However, this feature of the Roman military was not the norm among ancient armies. The Roman infantry grew into the most maneuverable heavy infantry seen anywhere in the entire world up to that point; it is not a good example of a typical ancient military, because Roman proficiency in the command and control of small, flexible units of maneuver was thoroughly exceptional.
Well I was just using it as an example of viable force not needing a large number to be considered one. I didn't intend for it to be taken as a standard or anything.
Actually, in the case of Europe, the first crude firearms arrived in the first half of the 14th century and hand cannons were developed within 50 years. Through the time period of the 14th through 16th century, the military revolution spawned in part by artillery and small arms had radically transformed the face of war. A 16th century army appeared very different than a 14th century army. There's a lot of controversy over the Early Modern Military Revolution, but pretty much everyone agree there was a huge amount of change in military tactics and strategy. The bottom line is that technology does get used, and will lead to changes in warfare. Magic can easily be used as such.
I thought that the first ones were brought to Europe during the 13th century via the Mongol invasion. And it was in the late 15th century that they first became apart of the regular infantry by the Ottomans. Anyway, Magic would be different though, right? Firearms took off because anyone and everyone could be taught to use them much quicker then other weapons. Magic on the otherhand, would canonally take decades to be taught.
The most recent English bayonet charge was in 2004. And armies in W.W. II commonly used mules and horses to move supplies abd artillery. In neither case should one conclude that this means those militaries were in any way similar to armies from the 14th century.
Well the original point was that the introduction of firearms didn't completely eliminate man to man fighting. That's interesting about the bayonet charge though.
Published rules are not applicable. Only your stance on how you think rules should be applied is viable? Sorry, either it's published rules, ro it's not.
And before you say 'it's optional rules' it's not, that section expands on the existing core table for settlements (check it out).
However, I see no reason to waste time arguing this any more. People who want to go by published rules are welcome to debate with me. If you want to debate your own setting specific rules, then post them. I'm sure someone will debate with you. I see no reason to waste my time doing so.
Nowhere did I say published rules weren't applicable. The entire point is that I gave you the published rulings directly from the Core Rulebook stating that while it's possible to find a caster in a smaller settlement, it's not the standard. That's not "my own setting specific rules". I also gave an example used in the Ultimate Campaign book. Point is, you've yet to show why this ruling would no longer apply.
I still struggle to figure out how to determine quickly, cheaply and at range if a troop is an illusion. According to the spell description you get a will disbelief save if it is interacted with. Anyone think of a cheap easy way to interact with it at range? would loosing arrows be sufficient or would a perception roll be required to observe at 600' (or more) individual arrows going through the image? is there anything simple that would determine this? magic or mundane? any ideas?
Actually I've just looked at the spell again and realised that it would only create an image within the area of effect (5 x 10' squares) which would make it much less useful in a battle. You could create an illusion of an army at rest (create an illusion of your own army drawn up in battle order, populate it with a few bowmen to provide credence while your own army is sneaking around a flank for a surprise attack), but beyond that, theres not much use that I can see for it.
It still begs the question, how do you verify that the army you see before you is real and not an illusion? True seeing is a 6th level spell (or 5th level cleric spell), so the number of people able to use it would be limited, would it be necessary to invest in it? or is there a cheaper way?
Nowhere did I say published rules weren't applicable. The entire point is that I gave you the published rulings directly from the Core Rulebook stating that while it's possible to find a caster in a smaller settlement, it's not the standard. That's not "my own setting specific rules". I also gave an example used in the Ultimate Campaign book. Point is, you've yet to show why this ruling would no longer apply.
Because it has been superseded by subsequent published rules.
This is how rules work. In every published RPG in recorded history, the current 'ruleset' is the most recent published rules + errata/FAQ.
So, while the Core Rules do indeed have the text you cited, those have been expanded upon and fleshed out within the Gamemastery Guide (which was published after the core rule book, and which use 90% of the information from the CRB).
If you insist on using only CRB, you can argue your stance. But you also have to throw out any rules book other than the CRB, and also throw out any errata that hasn't been published and any FAQ answers.
I quoted you the most recent set of rules, I don't really understand why this is hard for you. What is the published rules? The published rules are the rules published. If two rules conflict, which do you follow? The most recently published rule takes precedent, unless superseded by a subsequently published errata or FAQ.
The sample gods are Golarion gods, and are not given details.
Paizo has stated, in forums, that they are there as samples only (which you have admited in your post) and shouldn't be considered 'core'.
For your posts above, you have to draw on setting specific material to make your arguments about the gods not wanting to be included in warfare.
If you really want me to pull in Golarion specific information about gods and wars, I would be happy to. You won't be happy about it, as Golarion has a long history of the gods being involved in wars, up to and including instigating some of them. So before you crow about that, be very careful about what you want to bring in.
The core rules are setting agnostic, so you have to go with just the domains. So yes, in a given generic setting a god with Good, Love, Music and Art is unlikely to want to have their clerics involved in a war. However, they might be just as likely to want them involved in healing, even combatants. But we're back to those darn setting specific things again (which gods are). The core rules do not have any specifications that 'Any god with Love domain cannot have a cleric who involves themselves in war' or anything like that.
Unfortunately, again, nothing in the published PF rules have anything to do with gods for or against war. Only in setting specific rules (of which the sample bods are an example), some may or may not want to involve in war. However, again, setting specific (and as I said, you really don't want to use the Golarion gods to prove your point, they're a pretty fractious lot).
Because it has been superseded by subsequent published rules.
This is how rules work. In every published RPG in recorded history, the current 'ruleset' is the most recent published rules + errata/FAQ.
So, while the Core Rules do indeed have the text you cited, those have been expanded upon and fleshed out within the Gamemastery Guide (which was published after the core rule book, and which use 90% of the information from the CRB).
If you insist on using only CRB, you can argue your stance. But you also have to throw out any rules book other than the CRB, and also throw out any errata that hasn't been published and any FAQ answers.
I quoted you the most recent set of rules, I don't really understand why this is hard for you. What is the published rules? The published rules are the rules published. If two rules conflict, which do you follow? The most recently published rule takes precedent, unless superseded by a subsequently published errata or FAQ.
Except there's nothing superseding said rules or con. I have asked several times for the ruling that states one can now find a caster [u]every time[/u]. There's nothing in the Game Mastery Guide stating this, therefore there is no contradiction being made. Until you can actually show this, the core ruling is still valid.
And for the record, the Core Rulebook was errata this year, well after the Game Mastery Guide was published, without any changes being made to the spellcasting rules. Ultimate Campaign also came after it. So the whole "most recent rules" argument is null.
Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town's base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. A town's base spellcasting level depends on its type.
I bolded and italicized the relevant parts for you.
Bolded : Spellcasting is limited by the level of available spellcasters in town. See that sentence? It is the limiting factor on what spells are available. That means it is the new rule on the limits of spellcasting services.
Itallicized : This line explains that the limit is based on spell level and town size. The entry specifies what is available.
