In my experience, spells are really only overpowered in forums where folks are *trying* to come up with game-breaking / abusive combinations. In actual game play experience as a GM and PC, folks don't play spell casters as such because good GM's provide variation in time, setting, location, and in this case travel requirements, to prevent such abuse. There are times when being airborne is the best way to handle things, and times when being airborne is not. To me, that is what I think best keeps spells from being abused, and forums like this are a good way to get ideas for keeping games and encounters, variable, fun, and meaningful for player characters of all classes. Cheers
Rhedyn wrote:
So I guess you are making an assumption that the encounter is taking place in a wide-open feature-less space devoid of cover, concealment and weather that guarantees the fighter can never get into melee range, and that the level 20 fighter has no equipment with which to counter a CR5 flying opponent...because after all, in 20 levels of adventuring the only reason the fighter is alive is because he obviously has never encountered a flying foe before?
GM 1990 wrote: Just for sake of discussion - In the level 5 Wizard vs Level 20 Fighter scenario, if you were playing the fighter, what would you do? A level 20 fighter can fire a lot of arrows or bolts in one round with a full attack. +20/+15/+10/+5...for a level 20 character, being invisible as a foe accounts for almost nothing. As a GM or a player, if you try to account for any action that negates the effect of a fly spell, some wizards will cry foul..."How dare you put your GM hat on and have the giants actually retreat to their cave where my flight means nothing and let the encounter go to melee. How dare the dungeon we're in have a ceiling. How dare you make me have to be part of the crew on a cargo ship we hired to transport all of our heavy and bulky treasures. How dare you make me attend the queen's masquerade ball and give the bards and rogues their moments of glory. How dare you make opponents intelligent and counter my glory-hogging rules abuse of magic." The biggest problem I see with so many of these spell power / abuse questions is the way some folks who play wizards react to proper game mastering. Even dumb monsters retreat to their hiding holes when injured...not all combats take place in wide-open empty fields devoid of weather, cover, or concealment, and not all combats take place without unintended consequences. Ok, so said wizard flies over the forest to get a better look...ok, he just made himself look like a snack to some other flying baddy. Some would say the GM is just picking on the wizard or trying to nerf his/her spell power. I would say just as a party *walking* through the forest incurs a chance of a random encounter, so does a party or a wizard *flying* over such forest. It is not picking on the flying wizard, it is reacting to their actions...what a good GM does. If the wizard split the party and is all alone, that's his/her fault (and problem). Difficult terrain to move through? Why should walking characters be the only ones who have to deal with terrain features that hamper movement? Weather conditions, visibility conditions, and random encounters still happen in the air, just like they do in water, underground, and in urban settings. The fly spell is only as broken as the wizard players insist it be. Cheers (now I duck)
Aelryinth wrote:
"...somewhat more secure" settlements also means somewhat more wealthy...a wealthier city just makes a more juicy target for someone, or something.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So I can't raise rust monsters for fun and profit off of magical iron walls then?
thejeff wrote: You're putting a modern workforce view where it doesn't exist. In the modern world, you're absolutely correct. In a pre-modern society where most labor isn't wage labor, it's either small independent farmers or more likely tenant farmers or peasants working someone else's land in return for protection and a portion of their crop, that distinction doesn't really exist. Ah yes, working the lords land and paying your rent in goods for protection. I imagine in a fantasy world like Pathfinder with powerful undead, demons, dinosaurs, and dragons that this would be more necessary than it was in feudal Europe.
Shiroi wrote:
Wow Shiroi (Japanese for white btw), good write up!
Joey Cote wrote: Plains sometimes stay plains because large herd animals graze down young trees before they have the opportunity to become old trees. Think of the Great Plains of North America or the Savannah of Africa. ...and where large herd animals or large herds of animals graze, something even bigger comes to eat them.
JamZilla wrote:
Yeah, gargoyles, harpies, or payment-for-safe-passage stone throwing giants come to mind.
