strongest fantasy army will be the one that has the best training program across as many classes as possible.
Seriously, If your kingdom can field efficient training up to 5th level in 4 classes and your neighbor can only train up to 3rd level in one class then you will pwn him on the battlefield every time.
An army of 200 1HD orcs facing your military of 100 5th level fighters/wizards/clerics/rogues will be demolished almost without effort.
It's all about the training in fantasy warfare.
Certainly its true if this is a practical choice. I am not sure purely training could grant you multiple levels. 1st level sure, but higher then that would require 'real world' experience I think. In the case of an army that would be battle. Meaning that your 4th and 5th level characters are your veterans. And though an army of 1st level pc classes would be able to take on a much larger army of just plain warriors, the difference isnt quite as dramatic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A large empire could keep a "game preserve" where they allowed tribes of evil humanoids to live. The sole purpose of this place, though, would be to send in prospective officers to gain XP and level up to higher levels.
I imagine higher level characters as being roughly a third as common as the previous level. So you might have an army of:
1000 level 1 peasant levy soldiers
300 level 2 trained warriors with masterwork weapons
100 level 3 cavalry / heavy infantry in full plate mail
30 level 4 knights with magic weapons
10 level 5 captains
3 level 6 heroes
1 level 7 champion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Building a castle is a massive expenditure, spanning decades or even generations. In a world with flight, where the strategic value of such a fortification is greatly reduced, it may well be the case that no one ever bothered to build any -- ever. The point is that if you go too far down this road, you could easily find yourself with something that doesn't look anything like the typical fantasy setting.
You mean, like, a world in which the iconic form of fortification is an underground dungeon?
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also note that some professional soldiers did exist in this period -- the Byzantine army, the condioterrri like Hawkiwing and the White Company, and a number of others. S any long-lasting state with a good bureaucracy and budget could probably do stuff like this.
In Golarion, for instance, the knights of Lastwall, the Taldor and Chelaxian andj Andoran armies, probably Geb and some other areas, at least have the capacity for a budget to keep trained professional armies available,
Also note that in a world with fireballs, countermeasures will be taken. And bards and clerics will have quite a few interesting spells, probably some that don't show up onthe standard adventurers list very much, for group protection. A cleric with channel energy can heal a lot of fireball effects, or boost saving throws.
You probably won't see too many walls of pikemen or low-level spear levies, but maybe testudo formations taking cover behind tower shields, or looser skirmishes/archer formations, will be more common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things to consider:
-To the extent that fantasy warfare is comparable to recent RL warfare, it is probably more comparable to early/mid 20th century warfare than 21st century warfare. You have airpower (but it has to get fairly close to its target, there is no equivalent of standoff missiles), you have artillery (but not huge radius cluster munitions and such), you have some longer range spells (but nothing like beyond visual range firepower), you can have a telepathic bond that is more like WWII radio with a few guys on it than it is like vast interconnected, satellite supported military networks. You have some options for dealing with darkness or bad weather or whatever, but those still present more serious obstacles... you might be able to cast 60ft darkvision, rather than a night targeting sytem for a tank that works for miles... Etc. There are some exceptions (the greatest two being teleportation and healing) but in terms of actual firepower, something like the current US military has capabilities immensely in excess of that which Pathfinder spells could provide to an army.
-On an army scale, fireball is tiny. Comparing it to artillery is immensely flattering. It injures over a far tinier area than even a hand grenade, let alone a large artillery shell. Of all battlefield magics, fireball is likely one of the least game-changing. For example:
-A scroll of Silent Image is far, far cheaper than a scroll of Fireball, and far more useful on a large battlefield.
-One area in which a Pathfinder army would greatly outperform a modern military however - due to simplifications in the game mechanics - is in the ranged firepower of the ordinary soldier. A Pathfinder commoner with a bow or crossbow is hundreds or thousands of times deadlier at long range (so long as it is still within his weapon's increment) than a modern infantryman with a modern service rifle, because he has a flat lower cap on his accuracy of 5% and his weapon's damage does not diminish at all no matter what the distance of the shot. So even assuming a fair number of wasted shots (e.g. at decoys), you still get hits more on the order of 1/tens of shots than 1/tens of thousands of shots that is typical of modern war.
