New class brainstorming, the Military Soldier


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Das Bier wrote:

I'm not tracking you.

If the sorcs are normally split into 3 units of 10 and you need them for a special purpose, you have them come over, give them the Page of Spell Knowledge, and in Five minutes you've set up your web spells

No you can't. Because it got left on the cart at the back of the army and you would have to stop and give the quartermaster six hours to find one little piece of paper. There are spares, of course, but someone decided they were redundancies that would never be missed and sold them on the black market to cover his gambling debts.

Logistics don't ever work perfectly. When it matters they frequently work atrociously.

Take Agincourt for example. In theory France had the perfect counter to the English longbowmen. Crossbowmen fire slowly, but they only have to peek above their pavises when actually firing, allowing them to operate from movable cover. In practice those pavises were on the baggage train and the rest of the army wasn't willing to wait to sort things out before fighting. That's medieval war.

If it's not a light easy to carry object issued to each applicable soldier it does not reliably exist. If it's small and valuable someone has probably flogged it.

Even when you aren't working with the scum of the earth enlisted for drink things are never where they should be unless they're someone's personal kit. And if you are issuing everyone pages you could be issuing everyone pearls of power for the same price.


Now, you're trying to argue 'corruption exists, so this doesn't work', and you're making a bad example.

1) that Page is probably held by the head sorcerer of the unit being assisted. You don't stick a $4,000 magical sheet of paper easily lost of misplaced somewhere it's easy for a thief to get it. You might as well argue that wizards can't cast their spells because their spellbooks keep getting misplaced and sold off for great profit to the thief.

2) You're using a battle of French ineptitude for an example. And I think you meant Crecy, not Agincourt, where the mercenary Genoese who'd been paid a LOT of money by the French couldn't get their shields, were forced to deploy by the French, were ravaged by the English since the rain restricted their crossbow range, tried to retreat, and then were slaughtered for cowardice.

at Agincourt, the problem is the French didn't even use their crossbowmen, as the French were so confident they'd win the nobles' forces were deployed in front of them, and the arbalesters never joined the main battle.

Using lack of professionalism and tactical ineptitude to declare something will not work just isn't going to fly.


The problem here is that you won't stack 30 soldiers in a tight little huddle. Also, most of the time you will be casting web during battle not before, therefore, your guys will be in battle formations, which actually will be wider than medieval to reduce effectiveness of aoe effects. Thus a shared spell page is useless to more then one or guys. Also, what if the page carrier goes down?

Only personal kits can be relied on. Anything else, while useful and will be used when possible, is something to avoid relying on at all costs.

More, riflemen spells would not include damage spells in general, though burning hands might be there. Spells like fireball would not only be well above the common soldier's capacity, there would be rare use for them. Over the course of hours, large damage spells are a waste of resources. In any case, a riflemen is one who can do all three roles, not just one, even if they might be better at one than the others.

Common spells would be expeditious retreat, vanish, enlarge person, silent image, magic weapon, obscuring mist, shield, etc. Basically enhancement spells. Cantrip damage spells would likely serve as the common ranged and backup weapon, because they deal elemental damage and can be spammed, um, as in used continuously for hours on end. Physical weapons would still be king of damage, but mostly for it's ability to be used continuously (sometimes known as spamability).

Also, I don't agree that people need the right heritage to use magic in general, though one or two settings might require it.

As for using a ritual to make sorcerers, that can only be done if the gm decides their setting can do that, but it isn't an implied ability of the default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a number of interesting things going on here, and while it's interesting to debate if sorcerers or wizards are more effective, I think it's more important to first define the way that fighting works.

TheAlicornSage, you've suggested that armies would use loose formation similar to modern armies. I disagree. Let us consider that the majority of fighting is still rather difficult, that is, a single soldier with limited spellcasting and some medieval weapons cannot cause massive damage to a group of soldiers in the same way that a one with a machine gun could. The simple principle that greater concentration of forces wins holds true, and it seems that spellcasting is more in line early muskets or cannons, thus it seems that Napoleonic tactics are the closest historic parallel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_tactics , specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(formation) , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire

It should also be noted that direct battle would remain the decisive factor. Once anybody can pick up a gun and kill a trained soldier, the nature of warfare changes to favor taking ground over killing enemies. However, as you have pointed out, it is the nobles and those with money and time to train at magic who would be the soldiers, and this means that armies are small and decisive conflict in the field remains a common occurrence. Thus the nature of warfare is not to march, set up FOBs, and attempt to project control over territories and their untrained populace, it is instead to defeat opposing armies which are the only real force able to contest power.

In short, it seems that what we end up looking at are decisive battles between relatively small armies (tens of thousands instead of hundreds or millions) with Napoleonic era tactics.

Feel free to explain why I'm wrong, if you do indeed think that I am wrong.


Gaurwaith wrote:

...

TheAlicornSage, you've suggested that armies would use loose formation similar to modern armies. I disagree. Let us consider that the majority of fighting is still rather difficult, that is, a single soldier with limited spellcasting and some medieval weapons cannot cause massive damage to a group of soldiers in the same way that a one with a machine gun could. The simple principle that greater concentration of forces wins holds true, and it seems that spellcasting is more in line early muskets or cannons, thus it seems that Napoleonic tactics are the closest historic parallel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_tactics , specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(formation) , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire
...

Within a relatively short distance, a single low level spell-caster with the right spell can inflict that sort of damage. For the most part, they can't cause it permanently, but they can break formations and effectively remove groups of troops from the fight during crucial moments.

At level 1 (i.e. pretty much everyone who gets trained seriously), you have Entangle and Grease.

At level 4(i.e. experienced soldiers), you have Web, Glitterdust, Create Pit, Fog Cloud, Euphoric Cloud, Stone Call, Spike Growth and Wind Wall.

Some of these can hurt formations or break them up with several uses (Glitterdust, Grease). Some of these can destroy formations consisting of a hundred men (Entangle, Stone Call, Spike Growth). A single level 4 Hunter could viably cripple several hundred soldiers with Entangle and Spike Growth.

This alone pretty much destroys a huge swath of traditional fighting methods. Packed cavalry charges are out. Pike formations are a definite no-no - coincidentally, the historical norm of 100 men in 10x10 pike squares is almost a perfect size for 40ft radius AoE effects. Line formations still let a single man cripple a few dozen others with the right spell. I can't see any traditional formations working when the other side has this sort of stuff.


It's not just the other side that has this sort of stuff, it's both sides. This doesn't invalidate any of your points, but it's worthwhile to point out.

It's not great when one guy can entangle a dozen with a single spell, but as you mention this is impermanent.

Snowblind wrote:
they can break formations and effectively remove groups of troops from the fight during crucial moments.

This presupposes that there is already some sort of fight going on. If this is composed of a line of troops against a loosely grouped and spread out group then the line group is probably going to win anyway, and the spread out group's spells will probably be ineffective unless followed up with some sort of maneuver requiring large formations, which is likely what would happen.

I'm not advocating for a 10x10 square, it's more like a long line of soldiers only a few deep, with arrows ready to fire against anybody who gets close. With soldiers arrayed in such a line, scattered troops would have a tough time even approaching close enough to use medium range spells, and would suffer from greater difficulty to communicate.

I would say that these formations also need to be more flexible and capable of adapting to their opponents, and might break more quickly, but I do not think that combat would consist of spread out groups of soldiers, for the simple reason that a spell is not as effective as a machine gun or a civil war era rifle. At the very least, spells have a much more limited range than, say, a gun from 1860, which could reliably hit someone at 100 yards (due to the minié ball).


I am thinking like 10' - 20' between soldiers.

Also, while melee is more damaging, every soldier has cantrips at range, short range, but still enough to allow soldiers in loose formations to support each other.

I do expect however for strategy to be more of a mix between classic and modern. While each formation is loose, units will still be in close proximity and work together to try and out maneuver each other. Likely the more experienced soldiers that can use better spells will be like artillery and thus be major targets, with each army seeking first to take down the enemy artillery while also protecting their own artillery.

One of these days I'll get my laptop back and then I'll make a few simulations.

Edit; ninja'd

Also there are better communication options, and command and control woukd likely need to be improved and use methods different from medieval methods.

Also, a line formation would be an easier target for spells and despite rarity, aoe spells would be far more devestating to a line than looser formations. Meaning the line can't hurt a loose formation with the same effectiveness as attacking a line formatiin.


I can get behind a 5'-10' gap between soldiers, but I think that 20' is a bit much. As TheAlicornSage has mentioned, the primary source of damage comes from mundane weapons, and a group of soldiers that is twice as dense can fire twice as many arrows. There's probably a sweet spot, because as they get more sparse, they lose the ability to deal as much damage, but also take less damage from AOE.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
Also there are better communication options, and command and control woukd likely need to be improved and use methods different from medieval methods.

There would certainly be better communication. I wonder what level spell a loudspeaker would be. What about something that allows a commander to speak with a bunch of different people, perhaps one at a time, and has a long range and duration? What if it let him see through their eyes? This would probably be 2nd or 3rd level spell, which is within the capability of an army to cast occasionally, and it really only needs to be cast once.


I disagree with your assessment, Alicorn.

First, the sorcerer example in question is about preparing the battlefield. You can certainly concentrate sorcs to do so, if you can concentrate wizards to do so.

If he dies...then someone gets his body and important items and life goes on. You know, just like they do in real life. If the body has gear or ammo you need, you take it.

Anytime you have a melee dominance in fighting, cavalry forces, and the like, you will have tight units in companies and lines, and trying to fight such a line with a scattered force will end in a wipe out. Marching and enfolding tactics exist exactly to take care of broken formations like this, surround and slaughter them. Skirmishers get brutally treated by men in formation.

Fireballs work magnificently for opening holes in lines and units, which you can then pour into with ready troops. They also have extremely long range, which you can deliver with pinpoint accuracy. A 6th level sorc can toss a fireball 200 yards away, and a more focused Scorching Ray to the same distance.