Hitdice wrote:
In much of the real world, 9-14 year old children work the farm, and fight and die in wars.
Shoga wrote:
Shoga...so the stats for the robe would be: +5 Bonus to AC
...I just want to make sure I am reading this right.
How to use a high-level mage in combat? Here's one idea
Gavmania wrote:
Your point is? I was comparing a wand of Scorching Ray to an M-16, an M-16 Gav...not 10 mounted knights, nor was I making a statement on wand versus M-16 for cost-value or effectiveness per gp spent analysis. See, a Wand of Scorching Ray is magic...that means it sets aside the *laws of physics* an M-16 does not, it is bound by them. *That* makes the wand more powerful you see. You chose to snip my statement which was aimed as a response to a hypothetical and use it totally out of context to prove nothing. If you read back far enough, I was arguing tactics on a macro-level, that high-fantasy warfare would resemble modern warfare; though magic and technology are not universally interchangeable, the basic manifestations would remain such that *most* of the army would not fight en masse and march to toward massed enemies. I never posited that every soldier should be armed with a Wand of SR, I was replying to someone else. I would never make that assumption. I'll say it again now as I've said before, an army designed for a high-fantasy campaign needs to have flexibility built into it. There is nothing flexible about arming a single low-level mage with such an expensive single short range wand and expecting him to stand up alone to a charge of light cavalry. Flexibility. Every tactic and every piece of equipment has its uses, when used properly. Every individual has its uses too when used properly. Are we making an army or are we making individuals?
Coriat-I'll +1 what you said about combined arms. My statement about the accuracy rates of M-16's was to counter the "thousands of times more accurate" statement I read earlier. As a rifleman is more accurate in practice, so too is an archer more accurate on the range versus being in a line firing en masse towards en-massed troops. That sort of massed fire is why armies stopped charging en masse. But 200K - 300K rounds per enemy KIA sounds a bit illogical to me. It was 10K-ish in Vietnam and we've gotten more efficient since them, not less. Remember too that the 5.56 mm NATO Ball Round fired by the M-16 and M249 were designed to wound not kill. Keep in mind also that not all fire is aimed to kill...suppressing fire and covering fire come to mind. Perhaps you can find a demonstration video on youtube of Marines firing FPF, or Final Protective Fire. It's the *ability* of that that keeps opposing armies asymmetrical. I feel so sorry for the Iranian children during the Iran/Iraq war that purportedly wore "keys to paradise" around their necks as they charged en masse to their deaths. They were known as Human Wave Attacks, and although they cost the Iranians dearly, they were nonetheless often successful. Modern military history is still rife with examples of why armies shouldn't meet en masse, face-to-face, on the field of battle, and why the "shoot-and-scoot" tactics of maneuver warfare make more sense. However, large forces would still be needed; think about castle sieges, forces needed to ambush patrols, conduct prison breaks, guard cross-roads, secure bridges...AND, not all armies would be so-called modern. There is more to high-fantasy than magic. Think about hobgoblin hordes reinforced by hill giants and worg riders. I could go on, thus I say, a high-fantasy army needs to have flexibility designed into it.
Lightminder wrote:
Thanks for the insight Lightminder. That is a really good example of how assymetrical warfare works. It is also a bloody-dang-good- A+++ kind of example of how good commanders can fight a good fight while minimizing the cost in troops and treasure to their kingdoms by thinking outside the box and thinking creatively. Specific details aside, I think what Light is talking about could either be A) an alliance, B) conceptually using gate or teleport to penetrate enemy physical defenses, and C) sparing his low level mooks who I think are best used keeping the home-front economy functioning versus lining up in rank and file. Question to everyone else: Which is the better use of that spellcaster, what Light said, or throwing fireballs from the front line? I say the latter. Now I did say as one of the three key necessary components, Flexibility. This sounds like the job of an adventuring party...perhaps an adventuring party that owns a small keep in the kings land because the king has an alliance / debt of gratitude with them. Awesome post Lightminder.