-Despite the relatively anemic large-scale destruction potential of offensive magic compared to modern weaponry, magic still does represent an upgrade compared to what existed in medieval times.
So overall... you would likely see armies move a few ticks towards dispersion and smaller size units on the firepower/dispersion scale, though not as far as modern militaries have moved. You'd see de-emphasis of melee compared to ranged weapons (both because Pathfinder ranged weapons are so supercharged and because melee benefits from closer order). Overall you might find that specializing in melee weapons becomes the domain of commandos or similarly specialized troops, while the standard infantryman carries a ranged weapon by default (similar to today).
And I think you'd likely see armies equipped with some basic utility/control magics in potion, scroll, or wand form, (in addition to spellcasters fighting personally), likely more so than firepower magics.
This is the first time I have seen any evidence that the average troop would be 2nd - 3rd level. My entire premise is that the average troop has kit less than 1000gp, which makes him 1st level (or 2nd level NPC class). Even poor knights would cost only about the same as a scroll of fireball, making them 1st level (assuming they are PC Classes). Richer knights would be 2nd - but only if you follow the rules for equipment as listed in the core rulebooks. If there are other rules, it would be helpful to know.
According to the GM Guide and NPC Codex, the lowest level a "knight" would be is Lv7(for a PC class) or Lv8 (for a NPC class). A knight wouldn't really be part of the average troops anyway.
Building a castle in D&D is significantly easier than it was in real life. Just pile up a bunch of stones (fist sized, easier to carry), and a relatively low level caster (even possibly and Adept, haven't checked for sure) can cast 'stoneshape' on it in place, putting the big chunk of stone right where it needs to go.
And it's better, because it has no internal flaws. And when the next chunk goes in, you can put some metal inside for strength and meld it to the stones around it. It'd basically be like being able to pour quick dry cement that hardens to basalt strength and dries instantly when introduced to a catalyst.
You could probably build a castle the size of Windsor in a few months, rather than years, and at a tenth the cost (30 casters and 50 un or minimally skilled rock collectors, rather than 1000 quarry workers, 250 masons, and 500 rock movers).
Magic however giveth and taketh away. You would mostly build really high walls around cities (they're pretty cheap over time) and build heavy fortifications around things you need to protect (mountain passes, oasis in deserts, gold/silver mines).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the strongest fantasy army will be the one that has the best training program across as many classes as possible.
Seriously, If your kingdom can field efficient training up to 5th level in 4 classes and your neighbor can only train up to 3rd level in one class then you will pwn him on the battlefield every time.
An army of 200 1HD orcs facing your military of 100 5th level fighters/wizards/clerics/rogues will be demolished almost without effort.
It's all about the training in fantasy warfare.
Certainly its true if this is a practical choice. I am not sure purely training could grant you multiple levels. 1st level sure, but higher then that would require 'real world' experience I think. In the case of an army that would be battle. Meaning that your 4th and 5th level characters are your veterans. And though an army of 1st level pc classes would be able to take on a much larger army of just plain warriors, the difference isnt quite as dramatic.
Actually I was thinking of war games. Where your soldiers practice attacking or defending in various scenarios. They would still generate XP just because the opponents don't die (no-lethal attacks) doesn't mean they weren't defeated. You would just need a skilled set of officers to lead the war games and you are all set and really only limited by the budget and skill of the trainers. With enough time and "training" you could easily see even massed numbers of 10th level fighters... the only real difference between them and adventurers being that the adventurers would be better equipped.
As to the idea that they were self equipped, this is true for the western mediaeval model (it may be true of others) but given a fantasy world we can assume that other models exist. Or we can assume that the local lord is willing to equip his troops. Or, what I have really been thinking, is that the wizard would replace the knight as the standard battlefield unit and also in society, meaning that he would have estates from which to equip himself.
. . .