-----------------
Common spells would be expeditious retreat, vanish, enlarge person, silent image, magic weapon, obscuring mist, shield, etc. Basically enhancement spells. Cantrip damage spells would likely serve as the common ranged and backup weapon, because they deal elemental damage and can be spammed, um, as in used continuously for hours on end. Physical weapons would still be king of damage, but mostly for it's ability to be used continuously (sometimes known as spamability).
-------------------------------------------

The spells you mentioned do absolutely nothing in the large scale of a war...they are adventuring spells made for dealing with single, isolated combats. Expeditious retreat affects one person...no effect on a battle. Enlarge...the same, and makes the very obvious recipient an instant target of ranged attacks. Silent Image...potentially dozens of men are going to interact with it, and someone will make that save and alert the rest. Magic weapon is only useful if you've got a very skilled person who needs a magic weapon to kill something otherwise immune and tearing a path through your forces, the contribution to a battle is near zero otherwise.

And have you seen the range on cantrips? Acid Splash and Ray of frost are Close Range. A 6th level caster needs to be 40' away in order to deal 1d3 dmg?
No, they won't be using those. It's an excuse to get shot by an archer.

You're also ignoring the standard trope that martial soldiers vastly outnumber magical ones in the standard game, which means martial tactics have to dominate and be flexible. Sure, if there's a caster, you want more open formations and tower shields...and speed and ranged attacks. If there's not, close up those lines and keep it tight and slaughter the enemy with less discipline then you have.

As for an example of a fireball...a fireball hitting the leading edge of a pike square just as a warrior line or a cavalry charge hits it will absolutely destroy the enemy. Your men charge into the gap where they are hideously vulnerable at close quarters, punch through the line, and start spreading behind the line of battle, encircling the enemy, panicking them, and widening a hole. IT doesn't have to wipe the square, just kill enough of them to open a hole for your martials.
And that only works if they don't have Tower Shields, of course.

That one spell at that time can change the entire battle, however.

Or your Tattoed 'sniper' sorc with a fire bloodline, magical lineage for scorching Ray, and Empower sees an Ogre step out of the enemy lines 200 yards away and drives a 12d6+12 dmg Scorching Ray into the brute, dropping him like a rock before he can do more then wave his six foot club once. More ogres come out, and he picks them off one by one while shield-men defend him against the arrows trying to reach him from waaaaay over there ineffectively.

Most battlefield combat in PF takes place in classic form, because while there is magic, there isn't the 100% dependency on lethal ranged fire that we have in the current world. a line of soldiers a thousand men long and five deep, a mere five thousand men, still stretches for nearly a mile...most spells that are not high level simply are not going to have a major effect on any battle of that size, and it only gets worse as the number of soldiers, and the area they sprawl over gets larger and larger. Cantrips do next to nothing, and are too close range to ever be employed by a smart caster unless in fear of their life...and likely they'd chose to use a crossbow instead.

For adventuring, the spells are fine, as the combats are at squad or individual level, the battlefields are small. But blow them up to the big leagues, and low level spells are definitely not going to be almighty, and the tactics for dealing with them will be understood and rapidly used. Individual targeted or small area spells will basically be useless and have little to no effect on overall combat, except spells designed to take down similarly strong enemies. AoE's will be the spells of choice, because they swing battles.

What would happen in a magical universe would depend entirely on just how common mages are. Tower Shields would be used by infantry companies all the time...Cover thwarts a LOT of magic, and no skirmish line in existence is going to match up against a close line of shield-wielding spearmen who just shrug off your AoE's.


Das Bier wrote:
What would happen in a magical universe would depend entirely on just how common mages are.

I agree with this completely, and for the purposes of this discussion, I believe we are assuming that the armies are composed of trained and rich landowners, and that the majority of them are capable of casting a few first and maybe even second level spells. We aren't talking about a 6th level sorcerer casting expeditious retreat, or vanish, or magic weapon, we're talking about every soldier being able to cast one of those at the same time. And suddenly they are easily able to defeat the fighters who have a few more feats then they do.

Except, of course, that then the whole way combat works changes. It's true that formations absolutely demolish loose soldiers in melee, but it's even more true that spells like create pit and entangle would prevent charges from being effective, and there would be more of a focus on ranged combat.


"You're also ignoring the standard trope that martial soldiers vastly outnumber magical ones"

No sir, I'm saying [insert favorite expletive] that trope. It is stupid and would rarely happen in a world where magic can be learned through mere study. And in those cases where most of the soldiers are not casters, they would be peasent conscripts expected to suffer insanely high loses and maybe win through sheer numerical superiority, or be very expensive short term units with all those lightly trained martial soldiers using magical items like wands, scrolls, and potions.

Nergui is right though in that we are looking at a standing army in the feudal style of nobles being the primary well trained professional troops.

And that 90% of the troops will be 2nd lvl, 9% 3rd lvl, and only 1% 4th or above. Thus while all the soldiers have cantrips and a few 1st lvl spells, only 10% have 2nd lvl spells. That 10% wil be the leadership and artillery.

Also, a loose formation can be disciplined and well trained, and therefore not suffer all the disadvantages of a loose group of untrained amatuers. And as a loose line covers more ground than a tight line, they are harder to outmaneuver, and being so loose, a fireball or similar has a lower impact on unit effectiveness and takes fewer soldiers out of the picture, meaning that more soldiers remain to resist any attempts to push through after the fireball, and because of the cantrips, soldiers don't need to be in direct line of the charge to hurt it and help stop it.

Also cantrips might be weak, but when 90% of the soldiers have only 8-12 hp, a 1d3 isn't that bad, especially when you have a dozens of them flying around.

Also, imagine enlarge and expeditious retreat being used by every soldier in that unit rushing the enemy, that seriously improves the damage potential and speed of those soldiers. That is a 2 minute magical blitzkrieg, that every soldier can use.


"First, the sorcerer example in question is about preparing the battlefield."

No it wasn't intended as battlefield prep. Not like that anyway. You are assuming the web spells would be cast before the battle, when they would more likely be used to cut off retreat or trap a marching line of troops, which requires a sudden coordinated effort during combat, or at least at the start of combat. In either case, you don't want a huddle of 30 troops, of any sort.


By the way, Nergüi = Gaurwaith = me.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
Also, a loose formation can be disciplined and well trained, and therefore not suffer all the disadvantages of a loose group of untrained amatuers. And as a loose line covers more ground than a tight line, they are harder to outmaneuver, and being so loose, a fireball or similar has a lower impact on unit effectiveness and takes fewer soldiers out of the picture, meaning that more soldiers remain to resist any attempts to push through after the fireball, and because of the cantrips, soldiers don't need to be in direct line of the charge to hurt it and help stop it.

Sure, but a loose formation is essentially already in the state of a group hit by a fireball, and would get torn through by tightly packed melee units, if it ever came to that. More likely, however, is that we would see a hybrid. I still think it would be close to a Napoleonic line, but maybe a bit looser, and with some space between soldiers to weaken the effects of the "artillery". Although...

TheAlicornSage wrote:
90% of the troops will be 2nd lvl, 9% 3rd lvl, and only 1% 4th or above. Thus while all the soldiers have cantrips and a few 1st lvl spells, only 10% have 2nd lvl spells. That 10% wil be the leadership and artillery.

If this is true (I'm not entirely sure it is), than only ~10% have access to second level artillery type spells like stone call. This seems like it's akin to Napoleonic era technology, but it's noticeably different. Stone call and others like it are medium range spells, while cannon could be effective at much longer range. This http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=170046 at one point discusses range, and shows that a 12lb cannon loaded with 41 balls can hit a battalion sized target with half, or 20, shots. So actually Napoleonic era cannons were maybe even more effective than something like stone call.

After all, god fights on the side with the best artillery.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
Also, imagine enlarge and expeditious retreat being used by every soldier in that unit rushing the enemy, that seriously improves the damage potential and speed of those soldiers. That is a 2 minute magical blitzkrieg, that every soldier can use.

Actually, blitzkrieg tactics were a later development as a reaction to massive armies and easy to use weapons. The idea of a blitzkrieg is to surround your opponents and cut them off from their supply lines, and ideally to get them to surrender without having to actually go in and kill them in the hundreds of thousands. Not that an enlarge person+expeditious retreat charge wouldn't have a place, but it wouldn't really be a blitzkrieg. If you're more interested in fast, powerful, medieval armies as compared to a blitzkrieg, I suggest you google a comparison of Mongolian conquests and the blitzkrieg.


Enlarge doesn't make you tougher. All it gives you is reach. You now have HALF as many people stacked into the same area, AND they are in loose formation? So when they hit the tight enemy units with their E Retreat charge, they are facing 4 men to 1, and in ranks 3 deep.

They're dead men. The lead units will advance, surround them, and they'll be impaled on ranks of spears. Just like how you'd kill any giant. Except you're dozens of HP softer then a Giant.

Too, now you're big, and the archers in the lines behind can shoot you. And your AC is lower...your Enlarged guys basically just killed themselves. They'll get big, scream, and eat a lot of arrows to the face, and then braced spears to the gut.

1d3 dmg cantrips means nothing if it can't penetrate cover, and it can't. An Archer with point blank shot will do more damage, at better range.

A fireball has no effect at all on a tight formation with tower shields. If you're using smart magic tactics, and the enemy is using stupid melee tactics, maybe you'll get away with something. But the enemy has to be stupid, which in a true world means they'd die, and the survivors would come up with smarter plans.

A loose formation facing a tight formation will get slaughtered. It's a truism in a battle. Some of them will get away. But if they don't run, the line will sweep them and slaughter them. Standard military tactics. All they can DO is run and harass. They'll never be able to put up significant resistance.

A loose formation is MORE susceptible to AoE's, because it doesn't block line of sight. An AoE spell going after a line can only target the front of the line, because no line of sight. An open formation, it can go anywhere it would be effective. If they have tower shields, they can only target the ground in front of the line...you can't bring up Evard's tentacles in the middle of a tower shield formation. You can't see the middle.

