| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.
Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.
This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.
Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?
Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Mass army rules work at low CR's. I don't think they were ever intended to support an army of dragons.
Taking many things to extremes will break the rules.
I think the Mass army rules work at low CR's. I don't think they were ever intended to support an army of dragons.
Taking many things to extremes will break the rules.
Exactly. So when extreme things attack, I think hand-waving the Mass Combat rules is completely fair. One of my players thought it was a "cop-out" that I disregarded however much "defense points" they have invested in walls when powerful creatures that have the ability to completely disregard walls attacked. Sure, you are immune to soldiers, but not against Great C'thulhu.
Oh, funny side note. Against a defense 100 or whatever army, a single lethargic kobold child with a sling has about the same chance of hurting them as an army of 2000 lv20 barbarian tarrasques, as a 20 is a 20, and it will still deal only 1 damage... meaning that if the tarrasques just attack in a disorganized fashion, they will tear the city down by the law of averages, as there will be on average 100 20s on 2000 rolls. Which also holds true for the sickly kobold children...
Two words: earthquake spell.
|
I think the Mass army rules work at low CR's. I don't think they were ever intended to support an army of dragons.
Taking many things to extremes will break the rules.
+1 to this.
I am no longer interested in the kingdom building rules, as is, since they are basically "accounting in PF."
Since a few of my players really like getting high numbers on their "stats," I just let them have free reign on that, with the caveat that towns full of graveyards, dumps, and monuments would probably lead to widespread Urgotha & Gyronna worship, and lots & lots of random undead encounters for the peasants.
Also, seeing how Time=Money=Power in this campaign, and KM gives essentially unlimited Time to the PCs (at least through the first few books), their power levels as PCs are skewed higher as well.
So I just concentrate on a few choice tough encounters, and watch as they bulldoze everything else. Works for me, and they seem happy.
I found that the mass combat rules were way too swingy at low levels, actually.
I'm not sure about Kingmaker, but they really didn't conform well to the armies extant in Rise of the Runelords.
There are good ideas in them, but I don't think they're worth the effort, not for me, at the moment.
I do hope to see them reworked for a later product. When that happens, I hope they check back with all the "army" situations in the published adventure paths and make certain that this subsystem can handle those test cases.
Two words: earthquake spell.
One word: Siege.
It'll only take a couple weeks before all the people behind your 100' thick walls start starving. There's no point attacking the impenetrable fortress when you can just wipe out their food and water sources.
There's a reason why I put the kibosh on item crafting and exploiting the city building rules for personal gain as my first order of the campaign. With the second rule being me quietly changing around some stuff in the city building rules, so that I don't have to deal with the graveyard/dump/magic item shop pit trap. To avoid just such scenarios as described in this thread.
One word: Siege.
It'll only take a couple weeks before all the people behind your 100' thick walls start starving. There's no point attacking the impenetrable fortress when you can just wipe out their food and water sources.
Ohhh good one. The classics never die.
Another suggestion: if the players are spending all their BP on defense then they have to much BP. Make them spend some. Wipe out some of their farms with a green dragon. Bandits play hell with the places between cities.
Is this just one city or is this every city? If its just the capital, then attack some of their smaller cities. Also, a favorite tactic is to have an entire army dress in plain clothes and walk into the city 1 at a time. I'd cut the city's defenses by half doing that.
EDIT: Joke all you want about the french, in Joan of Ark's day Paris was a nearly impossible city to defeat.
The capital is suppose to be difficult to take. Good for them. However, it sounds like the players are taking the majority of their BP gained from the kingdom as a whole and loading it into their capital. That might make the rest of the kingdom much less happy. If the people see all their hard earned money going to one city, they won't like it. I know here in New Jersey, most of the state complains that their taxes are going to keep Camden, Trenton and Newark and we're rather unhappy about that.
Increase unrest by 1 every other month. This will force them to put some resources elsewhere.
I just put a limit on my players, based off of kingdom size. Each bracket you qualify for on the "Improvements per Month" chart increases the maximum number of districts, one per bracket. The capital city may have double this number. So a kingdom with 51-100 hexes may have cities composed of 4 districts, with their capital composed of 8.
Second, with the exception of houses, you may only have one of any building in each district.
On the flip side, I added a few buildings equivalent to farms that can reduce BP depending on terrain, and had road synergies for non-city buildings (ex: farms reduce consumption by 3, not 2, if a road is present). And I've added a bonus for players with the Leadership feat dependent on role.
The trade offs seem to have balanced out, though the campaign is by no means done.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.
Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.
This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.
At the time I wrote the manuscript for War of the River Kings, the mass combat rules weren't exactly ready yet, so I originally wrote up a couple of attacks (one vs. a PC border city, one vs. their capital) as "sample armies" and a couple of party battle scenarios for each one. If you are running KM and don't want to use the mass combat rules, feel free to email me (tjaden jason at gmail dot com) and I can send them along for your use.
Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?
Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.
Yeah yeah, "realism" in a "fantasy" game - DREAM ON! :)
At the time I wrote the manuscript for War of the River Kings, the mass combat rules weren't exactly ready yet, so I originally wrote up a couple of attacks (one vs. a PC border city, one vs. their capital) as "sample armies" and a couple of party battle scenarios for each one. If you are running KM and don't want to use the mass combat rules, feel free to email me (tjaden jason at gmail dot com) and I can send them along for your use.Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.
Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.
This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.
Already got them, and I am using them ^^
Which is the only reason I even bother to actually play this AP and not hand-wave it. Otherwise, the PC kingdom would be immune to the effects of war, and could then easily kill Irovetti at their leisure (Scry&fry assassination, which you made him immune to, since you seem to take into consideration that at least one PC might be a high-level spellcaster). So I ended up taking what I think is worth salvaging from the published part, and mix it up to get a nice blend and tie everything up nicely with parts 4 and 6.
Yeah yeah, "realism" in a "fantasy" game - DREAM ON! :)Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?
Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and Godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.
Indeed. Some things work in abstracts, some things do not. In the attack on the otherwise invincible capital, the defense score will be irrelevant because of how the attack is carried out, but the players' spellcasting cohorts and allies might be able to make a difference.
And this is something I feel is much needed in terms of motivation. Why would they get all revved up and attack someone who just sent a bunch of mooks to break themselves impotently against their walls? That seems to warrant more of a "Oh, Irovetti, you silly fop, that is not how you do war"-response. But someone who uses dirty tactics, employs evil magic and kills civilians so they might be used as materials for an impromptu undead army... yeah, that might rattle them a little and make them see red.
|
I see it as relatively easy to correct, even if it will require a bit of bookkeeping, with one simple rul:
If a creature can disregard a kind of defensive structure, that defensive structure value don't apply.
In your example if the city walls are sturdy enough a tarrasque can't break them. But the dragons can fly and unless your players cities have some kind of AA defence the dragons can easily bypass the walls.
Similarly a Ancient Red Dragon has DR 15/magic. unless your forces have magic bows or arrows they can do zip to it [they could do some damage on a critical hit, but not much].
A army of spectres can bypass walls and defenders without magical weapons without trouble.
The bookeping part is that you need to keep a separate tally of what the defences can block, the army can fight and so on.
As already said, in the medieval time and even during the renaissance besieging a city was a long endeavour, generally won by starvation and disease, not by the attacker breaching the walls.
If you look a RL example, the siege of Famagosta (with guns, so acceptably similar to a D&D siege with fireballs) lasted from 22 August 1570 to 4 August 1571, a whole year.
The forces were: 7.000 defenders against 200.000! attackers and the losses 6.000 defenders against 80.000 attackers.
The city was taken but the losses were more than 13:1 in favour of the defender.
So a well defended city can block a semi-conventional sieging army for a long, long time.
Since I'm only part way through VV at the moment, we really haven't run into this issue yet. I think to nip it in the bud, I might introduce the following houserule:
Total defense modifiers for a city are divided by the number of districts that city has. Also, the maximum number of walls that can be built are 4 plus 2 per additional district.
This doesn't exactly prevent the problem, but it certainly helps. It will also encourage my players to not try and expand their cities with mostly empty districts as it will leave them pretty much defenseless.
Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.
Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.
This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.
Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?
Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.
I think this is easy.
Siege Engines (15 BP per engine): Your army includes catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, rams, and other siege engines designed to break down fortifications. Increase OM by +2 (regardless of the total number of siege engines you control); each round of the melee phase, reduce the enemy’s bonus to DV from fortifications by 1d4 points per siege engine your army controls.
So after several days of siege the defences are down. And you can argue that your mentioned tarrasques are living siege engines so the DV of your PCs city are down within one mass combat phase.
Since this is a setting where dragons and magic exists, I would assume that the defense value (as an abstraction) would take this into account, and the BP's spent to increase the defense value also would include magical protection? Otherwise why bother with defenses at all if all it takes is one semi-high level wizard or a single dragon to destroy years and hundreds of thousand of gold pieces worth of building up defenses?
Frankly we had no idea how the mass combat system were suppossed to work or how high an 80 was when we started building our defenses, but I know we have put a lot of time and effort into doing so, and as high level characters we are aware of what kind of threats are out there. You would think that we have taken that somewhat into account when we built our defenses.
Since this is a setting where dragons and magic exists, I would assume that the defense value (as an abstraction) would take this into account, and the BP's spent to increase the defense value also would include magical protection? Otherwise why bother with defenses at all if all it takes is one semi-high level wizard or a single dragon to destroy years and hundreds of thousand of gold pieces worth of building up defenses?
Frankly we had no idea how the mass combat system were suppossed to work or how high an 80 was when we started building our defenses, but I know we have put a lot of time and effort into doing so, and as high level characters we are aware of what kind of threats are out there. You would think that we have taken that somewhat into account when we built our defenses.
Not destroy, bypass. Like what you did at Drelev, and likely will do against Pitax when time comes to resolve things. A force of a few cartoonishly powerful magical elite that no manner of physical defenses can stand against, and only high-level people can deal with.