zagnabbit wrote:
Zag, yes spell casters would likely be in charge, but in terms of game mechanics, Charisma based spell casters like sorcerers have better capacity to influence people. I could likely see some sort of "mageocracy" with a council or cabal of spellcasters *behind the scenes* but with some aristocrats and their deep business and multi-family connections bringing ever-so-powerful alliances into play. Historically too, leaders have been charismatic, not smart...look at Hitler, Bashar Assad, Vladamir Putin (although he is starting to become quite politically adept methinks) and even...well, heck, look at Ammerica's last several presidents. ...and no Zag, I don't think the concept of divine intervention is a cop-out. I had a CO who got relieved of duty for reporting what he believed to be Divine Intervention. "Magic-gone-awry" sounds house-rulish to me, and I think we're staying off house rules in this thread. But, the devastation of a landscape is all to acceptable. Ruined farmland, rivers changed course, left-over undead, left-over trigger activated magic traps, left-over mundane traps, left-over illusions, left-over battlefield modifications like pits, berms, and walls, roving bandits and third parties trying to scrounge leftover weapons and gear, and roving baddies who see dead humans and hobgoblins and horses as food or "material components". But Zag, don't forget the "devastated landscape" scenario may also mean devastated economy too...left-over inflation (think about post WWI Germany if you will), burnt crops and starvation (post WWII Okinawa), muddy river-run off ruining farmlands by washing away topsoil and muddying coral reefs (Okinawa post WWII) shortages, war-profiteers, and counter-attacks from those vampires that just made a horde of undead from the battlefield to *now* attack you with. Of course those vampires refer in concept to any third party who may *now* be interested in joining the fight. It's not enough to win the fight, the economy has to survive too. Good post Zag.
Gavmania wrote:
Recon in Force...good Gav, just as I was saying, asymmetrical warfare, but on a larger scale. Light Cavalry as scouts...again good Gav, just as I was saying asymmetrical warfare. For your commanders...look Gav, it was you who convinced me of a good strategy whereby your kingdom recruits promising youngsters and makes companies of wizards. If your kingdom can teach youngsters to bend the rules of physics with little more than sheer intellect, surely you can train competent commanders too.
Coriat wrote:
A Marine with an M-16 and iron sights can hit a man-sized target at 500 yards 7 out of 10 times. Take a squad. 4 M-249's, 9 M-16's 4 of which have M-203 grenade launchers. Nobody in their right mind would mass a charge against that...and currently, they don't.
BiggDawg wrote: Melee weapons are the most prevalent weapon and everyone can wield them and afford them thus being the default combat style. Soldiers in modern warfare have standard weapons that are ranged and incredibly powerful by fantasy standards. If every soldier had a wand of scorching ray it would be more similar. The point of the post was to illustrate that while high magic warfare has many things in common with modern warfare there are still distinct differences from the base pathfinder rules assumptions. I would say a wand of scorching ray is more powerful than an M-16. But, you don't see rows and columns of grim-faced soldiers marching to their doom in rank and file wielding M-16's in modern warfare. Yes there are differences, but they would *manifest* in *mostly* the same way...with the end result of high-fantasy warfare becoming asymmetrical versus massed...same as today when a high magic (read: technology) army faces a low magic (read: technology) army. Russia vs Mujahadeen, U.S. vs Iraqi insurgents, Israel vs Palestinians. The mechanics would mostly change, the results would be the same. But BD, you illustrate a good point with your particular choice of combat tactics...noted, that they are not the same as my particular choices of combat tactics. Given the same information, you, I, and 20 other folks would all come up with different ways to fight. They *could* all be right, or they *could* all be wrong, depending upon a myriad of different factors. Thus I reiterate the starting point for building a high-fantasy army:
BiggDawg wrote:
I did state "the *basics* remain the same"...any debate can find a single anecdote (or 12) that breaks basic assumptions. We're trying to build an army, not bicker over specifics, just yet. If Gav gives me a kingdom, I'll give this thread an army that'll work with almost any attack. For the mass effect, I was speaking strictly of a kingdom, not a horde, as that to me is what the OP was trying to build an army for. Even though the "majority of people in the world" fight hand to hand in your opinion (although that is debatable), that doesn't mean that that they *must* fight that way, or that their army *must* be designed that way...in fact the OP was trying to avoid just that scenario, wisely methinks too. BTW, Phalanx CIWS can shoot down a mortar round...although not a spell, its effects are the same, troops are protected. However, I never made the assumption nor stated the assumption that modern warfare and/or its magical equivalent (or near-equivalent) would not totally nerf middle-age defensive strategies. Commanders have budgets too BD, or in more realistic terms, limited resources that need to be consumed wisely. But thanks for the tip on counterspelling, I'll factor it in.