The majority of those forces you are talking about are not going to be the nobles. Those will be the core of the army, the specialists and officers. They aren't going to have good armor without suffering spell misfire chances, and having THAT happen is very bad on a battlefield. Most of the buffs and enhancements low level casters can lay on are simply not going to last long enough to be of any use on a battlefield, can't be properly targeted, or just don't have a big enough effect.

Oh, and makes big targets out of them while they obviously cast, of course.

It isn't until you get higher level that you get spells with big enough areas to really and consistently be battle changers. The buff spells you are using are good for adventurer encounters, but not so much on a battlefield with known tactics to use against them.

The absolute best spell on the battlefield for level 1 would probably be True Strike. The ability to say "I hit" with an attack, especially at range, is immensely strong. 1000 arrows ALL hitting a target is nigh-irresistible, if you can muster that many casters together.
And is useless against Tower Shields, of course. Amazing, isn't it?

I think more low level magic would be great in a support function, but if you can train up a bunch of level 1-3 spellcasters, you can train a bunch of fighters in larger numbers to deal with them.

Oh, and expeditious retreat is too short duration to affect marching significantly. Longstrider, on the other hand...


Wouldn't Entangle be a better mass-combat 1st level spell? Difficult terrain in 40-foot radius, with a save against entanglement. Enemy troops would have to double move to get through it or double run to get around it, meaning that they'll be delayed for at least two rounds, if they're wearing light armor and don't get entangled. That equates to two uncontested archer volleys while melee troops are closing in. It has a minute/level duration, which means that a single 1st level caster would be able to stop an enemy advance (or charge!) from 440 feet away. This could be used to facilitate retreats, prevent enemy retreats, and invalidate cavalry or any other unit that depends on charging. 1000 arrows are practically irresistible, but 1000 halted enemy retreats, advances, or charges will change the course of the battle.

Obscuring Mist blocks line of sight for archers and casters within a 20-foot radius. A squad of casters laying this down could stop accurate enemy fire at key points unless there are higher-level casters specifically prepared to counter this.

Low-level magic is definitely a support function and not an enemy-killer, but I'd hardly say it's not a battle-changer.

Snowblind said this sort of stuff earlier, with more spells.


"Enlarge doesn't make you tougher. All it gives you is reach. You now have HALF as many people stacked into the same area, AND they are in loose formation? So when they hit the tight enemy units with their E Retreat charge, they are facing 4 men to 1, and in ranks 3 deep"

It is called tactical timing. You don't just blindly use it, you use it at the right moment.

And while they are not tougher to hurt, they hit a lot harder, far more likely to get one hit kills, and barring that two hit kills, while their enemies still need three or four hits. Also, the extra weight and speed allows them to more easily bowl over enemies.

"1d3 dmg cantrips means nothing if it can't penetrate cover, and it can't. An Archer with point blank shot will do more damage, at better range."

Shooting arrows requires a ready bow, but if you have a sword in hand, your options are to attack now with cantrip or take a few moments to switch weapons.

Indeed you'll have archers, but cantrips will be used by those that need a ranged attack without really swapping out weapons. Tgat is where the benefit comes in, and cantrips don't have ammo, and it takes only around 5-7 hits to down an enemy. Less damageethan a weapon perhaps, but still enough to be useful when used right.

"fireball has no effect at all on a tight formation with tower shields."

Of course it does. Do you think it must be at ground level? No, the fireball will be targeted just above their heads. Tower shields don't protect from above or above and behind, or above and to the side.

Sorry, but just planting a few tower shields does not equate to immunity from magic.

"Standard military tactics. All they can DO is run and harass."

This has become: Run and harass => Standard military tactics.

Being in a line means the loose formation will drop burning hands hitting several soldiers each time. And that line won't be moving with cover as the tower shield must be set down as cover. It isn't cover when carried. Shocking grasp travels through metal, just hit their metal shields.

"A loose formation is MORE susceptible to AoE's, because it doesn't block line of sight."

Except that in a loose formation, only a few soldiers are hit, while in the tight formation, several are hit from the fire over the shields, or the front 20' of soldiers grabbed by tentacles.

"They aren't going to have good armor without suffering spell misfire chances,"

Not true, one can train to cast in armor, now maybe only certain classes get it free, but as such is trainable, any theoretical class designed for representing such troops would obviously include this.

"The majority of those forces you are talking about are not going to be the nobles."

Except they are the primary military units. Yeomen are support. And as mentioned above, they would be wearing armor and casting spells.

"[1000 arrows] And is useless against Tower Shields, of course."

Incorrect, arrows can fire indirect, shooting up then landing down. Tower shields protect from the front, but is much less from above, and is like nothing to the 2nd+ ranks if only the front liners have tower shields. Oh, and tower shields can't move while deployed as cover, so just wait till the enemy makes a move.


"Most of the buffs and enhancements low level casters can lay on are simply not going to last long enough"

Spells are usable often enough anyway, so spell use, aside from cantrips, is to use the right spell at the right time, aka, to be tactical with them.

Also, as mentioned previously on a few occasions, spells like obscuring mist or silent image have excellent use.

And I've always said to use spells as support, except to have a warrior cast such spells rather than have a bunch of warriors and only a few mages casting support.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
Tower shields don't protect from above or above and behind, or above and to the side.

Actually, when used properly, they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_formation is an example. This formation provided so strong a barrier that horses and carts could be ridden on top of it, and it would stop a fireball. It also can't move quickly and still loses to create pit.

Das Bier wrote:
A loose formation facing a tight formation will get slaughtered. It's a truism in a battle. Some of them will get away. But if they don't run, the line will sweep them and slaughter them. Standard military tactics. All they can DO is run and harass. They'll never be able to put up significant resistance.

Again, this is true, a tight formation is going to cut down a loose one in melee. But it's not really going to have that opportunity. Create pit in particular is a brutal spell, but arrow volleys and entangle are also a sure way to kill people. Sure, you can put up a testudo and walk forwards, rather slowly, but then half your guys get entangled and the other half don't, and your army separates into little groups of soldiers who can be further scattered and destroyed by the likes of create pit. Melee just isn't a good idea when entangle exists.

Das Bier wrote:
The majority of those forces you are talking about are not going to be the nobles. Those will be the core of the army, the specialists and officers. They aren't going to have good armor without suffering spell misfire chances, and having THAT happen is very bad on a battlefield. Most of the buffs and enhancements low level casters can lay on are simply not going to last long enough to be of any use on a battlefield, can't be properly targeted, or just don't have a big enough effect.

The idea is that if magic is widespread, every standing army would use it. This http://deremilitari.org/2014/06/the-recruitment-of-armies-in-the-early-midd le-ages-what-can-we-know/ is a fair discussion and basically amounts to saying that we aren't certain what exact compositions are, but in general small armies are favored and they aren't composed of farmers. They are composed of soldiers. Soldiers who should be able to use magic if they want to actually be effective, and soldiers who stop charges and shoot arrows.


As a Soldier myself I can sympathize with the desire to have a standing army trained in magic. The issue is of course determining what kind of conditions you're working under.

As it stands right now, the Magus and Bloodrager both fit the role of combat oriented caster. They also share the same limitation in that they are strongly focused on melee combat.

Your real issue is the technology level of the setting still strongly affects the kind of tactics used on the battlefield and thus the ideal method to build a Magical Soldier.

Personally, if I had a setting in which an army tried to incorporate magic into the standard arsenal of a soldier I wouldn't go changing the classes I used. Instead, I would use existing classes and make sure that each soldier was well trained in Use Magic Device and outfit them with magic items. A Wand of Magic Missile on each soldier would be devestating. Any modern military would kill to have that ability to equip soldiers with a Wand of Magic Missile.

So, your front line soldier would still be something like a fighter. The actual spellcaster classes would be in support roles serving as artillery, medics, group buffer, and other logistical roles.


The range of cantrips is going to be 30-40 feet. If you have a sword in hand you don't have a shield, your AC is less. You're also obvious and vulnerable to any archer holding an action with point blank shot. You're also in charge range of anybody with a 30' move and reach. It's a silly tactic.

Your charging enlarged people have to deal with experienced soldiers on the OTHER side who have braced spears, which do double damage to oversized guys easier to hit who are charging them. When you are level 4 and charge into 12 braced spears, you die.
And of course, the archers just loving you charging to within point blank shot range of you. And you're ignoring the total cover or +4 AC from shields of your foes, too.

Someone already mentioned a tortoise formation, which means yes, a proper shield formation WILL prevent fireballs from above.

As for entangle...obstructions like that is why military forces placed so much emphasis on marching, on being able to move through one another, reform lines, and the like. A highly trained professional force would simply flow to the sides around the obstruction, and then flow right back into the line without really breaking stride, especially if these 'simple tactics' are commonly known...and would be.

It's not like your own forces are going to be charged to that area, right?

Entangle is Druidic, however.

Nobles are always outnumbered by soldiers in a military, because there are way fewer nobles then there are non-nobles. I already acknowledged they'd be the core and the officers. But the vast amount of troops are not going to be, unless they want to be outnumber 20:1 on a battlefield. Numbers are a power all their own.

Harass and run only works if you are not encircled or surrounded. What would happen is the lines would sweep...make a wall of men and simply surround portions of the scattered forces repeatedly. IF they run, archers shoot them down, or cavalry rides them down (the primary job of most cavalry forces is to kill skirmishers, archers, and fleeing troops, not break a battle line). Then they simply wheel and pivot the lines, encircling and slaughtering. Unless the harassers actually run away, they WILL be killed.

Skirmishers die to real soldiers. Archers pick them off, cavalry rides them down, and tight units run right over them.

Burning Hands is a nearly point blank spell and horrible example. Casting it is going to require concentration checks or eating several AoO's in tight quarters.

Men can learn to cast in armor, sure. It takes several feats...feats they then don't have to do other things they need to be good at. And levels they might not have, as well. We're talking low level characters...they don't have feats to spend willy-nilly, and there's going to be a tradeoff between arcane casting and armor. Even the bards know it.