And no, you have NOT put "a lot of time and effort" into it, you found a way to break the kingdom building system so you earn well over 100 BP per turn even when building heavily, setting aside money for armies and so forth. It's laughably easy for you to get 50+ defense everywhere and be immune to war in less than a year even when you are NOT focusing on it. Not to mention it is disproportionately cheap to build defenses compared to offense. To get +3 to OV or so, you have to spend close to 70bp _PER ARMY_. To get +4 defense? 8bp. For 70bp you get over 30 defense. This alone tells me that defense does not include magical wards. It's as if someone adjusted the prices for magical items so a +10 sword cost 2 million, and a +10 armor cost 2000 gp.
That is why I am throwing out the Mass Combat system for anything but actual mass combat, which in D&D/Pathfinder high-level terms is a bunch of weak ants squabbling on the ground like the mortals they are, as the gods that are high level characters float above and do combat in manners they could never hope to participate in. When stuff that go into double digit CR comes onto the playing field, the game changes, and it is Party Battle, like Jason Nelson originally wrote it.
Sure, no amount of ants will ever do anything to hurt your cities. You are immune to mundane warfare, whatever. But fantastic encounters do not fit into that mold. And if you can't accept this, then the campaign is over. You won. Nothing can hurt you. You beat the system and thus the game.
So to summarize; the reason you build walls and whatnot is so that you can keep barbarians, trolls, goblinoids, lizardfolk, boggards, <insert other marauding type of problem here>, the armies of Brevoy, the armies of Pitax, the armies of just about every given country in Golarion apparently, at bay. And then you hire a cleric or have some cohort minion type prepare a sending spell to call for help when the real disasters strike. When the night sky tears open and the elder gods come to wreak havoc, or when the vengeful druids toss a dozen earthquake spells your way, or when the demilich decides that it has had enough and throws open a rift between your world and the Abyss, flooding your town with infinite horrors from beyond.
Why else do ANYONE fear the tarrasque, giant dragons, demonic hordes etc, when a wooden wall, two watchtowers and a castle keeps everything at bay? It's cheap, quick to build and can withstand the wrath of Rovagug himself.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
War of attrition worked pretty well in my game. They had beefy cities too, but start tearing down a couple farms a day with Pitax's several armies and things can change quickly.
Most of the problems are economic really though. The root cause is how stupidly good magic item creation is.
Not to mention it is disproportionately cheap to build defenses compared to offense. To get +3 to OV or so, you have to spend close to 70bp _PER ARMY_. To get +4 defense? 8bp. For 70bp you get over 30 defense.
Where are you getting a straight +3 for OM? Magic weapons give a +2 and cost 50 BP. I can get a +4 DV from a combination of magic armor and fortification builders. But that is still 17 BP. Is there something I'm missing? (EDIT: oh wait, you're talking about a city wall, nevermind on the defense.)
Noted for when I get home. Mobility advantage needs a line about city wall defenses may not count if the mobility advantage can bypass it. (EDIT: maybe only for half, since it would depend on the angle of the dragons breath for how much impact it would have. thoughts?)
Also Rock Throwing units should count as a single siege engine.
EDIT: But even then, why take the city? If I were commanding that army, I wouldn't attack that city until I burned every farm the nation had. The loss of all those -2 Consumptions add up really quick. And if the army comes and meets the invaders, they don't have the wall defenses. Sounds like they will be very vulnerable there. All that BP gone to city defenses are useless.
Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?
The Artesia comic series offers an explination of this.
The main character is in battle, when their line is attacked by Hathaz-Ghul champions attack the line. These are creatures that literally cannot be hurt by mortal steel. Five of them would be able to butcher an entire army, if that arm had no magic weapons.
Artesia's responce, to call to her her own champions and all those with magic weapons. She uses her magic to enchant the weapons of a number of her champions who don't have a magic blade, uses magic to reinforce their will and then sets the champions on the Hathaz-Ghul, which are ripped to shreds.
An army will not just contain level seven warriors, but a number of bards, cavaliers others, who reinforce the army, at which pint, it becomes a much more even fight.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Last November I was working on some fairly extensive revisions and expansions to the mass combat rules to iron out some of the wonkiness and to include rules for things like sieges, training troops, the use of garrisons and barracks, and so on. But, life intruded and I haven't really gotten back to it.
I'm in the midst of a number of other projects at the moment, but it's something I probably will get back to in the next month or so, and I will be happy to share what I've got at that point.
Of course, none of it matters if PCs have access to infinite wealth due to magic item sales in the economy.
I did just think of one interesting rules tweak, very simple, that you could put into the system to put the brakes on magic item sales:
For every magic item a kingdom attempts to sell after the first, increase the Economy DC by 5 (or 10, or whatever number you like).
They can still sell magic items, but item farming with a dozen caster's towers? Not so much.
I would put more effort into revamping the entire kingdom building system to limit the obscene income if I was able to catch this early on. Now we are almost half-way through part 5, and the interests of having an actual war has waned in favor of focusing on stuff the PCs can do themselves.
I don't know how I am supposed to make a war-effort interesting, when it is mostly me and one PC rolling d20s and hammering on until either side goes down.
As for the defenses vs high level monsters: Sure, if you have to come by foot, you have to get past the wall. And if it is a monster that CAN be hurt by warriors, then the defenses are relevant. But when a huge red dragon flies in over the houses and proceed to start fires and shrug off arrows and blades with its DR, I don't see how walls and watchtowers are relevant. Sure, the watchtowers might spot it and sound alarms so less people get slaughtered, but if you can do nothing, you can do nothing.