Minor Items/Medium Items/Major Items: This line lists the number of magic items above a settlement's base value that are available for purchase. In some city stat blocks, the actual items are listed in parentheses after the die range of items available—in this case, you can use these pre-rolled resources when the PCs first visit the city as the magic items available for sale on that visit. If the PCs return to that city at a later date, you can roll up new items as you see fit.
See this section, this section specifies what those minor/medium/major entries mean. This is the section that covers why a Thorp has 50 to 30,000 GP worth of magic items for sale above the default base value that are available.
There are even expanded rules to modify that spellcasting. That's why they had to hammer out the exact numbers available. Before, it was hand-waved for the GM, but when you put in specific rules, you have to be specific. Odd little symmetry there, yes?
Magical: An individual or group with potent magical power, such as a high priest, an archwizard, or even a magical monster, leads the community. (Lore +2; Corruption and Society –2; increase spellcasting by 1 level)
Under the CRB entries, it was left up to the GM exactly how much having a magical group or leader would affect spellcasting. When they wrote the settlement expansion, they codified it. As we see above, a Thorp run by a high priest or archwizard or magical monster attracts more magic, and thus you increase the spellcasting limit from 1 to 2. Doesn't mean the archwizard can only cast second level spells, it means he probably has an assistant who can cast 2nd level and is willing to do so for money, and a 3rd level cleric is probably in town, attracted by the archwizard.
Academic: The settlement possesses a school, training facility, or university of great renown. (Lore +1, increase spellcasting by 1 level)Holy Site: The settlement hosts a shrine, temple, or landmark with great significance to one or more religions. The settlement has a higher percentage of divine spellcasters in its population. (Corruption –2; increase spellcasting by 2 levels)
Magically Attuned: The settlement is a haven for spellcasters due to its location; for example, it may lie at the convergence of multiple ley lines or near a well-known magical site. (Increase base value by 20%; increase purchase limit by 20%; increase spellcasting by 2 levels)
Pious: The settlement is known for its inhabitants' good manners, friendly spirit, and deep devotion to a deity (this deity must be of the same alignment as the community). (Increase spellcasting by 1 level; any faith more than one alignment step different than the community's official religion is at best unwelcome and at worst outlawed—obvious worshipers of an outlawed deity must pay 150% of the normal price for goods and services and may face mockery, insult, or even violence)
Superstitious: The community has a deep and abiding fear of magic and the unexplained, but this fear has caused its citizens to become more supportive and loyal to each other and their settlement. (Crime –4; Law and Society +2; reduce spellcasting by 2 levels)
Impoverished: Because of any number of factors, the settlement is destitute. Poverty, famine, and disease run rampant. (Corruption and Crime +1; decrease base value and purchase limit by 50%; halve magic item availability)
And again, by codifying it, they can work out ways to get you exactly what you want. If you want low magic, you can give every city the 'Superstitious' quality, reducing the # of spellcasters. Before, under the rules you are quoting, this was a GM handwave with no codified rules. But now it has specifics, it reduces spellcasting by 2 levels. That means Thorps and Villages don't have any casting going on. Alternately, a magically aligned holy site thorp is going to have 4th level spells available. It gives the GM a way of gauging the amount of magical power he should have based off what sort of settlement he wants.
That's sort of the whole point of putting out a rules expansion, to clarify and codify parts of the rules that were 'iffy' on how they were defined before. Same thing applied to Tien weapons and armor, previously they were sort of hand-waved at, katana = bastard sword, etc. Then they expanded the eastern weapons & armor in the ultimate combat book, and now all that stuff had specific entries and stats. Doesn't mean that suddenly people in Tien switched what they were wearing, it means they finally expanded upon the rules for those things that they hand-waved before.
And for the record, the Core Rulebook was errata this year, well after the Game Mastery Guide was published, without any changes being made to the spellcasting rules. Ultimate Campaign also came after it. So the whole "most recent rules" argument is null.
Ultimate Campaign doesn't touch these rules for settlements. Thus it's moot.
They didn't reprint the rules in the errata of the CRB because it would require reformatting the entire book to accomodate the new rules in Gamemastery. They simply can't do that, and have stated such in the past. There are previous examples of rulings and FAQs that don't make it into the core books (The best one is the monk flurry rulling about flurrying with a two-handed monk weapon, the original monk flurry rules are still in the book, which have been stated prevent such a thing, but the FAQ stands and allows it, because they can't errata the entry without affecting the formating).
To support the notion that divine casters can be readily recruited for any war you need to claim that every dominant church is willing to fight any war and that there is not war so contrary to the god's philosophy that he will prevent his divine power to be used to support it.
No, I don't actually. That's your decision. How about I turn that around on you. For you to support the notion that divine casters cannot be readily recruited to any war, you need to claim that every dominant church is unwilling to fight any war and that there is never a war that involves the dominant church's philosophies and therefore they won't support it.
See how easy it is to stake out a claim and demand others defend it? Not going to play that game. If you want to play that game, fine, but play it on my terms. :)
I simply have to point out that it is possible to recruit based on the domains that gods can have. What would happen is, any religion that is going to oppose the powers that be would end up being suppressed, while the gods that do support supporting the kingdom would be given patronage. You do know that's what happened historically right?
So an evil kingdom would promote evil gods, and evil churches, and get evil clerics to assist them.
A good kingdom would promote good gods, and good churches, and get good clerics to help them.
Neutral kingdoms would promote whatever gods were willing to have their clergy help them in times of war without taking over.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and I've seen few claims as extraordinary as the one you're making.
Honestly I find your claims that no church would ever condone any ware to be breathtakingly extraordinary. I also find your claim that secular can't influence church also breathtakingly extraordinary. There's no reason in the world that a kingdom would support a church that actively worked against the kingdom. If the kingdom is expansionist, it would not tolerate a church that actively opposed that. If they were isolationist, they wouldn't support a church that wanted them to turn expansionist. Which means that what would happen is the churches and kingdoms would fall into a natural partnership, which means at wartime, a church is going to support those that support it, not turn their back on them. Anything else is insanity.
Hey, here's an example pantheon. It major contains gods and goddesses who do not indiscriminately support either side of all wars ever (like, say, the guy with justice in his portfolio or the guy with freedom in his portfolio).
Speaking of 'extraordinary claims' and backing them up, you haven't done any of this so far. Again, if you want to pick the Golarion gods and debate those, we can do that. But you're not going to be happy about that, as quite a few of the church's get very active in wars.
I think you'll find that very few of those Golarion gods are the pacifists you make them out to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much magic would be used in a fantasy army? The answer is simple really? I'll ask a question we've all heard: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Answer: He would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
Meaning? An army would utilize as much magic as it could. The OP presented a pretty cool scenario where a kingdom would / could generate a large number of casters in a human society as a good back-story with simple economic and political motivations.
From the discussion it also appears that a fantasy army in a high-magic (PF is *very high magic) that warfare would look like modern warfare.