As for Hark's UMD wands...unneeded. There's a feat you can take where you can use magic items from a specific caster list as if you had access to the list. Can't remember the name of it, however. However, 750 gp per wand per man starts getting really pricey when you start talking about dozens, or hundreds of such things. And then, they are useless against cover, too.


You're not familiar with how much money a military is willing to throw around. Wand of Magic Missile was simply an obvious example. Wand of Cure Light Wounds is super obvious and worthwhile for medics. I would expect soldiers to be equipped with a variety of magical equipment tailored to the mission.

The most valuable and effective piece of equipment and unit can have is a form of long range communication. Cool toys make life easier, but info and communication will always win out.


we're talking soldiers, line troops. 750 gp is a LOT of money for a level 1-2 basic soldier, equal to buying him the best armor for something that's going to run out of charges soon, and takes at least 2 shots, generally 3, to kill someone...very slow, even if it is at range, and easily avoided by cover. IT's out-ranged by arrows tremendously, too.

I'll agree about communication being able to revolutionize warfare. Being able to communicate free of error with scouts, spies, and officers would change anything and everything.


Das Bier wrote:
we're talking soldiers, line troops. 750 gp is a LOT of money for a level 1-2 basic soldier, equal to buying him the best armor for something that's going to run out of charges soon, and takes at least 2 shots, generally 3, to kill someone...very slow, even if it is at range, and easily avoided by cover. IT's out-ranged by arrows tremendously, too.

I'm very aware of the expense. As for the damage, the fact that it takes multiple hits to drop a target is an artifact of Pathfinder's rules system. An injured soldier is almost universally combat ineffective. One shot from a magic missile is enough to remove most level 1-2 npcs as a credible threat is we are approaching this with any measure of realism. So far as cover is concerned a magic missile is no less effective than any other direct fire weapon, but doesn't have the corresponding chance of missing. For range a magic missile matches the base range of a Composite Long Bow. While a Long Bow can shoot farther with corresponding penalties, for a level 1 character those penalties quickly become crippling.


"This formation provided so strong a barrier that horses and carts could be ridden on top of it"

I really question the horse and cart bit, not outright disbelief, but not taking dio's word for it either.

As for protection, this is where tactics come in. As I've said before, timing. Everyone loves to forget this. As dio himself spoke of the formation being broken by armored cavalry (sound anything like an enlarged expedited soldier to anyone else?), at which time the fireball gets dropped while the soldiers reform. If you even have fireballs anyway.

"a tight formation is going to cut down a loose one in melee."

I don't really agree with this. Being in a tight formation is situational. You will change tactics based on the situation at hand, and hit and run tactics are viable, and magic enhances this viability. Also, tight formations are good when melee and arrows are the only options had by your enemy, but with a with a wide variety of options at their disposal due to magic, melee and arrows are hardly ever the only things an enemy will have.

"I would use existing classes"

Stop right there. Classes don't exist. They are metagame constructs that neatly package an array of abilities into classical archetypes. The characters of the world do not have them as limits. Technically players don't either as GMs are told to adapt the classes to a player's character concept (though for some reason this is taken as a bad thing).

So the point is, figure out what abilities a soldier woukd have, then make a class to represent that set of abilities.

"Men can learn to cast in armor, sure. It takes several feats."

Actually it doesn't. Several classes have that ability built in. Therefore, not unreasonable to say soldiers get that ability before even touching feats.

"A Wand of Magic Missile on each soldier would be devestating"

As said many times, extremely expensive and short lived. After five minutes, the wands are depleted and everything devolves to whatever the soldiers still have, which for your soldiers is a stick, such an expensive stick they likely have poor armor, poor back up weapon, and lucky to have a shield.

"If you have a sword in hand you don't have a shield,"

There is no particular reason to say that a soldier won't have a shield. It is easy and quick to switch a sword to shield hand, cast then switch hands again. And it doesn't hinder your ability to use the shield either. Granted that comes from experience rather than rules which I'd have to further research (a quick glance didn't find anything on this).

Also, if that isn't good enough, some classes can use weapons to make the somatic components, an ability that would be wise to adopt by soldiers.

"Any modern military would kill to have that ability to equip soldiers with a Wand of Magic Missile."

This is ridiculous. We have weapons so far better than such a wand, even the auto hit feature is worthless. Heck, such a wand doesn't have two clips of ammo and a soldier gets over 200 rounds, even two rounds per "shot" (double tap), the modern soldier has more ammo. Further, soldiers are accurate enough with such weapons, that auto hit isn't worth much.

"Your charging enlarged people have to deal with experienced soldiers on the OTHER side who have braced spears"

Not quite. First, the soldiers on the other side need to have spears and have them braced and actually get charged. Also, they are smarter and better practiced than horses, meaning they have a way better chance to avoid the braced spears than cavalry could ever dream of.

Oh, and that isn't the only way to use enlarged soldiers. Another way is for enlarged soldiers to walk up to a formation and start grabbing soldiers or their shields and start tossing. Making a gap to drop spells.

But in any case, your soldiers need to have spears to brace them, meaning that if they don't, because maybe they are set for a different strategy, or maybe because it is late in the battle, or is your archer unit, then that won't be an option for them.

"And of course, the archers just loving you charging to within point blank shot range of you. And you're ignoring the total cover or +4 AC from shields of your foes, too."

First, archers don't get the cover nor +4 ac.
Second, timing. Draw your enemies into position, then attack. Neither side will get perfect shots like you are imagining, not unless one side is stupid or desperate.
Third, your archers must have readied actions to shoot the enlarged soldiers upon getting within point blank range, otherwise, the enlarged soldiers are going finish their turn in melee.

"professional force would simply flow to the sides around the obstruction,"

Opening for fireball, arrows, and spells.

"Nobles are always outnumbered by soldiers in a military,"

As already mentioned, there is a difference between a professional standing army and conscripts. The professional army will tear through conscripts. You'd need the conscripts to outnumber the professionals by a very large margin.

Smaller better trained armies were the norm. That is where nobles come from. The kings favored soldiers watch over certain lands. They would have units they commanded and would their favored soldiers sections of land to command. On down the line.

Granted, I imagine that not every soldier will hold direct title, but most are going to be of genteel birth. After all the siblings of the heirs need something to do as do their children.

"Harass and run only works if you are not encircled or surrounded"

Just how do you plan to encircle with a testudo? Especially when the loose but still disciplined formations of my troops cover a far larger area.

You see, when one side gets encircled, then they go defensive and switch to the testudo or similar, but avoiding getting encircled in the first place us going to be a major goalm and tight formations are easier to encircle. And because of magic, tight formations are easier to fight against than real history.

"make a wall of men"

Fireball, charge with enlarged soldiers to break (unless spears), outmaneuver, etc. Loose formations have better mobility than the wall and if of roughly equal numbers, the loose formations are wider and thus will encircle the wall.

"IF they run, archers shoot them down"

Do you imagine that soldier's only options are move forward or turn their backs on enemies? The "skirmishers" as you put it, will out maneuver the tight formation.

"or cavalry rides them down"

A loose formation isn't the same as a broken or fleeing unit. Expeditious retreat and anti-cav tactics. Oh, and because of cantrips, a mounted soldier running through a squad of loose soldiers is going to take at least a half dozen shots from soldiers outside melee range. See, a loose formation doesn't lose the ability to focus fire the way they did in real history.

In real history, only archers had ranged attacks. Here every soldier has a ranged attack, even if it short range. So while your cav unit runs around, each time they get in melee range, it is only in melee with one or two, but within short range of many. Each mounted soldier will get 1-3 passes before being dead.

"Burning Hands is a nearly point blank spell and horrible example."

Not really. It is a situational spell. Particularly good for ambushes. But get a couple enlarged to make a hole and a third soldier can drop a burning hands between. Can even stand back five feet and still hit many enemies. Also, disguised as a bush, the enemy passes and takes a surprise burning hands right in the heart of their formation.

There are ways to use it.

"While a Long Bow can shoot farther with corresponding penalties, for a level 1 character those penalties quickly become crippling."

Not really. You see at those ranges, volley fire is used. Get a unit of archers firing into a small area, some of those arrows will hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:
two clips of ammo

Thank you, that is everything I need to know. I'm out, no longer interested in this conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What strikes me in this thread is the will some have, to turn the Pathfinder heroic-fantasy battlefield into a modern-day zone-of-war skirmish.

The value of a level 3-5 PC Class character is huge on the battlefield. It also costs a ton of money. As per the rules, a trained hireling costs 3 silver a day. Since they're expendable, you can kit them out with cheap equipment : a shortspear, a buckler, leather armor and maybe a light crossbow. This will come out as let's say a 50 gold value for a low AC, low damage soldier : we're looking at AC 12 or 13, around ten hit points, and a +2 or +3 1d8-damage attack.

Now what amount of coin would a fully kitted-out level 3 character cost ? If you have trained them, you don't want to lose them, which means you kit them out with the best gear around : breastplate (or even more), a costy weapon, maybe even a shield. Don't forget the spellbook if he's a prepared spellcaster. You're getting in the 500 golds for a single fighter who will be outnumbered 10 to 1. He may be able to take out one or two footsoldiers, but you just don't get enough bang for your buck. And let's not even get to scrolls, potions and wands. I'll gladly field 100 militiamen against 10 of your level 3 powerhouses, even if they can get webbed 10 times (which actually will provide me with cover), provided they fail their Reflex saves.

Magis is useful in skirmishes, which is most of the combat we usually do when we play Pathfinder. 3 spells a day just doesn't cut it if the battle lasts for more than 3 minutes. Heck, even 10 minutes of battle is a hundred rounds, which will outlast most of the buffs or debuffs "magic soldiers" will be able to throw.