Gav, it appears you don't really know much about modern warfare...magic replaces technology in a high fantasy setting, but the basics remain the same. You are still talking about low-level mages with scrolls of fireball and concerned with ranges as though two massed armies will meet in the field. *That* is precisely what will *not* happen with two modern (by PF standards) armies meet. Thus the parallel with high-fantasy and modern. Mass armies don't really meet in the open now-a-days much anymore either. You need to think about the game within the game within the game. While you bring up a small percentage of issues all of which are excellent points (leadership, recruitment, training etc) you forget about the diplomatic posturing, alliances, spying, false flags, false intel (ex Task Force Troy in Gulf War I), strategic marriages, sabotage, double agents, graft-corruption-war-profiteering (military-industrial complex,) third party opportunists (look up just how many factions were at war in Lebanon circa 1982), and that's all before the actual war starts. I haven't even mentioned economics yet. Once war does start think about such variables as intervention from the Gods, demon servants gated in from the very pits of hell itself, burrowing monsters, amphibious troops like sahuagin, invisibility, mother nature herself (what was it called in Avatar, Eiya?) undead hordes, floating earth motes (for you Faerun fans out there), trained dinosaurs, dragons (enemy, allied, third party, and those with their own agenda), teleportation magic (oooh, there's a nice fantasy version of paratroopers methinks), and a host of other variables I cannot personally know, but the collective learned memory and written history of a kingdom of a thousand years would know. Now on to economics. I said magic would be utilized, you said wielded...please don't think of magic as a destructive weapon *only*. Please don't think of armies as two fronts facing each other *only*, and please don't think that low-level mooks serving in the army make for good rank-and-file *only*. Did you know, in the USMC there are 8 Marines on active duty for support in some capacity, for each 1 ground-pounder? And that is before we even talk about the count of farmers needed to feed such an army. Why did the allies beat Germany in WWII? Mostly because the war was fought on German territory and it was Germany's economy that was decimated, and thus it was Germany's economy that could no longer sustain the machine that was necessary to sustain the war. Now to define your fantasy army. (not in order of importance)
Whether it has a navy, air force, cavalry, etc depends in large part on terrain *and* on likely enemies. If your kingdom borders another kingdom, prepare for the diplomatic war, if your kingdom borders the badlands, prepare for an orc horde, if your kingdom *used* to be the territory of some bada$$ royal Drow Family, well, prepare for the underground war. However, just as technology today is utilized *to the extent possible* in modern warfare, as an efficiency gain, so to will magic be *utilized* in high fantasy war *to the extent possible*
How much magic would be used in a fantasy army? The answer is simple really? I'll ask a question we've all heard: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Answer: He would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood." Meaning? An army would utilize as much magic as it could. The OP presented a pretty cool scenario where a kingdom would / could generate a large number of casters in a human society as a good back-story with simple economic and political motivations. From the discussion it also appears that a fantasy army in a high-magic (PF is *very high magic) that warfare would look like modern warfare. Where the OP erred was in giving an example of two massed-armies facing each other with one side charging. That is *not* what modern warfare looks like. The problems I see in this post, with one exception, is that most people posting here do not have much experience and knowledge of exactly how modern armies operate. RAW vs RAI discussion, PF is very high magic, a kingdom of a million sentient humans and demi-humans, could easily field an army with many thousands of spell-casters...and even more if said kingdom did what the OP suggested he would do to create more casters. No problem there. For spontaneous casters that need a bloodline...do some simple math...you have two parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great grandparents, by the tine you get to you great x10 grandparents you have over 4K of them about 500 years or so ago. Reverse that, one dragon blooded person with two off-spring would have 4K descendants with that bloodline alive today in just one generation, with perhaps 3 generations currently walking the planet. Now, imagine the potential bloodline for a 3 thousand year old dragon. Armies with 10's of thousands of spellcasters are likely, now the question remains, how would they be used? I'll come back to that on a ore lengthy post. v/r
Gavmania wrote:
Yeah you missed something, you missed most of this entire conversation.