So it has to be resolved as a PC party battle. Some high-level NPCs might be able to intervene and have some manner of influence, but beyond that, there are some things mundane defenses CAN fight, and there are some things that they CANNOT fight. So until the building and mass combat rules are finalized and the loop-holes plugged, I am just going to let it be background noise.
War of attrition worked pretty well in my game. They had beefy cities too, but start tearing down a couple farms a day with Pitax's several armies and things can change quickly.
Most of the problems are economic really though. The root cause is how stupidly good magic item creation is.
i think john made a good point but i haven't read the rules since i first got the book. If a town is so heavily defended why would an army of any size attack it? generals are not morons. a few farms might not hurt but what about if an invading army starts going for the kingdom itself. A few farms might annoy the players but what happens if ALL its farms are destroyed? I doubt a kingdom could survive that and would have to come out of the city to meet the invading army. Or what happens when the invading army starts strategically taking hexes from the players control, isolating cities from hex contact with the kingdom. This would split the kingdom in 2, 3rds, or 4ths. Each one would then be considered separate kingdoms that would need there own leaders or suffer the vacant penalties. I know this isn't covered in mass combat but it is covered in the core rules. Walls can be brought down - directly damaged, sapped, sieged etc.
i think john made a good point but i haven't read the rules since i first got the book. If a town is so heavily defended why would an army of any size attack it? generals are not morons. a few farms might not hurt but what about if an invading army starts going for the kingdom itself. A few farms might annoy the players but what happens if ALL its farms are destroyed? I doubt a kingdom could survive that and would have to come out of the city to meet the invading army. Or what happens when the invading army starts strategically taking hexes from the players control, isolating cities from hex contact with the kingdom. This would split the kingdom in 2, 3rds, or 4ths. Each one would then be considered separate kingdoms that would need there own leaders or suffer the vacant penalties. I know this isn't covered in mass combat but it is covered in the core rules. Walls can be brought down - directly damaged, sapped, sieged etc.War of attrition worked pretty well in my game. They had beefy cities too, but start tearing down a couple farms a day with Pitax's several armies and things can change quickly.
Most of the problems are economic really though. The root cause is how stupidly good magic item creation is.
Attrition works well on low levels, but at high levels, warfare is next to pointless. Would there have been an escalation with Gadaffi if the EU/US coalition could scry on him and teleport a strike-team into his bedroom?
At low levels, you do not have these options, and enemy warriors are a threat to the PCs. At lv13+ the PCs can scry on the enemy, buff themselves into immortality, teleport in and kill the commanders in less than 1 minute, shatter morale and be done with any army in no time flat. There is no reason whatsoever to actually DO warfare.
I would have loved to see warfare in part 2, 3 tops. Then it would actually be interesting and relevant. Compare it to Serpent Skull:
Part 1: Disease and survival are issues. At lv5 this becomes a nuisance instead of a threat.
Part 2: Getting from Point A to B faster than other people. At lv9 this is a non-issue.
Part 3: Explore a huge city while defending a home-base. At lv11, exploration is done easily with Wind Walk.
Keep themes at levels where they are relevant, otherwise, there is no reason for the players not to solve them in the fastest and most efficient manner possible.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Why else do ANYONE fear the ... giant dragons, ... etc, when a wooden wall, two watchtowers and a castle keeps everything at bay? It's cheap, quick to build and can withstand the wrath of Smaug himself.No wooden wall, or towers or castle I believe, but the chap you're
looking for is Bard. (no not a bard...but Bard...)
He seemed to do pretty well without...Sorry, no offense meant, but I' in a mischievious mood... ;-p
Don't forget his lucky black arrow!
You know - it just occured to me that these dragon-riding tarrasques would do much better if they fought individually against your fortress city.
Each Tarrasque is a CR 17 fine-sized army by itself and each great wyrm red dragon is a CR 14 fine-sized army. They still need 20s to do any damage, but the dragons actually do 2-5 damage thanks to their breath weapons. So, with 2000 of each, regardless of how high your defense values are, they'll do (on average) 100 damage from the tarrasques and 350 damage from the dragons for a total of 450 damage a round. Doesn't seem like your walls will be helping you that much after all.
You know - it just occured to me that these dragon-riding tarrasques would do much better if they fought individually against your fortress city.
Each Tarrasque is a CR 17 fine-sized army by itself and each great wyrm red dragon is a CR 14 fine-sized army. They still need 20s to do any damage, but the dragons actually do 2-5 damage thanks to their breath weapons. So, with 2000 of each, regardless of how high your defense values are, they'll do (on average) 100 damage from the tarrasques and 350 damage from the dragons for a total of 450 damage a round. Doesn't seem like your walls will be helping you that much after all.
And it just struck me. 2000 solo kobolds with slings would do the same. A 20 is a 20. 100 damage ftw!
Fight disorganized! Win wars!
Or Kobold Commoner1 = Tarrasque Barbarian20
And it just struck me. 2000 solo kobolds with slings would do the same. A 20 is a 20. 100 damage ftw!