And if you want a character to be a full BAB fighter with enough spellslots to last an hour of fighting, either you need extremely high level characters (which will be extremely costy), or you need a class that's just going to be straight up better than anything else. Magus and Bloodragers already do magic fighting. Fireball is a 3rd level spell too, so we're looking at (at minima) 5th level characters. Just how expensive is this army supposed to be ? If they get outnumbered 30 to 1, I don't see the point in that "elite" force which will be forced to have a glaring weakness somewhere to balance it out. Since they already have full spellcasting and seemingly all armors and weapons as well as max BAB, I trust this class will have a weak point somewhere. A d2 hitdice maybe ?

Lastly, if I know the enemy is nothing but spellcaster, rest assured that I will throw suicide squads against their encampment to prevent them to rest. Remember, anything else but resting for 8 hours interrupts rest, by the rules. RAW, even talking prevents you from regaining your spells. Having an entire army of spellcasters just doesn't give you enough for the price you pay.

If you really want to up your game on the battlefield, consider kitting out your soldiers with alchemical items. A thunderstone costs 30 gold, and having your frontline throw those in the fray can give you a pretty good "concussion grenade" kind of attack. It is easy to use, and even the dumbest militian can use it. And if your soldiers get killed before using them, the rest of your army can certainly salvage the thunderstones and use them. A dead spellcaster is a waste of spellslots.


Das Bier wrote:
As for entangle...obstructions like that is why military forces placed so much emphasis on marching, on being able to move through one another, reform lines, and the like. A highly trained professional force would simply flow to the sides around the obstruction, and then flow right back into the line without really breaking stride, especially if these 'simple tactics' are commonly known...and would be.

Obstructions like that, which enemies could call into existence and which made movement practically impossible, never existed. Further, reforming lines is actually quite difficult, and as TheAlicornSage has noted, makes one quite vulnerable to an arrow volley or a fireball.

Das Bier wrote:
Nobles are always outnumbered by soldiers in a military, because there are way fewer nobles then there are non-nobles. I already acknowledged they'd be the core and the officers. But the vast amount of troops are not going to be, unless they want to be outnumber 20:1 on a battlefield. Numbers are a power all their own.

Numbers may be a power on their own, but starvation is one much stronger. When you take a few thousand farmers without any savings and make them go fight, then suddenly they aren't farmers anymore and somebody is starving because of that. I wonder, however, what you mean when you say that nobles are outnumbered by soldiers. If you mean that each noble is outnumbered by the troops which that noble keeps fed and on retainer at all times, and whose job it is to be good at killing people, then you are correct. Perhaps most import is the simple fact that poorly trained soldiers will be annihilated by trained ones, but more on that later.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
As dio himself spoke of the formation being broken by armored cavalry (sound anything like an enlarged expedited soldier to anyone else?), at which time the fireball gets dropped while the soldiers reform. If you even have fireballs anyway.

I think that this is actually where cantrips make a big difference. The cavalry could harass them and kill indiscriminately because it's pretty much impossible to wield a long spear and a tower shield at the same time, so the cavalry could hit with their lances from far away and be fine unless the soldiers broke ranks. Cantrips give soldiers the ability to hit from 40ft away. Of course, in a world with magic holding a tower shield isn't really a good idea anyway.

Das Bier wrote:
"a tight formation is going to cut down a loose one in melee."
TheAlicornSage wrote:
I don't really agree with this. Being in a tight formation is situational. You will change tactics based on the situation at hand, and hit and run tactics are viable, and magic enhances this viability. Also, tight formations are good when melee and arrows are the only options had by your enemy, but with a with a wide variety of options at their disposal due to magic, melee and arrows are hardly ever the only things an enemy will have.

I feel like your (TheAlicornSage's) response may have been not entirely on point. A tight formation of soldiers will almost always win against a loose one if they are in melee, and that's what Das Bier said. If there is one soldier spaced every five feet facing a group of soldiers of equal size with every soldier adjacent, then the dense group can just cut through the loose one. This is because for every soldier spaced out there are two soldiers next to each other who are attacking at the same time, so that the loose soldiers are being hit twice as much as whoever they are targeting. Now granted they will have soldiers on the sides who can wrap around, but this will probably be slow and will also be taking advantage of the fact that greater concentration of forces wins.

However, that point, as you've noted, just doesn't matter. There are plenty of things that a loose formation can do to avoid direct melee with a tighter one.

Hark wrote:
A Wand of Magic Missile on each soldier would be devestating
TheAlicornSage wrote:
As said many times, extremely expensive and short lived. After five minutes, the wands are depleted and everything devolves to whatever the soldiers still have, which for your soldiers is a stick, such an expensive stick they likely have poor armor, poor back up weapon, and lucky to have a shield.

Actually, 50 shots at one shot every 6 seconds is...a full third the staying power of a civil war soldier. And if they are actually hitting at a good rate, then that is going to be pretty powerful. But arrows also appear to hit at a good rate, against a soldier with AC 15 (light armor and a buckler) they hit 25% of the time, and do about double the average damage of a wand of magic missile. They can also extend this damage to longer range. So the question becomes, is it worth paying 750 gold to double the damage of your soldiers? This is an interesting question because if a soldier is worth 1000 gold than the answer is yes but if they are worth 500 gold the answer is no.

TheAlicornSage wrote:
In real history, only archers had ranged attacks. Here every soldier has a ranged attack, even if it short range. So while your cav unit runs around, each time they get in melee range, it is only in melee with one or two, but within short range of many. Each mounted soldier will get 1-3 passes before being dead.

I actually think that because of entangle, create pit, and others melee would be so disadvantaged that pretty much every soldier would have a bow. There might be some frontline troops with spears for cavalry, but I think most infantry would be ranged units.

I'll respond to more later.


A tight formation cuts down a loose one in melee. You can disagree with it, fine. You'll still die to it, not believing it. 2-3 men on 1 man kills them. That's reality.

Cavalry won't break a spear formation, they'll be slaughtered. Enlarged soldiers won't break a speak formation, they'll be slaughtered, too. You can't fireball a formation with your own people in the way. If you want to grab and hurl, you have to be strong enough to do so, and you're going to provoke attacks.

Being able to march and maintain a defense is a skill of fighters. So, no openings for you to exploit. or do you think your own people are going to run into the area of black tentacles, pits or entanglements? They'll keep their shields up and simply march around the obstacles with the precise speed of practice. Marching is still an artform even today. The ability of men to move through one another and keep discipline is astounding if focused on.

How do I plan to encircle with a tortoise shell? I've got a line of men a mile long. I bring in the wings. You can't stop me. If you try in melee, I kill you. I deploy and reform around your obstructions. Everyone between those wings is going to die or have to run like mad. You get two minutes of being big and fast and vulnerable, and then I kill you. Since I've got concentrated forces and you don't, my arrow fire alone is simply going to walk through your numbers and slaughter you, while all those shields in front of you foil what you are trying to do and spotters call out direction for the arced shots of the archers behind the lines.

Because men aren't stupid, and will find ways to foil you. You making yourselves big makes you EASIER TO SHOOT. Open formation means your people are scattered all over the place and cannot contribute to the fight!

Expeditious Retreat doesn't beat the 70' move of the average horse. It also doesn't outlast them, by a factor of hours. I'm going to be charging, you're going to be running, and I'm coming at you with a wall of men and horses you're tossing d3 damage against a second before they simply overrun and trample you to death. Repeatedly. If their charging lances don't impale you like chickens. The short duration and lack of spells means you probably only have one of them, and you probably used it on your charge.

Actually, those archers do get cover against anything without line of sight to them. As for readied actions...you're spellcasters. You're tall. They are level 1-2. What are they going to do, rapid shot or manyshot you? No, they are going to have readied actions to shoot you when you get in point blank range and when you cast spells, specifically trained to take out spellcasters. They'll be at best accuracy and simply shoot you down. Enlarge even reduces your AC. It's freaking suicide. Your chargers are throwing themselves onto braced spears with readied actions and probably AoO's to boot, eating anywhere from 8-16 attacks EACH. They're just dead.

I love the idea of thunderstones and alchemical fire or acid. Just toss them on your casters, and watch them burn or sizzle while unable to cast due to deafness.

As for numbers...you are deliberately ignoring the power of pure numbers of soldiers. Nobles had men-at-arms who rode with them to battle, and vastly outnumbered them, because non-nobles ALWAYS outnumber nobles. These are full time soldiers, too. Plus mercenaries on the side, if desired. If I can throw ten times your numbers at you because I'm not so dumb as to thick non-casters are worthless, my crossbowers alone will cut you down. Simple weapon and all.

And now you're talking about completely house-ruling the whole system and taking what you want from anywhere so it's cheap, free and easy to arrange what you want. Without, you know, giving the same ability to the other side. So you want to be able to cast in armor and get all those abilities. Well, I'll train all my fighters with FE: Human, Rage and fast movement, then. Since classes don't exist and I can take the best of everything. Oh, and give dwarf fast move in heavy armor at level 1, too.

In short, you're playing the non-caster enemies as stupid, Alicorn, and you're ignoring the lessons of history. You're even thinking Cantrips are viable missile weapons, when I could just toss a rain of alchemists fire at you, and a splash does the same damage. ONe guy grappling you makes it nigh impossible to get off a spell. Trying to cast a spell in melee range is going to have a 50% chance of success on that concentration check, and then you eat an AoO or 4 if you fail, if the readied actions don't just kill you.

Cantrips would only work on an enemy that is very slow and very stupid, like zombies. A simple double move or charge takes you inside the range of the cantrip and face to face, and staying outside that range makes the cantrips useless. Thinking you're going to get off a dozen shots against one horseman when a line of cavalry simply tramples you underfoot is a pipedream. It doesn't work for scattered archers, and it's not going to work for your guys.

You're trying to bend mechanics to shape your mental image of magical superiority, Alicorn. And while I agree it may work at higher levels, when you've got lots of spells and they are more powerful...at low levels, it's just going to be a short duration trick or two that can be easily countered by savvy troops, discipline, and tricks on the other side.


And let me say one more thing on cantrips picking off horsemen...

Do you even acknowledge the movement and casting rules?

A horse has a move of 70. Your guys with light/mage armor have a move of 60 (50 if in medium armor).