The true effect of mages needs to be calculated: what spells do they need to deploy to make themselves safe, how much would it cost and is it cost effective? would it be cheaper to just give them a horse and let them evade?
The question of just how many mages also needs to be resolved. I and others have postulated that you could encourage more mages by providing them with prestige/status/rank and estates/money, as well as aptitude tests to find them, and training once they are found. This would give you a higher percentage than 2% but just how high can you go? and what percentage would be the limit?
This is true, and all are very good points to address. It's a world where dwarves and elves can run around punching goblins in the face. There're infinite possibilities - and so, it's nigh impossible to think up every single way a mage might come into play on the battlefield, or the exact parameters in which they might be deployed. Still an entertaining mental exercise, though.
As for horses, it'd probably be significantly cheaper to give them all horses, rather than giving them enough potions/scrolls of invisibility to keep them hidden throughout a battle. A horse will last them (hopefully) for more than a single battle, and is still cheaper than a single potion of invisibility. You might even see Wizards deployed as the armies elite light cavalry, dashing forward in a caracole formation (where they advance on the enemy, the front rank tosses its spells and then wheels around to the back - each rank repeats). The concentration check shouldn't be too difficult for a level 3 wizard to make.
Also note that some professional soldiers did exist in this period -- the Byzantine army, the condioterrri like Hawkiwing and the White Company, and a number of others. S any long-lasting state with a good bureaucracy and budget could probably do stuff like this.
. . .
You probably won't see too many walls of pikemen or low-level spear levies, but maybe testudo formations taking cover behind tower shields, or looser skirmishes/archer formations, will be more common.
That's also true. I'm a little embarrassed that I forgot about the Eastern Roman Empire - Rome's reign is my favorite period in human history - since Rome had the FIRST professional army. Still, Rome (and its successor state) had never been anything other than exceptional, so their army is most certainly not the rule.
And tower shields - Oh good lord, Tower Shields. Never underestimate the power of Teamwork feats for low level melee characters. I once killed off a solidly built party of level 6 characters, simply by making them fight a gaggle of level 2 hobgoblin fighters with tower shields. I've never seen more dumbfounded expressions on my player's faces (and that was the point that I realized that teamwork feats are kind of overpowered for monsters).
As for castles and fortifications: Yes, the ability to fly greatly alters the battlefield. However, it would be difficult to get a significant number of troops flying at once without serious expenditure (that's why we see things like Hippogriff/Gryphon riding knightly orders as being the rare creme de la creme of any army they're involved in). You might begin seeing workarounds in fortification building, like covered courtyards - even if it's as simple as draping a net above it.
Or, if you're fortifying a point that you REALLY need to see protected, chances are you'll be able to afford a retinue of elite elven archers, with good bows and magically enhanced perception (I think there's a relatively cheap magical item that'll give them a +5) to guard against the sky; or wizards to set Alarms should an invisible enemy land somewhere that'd only be reached by sky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A large empire could keep a "game preserve" where they allowed tribes of evil humanoids to live. The sole purpose of this place, though, would be to send in prospective officers to gain XP and level up to higher levels.
So a bit like the Aztec empire?
According to the GM Guide and NPC Codex, the lowest level a "knight" would be is Lv7(for a PC class) or Lv8 (for a NPC class). A knight wouldn't really be part of the average troops anyway.
Neither of those sources are typical representatives of NPC character archetypes, they are merely representative of the NPC character archetypes that the PCs are likely to encounter.
For example, a knight might be a low-level warrior, or perhaps even a fighter, but that's not the knight the PCs encounter, no. The one they are like to face is 7th- or 8th-level. After all, the NPC becomes more important the moment he interacts with the PCs.
Where did you get the idea that those were "minimum" levels?
Oh, there's one thing I'd forgotten to chime in about so far: Dwarves.
While their slow movement rate makes them pretty singularly unsuited for field troops (discounting the idea of mounted dwarves, which [while possible] simply strikes me as silly), it makes them the ideal garrison: they don't have a thousand plus yards of ground to cover, they simply have a few hundred feet of walls and grounds to patrol. Moreover, dwarves get extremely large bonuses against magic - as much as +4 vs. spells at level 1 with a single feat any dwarf can take.