Where the OP erred was in giving an example of two massed-armies facing each other with one side charging. That is *not* what modern warfare looks like.
The problems I see in this post, with one exception, is that most people posting here do not have much experience and knowledge of exactly how modern armies operate.
RAW vs RAI discussion, PF is very high magic, a kingdom of a million sentient humans and demi-humans, could easily field an army with many thousands of spell-casters...and even more if said kingdom did what the OP suggested he would do to create more casters. No problem there.
For spontaneous casters that need a bloodline...do some simple math...you have two parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great grandparents, by the tine you get to you great x10 grandparents you have over 4K of them about 500 years or so ago. Reverse that, one dragon blooded person with two off-spring would have 4K descendants with that bloodline alive today in just one generation, with perhaps 3 generations currently walking the planet. Now, imagine the potential bloodline for a 3 thousand year old dragon.
Armies with 10's of thousands of spellcasters are likely, now the question remains, how would they be used?
I'll come back to that on a ore lengthy post.
v/r
Nobody Important
SSgt USMC (ret)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much magic would be used in a fantasy army? The answer is simple really? I'll ask a question we've all heard: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Answer: He would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
Meaning? An army would utilize as much magic as it could. The OP presented a pretty cool scenario where a kingdom would / could generate a large number of casters in a human society as a good back-story with simple economic and political motivations.
From the discussion it also appears that a fantasy army in a high-magic (PF is *very high magic) that warfare would look like modern warfare.
Where the OP erred was in giving an example of two massed-armies facing each other with one side charging. That is *not* what modern warfare looks like.
The problems I see in this post, with one exception, is that most people posting here do not have much experience and knowledge of exactly how modern armies operate.
RAW vs RAI discussion, PF is very high magic, a kingdom of a million sentient humans and demi-humans, could easily field an army with many thousands of spell-casters...and even more if said kingdom did what the OP suggested he would do to create more casters. No problem there.
For spontaneous casters that need a bloodline...do some simple math...you have two parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great grandparents, by the tine you get to you great x10 grandparents you have over 4K of them about 500 years or so ago. Reverse that, one dragon blooded person with two off-spring would have 4K descendants with that bloodline alive today in just one generation, with perhaps 3 generations currently walking the planet. Now, imagine the potential bloodline for a 3 thousand year old dragon.
Armies with 10's of thousands of spellcasters are likely, now the question remains, how would they be used?
I'll come back to that on a ore lengthy post.
v/r
Nobody Important
SSgt USMC (ret)
The problem with this is that we would have to prove that this is the only logical response to magic being wielded. A modern army has a completely different set-up to a mediaeval army (and I'm not talking about kit - I mean logistics, recruitment, training, leadership, etc, etc.). To prove this we have to set up our mediaeval army and prove that it wouldn't work.
In fact, I am coming round to the view that it would work, with adjustments. Fireball can be countered (the main protaganist against a mediaeval army) with a variety of factors, and most other spells are not far enough in range to be effective. That leaves Buffs (which just gives a better mediaeval army), Illusions and higher level spells at the point of contact (or just before). As far as I can see, none of these oppose the idea of a mediaeval army. Magic can improve the logistics, buff the armies and provide misdirection, but it doesn't seem to be able to change the nature of warfare into a more modern flavour.
I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, but I would need to see that there was no logical alternative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gav, it appears you don't really know much about modern warfare...magic replaces technology in a high fantasy setting, but the basics remain the same.
You are still talking about low-level mages with scrolls of fireball and concerned with ranges as though two massed armies will meet in the field. *That* is precisely what will *not* happen with two modern (by PF standards) armies meet. Thus the parallel with high-fantasy and modern. Mass armies don't really meet in the open now-a-days much anymore either.
You need to think about the game within the game within the game. While you bring up a small percentage of issues all of which are excellent points (leadership, recruitment, training etc) you forget about the diplomatic posturing, alliances, spying, false flags, false intel (ex Task Force Troy in Gulf War I), strategic marriages, sabotage, double agents, graft-corruption-war-profiteering (military-industrial complex,) third party opportunists (look up just how many factions were at war in Lebanon circa 1982), and that's all before the actual war starts. I haven't even mentioned economics yet.
Once war does start think about such variables as intervention from the Gods, demon servants gated in from the very pits of hell itself, burrowing monsters, amphibious troops like sahuagin, invisibility, mother nature herself (what was it called in Avatar, Eiya?) undead hordes, floating earth motes (for you Faerun fans out there), trained dinosaurs, dragons (enemy, allied, third party, and those with their own agenda), teleportation magic (oooh, there's a nice fantasy version of paratroopers methinks), and a host of other variables I cannot personally know, but the collective learned memory and written history of a kingdom of a thousand years would know.
Now on to economics. I said magic would be utilized, you said wielded...please don't think of magic as a destructive weapon *only*. Please don't think of armies as two fronts facing each other *only*, and please don't think that low-level mooks serving in the army make for good rank-and-file *only*.
Did you know, in the USMC there are 8 Marines on active duty for support in some capacity, for each 1 ground-pounder? And that is before we even talk about the count of farmers needed to feed such an army.
Why did the allies beat Germany in WWII? Mostly because the war was fought on German territory and it was Germany's economy that was decimated, and thus it was Germany's economy that could no longer sustain the machine that was necessary to sustain the war.
Now to define your fantasy army. (not in order of importance)
-Strong leadership
-Flexible enough to respond to anything
-Backed up by a strong economy that *does not* slow down production in time of war
Whether it has a navy, air force, cavalry, etc depends in large part on terrain *and* on likely enemies. If your kingdom borders another kingdom, prepare for the diplomatic war, if your kingdom borders the badlands, prepare for an orc horde, if your kingdom *used* to be the territory of some bada$$ royal Drow Family, well, prepare for the underground war.
However, just as technology today is utilized *to the extent possible* in modern warfare, as an efficiency gain, so to will magic be *utilized* in high fantasy war *to the extent possible*
Gav, give me the information on the kingdom and I'll build you an army. We can regroup the debate from there.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing warfare in a high magic setting to modern warfare is that while offensively magic can mimic certain modern warfare weapons magic also far outstrips defensive modern warfare measures. Counter spelling is something that has no modern warfare equivalent. Soldiers cannot dispel a mortar round in their midst nor can they shoot down enemy bullets. So while certain aspects of warfare in a high magic setting will resemble modern warfare there are still distinct differences.
With sufficient magical protection you very well could have massed groups fighting each other as hand to hand fighting is still the base mode of combat for the vast majority of people in the world. Sure magic can tear up a massed group, but it could also protect it. Whether protecting a massed group is economically viable depends on the various costs involved and whether or not the commander is considering the economic viewpoint of the situation.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing warfare in a high magic setting to modern warfare is that while offensively magic can mimic certain modern warfare weapons magic also far outstrips defensive modern warfare measures. Counter spelling is something that has no modern warfare equivalent. Soldiers cannot dispel a mortar round in their midst nor can they shoot down enemy bullets. So while certain aspects of warfare in a high magic setting will resemble modern warfare there are still distinct differences.