Fight disorganized! Win wars!
Or Kobold Commoner1 = Tarrasque Barbarian20
That actually doesn't follow. You need to have at least a CR9 creature in order to make a fine-sized army. Even then, they'll only have a handful of hitpoints and be slaughtered pretty quickly.
If you have kobold commoner 1 as your unit, you need at least 200 of them to make a CR 1 army. So, those same 2000 kobolds can only do about 1 point of damage every other round and they'll be dropping like flies.
And it just struck me. 2000 solo kobolds with slings would do the same. A 20 is a 20. 100 damage ftw!
Fight disorganized! Win wars!
Or Kobold Commoner1 = Tarrasque Barbarian20
That actually doesn't follow. You need to have at least a CR9 creature in order to make a fine-sized army. Even then, they'll only have a handful of hitpoints and be slaughtered pretty quickly.
If you have kobold commoner 1 as your unit, you need at least 200 of them to make a CR 1 army. So, those same 2000 kobolds can only do about 1 point of damage every other round and they'll be dropping like flies.
Ah, so they need to be commoner11 :P
But either way, I think that some creatures just break the mold for what defenses should work against and not. Sure, having a castle means your people can seek refuge, meaning fewer casualties. And watchtowers mean you spot the doom on the horizon so you get a minute's head-start. And walls means that the tarrasque needs to spend two rounds or so climbing it, driving it's massive claws in to make hand-holds. But that defense should STOP the monster? No. No wai <insert picture of owl>
|
|
Speaking of wars of attrition, and taking out farms etc (and other outlying hexes w/ no actual cities in them), at what point is a hex considered "no longer part of the kingdom" when an enemy is attacking it.
Is this covered well in the combat rules of book two?
To better state my scenario:
Kingdom Baronia has 15 hexes. Three of which have cities, 8 of which have farms, four others are simply undeveloped.
A rival barony is mixing it up, getting all loud and rowdy w/ Baronia and moves a number of his forces for the purpose to reclaiming some territory - perhaps he wants some of the resources in that area. Baronia decides to keep its forces in-house in the cities to protect its major assets, so there's little to no opposition on the farmstead hexes.
At what point does the rival barony get to say - "I have stolen this land and I can now build farms of my own!" or whatever?
Robert
Attrition works well on low levels, but at high levels, warfare is next to pointless. Would there have been an escalation with Gadaffi if the EU/US coalition could scry on him and teleport a strike-team into his bedroom?
In a world in which this is not only possible, but a common strategy, every, and I mean EVERY ruler and other important person with resources and secrets he wants to protect (not to mention the Royal Heinie) will have protections against scrying and/or teleporting. The high priority most intelligent beings place on survival would demand that. General rule is that anything magic can do, magic can prevent, and people with resources almost always have access to magic.
There would probably also be strong social and diplomatic pressure applied against countries to discourage them from assassinating each other's leaders. Once this type of thing starts, it is hard to stop and no leader will ever sleep soundly again. So PC rulers should think carefully before attempting to scry and fry rival leaders. It will have repercussions, one of the most likely of which is to encourage others potential enemies to launch a preemptive strike to remove the threat before the PCs try the same thing on them. Diplomatic ostracization is also likely.
As for my favorite North African leader, he is notoriously paranoid about his personal security and has deep pockets from oil money. You can bet if scry and fry were possible in the real world, he'd have protections against it.
In a world in which this is not only possible, but a common strategy, every, and I mean EVERY ruler and other important person with resources and secrets he wants to protect (not to mention the Royal Heinie) will have protections against scrying and/or teleporting. The high priority most intelligent beings place on survival would demand that. General rule is that anything magic can do, magic can prevent, and people with resources almost always have access to magic.Attrition works well on low levels, but at high levels, warfare is next to pointless. Would there have been an escalation with Gadaffi if the EU/US coalition could scry on him and teleport a strike-team into his bedroom?
I have thought of this, but there is not a single able-bodied spellcaster working for the baddies in part 5. While Jason's original manuscript took this tactic into consideration and made Irovetti immune to scry&fry, none of his generals are. If they are in the field, they can be found and killed outright very quick by the PCs.
There would probably also be strong social and diplomatic pressure applied against countries to discourage them from assassinating each other's leaders. Once this type of thing starts, it is hard to stop and no leader will ever sleep soundly again. So PC rulers should think carefully before attempting to scry and fry rival leaders. It will have repercussions, one of the most likely of which is to encourage others potential enemies to launch a preemptive strike to remove the threat before the PCs try the same thing on them. Diplomatic ostracization is also likely.
This part is very interesting, and something I will take into consideration. They have already employed this tactic against one enemy, and got smeared for it. I did not give them an in-game problem due to this, but I guess a negative 5-10 to Stability, Economy and Loyalty will show that people get afraid due to the foreign pressure, trade gets hurt through boycott and the people dislike the leaders for doing such an wholly immoral and cowardly deed in a region where rural and martial gods are venerated.
As for my favorite North African leader, he is notoriously paranoid about his personal security and has deep pockets from oil money. You can bet if scry and fry were possible in the real world, he'd have protections against it.