I will start a charge from 100' feet away. Out of range of your cantrips, carrying me 40' past your lines.

My line will be in a flying wedge, let's say, two deep. You, in open formation, will have half as many people in the same space, OR you are stacked 4 deep, at least 10' between the lines.

You can't double move and cast. You can't move and ready an action to cast once I come into your 35' range. You can move 60' and cast...but I'm outside your range, your front line will come up short and your back lines are completely useless.

If you just sit there, my guys start circling at 100' away from you, raining crossbow bolts down on you. You don't have the range to shoot back. If you charge, they shoot at you over the back of their horses, still outranging you and stringing you along, since you can't catch them.

If you don't have a readied action, they can just charge you, and you're dead. Their charge will take them 40' past your front line, enough to hit every single person you have. Every one of your guys in their path will be subjected to either a lance attack from a charge (which will probably kill them instantly), or 3-4 overruns from the horses, getting trampled into mush.

They can't cast enlarge and charge, because casting enlarge doesn't leave them with an attack action. So, they become big targets. And if they cast enlarge, they don't have readied actions, and can be charged and wiped.

If your line is only two deep...the charge continues past and out of any possible retaliation range of any but a tithe of your forces, who are too spread out. The line executes a grand pivot while any of your forces that are dumb enough to pursue are simply picked off, and then the charge comes wheeling back through your lines. the horses are faster then your people and will run them down, you don't have a spear line to stop their charge, and they are hitting you 4 times to 1, or standing back and outranging your shots.

And behind you, that long tortoise wall is coming closer and closer at a steady march, biting off any room you have to maneuver.

Seriously, Alicorn, fighters aren't dumb. They will use tactics to defend against your advantages and minimize their own, while capitalizing on your weaknesses.

And picking willy nilly from any and all class features you want while not letting the other side do the same? That's just plain crazy.


Just a numbers issue: Horses have a move of 50, or 35 in non-light armor. Double moves and charges are 100 and 70, respectively. Regular people move 30, or 20 in medium or heavy armor. Double moves and charges are 60 or 40. Expeditious Retreat will let you single or double move as fast as or faster than a horse, although it is only temporary. However, your typical caster will not invest in the Run feat, which horses have by default, so an unarmored or lightly armored caster with Expeditious Retreat will only be able to run 240 feet with a run action, while similarly armored horse will be able to run 250. Casters in medium armor (Mostly divine casters and archetyped Magi at low levels) with Expeditious Retreat will only be able to run 200, although similarly armored horses will run 175.


Das Bier, why do you think that a loose formation would allow a dense one to get to melee? And why do you talk about spear formations being good at melee but then talk about tower shields being good at providing cover? A unit with spears dies to create pit, stone call, fireball (although fireball is not a great example), and is particularly vulnerable to arrows, which is a big problem because it's so easy to cast entangle or grease and stop them. A unit with tower shields is actually not great at melee, and in general can't do much offensively.

You talk about obstacles like they are static things that can be foreseen and walked around, but this is not the case when the enemy can make them appear magically. It's not casting black tentacles in front of a bunch of fellows, it's casting entangle as soon as they start to charge. And when you start to mention that they just march around, I ask you, how? If you mean that units with entangle grabbing the front section of their troops and in front of them attempt to back up and go around, then that presents problems which should be obvious. In particular when entanglements begin to occur on a large scale troops can easily be broken into small segments and funneled into weak columns which can be chewed up by volley fire.

The simple fact is that with entangle as a first level spell it's really hard to move anywhere.

You also mention that cavalry can ride down a loose formation. This is true, but again, entangle means that they shouldn't be allowed to close distance easily.

Das Bier wrote:
How do I plan to encircle with a tortoise shell? I've got a line of men a mile long. I bring in the wings. You can't stop me. If you try in melee, I kill you. I deploy and reform around your obstructions. Everyone between those wings is going to die or have to run like mad

A group of slow moving soldiers making a pincer is generally a bad idea unless the opponent overextends, which is why pincers are generally made by very fast moving units, like cavalry or tanks. Let's break things down a little bit.

We have a group of dense soldiers a mile long facing a looser group which is longer. If the flanks start to move then they are limited by the speed of the units at their ends, who have to move much further in order to actually close up. And all of these units are advancing at the speed of...a tortoise. This gives the other side plenty of time to outmaneuver and close their own line, because bringing in the wings straight away is an overextension. So now we've got wings trying to advance and getting surrounded and shot at and separated because entangle is really good and create pit is a thing but they can't separate because stone call is also a thing and arrow volleys are really good and they can't retaliate so effectively because their enemies are spread out and so they resist the casting from the dense units anyway. Casting, by the way, which is limited by the dense units carrying either 10ft spears or massive shields because they want to be good at melee but also not die to arrows and stone call but only need to worry about these things because so much because they're so close together.

Das Bier wrote:
As for numbers...you are deliberately ignoring the power of pure numbers of soldiers. Nobles had men-at-arms who rode with them to battle, and vastly outnumbered them, because non-nobles ALWAYS outnumber nobles. These are full time soldiers, too. Plus mercenaries on the side, if desired. If I can throw ten times your numbers at you because I'm not so dumb as to thick non-casters are worthless, my crossbowers alone will cut you down. Simple weapon and all.

Not sure, do you mean that lots of soldiers on either side didn't grow up believing they were better than everyone else because they have a title? Because that's true, but doesn't really matter. It's not like professional soldiers can't learn to cast, in fact, the whole point of this thread is (was) to figure out a class which can adequately represent a soldier who wants to be able to cast entangle. The other purpose of this thread is (is) to discuss what happens when casting becomes widespread enough that all those trained soldiers you're talking about can cast and fight decently well.

Das Bier wrote:
And now you're talking about completely house-ruling the whole system and taking what you want from anywhere so it's cheap, free and easy to arrange what you want. Without, you know, giving the same ability to the other side. So you want to be able to cast in armor and get all those abilities. Well, I'll train all my fighters with FE: Human, Rage and fast movement, then. Since classes don't exist and I can take the best of everything. Oh, and give dwarf fast move in heavy armor at level 1, too.

Why doesn't the other side get casting? Why does this class have to be broken? Why can't a class be designed that adequately represents a soldier who knows how to cast entangle while wearing moderate armor and shooting a bow without being unbalanced?

On a side note, I bet soldiers who can cast entangle would still defeat fighters with Favored Enemy: Human, Rage, and fast movement if they tried to close distance and fight in melee.


They must have done away with the light warhorse, which is what I was basing my numbers on. The paizo numbers are based on the heavy horse, which is like a draft or plow horse you ride. Light riding horses are more like quarterhorses or arabians, faster afoot and better pursuit troops. heavy horses are for knights. Nobody has skirmish/scout cavalry ride Clydesdales or Percherons. Light warhorses had a move of 60' or 70'.

Regardless, it changes only the fact about temporarily running away while fighting. The short range of cantrips is still going to be nigh worthless for the casters, and not being readied leave them vulnerable to charges, while being readied makes them vulnerable to arrow fire from out of range.


"A tight formation cuts down a loose one in melee."

Like gaurwaith said, that is in melee. The loose formation can more easily avoid it, and when it is time to get into melee, they can close ranks.

"Enlarged soldiers won't break a speak formation,"

You assume I'm going to stupidly just smash away in a direct frontal attack. What I'm going to do is be smart and use it at the right moment. For example, if your trops encircle a unit (cause you can't completely encircle an equal sized army in loose formation) then those encircled will tighten up and behind shields several soldiers will be enlarged who then charge in an unpredictable direction in the same round as being enlarged. This means you wouldn't have readied actions, and your line is broken and my troops can fight the hole to try and escape the encirclement. Alternatively or simultaneously, the troops outside the circle you made will attack a single point to break your lines to free the encircled unit.

It isn't a case of using magic stupidly, it is a case of using magic strategically, such as using web to block a ford and thus hinder your reinforcements or retreat.

"I've got a line of men a mile long. I bring in the wings. You can't stop me."

My formation of men is 3 miles long. You can't just bring in the wings as your wings would have press the attack to break my formation. And even if they succeed, you then are fighting on two fronts, inside and outside.

"Actually, those archers do get cover against anything without line of sight to them."

Um, first, then they are relying on indirect volley fire, no more point blank shots and oh, no more turtle formation while you fire. Your archers need to be able to fire at which point there are chinks in your defenses that can be targeted with a fireball or volley of arrows or whatever else.

"Enlarge even reduces your AC."

Actually, that is a mere minus one compared to an infantryman, but the same penalty applies to cavalry, thus no easier to hit than cavalry. And an enlarged soldier has at least as good if not better armor than cavalry horses, and definitely better coordination and movement. And yet as every disadvantage you mention applies to cavalry, why then are cavalry used at all? Because how they are used determines effectiveness. Basically the advantage of enlarge is to turn regular infantry into a form of cavalry at a strategic moment.

"These are full time soldiers, too."

Exactly, soldiers trained their entire life for warfare. I mentioned previously that this exactly the sort of soldier to discuss. Being the nobility is just one posdible way to achieve this, but given that most men at arms are lesser nobility, you know from the numerous branch families that don't get the title but are still of noble blood (those of genteel birth) and pursue noble jobs.

But all that nobility issue is completely unimportant to the issue of the soldiers to be discussed being highly trained soldiers, not conscripts.

Gtg, finish later.


Gaur,

So, what you are saying is that the irregular force opposite my line cannot hold a position and has to keep ceding ground? Thus further breaking up any attempt at even a bad formation that they have? I can split them apart at my leisure and literally destroy them piecemeal unless they attempt to run away, at which point my cavalry can chase them down like sitting ducks?

Remember, I have ranged attackers, too. And they fire in dense volleys, not sporadic and uncoordinated like a loose formation. They will simply start sweeping away whole areas clear of your nigh-defenseless troops, allowing my people even more free movement around the battlefield.

Entangle is a druidic spell, but it doesn't kill. It makes an area slow to move through. It can only be cast at the front of the line. The lead elements sing out that it came down, the rear elements deploy to the sides and forwards while the other troops back out.
It's not a gap in the line because YOU can't move into the open area either.