With sufficient magical protection you very well could have massed groups fighting each other as hand to hand fighting is still the base mode of combat for the vast majority of people in the world. Sure magic can tear up a massed group, but it could also protect it. Whether protecting a massed group is economically viable depends on the various costs involved and whether or not the commander is considering the economic viewpoint of the situation.
I did state "the *basics* remain the same"...any debate can find a single anecdote (or 12) that breaks basic assumptions. We're trying to build an army, not bicker over specifics, just yet. If Gav gives me a kingdom, I'll give this thread an army that'll work with almost any attack.
For the mass effect, I was speaking strictly of a kingdom, not a horde, as that to me is what the OP was trying to build an army for. Even though the "majority of people in the world" fight hand to hand in your opinion (although that is debatable), that doesn't mean that that they *must* fight that way, or that their army *must* be designed that way...in fact the OP was trying to avoid just that scenario, wisely methinks too.
BTW, Phalanx CIWS can shoot down a mortar round...although not a spell, its effects are the same, troops are protected. However, I never made the assumption nor stated the assumption that modern warfare and/or its magical equivalent (or near-equivalent) would not totally nerf middle-age defensive strategies.
Commanders have budgets too BD, or in more realistic terms, limited resources that need to be consumed wisely. But thanks for the tip on counterspelling, I'll factor it in.
Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards. If every soldier had a wand of scorching ray it would be more similar. The point of the post was to illustrate that while high magic warfare has many things in common with modern warfare there are still distinct differences from the base pathfinder rules assumptions.
It's not so much that a fantasy couldn't look like a modern army. it's more that I it wouldn't (or perhaps shouldn't).
There are many aspects of a modern army that could have been copied by historical mediaeval armies, but weren't (I'm not talking about Firepower or modern communications, though a massed lance charge and messengers *could* count as mediaeval equivalents). The reasons for this are very much tied up in the type of society that existed in mediaeval times. For better or worse, large blocks of infantry troops were the norm (as opposed to small units co-operating), and loyalty was more important than capability (King Richard III lost the battle of Bosworth because Lord Stanley decided to jin the other side at a critical moment).
Adding Magic to the mix is not going to change this kind of society; Noblemen still exist,as do commoners, merchants and priests, only mages have been added and would be accomodated within this society with little change.
Given this, we would expect battlefield command to fall along similar lines. the exact place of mages within the command structure could be debated, but the idea that a commoner could join up, move through the ranks to NCO, be boosted to officer and end up as General would be abhorrent to this mindset. No doubt there were exceptions, and exceptional societies that would allow it, but these would be rare and would be looked at as decadent by the majority of the world.
With such an ossified command system, the best that could be achieved is something akin to that which existed during the 17th century Europe or during Napoleonic times. The French under Napoleon were the nearest thing to a meritocracy and were hated by the rest of Europe for it.
Given this mindset, Nobility who have to invest large amounts of money into their equipment are always going to favour them and look down their nose at other troops, even when they are more cost effective (thus the Nobility looked down on crossbowmen as somehow beneath them despite - or more likely because - the fact that they could kill a knight at several hundred feet before he had even got into melle)
I would imagine that magic, which requires a similar level of investment as a knight, would occupy a similar position in the monds of the Nobility; which is to say given a position of honour out of proportion with it's effectiveness.
This leaves us with the problem of magic being able to do certain things, while magic-users would consider it beneath them. For example the message spell would enable simple communications between nearby units, but what self-respecting Mage would want to be associated with the peasant recruits (or levys) who make up the bulk of the army. This would cause a serious breakdown in communications, which is an important part of modern army tactics.
The problem would be self-reinforcing. A peasant rebellion in history was largely inneffectual until peasants started getting hold of crossbows and polearms. In a Fantasy world, would they be able to get hold of mages who were Nobility? No. and there would be no mages who were commoners, so even with crossbows and polearms they would be torn apart by massed Fireballs that they could not counter.
This leaves us with a society that is largely mediaeval in flavour and an army that is largely mediaeval in flavour. Only in those circumstances where the standard mediaeval model of warfare obviously would not work would we see change. We can think of this as akin to disruptive technologies that change the face of warfare, except that our mediaeval society has had generations to adapt to them.
My first thought was that Fireball would be such a disruptive technology, however resist Energy, communal largely puts paid to that. Then I looked at True strike, but that was not cost effective. Currently I am looking at Silent image. Which appears to be the first disruptive spell.
Which neatly brings me on to the durrent state of play. two armies, of roughly equal capabilities go to war. Both sides draw up facing one another ready to attack. But where should the commander order his attack. left flank? right Flank? a central assault?
So far, so good. Now the mages start casting their spells. Maybe your right Flank looks weak, suddenly you have hundreds of Heavy Infantry with supporting knights to bulk them out. Maybe the enemy will decide it is too well defended and shift their attack elsewhere. Maybe you see large numbers of troops massing for a central assault, but are they real or an illusion? How can you find out?
The answer seems to be reconnaisance in force. Those largely useless peasant levies that formerly were used to hold down some out of the way place can now be used to determine whther those massed armies are real or not (provided they don't run away first). perhaps even better, a class of light cavalry would exist to determine where the true bulk of the enemy lies, their job being to skirmish and retreat and determine what's real and what's an illusion. Once the main body has been located, and any weak areas, a plan of attack can be formulated. some forces used to screen the main part of the enemy while your main attack hits a weak spot.
This of course relies on a competent commander (a rare thing in mediaeval times, but not unheard of). If both commanders were competent, the first to assess the enemy positions and plan a credible plan of attack would likely win.
Alternatively, commanders could just "Guess" what's real and what's not and charge headlong. Get it right, and you will win the battle, Get it wrong and you will lose many people. Sadly I suspect this is more likely what we would see given the nature of many mediaeval commanders.
Bolded : Spellcasting is limited by the level of available spellcasters in town. See that sentence? It is the limiting factor on what spells are available. That means it is the new rule on the limits of spellcasting services.
Except there's nothing contradicting the previous ruling. There's nothing stating that no longer will you only occasionally find a caster as previous stated, but now are guaranteed.
Itallicized : This line explains that the limit is based on spell level and town size. The entry specifies what is available.
And again, nothing contradicting the previous ruling.
See this section, this section specifies what those minor/medium/major entries mean. This is the section that covers why a Thorp has 50 to 30,000 GP worth of magic items for sale above the default base value that are available.
There are even expanded rules to modify that spellcasting. That's why they had to hammer out the exact numbers available. Before, it was hand-waved for the GM, but when you put in specific rules, you have to be specific. Odd little symmetry there, yes?
Don't see what changes about the argument of there not being many casters.