Alcomus wrote:
Here's a good tip...when they water-board you for real, even though you feel like you're ging to die, you actually won't. Don't let them break you.
VM mercenario wrote:
That seems a bit harsh. When I went to SERE school, one of our instructors was a survivor from the Hanoi Hilton...you cannot possibly understand what "torture" actually means, how hard it is to resist, but how unimaginably ineffective it is as getting worthwhile / useful intelligence. If torture were only physical, resitance would be possible.
TOZ wrote:
You said "chaptered", my guess is you are in the Army. If you are obeying your lawful orders as required (as evidenced by 12 years of honorable service), I'd posit that you are Lawful Neutral.
Aelryinth wrote:
If you go back further in the discussion I was talking about professional soldiers, not the rank and file. But, your thoughts on survival instinct as a neutral trait make perfect sense. "Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea"
"Lawful Neutral: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code of honor directs her"
Thus, professional armies don't break ranks and run. (forward or back) I don't think a horde of barbarians would hold their positions for very long, either way. Most professional soldier would be Lawful Neutral IMHO. The peasant masses conscripted for war are not professional soldiers. (there are such things as unlawful orders, the Nuremberg Trials explored that at great length.)
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Well written back-story Kyrt.
About soldiers and discipline; there are two types of orders if you will, those in garrison and those in combat. Soldiers in the end do not fight for their paycheck, out of fear, or necessarily for stubborn pride, (except in the USMC where the legacy is quite heavy) in the end they fight for the soldier in the hole with them. When the fear takes over, the training kicks in, instinctively. Following orders saves lives, and they know it, especially in battle. That's why the U.S. military tends to not break and run, even under the worst of conditions. There are very few modern examples, and they were all fighting withdrawals...think opening salvo of the Battle-of-the-Bulge, or the encirclement at the Chosen Reservoir in Korea. Soldiers just following orders will be Lawful-Good (usually in our case when soldiers believe in a good cause), Lawful Neutral (UN Peacekeeping missions or soldiers just following orders for a good casue) Lawful-Evil (Nazi Germany). Now some will make a moral equivalency argument, they tend to sound like "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", but those arguments are quite easily dismissed. I still have trouble putting a barbarian only class melee type in a martial army wily-nily without a convincing back-story.
Rynjin wrote:
Ranger is my favorite class to play btw
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Neutral soldiers tend to get article 15'd out in the real world. Lawful soldeiers are required to...what does the promotion warrant state..."...obey ALL lawful orders..." (emphasis added) hardly sounds neutral.
Rynjin wrote:
OK, Ryn, you win, I concede. You made your case. Paladins are better than fighters.
Ashiel wrote:
You are indeed a good writer. But, Paladins came into the game long after the fighter. They were made *deliberatly* over-powered, just like a lot of things, to sell more books. I'm sorry you fell for it. |
Shopping Cart
|