"It's the line of death! You cross it, you die!" Yes, Colonel Gadaffi is a piece of work.
"Colonel Gadaffi. Sounds like he should have his own chain of terrorist fast food stores; Come on down to Colonel Gadaffi's Bomb-in-a-Bucket! Bring the children - Get a grenade!" - Robin Williams
|
|
Attrition works well on low levels, but at high levels, warfare is next to pointless. Would there have been an escalation with Gadaffi if the EU/US coalition could scry on him and teleport a strike-team into his bedroom?
I have thought of this, but there is not a single able-bodied spellcaster working for the baddies in part 5. While Jason's original manuscript took this tactic into consideration and made Irovetti immune to scry&fry, none of his generals are. If they are in the field, they can be found and killed outright very quick by the PCs.
Well consider this: The "manuscript" is written for a "basic" audience. I'm willing to bet not every gaming group has players that use/abuse the scry/fry tactics. I'm willing to bet not even half do. My players never have.
It's just an element that for many make the game unfun - similar in feel to cheating.
My point is this: while the adventure is written a specific way - it doesn't disallow GMs to modify facets of it to mould it into a particular groups style.
If a group is more of a political scheming, propoganda card pulling roleplaying all the time type of group - a GM should modify it a bit to fit those needs. If a group is collectively a bunch of power gamers, then the GM needs to modify it a bit to allow for much punch and rewards. If the group has a tendency to use scry/fry or other combo tactics that usurp the story, it's up to the GM to create plausible mechanics to make it so that it is not always the obvious or automatic sure thing.
Feel free to cater it to your style, and your groups play style. As the previous poster indicated - that in a world where this is prevalent, there would be ample provisions in place to prevent it, or counter it. Obviously a published module cannot account for all possible scenarios when it comes to players tendencies, but in this case, I think it's fair that you alter it to counter this. Players bank on published modules not addressing out of the box tactics like this and so they may take advantage of it, much to the chagrin of GMs. There's nothing wrong with allowing these types of tactics in several of the mundane encounters - but the powerful ones, BBEGs, and definitely leaders - will have means of stopping it.
Much like terrorism and counter-terrorism. Or computer viruses and anti-viruses. Hackers, and security systems in place to prevent it. As the dynamics of a culture morph, and tendencies are shown, so too must the prevention of those. In a world of magic and scry/fry capabilities, indeed world leaders would pay to have themselves proofed. In fact you could have guilds/agencies/etc that specialize in this kind of prevention in your world. Like private security firms, or security specialists that set up alarms, cameras etc in businesses.
Robert
|
|
This part is very interesting, and something I will take into consideration. They have already employed this tactic against one enemy, and got smeared for it. I did not give them an in-game problem due to this, but I guess a negative 5-10 to Stability, Economy and Loyalty will show that people get afraid due to the foreign pressure, trade gets hurt through...
also something to think about - what is the alignment of the PCs and their kingdom?
I hardly consider that to be a "good" thing or a "lawful" thing - so it may be against the culture and alignment of the kingdom - which could have serious ramifications.
Or it could be an issue w/ the PCs alignment.
Interesting that my players have never tried to employ such tactics in all the high-level games I've run, and adventure paths.
Of course if they were to use and abuse these kinds of things I would not hesitate to put the kibosh on it by making security against it a common thing in the world.
Anecdotally - in one campaign I was running when the PF Beta rules were out - the acid ray ability of a sorcerer or 0 level spell or something was unlimited - and the player was abusing it by letting it be a "passwall" ability - or getting past all locks, doors, portcullises, etc. Long enough time to wear through anything.
After one game of observing this - I declared that since this is such an easily accessed ability that it would be a rampant issue across the world. To mitigate it - special acid-resistant material was invented many years ago by the dwarves and is now the standard building material used for security.
It just makes sense - if there's that big of a need for something - it's going to be invented or at least attempted.
Robert
I have made it standard for castles to be built with lead linings around the important rooms, so people cannot randomly scry on people. But one can only take it so far. How can I justify that an ignorant leader of the barbarian horde procures reliable means to resist scrying?
I have stepped up the opposition by optimizing them as much as the PCs optimize themselves. This is also a huge problem, because I need to be VERY blatant or even meta about it (something I loathe seeing as a player myself). The fighter and cavalier have AC over 40, and next to nothing hits that on these levels. Even level-appropriate dragons need a natural 20 to hit.
I have had a third party observer spread the word that the "benevolent" NG kingdom in the east is using dirty scry&fry tactics and fighting without honor. Now most martially inclined countries treat them with contempt and the DCs to interact with them is higher. This has no real effect for now, as few kingdoms bother to deal with them, but it might be important down the road, when they need to rally others to their aide.
I have countered abuse when I have found it, and it just gets old. They have an income of close to 200bp per turn in the kingdom building, and had I not put my foot down and said "NO!" on the "withdrawal of funds" to get 2000gp per bp (they can effectively get 20000 or so per turn as long as they avoid a 1 on the check), they would likely have all the magical items the downtime would allow them to craft/buy.