Under the CRB entries, it was left up to the GM exactly how much having a magical group or leader would affect spellcasting. When they wrote the settlement expansion, they codified it. As we see above, a Thorp run by a high priest or archwizard or magical monster attracts more magic, and thus you increase the spellcasting limit from 1 to 2. Doesn't mean the archwizard can only cast second level spells, it means he probably has an assistant who can cast 2nd level and is willing to do so for money, and a 3rd level cleric is probably in town, attracted by the archwizard.
That actually supports my argument more, since a settlement run by an Archwizard would not be the norm.
And again, by codifying it, they can work out ways to get you exactly what you want. If you want low magic, you can give every city the 'Superstitious' quality, reducing the # of spellcasters. Before, under the rules you are quoting, this was a GM handwave with no codified rules. But now it has specifics, it reduces spellcasting by 2 levels. That means Thorps and Villages don't have any casting going on. Alternately, a magically aligned holy site thorp is going to have 4th level spells available. It gives the GM a way of gauging the amount of magical power he should have based off what sort of settlement he wants.
That's sort of the whole point of putting out a rules expansion, to clarify and codify parts of the rules that were 'iffy' on how they were defined before. Same thing applied to Tien weapons and armor, previously they were sort of hand-waved at, katana = bastard sword, etc. Then they expanded the eastern weapons & armor in the ultimate combat book, and now all that stuff had specific entries and stats. Doesn't mean that suddenly people in Tien switched what they were wearing, it means they finally expanded upon the rules for those things that they hand-waved before.
Which doesn't change the main argument at all. You have basically been claiming that the previous ruling have become invalid, that there are now casters in every village and one can get any spell of a specific level. But there's nothing of the sort in the actual rules. There's nothing contradicting the original rules. You can not claim that magic is common under the rules when the rules say nothing of the sort.
Ultimate Campaign doesn't touch these rules for settlements. Thus it's moot.
Ultimate Campaign mentioned a spellcaster in relations to settlements, mentioning how a 3rd level wizard going to a small settlement would create waves, while going to a large town or city would hardly have an effect.
They didn't reprint the rules in the errata of the CRB because it would require reformatting the entire book to accomodate the new rules in Gamemastery. They simply can't do that, and have stated such in the past. There are previous examples of rulings and FAQs that don't make it into the core books (The best one is the monk flurry rulling about flurrying with a two-handed monk weapon, the original monk flurry rules are still in the book, which have been stated prevent such a thing, but the FAQ stands and allows it, because they can't errata the entry without affecting the formating).
They wouldn't have had to reformat the entire book. They merely would have had to change a single paragraph from mentioning how not every town or village has a spellcaster. Heck, they already listed the settlements and the common spellcasting level from a small town upward. It would have meant like adding in 18 words, with just as many being removed. So that argument just doesn't work.
Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards.
Again-
In the context of mass combat, Pathfinder's standard ranged weapons (bows and crossbows) are thousands of times deadlier at the extremes of their range than are modern military firearms, because they have a minimum 5% accuracy.
There's very little reason to use melee weapons as a primary tool of mass combat when a natural 20 with a bow always hits what it's aimed at. You'd have formations suffering higher rates of casualties before they even closed with one another than the side that got crushed would have suffered in an entire ancient or medieval battle.
One thing that hasn't come up in a month of debate is the ROLE of spellcasters in these fantasy armies.
A great many assumptions are being made as to spellcasters as support troops or artillery. Perhaps as communications and logistics.
More likely they would be in charge.
Of the army and at the #s being fielded, the nation that raised that army.
The magical arms race would have far more drastic ramifications on a campaign world than the complexity of the military.
Nex and Geb, in Golarion went to war. They used Golems and Undead and permanently damaged the ecology of the world along their border.
In Greyhawk, the Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colorless Fire left a huge chunk of the Continent uninhabitable.
Historically, spellcasters are aware of what happens when spell battles reach the scale of military engagements. It's bad for all involved. In 4 of the most popular game worlds, arcane magic breaks down. Divine magic, has a far more dangerous consequence. Direct intervention of the divine. Proxy wars are fine but once the Flamestrikes start it's a worse scenario when Iomedae and Gorum get personally invested.
These are literary cop-outs maybe; but nations that can field large contingents of spellcasters are going to have large groups of spellcasters that know their history. I'm not saying that militaristic mages are unlikely, just hat they are unlikely under some mundane King. Also there would be divisions between Divine and Arcane casters that are politically complex once the egos of 5th level plus casters come into play.
Magical Detent. it's an obvious outcome.
Consider how long it took and how much blood was spilt to get the Catholic Church out of its dominant political position in Europe. And the Pope couldn't summon angels to punish secular rulers who seized monasteries or other church lands.
But they can't summon angels to punish people, that would be going to war with the kingdom. And gods do not tolerate war. Ergo, the church can't do anything military or militant to the King. Therefore, they are driven out.
All that time it took to get the Catholic Church out of it's dominant position was due to the Church being very active in combat and militant, willing to turn the people against the kings and kill kings.
Pacifists tend to get railroaded out on a horse rather easily.
@tomo
I don't think we're going to have any reason to continue, you are at a stance where nothing I say is going to matter, and frankly, I find your stance simply unsupportable. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.
Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards. If every soldier had a wand of scorching ray it would be more similar. The point of the post was to illustrate that while high magic warfare has many things in common with modern warfare there are still distinct differences from the base pathfinder rules assumptions.
I would say a wand of scorching ray is more powerful than an M-16. But, you don't see rows and columns of grim-faced soldiers marching to their doom in rank and file wielding M-16's in modern warfare.
Yes there are differences, but they would *manifest* in *mostly* the same way...with the end result of high-fantasy warfare becoming asymmetrical versus massed...same as today when a high magic (read: technology) army faces a low magic (read: technology) army. Russia vs Mujahadeen, U.S. vs Iraqi insurgents, Israel vs Palestinians.
The mechanics would mostly change, the results would be the same.
But BD, you illustrate a good point with your particular choice of combat tactics...noted, that they are not the same as my particular choices of combat tactics. Given the same information, you, I, and 20 other folks would all come up with different ways to fight. They *could* all be right, or they *could* all be wrong, depending upon a myriad of different factors.
Thus I reiterate the starting point for building a high-fantasy army:
-Strong Leadership
-Flexibility
-Backed up by a strong economy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards.Again-
In the context of mass combat, Pathfinder's standard ranged weapons (bows and crossbows) are thousands of times deadlier at the extremes of their range than are modern military firearms, because they have a minimum 5% accuracy.
There's very little reason to use melee weapons as a primary tool of mass combat when a natural 20 with a bow always hits what it's aimed at. You'd have formations suffering higher rates of casualties before they even closed with one another than the side that got crushed would have suffered in an entire ancient or medieval battle.
A Marine with an M-16 and iron sights can hit a man-sized target at 500 yards 7 out of 10 times. Take a squad. 4 M-249's, 9 M-16's 4 of which have M-203 grenade launchers. Nobody in their right mind would mass a charge against that...and currently, they don't.