Using the "Basic" stat array for a dwarf, he'll have 14 CON, 11 DEX, and 12 WIS at level 1. With two or three levels in Fighter, that means he'll have himself 9 Fort, 5-6 Will, and 4-5 Reflex vs. spells (if he doesn't sink some of his other feats into Save bonuses). That's nothing to sneeze at, and gives them a significant chance to resist hostile magic. They also get bonuses against poison, which further solidifies their role as the ideal garrison troop (significantly harder to sabotage the supplies of a dwarven fortress).
Bringing in Core races with unique abilities allows us to start examining the myriad of stranger ways that Fantasy warfare might evolve. You might assign a druid/wizard to begin excavating a tunnel at a rapid pace using summoned creatures, spells, or wildshape - which allows you to send an elite dwarven strikeforce in and under the enemy to surprise their spellcasters.
Counter?: Assign some wizards to be continually casting Detect Magic and observing for any anomalous activity. Sure, you'll only detect them when they're three feet below you, but raising a signal then is significantly better than raising a signal ten to twenty seconds after they've surfaced, slaughtered a few dozen people, and the initial confusion has worn off. This, of course, would tie up several spellcasters, preventing you from bringing every wizard on the field to bare casting fireballs at once (which somewhat accomplishes the very feat you'd set out on with your tunneling operations, if not in the manner you intended).
According to the GM Guide and NPC Codex, the lowest level a "knight" would be is Lv7(for a PC class) or Lv8 (for a NPC class). A knight wouldn't really be part of the average troops anyway.Neither of those sources are typical representatives of NPC character archetypes, they are merely representative of the NPC character archetypes that the PCs are likely to encounter.
For example, a knight might be a low-level warrior, or perhaps even a fighter, but that's not the knight the PCs encounter, no. The one they are like to face is 7th- or 8th-level. After all, the NPC becomes more important the moment he interacts with the PCs.
Where did you get the idea that those were "minimum" levels?
I suppose that could be said of the NPC Codex, but the NPCs in the GM Guide are suppose to be generic representatives. And given that real world knights were a whole separate group from the run of a mill soldiers, and were only called knights after years of training as a page and squire, it just doesn't seem reasonable to have the example used be as one is talking about a standard warrior.
As for the levels, I simply looked for the lowest NPCs called a knight and used their level.
If you're casting fireball, you've failed as a wizard. It's as true on a battlefield as it is in the dungeon.
Halt a cavalry charge with sleet storm. Divide their forces with major image. Allow the quick repositioning of a siege weapon with a shrink item spell. Set up a mobile command center with tiny hut.
And lower-level spells help, as well. Allow the strategists and commanders to stay sharp without sleep by casting keep watch. Encrypt their communications with codespeak. Create an uninterceptable courier with whispering wind. Protect commanders from snipers and charms with protection from arrows or protection from chaos/evil/good/law. Enhance security with alarm. And so on and so forth.
ANYTHING but fireball. If you're fighting foes with racial hit dice like gnolls or bugbears, you're not going to get nearly enough of them with a fireball spell.
Unlike when tomb raiding, a wizard in a war has the entire support system of their army working to keep men like him out of harm's way. Taking the sixty seconds to prepare the perfect spell for that moment with Fast Study can be done during a battle (though not a skirmish). If the best spell for the situation is haste, you'll be ready. If it's water breathing, you'll be ready. If it's Kromfeld's Kroopfoopular Kajisticator, you'll be ready.
If you're casting fireball, you've failed as a wizard. It's as true on a battlefield as it is in the dungeon.
Halt a cavalry charge with sleet storm. Divide their forces with major image. Allow the quick repositioning of a siege weapon with a shrink item spell. Set up a mobile command center with tiny hut.