As for charging...come on. If the enemy can throw out 140 entangle spells to block a mile long line, I'm not going to be stupid enough to charge. The charge only happens in the last few yards. You just walk before then. And if the caster does it in the last few yards...your troops are going to be caught in the area as well. You're making the non-casters dumb again.

Tower Shields provide cover, and against missile fire, as well. The guys not in the front lines raise their shields to defend anyone against fire from above. That's a Tortoise formation. If you're bombarding me with spells, you ain't moving, I am, and I'm immune. I have cover and you can't center the spell past the front row of shields, anymore then you could center it on the other side of a castle wall.

Create Pit will only catch the front line for the same reason. The men behind will pause, shields come down, and they'll march around it as rehearsed, while those in back hastily help the fallen ones back up (probably the following archers). You'd need hundreds of them to stop the line from their steady advance.

If you've got the same amount of men as i do, in a loose formation, you're either longer and overextended, or deeper and your men out of combat range (not a threat and not contributing). I can carve your line in two and you can't stop me from doing it, all you can do is run. Phalanx formations that can shift line of battle in any direction are MADE for that sort of thing. My men aren't moving any slower then yours, unless you are in much lighter armor and thus more vulnerable to attack.

A pike and shield hedge is one of the most daunting things to face any man on a battlefield, ever. You're facing 2-3 ranks of pikes and spears before you ever even get to an enemy, who you can only see slits of behind layers of shields. The only thing you could fight it with is a shield/spear line of your own, hoping to break their line and get into and under the shields with close fighters. That wall of shields defines the field of combat. It restricts the movement of troops, it can crush you back against your own men, smash you off your feet, and grind you underfoot.

You are severely underestimating the power of a tight formation who knows how to march.
---------
The OP is all about these being the noble fighters who actually fight the battles, and non-caster fighters just poo-poo don't exist...i.e. these would be the replacements for noble knights and commanders, who are always outnumbered vastly on the battlefields by their own men at arms, even before you get to conscripts.
I'm irked, because vast numbers of men with even basic weaponry would hand his low level fighter-casters their heads. Low level magic doesn't have the power he wants.
-----------
Entangle isn't deadly if you aren't relying on a charge, and interrupted. So, I'd take you up on that bet.

We'll ignore the fact it's a druidic spell, not an arcane one.

First, it's a 1st level spell, with a low DC (12-13 likely). Which means every round there's a 50% chance any warrior caught into it is going to break out. After 3 rounds, it's basically useless, as any strong combatants have likely gotten out of it.

Secondly, your forces aren't going to go into the area of the spell. It's as big a wall to them as to us. The only thing it's good for is breaking a charge if someone goes blundering into it.

Thirdly, I absolutely move faster then you for longer. Oh, you can Exped for a couple minutes, but you aren't casting while that happens, and I'll catch up eventually. Then I can sit out there and poke at you with +2 TH/DMG with my missile weapons, or charge in from 80', beyond your cantrip range, completely weather your cantrips, and now it's +4/+5 th/dmg higher then you in direct melee combat, where I can grapple and make it impossible for you to cast, or simply cut you down.

In the end, I'll win. either I'll be patient and outlast your spells, patient and run you down, patiently snipe you from greater range then you can, or just rage once we get into melee and slaughter you.

His example irked me because it's a Schrodinger's Fighter argument ...he brought it up out of nowhere to justify how he could do these things, and completely nixed the whole class system while doing it, as if PF was built on a point system, not a class system.
-
And if magic is available to both sides, then these tactics don't work because of counterspelling being rampant on both sides to stop these problems where they start...and because the casters will naturally target one another to get rid of the greater threat and so won't be doing these kind of mass tactics. In which case it's going to come down to blows, and at that point the side with the better melee and missile edge wins...which is generally the side with more men, all other things being equal.


I think one important facet of a fantasy military is being overlooked. Specifically, a group interested in defending or expanding borders would have to contend with challenges that are not another army of a similar race.

Ray of Frost does nothing to skeletons, and you'd need an adamantine weapon to do anything effective to e.g. a graven guardian, and both of these don't require the vulnerability of a supply line for food. Why limit the cavalry to land-based mounts, when a nation has gryphons available? It sure seems like there are just too many possible situations for a lvl 2 character to deal with.

Also, entangle is a druid-based spell. As a GM, I don't see nature magic being on a class whose reason for existence is to defend and expand civilization


WHOOPS, Just figuring out the forum, sorry for all of these posts!


You can delete a previous post, Side.

Actually, they'd give up Ray of Frost for Disrupt Undead, which is twice as effective. Or just use Acid.

And we've been talking about soldiers and armies and numbers, which is mass combat. Smaller sizes are tactics and squad combat, more like what adventurers do...and in such instances, magic becomes MUCH more viable, because it only has to last for a small fight, not a major battle, and numbers won't offset the advantages.

i.e a few enlarged expedret'd soldiers charging a shield and pike hedge are begging to be massacred. A couple of them charging a few skeletons? Dead bones.


thanks!


Das Bier, thank you for keeping a civil tone and being able to reasonably debate, that's a skill not everyone possess, and the internet is an easy place to get angry on. I'd like to preface my arguments by saying that I want no hard feelings, even as I attempt to prove that most of what you're saying is wrong.

Let us begin by discussing the prevalence of magic. It is difficult to discuss what the field would and would not look like if magic is widespread when we can't agree on whether or not magic is widespread. Actually, I think we're in agreement that magic isn't particularly widespread, at least, less so than others might suggest.

Magic is in fact quite difficult. If we examine arcane spells, we find that learning to cast requires a mental stat of 10 for cantrips, but 11 for more difficult matters. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, say that this stat is intelligence. Now let us draw a parallel between magic and mathematics. A bard studies for an average of 3.5 years after 15, so on average stops studying when 18, and eventually learns how to cast cantrips. If the bard is smart, it can cast first level spells. Comparing that to a high school student, we have that single variable calculus is about as hard as cantrips and multivariable and advanced calculus is about as hard as a first level spell.

So magic is pretty hard. A comparison between magic and reading isn't really adequate for a variety of reasons. Perhaps most important is that we have a natural process in our brain for learning languages which helps with reading. There is a so called critical period during which learning is made easy, and after that our brain doesn't really want to naturally learn a language. A more apt comparison might be learning a language when you have never learned one before, but unfortunately (or fortunately?) we don't have so much information here. We do know, however, that feral children almost never learn languages easily, and rarely get past a few words.

If we generate ability scores for a NPC randomly, we should do this by rolling 3d6 and adding them together. There are 216 possible outcomes, and a 50% chance that a commoner has an intelligence of at least 11. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 50% of any standing army of professionally trained soldiers is people who can cast first level spells.

Fair?


Das Bier wrote:

They must have done away with the light warhorse, which is what I was basing my numbers on. The paizo numbers are based on the heavy horse, which is like a draft or plow horse you ride. Light riding horses are more like quarterhorses or arabians, faster afoot and better pursuit troops. heavy horses are for knights. Nobody has skirmish/scout cavalry ride Clydesdales or Percherons. Light warhorses had a move of 60' or 70'.

Regardless, it changes only the fact about temporarily running away while fighting. The short range of cantrips is still going to be nigh worthless for the casters, and not being readied leave them vulnerable to charges, while being readied makes them vulnerable to arrow fire from out of range.

Both Paizo's light and heavy horses have a base speed of 50. You might be thinking of the 3.5 Light Horse/Warhorse, which has a base speed of 60. Also, the Horselord Cavalier's mount has a base speed of 55. I can't name anything that has a base speed of 70, though.


"1. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 50% of any standing army of professionally trained soldiers is people who can cast first level spells.

Fair?"

One thing you are forgetting here, those stats of 50% of people having int of 11+ are for the entire population. However, a military won't have the same distribution. People who can't make it as a soldier will never reach the point of making it to be a soldier. Also, those stats are somewhat trainable, and yes intellect can be somewhat trained. Thus not only will soldiers be trained to improve their base abilities, they are also starting out as the few who have the stuff needed to be soldiers. And in a feudal society, they won't just be trained, but most will be trained their entire lives. Most folks don't have the stuff to be soldiers, that is the weakness of conscripts even more than lack of training.

That is also why I put the common soldier as level 2 rather than level 1, because the soldiers are almost always from the top 10% of a society.

Thus I'd use the elite npc array for soldiers, which supposedly (though I haven't confirmed myself) is the baseline expectation of 4d6 drop lowest.


Nergüi the Wanderer wrote:

Das Bier, thank you for keeping a civil tone and being able to reasonably debate, that's a skill not everyone possess, and the internet is an easy place to get angry on. I'd like to preface my arguments by saying that I want no hard feelings, even as I attempt to prove that most of what you're saying is wrong.

Let us begin by discussing the prevalence of magic. It is difficult to discuss what the field would and would not look like if magic is widespread when we can't agree on whether or not magic is widespread. Actually, I think we're in agreement that magic isn't particularly widespread, at least, less so than others might suggest.

Magic is in fact quite difficult. If we examine arcane spells, we find that learning to cast requires a mental stat of 10 for cantrips, but 11 for more difficult matters. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, say that this stat is intelligence. Now let us draw a parallel between magic and mathematics. A bard studies for an average of 3.5 years after 15, so on average stops studying when 18, and eventually learns how to cast cantrips. If the bard is smart, it can cast first level spells. Comparing that to a high school student, we have that single variable calculus is about as hard as cantrips and multivariable and advanced calculus is about as hard as a first level spell.

So magic is pretty hard. A comparison between magic and reading isn't really adequate for a variety of reasons. Perhaps most important is that we have a natural process in our brain for learning languages which helps with reading. There is a so called critical period during which learning is made easy, and after that our brain doesn't really want to naturally learn a language. A more apt comparison might be learning a language when you have never learned one before, but unfortunately (or fortunately?) we don't have so much information here. We do know, however, that feral children almost never learn languages easily, and rarely get past a few words.