The answer seems to be reconnaisance in force. Those largely useless peasant levies that formerly were used to hold down some out of the way place can now be used to determine whther those massed armies are real or not (provided they don't run away first). perhaps even better, a class of light cavalry would exist to determine where the true bulk of the enemy lies, their job being to skirmish and retreat and determine what's real and what's an illusion. Once the main body has been located, and any weak areas, a plan of attack can be formulated. some forces used to screen the main part of the enemy while your main attack hits a weak spot.Alternatively, commanders could just "Guess" what's real and what's not and charge headlong. Get it right, and you will win the battle, Get it wrong and you will lose many people. Sadly I suspect this is more likely what we would see given the nature of many mediaeval commanders.
Recon in Force...good Gav, just as I was saying, asymmetrical warfare, but on a larger scale. Light Cavalry as scouts...again good Gav, just as I was saying asymmetrical warfare.
For your commanders...look Gav, it was you who convinced me of a good strategy whereby your kingdom recruits promising youngsters and makes companies of wizards. If your kingdom can teach youngsters to bend the rules of physics with little more than sheer intellect, surely you can train competent commanders too.
okay strategy idea- spend you money on maps and teleporters and taunters.
stand taunter at entrance to dungeon full of trolls.
a teleport gate is opened up in front of the taunter and the other end of it is in the chelaxian capital. disrupt the homeland!
it cant have a much worse ratio than modern warfare- 1 actual soldier : 8 non combatants killed.
or just get some really advanced diplomatic types and have no enemies?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More likely they would be in charge.Historically, spellcasters are aware of what happens when spell battles reach the scale of military engagements. It's bad for all involved. In 4 of the most popular game worlds, arcane magic breaks down. Divine magic, has a far more dangerous consequence. Direct intervention of the divine. Proxy wars are fine but once the Flamestrikes start it's a worse scenario when Iomedae and Gorum get personally invested.
These are literary cop-outs maybe; but nations that can field large contingents of spellcasters are going to have large groups of spellcasters that know their history.
Magical Detent. it's an obvious outcome.
Zag, yes spell casters would likely be in charge, but in terms of game mechanics, Charisma based spell casters like sorcerers have better capacity to influence people. I could likely see some sort of "mageocracy" with a council or cabal of spellcasters *behind the scenes* but with some aristocrats and their deep business and multi-family connections bringing ever-so-powerful alliances into play.
Historically too, leaders have been charismatic, not smart...look at Hitler, Bashar Assad, Vladamir Putin (although he is starting to become quite politically adept methinks) and even...well, heck, look at Ammerica's last several presidents.
...and no Zag, I don't think the concept of divine intervention is a cop-out. I had a CO who got relieved of duty for reporting what he believed to be Divine Intervention.
"Magic-gone-awry" sounds house-rulish to me, and I think we're staying off house rules in this thread. But, the devastation of a landscape is all to acceptable. Ruined farmland, rivers changed course, left-over undead, left-over trigger activated magic traps, left-over mundane traps, left-over illusions, left-over battlefield modifications like pits, berms, and walls, roving bandits and third parties trying to scrounge leftover weapons and gear, and roving baddies who see dead humans and hobgoblins and horses as food or "material components".
But Zag, don't forget the "devastated landscape" scenario may also mean devastated economy too...left-over inflation (think about post WWI Germany if you will), burnt crops and starvation (post WWII Okinawa), muddy river-run off ruining farmlands by washing away topsoil and muddying coral reefs (Okinawa post WWII) shortages, war-profiteers, and counter-attacks from those vampires that just made a horde of undead from the battlefield to *now* attack you with. Of course those vampires refer in concept to any third party who may *now* be interested in joining the fight. It's not enough to win the fight, the economy has to survive too.
Good post Zag.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay strategy idea- spend you money on maps and teleporters and taunters.
stand taunter at entrance to dungeon full of trolls.
a teleport gate is opened up in front of the taunter and the other end of it is in the chelaxian capital. disrupt the homeland!it cant have a much worse ratio than modern warfare- 1 actual soldier : 8 non combatants killed.
or just get some really advanced diplomatic types and have no enemies?
Thanks for the insight Lightminder. That is a really good example of how assymetrical warfare works.
It is also a bloody-dang-good- A+++ kind of example of how good commanders can fight a good fight while minimizing the cost in troops and treasure to their kingdoms by thinking outside the box and thinking creatively.
Specific details aside, I think what Light is talking about could either be A) an alliance, B) conceptually using gate or teleport to penetrate enemy physical defenses, and C) sparing his low level mooks who I think are best used keeping the home-front economy functioning versus lining up in rank and file.
Question to everyone else: Which is the better use of that spellcaster, what Light said, or throwing fireballs from the front line? I say the latter.
Now I did say as one of the three key necessary components, Flexibility. This sounds like the job of an adventuring party...perhaps an adventuring party that owns a small keep in the kings land because the king has an alliance / debt of gratitude with them.
Awesome post Lightminder.
Thus I reiterate the starting point for building a high-fantasy army:
-Strong Leadership
-Flexibility
-Backed up by a strong economy
I quote myself.
I don't think we're going to have any reason to continue, you are at a stance where nothing I say is going to matter, and frankly, I find your stance simply unsupportable. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.
My stance isn't unsupported. It's back by the actual rules, and while I have asked numerous times, you have yet to show any rules invalidating them.
I don't think we're going to have any reason to continue, you are at a stance where nothing I say is going to matter, and frankly, I find your stance simply unsupportable. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.My stance isn't unsupported. It's back by the actual rules, and while I have asked numerous times, you have yet to show any rules invalidating them.
I have actually shown you the rules, multiple times. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'NYAH NYAH NYAH' every time someone says something or points to rules you don't like.
I actually don't see a problem with a large chunk of the farmers being low level spell casters. If you look back in mythology, how many farmers wives were midwives?
I see it as perfectly acceptable for farm wives to be adepts or low level oracles, healing, blessings, and such.
The problem is you seem to have this fixation with the PCs being the only people in the world working on the problems int he world.
That is not really the case. No more than the story of NCIS is the only story of NCIS agents in the world. It is one of many stories unfolding in a very dangerous world. And not everyone can be bothered to go off and solve the problems of others.
The idea that the PCs are special snowflakes and the only people in the entire world who can deal with problems is, to me, the stupidly illogical one. They are just the people dealing with these problems at this location at this time, and usually if they fail, someone else will take up the slack (which is why people always seem to 'pop up' when someone dies, to take their place solving this problem at this time in this place).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have actually shown you the rules, multiple times. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'NYAH NYAH NYAH' every time someone says something or points to rules you don't like.
No, you have shown me rules stating that spellcasting in a settlement is of a certain level. But nowhere in the rules you posted contradicts what we were previously told, that while there can be casters in the lower settlements, it's not the norm. Nothing you have given even implies that there will always be spellcasters in every settlement, which is what is being argued. I directly responded to the rules in the Game Mastery Guide, whereas you wrote off me using the core rules as "house-rulings". So sorry, but it seems like you're the one going "Nyah Nyah Nyah" here. I asked for a simple thing, the ruling stating that every settlement would have a caster. Since there is no such ruling, there is nothing contradicting the core rulings.