And lower-level spells help, as well. Allow the strategists and commanders to stay sharp without sleep by casting keep watch. Encrypt their communications with codespeak. Create an uninterceptable courier with whispering wind. Protect commanders from snipers and charms with protection from arrows or protection from chaos/evil/good/law. Enhance security with alarm. And so on and so forth.
ANYTHING but fireball. If you're fighting foes with racial hit dice like gnolls or bugbears, you're not going to get nearly enough of them with a fireball spell.
Unlike when tomb raiding, a wizard in a war has the entire support system of their army working to keep men like him out of harm's way. Taking the sixty seconds to prepare the perfect spell for that moment with Fast Study can be done during a battle (though not a skirmish). If the best spell for the situation is haste, you'll be ready. If it's water breathing, you'll be ready. If it's Kromfeld's Kroopfoopular Kajisticator, you'll be ready.
Those are all good spells for a spellcaster to have, and no doubt an army would use them. The idea that fireball is useless in these situations is a fallacy. Fireball is excellent at doing only one thing - killing large numbers of low level mooks. Guess what you will be facing in a typical battle - large numbers of low level mooks!
The whole reason that it is vilified by experienced players is that by the time you get it, you are not going to be facing much low level stuff (by that I mean 2HD or less), so it's utility is severely depleted. In a battle, that is no longer so.
You are right to say that if the opponent has any amount of toughness (i.e. has more than 2HD) the utility of fireball once again becomes depleted, so commanders will have to take into account their likely opponents when arming their spellcasters. A troop of hasted cavalry can charge in from quite a distance away and the impact of the spell will double the effectiveness of low level troops (which I am assuming is the average troop type).
Well here you'd get into the metagame between the commanders themselves. Will they eschew massed formations as their default setting, or wait for a reasonable suspicion of wizards before breaking ranks?
Wall of fire is MUCH better for killing large numbers of low-level mooks.
Wall of fire is MUCH better for killing large numbers of low-level mooks.
Which is why it is higher level.
A couple of thoughts:
With perception range being about 320', it has become imperative that a means of extending perception range be found so as to maximise the use of our long range spells. There are spells that give you a bonus to perception, but the best spells are clairaudience/clairvoyance and witness. Both allow you to see as if you were elsewhere, sp you can locate a likely target at maximum range.
Also Resist Energy, communal could be used to provide protection from fire, reducing the chance of death from Fireball. If coupled with a cleric channeling, there is no reason why a troop could not be covered against Fireball (and other Fire spells too). (cost 75gp per person).
Funnily enough, after all this extremely heavy focus on magic, the solution to your problem lies in an extremely mundane item that is typically entirely forgotten. The Spyglass - because if you can afford to hire wizards and outfit them with expensive scrolls, you'll most certainly spend a little extra to let them see far enough to get use of their spells. Plus, it's relatively cheap (at least compared to the running costs of maintaining a wizard army), very light weight, easily portable, and will last potentially forever - all things extremely attractive when you're on campaign.
However, it's unlikely the wizard will be using the spyglass himself. That might get awkward. What would be more likely is that you'd assign 2-3 high Perception "spotters" to each wizard (elves, or maybe just Rangers - with bird companions who also assist in detecting enemy movement on the field?) who designate areas for the wizard to fire at. This works, because Fireball isn't a terribly precise spell anyways.
at 1000gp, it's not cheap. It may be cheaper in the long run than scrolls of clairaudience/clairvoyance or witness.
I am not certain if spotters can be used to direct a spell; RAW the caster must be able to see the location he is aiming at but I have several problems with RAW.
A fireball can fire 600' minimum, except it can't because RAW you can only see 320' (and only if you take 20). That doesn't make sense. Are we now saying that all people are blind beyond 300' or so? If I go up on a high hill, I have no problems picking out the village below about a mile distant (that's 1760 yarsd or 5280 feet). I can even pick out details such as individual people. Yet in PF I would not be able to see it at that range no matter what.
Similarly an army should be seen quite easily at those ranges. It seems ridiculous that we have crossbows that can fire 1200' backed by people who cannot see at that distance.
Seems to me the perception rules need to be tweaked; either that or I have misunderstood them.