*phew*
Silly rant, but there you have it. They are next to invincible as per the rules, and I am getting very very tired.
|
|
Silly rant, but there you have it. They are next to invincible as per the rules, and I am getting very very tired.
hey that's a lot to absorb. Kamelguru - you don't have to have it that way. The game is as much for the GM as it is for the players - in regards to having fun. If you're truly not having fun.....then there's no point. Unless they are paying you to run the game of course.
I have two friends (not just players - but close friends) who enjoy "power gaming" it up - to the nth degree. They enjoy finding the loopholes, breaking systems, making builds that defy logic all for the sake of making themselves gods within the game - much to everyone's chagrin. Usually this happens when I am a player in a game along with them.
I've seen this time and time again.
Here's the history of how that works. We start a game. The DM is a very permissive (which is how I'm picking up you may be similar to), and never said no - allowed all books, all supplements, all third party stuff etc etc etc. These two players abused the leniency, with their characters and tactics etc. The rest of us didn't attempt to do this. The game gets played. We hit 12th level. The characters are now nigh-gods, the game is broken, the DM is not having fun - he's working too hard to challenge everyone - his permissivness is now biting him in the ass (much like permissive parents who let their kids become spoiled brats). Next thing thats happening is - DM declares campaign is over - lets restart - new characters all over again, or decides he's not going to DM for a while (burnt out). So a new DM takes over - rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile - players abound complain that "campaigns never last more than 12 levels!" Including the players I mentioned above.
So when it comes to my campaigns I run, I used the knowledge for how things escalated and got broken, and simply put the foot down from the beginning.
No 3rd party
No splat books
Races, classes, feats, spells etc all must come from the core book.
restrictions etc on wealth during the game
etc etc etc.'
And when I see a rule or loophole being exploited or abused cheesily or whatever, I stomp on it for the greater enjoyment of the game.
Basically - a very controlled atmosphere - especially when compared to the other games. But most of the players prefer not be power gamers.
So my close friend (who likes to power game) comes to me between games and asks me "why?" I'm being so non-permissive? Why am I being so restrictive on things? yada yada.
I said to him: how many times have you complained that games don't last past 12th level? How many times have we been disapointed that we never get to see those upper levels and have our characters reach the pinnacle of their success? Then I explained to him that the REASON every game....EVERY Game we've played falls apart or crumbles is because the characters get too powerful - or at least one or two of them that breaks the system.
I explained that I have no intent on letting the game implode. I want to run a campaign to high levels, and in order to do that - I have to learn from previous mistakes and make fail-safes so that the same DM mistakes aren't made. Bottom line - you can have all you want and have the game crumble in a few months and have to start over, or have moderation and allow the game to one for a long time to really enjoy the character and the game so that everyone can enjoy it for a longer period of time.
That was about 5 years ago.
Since then I ran Shackled City to 18th level
Age of Worms to 18th level
And now I'm running Kingmaker and have no intent to stop before 18th level.
I was the first DM in our peer group to even allow a game to last that long. And you know what, the players are so glad that it went down like that. They were quite pleased that the game was still playable, and enjoyable, and the power was kept in check all the way through. Sure the characters weren't invincible gods - but at least they got to play their characters and see the culmination of the campaigns.
To me it sounds like you don't have a rules problem - you have a player problem. If they're not having fun, or they have a sense of entitlement that you are there for their enjoyment alone - then you're only setting yourself up for failure. But by all means, you don't have to take it, and you don't have to put up with it, if you don't enjoy it.
Now it gets tricky if these are your friends, and you're afraid of upsetting or insulting anyone. And it's hard to have a fail-proof set of advice on how to handle the situation. But I feel you at least need to speak to the players about the fact that you're not enjoying yourself. Perhaps take a break as GM for a while and allow another to run a game. Perhaps when they are without the game, they'll come to miss it and appreciate it more and be willing to compromise to get it back on track. Starting over, with a new campaign is an idea - like Carrion Crown or Serpent Skull. Learn from the mistakes that were made by all, and try to create less power-gamey atmosphere for the next campaign in hopes it will last longer. Then go back and try Kingmaker again. The bottom line, the GM deserves to enjoy himself too. Otherwise, there's no point to it.
As a long time DM myself, I have seen it all and can safely say DM Burn-out is a terrible thing to have to endure and try to make a game happen. It's not worth it.
Feel free to email me off list if you wish for more feedback or help, or sounding board advice etc.
sirkicley(at)yahoo(dot)com
Robert
|
|
I have made it standard for castles to be built with lead linings around the important rooms, so people cannot randomly scry on people. But one can only take it so far. How can I justify that an ignorant leader of the barbarian horde procures reliable means to resist scrying?
Barbarians have shamans. They believe in spirits and supernatural stuff.
Just because our notion of "barbarians" are from real-world vikings, or native american indians etc that would never have a clue on these things.....that doesn't mean that barbarians in a magical world wouldn't know of superstitions of
"...evil magic that sees all your thoughts and fears.....you must protect yourself with circles of protections...." yada yada.
How would ignorant barbarians know of many things - yet they successfully give birth, learned to give c-sections, learned to build tools, weapons, etc etc.
They do this by way of tradional story-telling. The shaman/wise-elder spins tales of embellished folklore and traditions, fables, anecdotes, and moral stories that teach the next generation "why" we do what we do and "how".