I actually don't see a problem with a large chunk of the farmers being low level spell casters. If you look back in mythology, how many farmers wives were midwives?
I see it as perfectly acceptable for farm wives to be adepts or low level oracles, healing, blessings, and such.
That's what the Heal skill is meant for. Anyway, that reasoning just doesn't work. If anyone could become a spellcaster, then why wouldn't everyone become one? Magic would clearly give them a advantage over the everyday toil and they would never again have to worry about food or water. There wouldn't be any reason for one not to become a caster. The world you're talking about is one where the majority of people are casters, which changes the act of war far beyond what's being discussed here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Marine with an M-16 and iron sights can hit a man-sized target at 500 yards 7 out of 10 times. Take a squad. 4 M-249's, 9 M-16's 4 of which have M-203 grenade launchers. Nobody in their right mind would mass a charge against that...and currently, they don't.Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards.Again-
In the context of mass combat, Pathfinder's standard ranged weapons (bows and crossbows) are thousands of times deadlier at the extremes of their range than are modern military firearms, because they have a minimum 5% accuracy.
There's very little reason to use melee weapons as a primary tool of mass combat when a natural 20 with a bow always hits what it's aimed at. You'd have formations suffering higher rates of casualties before they even closed with one another than the side that got crushed would have suffered in an entire ancient or medieval battle.
The most recent time (a few years ago probably?) I encountered statistics on the subject I read that the US military was firing between 200,000 and 300,000 bullets per enemy it kills. So I would suspect that actual combat may vary in some respects from the firing range.
However, yes... even that is enough to obsolete massed melee forces.
The rules for mass combat in the Ultimate Campaign don't follow those rules at all, though. Similarly, it makes provisions that unloading all your arrows/bolts will have an impact in army cost/maintenance.
...Honestly I'm not very familiar with the Ultimate Campaign mass combat rules.
...perhaps I should familiarize myself a bit before I keep posting? :p
[...]
Okay. Tbh... at least from a first read it seems that those rules have little to say about the topic of the thread. The beginning section outright states that they aren't adequate for complex warfare, and "fantastical" or magical elements seem somewhat tacked on rather than built in, at least to me... It looks like it is best to do what it says it is for - provide background scenery for non mass combat PC adventuring - and not much good for discussing fantasy warfare in any sort of nuanced fashion.
However, as noted, this is a first read. Anyone more familiar with them care to go over what they have to add to the discussion?
Also, historically bows and light ranged infantry have found eras of dominance both in medieval and ancient warfare. However, they don't often maintain that level of dominance. They are not the end-all weapon for a variety of reasons, including armor advancements to tactical ingenuity. If we're looking at serious army compositions, polearms are probably our go-to weapon for a high middle-ages feel, surprisingly enough.
Historically, I agree with you... but anciently/medievally speaking ranged weapons were generally (yes, with some exceptions) significantly less deadly than melee weapons, which is not nearly as true of their Pathfinder counterparts (even if you take away the analysis of longer ranged fire).
The reason that historically you got combined arms employment of, say, horse archery with heavy cavalry charge (Persian/Maurician cataphracts, Mongols, etc) is because bows were great at harrying and disorganizing formations but much worse at actual killing, while shock melee weapons were great at killing but that cavalry charge could easily founder against an organized formation. So you use them together, fire to disrupt, shock to destroy.
Since Pathfinder ranged weapons are not really much worse at killing than melee weapons are, even close in (the composite longbow fighter is frequently claimed on these boards as one of the best at damage dealing, I think?) there's again another lack of reason to employ melee mass combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coriat-I'll +1 what you said about combined arms.
My statement about the accuracy rates of M-16's was to counter the "thousands of times more accurate" statement I read earlier. As a rifleman is more accurate in practice, so too is an archer more accurate on the range versus being in a line firing en masse towards en-massed troops. That sort of massed fire is why armies stopped charging en masse. But 200K - 300K rounds per enemy KIA sounds a bit illogical to me. It was 10K-ish in Vietnam and we've gotten more efficient since them, not less. Remember too that the 5.56 mm NATO Ball Round fired by the M-16 and M249 were designed to wound not kill. Keep in mind also that not all fire is aimed to kill...suppressing fire and covering fire come to mind. Perhaps you can find a demonstration video on youtube of Marines firing FPF, or Final Protective Fire. It's the *ability* of that that keeps opposing armies asymmetrical.
I feel so sorry for the Iranian children during the Iran/Iraq war that purportedly wore "keys to paradise" around their necks as they charged en masse to their deaths. They were known as Human Wave Attacks, and although they cost the Iranians dearly, they were nonetheless often successful.
Modern military history is still rife with examples of why armies shouldn't meet en masse, face-to-face, on the field of battle, and why the "shoot-and-scoot" tactics of maneuver warfare make more sense.
However, large forces would still be needed; think about castle sieges, forces needed to ambush patrols, conduct prison breaks, guard cross-roads, secure bridges...AND, not all armies would be so-called modern. There is more to high-fantasy than magic. Think about hobgoblin hordes reinforced by hill giants and worg riders. I could go on, thus I say, a high-fantasy army needs to have flexibility designed into it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the RAW-RAI debate on magical availability isn't really going anywhere (its damn interesting though), I figure I should offer an olive branch by offering up how the various militaries of my campaign world operate (its a relatively high magic setting). I'm not a military tactician and my degrees are in more economic fields as opposed to battle tactics. (Also, its built more for looking cool then being intensely impressive, but..)
One nation has a primarilly cold climate, and a tyrannical government based around ideas of duty and national and familial fidelity. Its sort of an odd mixture of Bolshevic Russia, Fuedal Japan and Imperial China. These people are very focued on melee, and a great deal of their tactics involve trying to get to grips with opponents, even when suffering losses. They tend to use human wave tactics, backed up by hard to detect magical or supernatural strike teams (Its generally known as Hammer and Dagger). The idea being that while several hundred charging spear and swordmen crush down forward on a location, attention is distracted from more subtle individuals such as invisible wizards, etc. Also they have a strong backing from the evil war church, who's clerics tend to operate as commissars or medical aid on the field. The army has large numbers of conscipts, with the upper echelons being populated by either genuinely dutiful retainers, or people operating out of greed, bloodlust or intrigue. They have a dedicated magical wing, but this wing focuses primarilly on research and attempting to develop larger scale battle magics.
Another nation, more open, but also more mountainous and hilly, with a democratic government and a highly patriotic mindset tends to focus more on ranged attacks, and either develops stable fortification to operate as firing platforms or utilizes mounted cavalry-archers. They have long standing treaties with dragons who are considered citizens (with rights, responsibilities and the like) who also occasionally volunteer for military service and therefore give them an impromptu air support group. The dragons are paid for by enacting sales taxes in cities they occupy (the hoard tax). Their military is volunteer only, and tends to be higher skilled. The country has a deep tie to the good war god (to the point where politically the common people fear its moving towards a theocracy). They contract to magical types for improved weapons technology and defenses.