If we generate ability scores for a NPC randomly, we...

You're welcome, Nergui!

Well, your example is a bit off. Bards use Cha to cast spells. "After 4 years of being the 3rd understudy in Hamlet, I can actually cast cantrips!" sounds kind of strange...

The only Int based casters of note are the Wizard, and the Witch/Magus derived from him.

And yes, I have no quarrel with having 50% of people potentially qualify to be wizards. This is utterly subject to the DM...there are, after all, geniuses who can't use magic.

There's also the problem that if this is a PC level class...then the NPC's have the elite array of 15 14 13 12 10 8. that is distinctly NOT average. One can assume from this that the demands of a PC class require a much higher caliber of person (point buy) then an NPC class.

There was a very long thread debating the very points of what broad low magic, especially being able to spam cantrips, would do for the lower ends of society. but the subject of battle was a minor tangent, as the biggest effect it would have is that a lot of people could use wizard spell list charged magic items, without needing UMD.

However, the impact on wars and battles would be much less then what you are arguing, because low level magic simply is not that strong, enduring, or widescale. You have to have levels under your belt before you hit spells that can really start affecting battles of thousands of people. One spell isn't basically going to do anything of substance. I posited that the single deadliest spell would be True Strike, as thousands of people casting it and launching arrows would be the single most devastating volley imaginable. Imagine ALL those arrows hitting their targets!

And still fails against a Tower Shield granting cover.

The real benefit of low level magic would be Prestidigitation helping mend and clean things, being able to light a fire, unlimited access to water obviating need to transport it, and the ability to chill things and preserve them. Those things, especially the first one, free up large amounts of time that can now be spent on other things, making people far more productive.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

"1. So let's just say for the sake of argument that 50% of any standing army of professionally trained soldiers is people who can cast first level spells.

Fair?"

One thing you are forgetting here, those stats of 50% of people having int of 11+ are for the entire population. However, a military won't have the same distribution. People who can't make it as a soldier will never reach the point of making it to be a soldier. Also, those stats are somewhat trainable, and yes intellect can be somewhat trained. Thus not only will soldiers be trained to improve their base abilities, they are also starting out as the few who have the stuff needed to be soldiers. And in a feudal society, they won't just be trained, but most will be trained their entire lives. Most folks don't have the stuff to be soldiers, that is the weakness of conscripts even more than lack of training.

That is also why I put the common soldier as level 2 rather than level 1, because the soldiers are almost always from the top 10% of a society.

Thus I'd use the elite npc array for soldiers, which supposedly (though I haven't confirmed myself) is the baseline expectation of 4d6 drop lowest.

By the rules, raw ability scores can only be trained by going up in levels. Any 'training' prior to adulthood results in your adult stats.

What you'd train them for is skills/skill points, which is a different thing.

The demand for intelligent people in professions other then being a soldier are going to be quite high. So the number of brainy types who end up being soldiers is only going to be a tithe of the pool available. You need people of above average physical AND mental ability to be a good soldier...that is not a significant portion of the population (5% or less, most likely).

As I noted in my previous post, making this a PC level class means you'd HAVE to give them the elite array. That also makes them a 'rare' class, one of the elites of society, not the main force of an army. They'd be the commanders and the line troops.

I think the problem here is that there is not a caster-based spellcaster class aside from an adept you could use as a base for this. If you do this as a PC class, then you're making a force as rare as all barbs, all rangers, all paladins...or all wizards.

So, I'm not sure where you want to go from here. If you want to build an elite officer corps of magic-using martial types...I'd just look at the magus, and modify some abilities and the spell list. Or the bloodrager. Even the inquisitor, or bard. That's what they all are...secondary martialists who can use some magic.

If you want to amke a widespread military NPC class that can fight and use spells...I'm not sure it can be done without invalidating every NPC class supposedly on the same level, like warriors, experts, adepts and nobles.


"one of the elites of society, not the main force of an army."

Unless you are using conscripts, which most armies don't, then all of your soldiers are elites. They might be thugs sometimes, and totally outclassed by heroes or special forces, but compared to the 90% of people who are first level farmers and cobblers, every proffesional soldier is an elite, in the top 10% of people.


"And still fails against a Tower Shield granting cover."

You keep getting stuck on this. Powerful as it is, it isn't a win button. It moves slowly, leaves the feet exposed when it does move, can't fire out without a crack that might let some fire in, etc.

But most importantly, troops can flow around it and attack the rear areas you are defending without getting in melee range.

Also, magic is secondary, much like a grenade in modern combat, few in number, but used strategically, can make a big difference. Modern soldiers don't go in throwing grenades left and right, for similar reasons, 1st lvl spells won't be cast left and right., but having them available to every soldier means that any soldier can advantage of an opportunity when presented.

If you want, we can run some simulations, the magic warrior class being bard but with wizard spell list, versatile performance is using profession soldier ranks for perception and athletics, bardic knowledge and bardic performance are replaced as are well versed and lore master. Instead the magic soldier is proficient in and can cast in medium armor (including tower shields), and can swap their spells known from a spellbook like an arcanist.

Each side has 30 soldiers, two 3rd lvl, one 4th, the rest 2nd. You can spend up to 30,000g on outfitting (no items that require a crafter above 3rd lvl save for 3 items only made by a level 4) but the point is not just to win, but to win cheaply.

Running a few sims should shed a fair bit of light on things. Of course, things need to be considered such as the objective of each side (usually some goal aside from simply killing the enemy) such as defending/crossing a bridge, raiding a supply convoy, etc.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
It moves slowly, leaves the feet exposed when it does move, can't fire out without a crack that might let some fire in, etc.

If we go by the rules, I'm pretty sure soldiers can use a move action then a standard action to plant the shield. unless you have a readied action to attack when they move. If you have a unit on two lines with crossbows and tower shields, you could have the unit move 30ft forward, the second line firing crossbows over the shoulder of the shield bearers, and the first line planting shields.

Even if you have readied actions to shoot at them, or even throw fireballs (again, 3rd level spell, so you need to have level 5 full casters), the first line will provide soft cover to the crossbow bearers, improving their resilience. Meat shields wielding tower shields.

Basically, the class you want is the Arcane Duelist archetype for the bard. You can't just go creating a class that has 6th level spellcasting in medium armor from the wizard spell list, that's just outshadowing the Magus. And even then, sweet sweet Fireballs come at level 7. So the army of 1st-2nd-3rd level characters won't throw fireballs around, you'll have nothing but cantrips and 3 1st-level spells a day. That's quite cheap. Unless, again, you have them be full-casters from the wizard spell-list in medium armor with medium or higher BAB to go with that. In which case the class is absolutely unbalanced.

On my side, I'm still convinced that an army of man-at-arms level 1 and 2 outnumbering those super-PCs by 16-to-1 will still be cheaper and more efficient. I have 30 000 gold to spend ? I'm going to hire and outfit 500 man-at-arms with leather armor, crossbows, shields and spears and pit them against your 30 soldiers. I should have enough gold left to have supplies too.

EDIT : ran a quick calculation, 30k gold allows to hire, pay and feed 500 man-at-arms level 1-3 for 1 month and kit them out with leather armor, bucklers and shortspears. You then still have 2k750 gold left, that you can use to buy crossbows and the like, siege weapons, or hire specialists in the form of mercenary bands (providing magic for instance). Outnumber 16-to-1, and light armor allows me to move my army fast while medium armor half-caster half-BAB would be stuck on 20ft of movement and slow paced travel.

And conscription existed during the middle ages, it was called feudal levies. Professional army is something quite modern; for instance, French army was created in 1420, and was very small (it was mostly the King's personal army). The first real army in France was created in 1652. Most Pathfinder-style feudal countries aren't that modern.

And if you really want to play the modern game, WW1 and WW2, being large-scale war, mostly had conscription. Mind you, when they have an army coming the way of their family, farmers are quite willing to fight on the battlefield.


Those level 2s are your men at arms. I restricted it to 30 people to make it actually manageable to run. It isn't a contest of funds but rather tactics, turtles and cavalry vs some turtles, cavalry, and magic. You want to run conscripts vs pros, a separate sim run can do that, a squad of say 12 vs 36.

Professional armies are not modern. Some nations used conscripts when they had plenty of people to use, such as china. However, once guns became a thing, that was nearly the death of armies made of true warriors, as any conscript could one shot range kill any veteran of any skill level, practically no training required. Before that, a trained warrior practiced from birth could handle several conscripts or lightly trained troops, until the gun. That is why the world wars used conscripts so much, because effective fighting strength was no longer limited by highly trained warriors.


We're talking about Pathfinder here. In Pathfinder, a level 3 Fighter or Cavalier "trained from birth" will get his buttplate handed to him by 10 level 1 Warriors (that's right, the NPC class), unless you kit him out with platemail and a heavy shield, at which point you're spending 2k gold on a single man. More Warriors on my side. You're going to be surrounded, flanked, and are only going to be able to kill one per turn at most (and with a low TH score of +5 or +6, you're not even going to be hitting an AC 14 each turn).

If you want to win cheaply, on a large scale, following the Pathfinder rules, you're better off having 3 level 1 characters than 1 level 3 character.

Also, remember that the crossbow was outlawed on the battlefield by the church because any peasant could kill a knight with a single bolt. Simple weapons, easy to use, deadly and not too expensive. In Pathfinder, "trained warriors" will fear the rain of crossbow bolts. Western feudal age had very little professional national army. Mercenary bands and levies is what was used, until 17th century. A lot of the Pathfinder settings are not on a 17th century tech level, otherwiser firearms would be far more prevalent.

You still can't have full-spellcasting medium-BAB high hit dice in medium armor on a single class. So the "super magic soldier class" can't exist because Bloodragers and Magus already do this. Now if you want an army of Maguses (Magis ?) that's another topic, and it's going to be expensive. If you want 3rd level spells and medium armor that's a 7th level Magus.

101 to 150 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / New class brainstorming, the Military Soldier All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.