Both of the above have two air ships that are basically of the 'super dreadnought' variety. They're limited on further development as the magical formulas and such to make effective airborne craft cheaply are held only by another nation (this nation gave two of the devices to the second nation based on a treaty, the first nation stole them).
The magical nation has a lower population and a stifling bueracracy, but the majority of their forces are magic based (magicians and summons), with very little clerical support (mostly just war god worshippers who might individually decide to assist). However, they tend to not be aggressive as they don't want to have to leave their home and they know the trouble of attempting to command large swaths of territory with a few individuals (the capture vs hold dilemma). Also in general, the powerful mages don't want to 'waste time' with land disputes or conflict when they could be plumbing mysteries of space and time. They have a considerably larger air fleet (and are the source of the devices), but their fleet is more for mobility. They lack an airship thats as individually terrifying as the first two nations' airships, but can project much further. The wizards of this country are numerous, but there are cases where people would have been better served by not becoming them (int 10 and 12 wizards are common).
Another nation has a large standing 'traditional' military with divine support (as the nation is ruled by a syncreticist theocracy of all of the various faiths working together). It has little in the way of organized arcane support, but its clerical support (as well as its predicilition for use of called extraplanar entities) assists it.
Most warfare tends to be between the first two countries, who are seperated by an ocean and their conflicts tend to be sieges and landing battles primarilly as the two forces seesaw back and forth as fate demands in what's essentially a centuries long lukewarm war.
The costs of mounting invasions are also generally prohibitive with them occuring only semi-regularly across decades. Despite having more men, the first one lives in a 'bad neighborhood' and doesn't want to deplete its forces too much or else deal with invasions of nasty things. The second generally is more interested in defending itself and flouting the first then conquering it.
Now, this tl;dr comes with these points I've been trying to make:
1.) You always need men, even with magic.
2.) There's a hell of a lot more to warfare then the stats of the people fighting it (Geography, politics, etc).
I do admit, my examples might be a little janky as they're more pre-rennissance nationstates and less 'kingdoms.'
I would say a wand of scorching ray is more powerful than an M-16. But, you don't see rows and columns of grim-faced soldiers marching to their doom in rank and file wielding M-16's in modern warfare.Yes there are differences, but they would *manifest* in *mostly* the same way...with the end result of high-fantasy warfare becoming asymmetrical versus massed...snip
Well, lets see shall we.
You invest in a wand of Scorching ray (4,500gp). I will buy 10 poor knights for that (Light warhorse, Lance, Military saddle,shield, scale mail and scale mail barding, approx. 400gp each) and have 500gp left over.
I charge you with my knights. You wait ready to use your wand.
When my knights come into range, you let fly with your ray. 4d6 does an average of 14 damage, enough to put one of my knights down. There is small chance of missing as it is a ranged touch attack which my armour is ineffective against.
But maximum range for scorching ray cast as though by a third level caster is a whopping 30'. At the end of that round my knights reach your spellcaster and engage in melee. that's 9 attacks each at +2 (for charging - and why wouldn't they), with a likelihood that about 5 will hit (assuming you have mage armour and have invested something in dex) doing double damage (lances charging), thats 5 x (2d8 + (str bonusx2)). For the sake of argument, lets say they have a paltry STR 14; thats 2d8+4per hit, or a likely total of 10d8+20. I think your spellcaster just came down with a bad case of dead. Now, not only is it possible to rescue their dying comrade (or at least recover his equipment), but now they have captured a wand of scorching ray with 49 charges left on it.
To add insult to injury they can, and most likely would, use the 500gp left to pay for a scroll of resist Energy, communal (cast by a friendly spellcaster) which would cover half of them. This would mean that there is a 50% (more if it's cast on the front rank) chance that the scorching ray would do a paltry 4hp damage...not enough to kill or even incapacitate.
The problem with scorching ray (and with most spells) is it has an extremely low range, meaning that the caster has to get very close to the enemy, at which point he would be mobbed.
surrounding him with bodyguards would help, but that's an added expense (and then I would be able to pay for another scroll of resist energy, communal and/or more knights). Adding more spellcasters with wands would help, but then I would be able to afford even more knights and scrolls.
In fact, given that you are likely to get off just one spell, a wand seems superfluous. A scroll would do the same job and only cost 150gp. The trouble is, once you have fired your load, what do you do?
and as someone else pointed out, for 150gp I could arm say 150 spearmen with short spears (zulu warriors anyone?). So you kill 1 of my spearmen. Big deal. Now the other 149 get a go...
I would say a wand of scorching ray is more powerful than an M-16.Well, lets see shall we.
You invest in a wand of Scorching ray (4,500gp). I will buy 10 poor knights for that (Light warhorse, Lance, Military saddle,shield, scale mail and scale mail barding, approx. 400gp each) and have 500gp left over.
I charge you with my knights. You wait ready to use your wand.
Your point is? I was comparing a wand of Scorching Ray to an M-16, an M-16 Gav...not 10 mounted knights, nor was I making a statement on wand versus M-16 for cost-value or effectiveness per gp spent analysis. See, a Wand of Scorching Ray is magic...that means it sets aside the *laws of physics* an M-16 does not, it is bound by them. *That* makes the wand more powerful you see.
You chose to snip my statement which was aimed as a response to a hypothetical and use it totally out of context to prove nothing. If you read back far enough, I was arguing tactics on a macro-level, that high-fantasy warfare would resemble modern warfare; though magic and technology are not universally interchangeable, the basic manifestations would remain such that *most* of the army would not fight en masse and march to toward massed enemies.
I never posited that every soldier should be armed with a Wand of SR, I was replying to someone else. I would never make that assumption.
I'll say it again now as I've said before, an army designed for a high-fantasy campaign needs to have flexibility built into it. There is nothing flexible about arming a single low-level mage with such an expensive single short range wand and expecting him to stand up alone to a charge of light cavalry.
Flexibility.
Every tactic and every piece of equipment has its uses, when used properly. Every individual has its uses too when used properly.
Are we making an army or are we making individuals?
Gav, give me some parameters of your kingdom, I'll build you your army (first edit of course, these things don't form entirely on their first writing). Then we can wrangle over details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this tl;dr comes with these points I've been trying to make:
1.) You always need men, even with magic.
2.) There's a hell of a lot more to warfare then the stats of the people fighting it (Geography, politics, etc).I do admit, my examples might be a little janky as they're more pre-rennissance nationstates and less 'kingdoms.'
I agree with the second point, but not really the first. Even with the majority of them having only an Int of 10~12, I think they would still be more useful then just being commoners. I mean, them being wizards wouldn't prevent them from doing the same work as commoners, they simply would have a better advantage in doing said work. For example, Mage Hand to move things and Mending to repair broken tools. It's not as if they would lose something by becoming wizards, other then time I guess.