On the other hand, if you're wanting to play hardball, if the players are going to cheese it up w/ rule abuse, there's no reason you can't either. From a technical standpoint, in PF or 3rd edition, there are no race/class restrictions. Barbarians are just a class. There's no reason that an Ulfen, Kellid, Shoanti etc couldn't be a wizard or cleric or sorcerer. Just because a culture is "barbaric" doesn't mean that they have to be stupid.
Somewhere along the way - the barbarian tribe could have been visited by their spirit elders, or have a legendary tale of a previous war-chief who was assassinated by evil magic (insert scry/fry tacticts here) and that story has shaped their lives thereafter. So the tribes elders traded their gold to the civilized dwarves for this wonderfully powerful substance....lead. Which protects our war chief while he sleeps. It keeps out the haunting magic and spirits.
I had players once scheme a money/magic item thing once - they proved in math that a ring w/ a permanent "shield" spell (3rd edition rules when Shield was +7 to AC) was only 2000 gp. So they had these ridiculous ACs.
They were suprised the next game when every creature had them. Hey if they're obviously the greatest thing in the world, and that cheap, why would magic crafters make anything else. Everyone wanted them! Like Tickle Me Elmos. Of course they could never sell the ones they liberated from dead creatures....cuz everyone had one - so there was no demand for them.
The players realized soon that it was in fact imbalancing the game to have +7 to AC permanenty for only 2000 gp.
Robert
I have made it standard for castles to be built with lead linings around the important rooms, so people cannot randomly scry on people. But one can only take it so far. How can I justify that an ignorant leader of the barbarian horde procures reliable means to resist scrying?
Barbarians have shamans. They believe in spirits and supernatural stuff.
Just because our notion of "barbarians" are from real-world vikings, or native american indians etc that would never have a clue on these things.....that doesn't mean that barbarians in a magical world wouldn't know of superstitions of
"...evil magic that sees all your thoughts and fears.....you must protect yourself with circles of protections...." yada yada.How would ignorant barbarians know of many things - yet they successfully give birth, learned to give c-sections, learned to build tools, weapons, etc etc.
They do this by way of tradional story-telling. The shaman/wise-elder spins tales of embellished folklore and traditions, fables, anecdotes, and moral stories that teach the next generation "why" we do what we do and "how".
On the other hand, if you're wanting to play hardball, if the players are going to cheese it up w/ rule abuse, there's no reason you can't either. From a technical standpoint, in PF or 3rd edition, there are no race/class restrictions. Barbarians are just a class. There's no reason that an Ulfen, Kellid, Shoanti etc couldn't be a wizard or cleric or sorcerer. Just because a culture is "barbaric" doesn't mean that they have to be stupid.
Somewhere along the way - the barbarian tribe could have been visited by their spirit elders, or have a legendary tale of a previous war-chief who was assassinated by evil magic (insert scry/fry tacticts here) and that story has shaped their lives thereafter. So the tribes elders traded their gold to the civilized dwarves for this wonderfully powerful substance....lead. Which protects our war chief while he sleeps. It keeps out the haunting...
Thanks for the support, first and foremost. I do recognize a few things in what you say, and trying to balance everything while having a stressful life-situation outside game too takes a huge toll.
And yes, you are right. All I need to do is change a single feat for the barbarian leaders, and give them a sorcerer or cleric cohort that has the spells to protect their revered leaders, who indeed are important to them.
I can't believe I have not seen it earlier... the players seem to expect that their followers have MAGICAL PLATE, and when I made a comment that I upgraded the barbarians from ridiculously weak hide armor, they were all "But, but, resources and such b#$+*@#s". They expect to have it all, and that I should follow what makes sense.
One player even went so far as to call it a "cop-out" to say that their walls were made from wood (I assume you know that the Kingmaker campaign takes place next to a huge easily accessible and rather safe forest, and the only place to get wall-quality rock is in a dragon/cyclops/CR10+monster-infested mountain range to the east) when they had a defense score of such and such.
You're right. I should take a break and tell them straight to their faces that I am tired of the meta, the power-game and the abuse. I assume that everyone will realize how bad it is when none of their cities have a single granary (because granaries are not cost-efficient, and thus a 'waste of build points', nevermind that people need them to not starve to death), and that they could effectively take over the world in two or three years time.
|
|
You're right. I should take a break and tell them straight to their faces that I am tired of the meta, the power-game and the abuse. I assume that everyone will realize how bad it is when none of their cities have a single granary (because granaries are not cost-efficient, and thus a 'waste of build points', nevermind that people need them to not starve to death), and that they could effectively take over the world in two or three years time.
If you don't mind me asking - how old are you and the players?
Not that age is always a perfect corellation to maturity level - but it does play a factor.
Knowing this will better help strategize an appropriate response to the players habits and tendencies.
Robert
I have made it standard for castles to be built with lead linings around the important rooms, so people cannot randomly scry on people. But one can only take it so far. How can I justify that an ignorant leader of the barbarian horde procures reliable means to resist scrying?
I have stepped up the opposition by optimizing them as much as the PCs optimize themselves. This is also a huge problem, because I need to be VERY blatant or even meta about it (something I loathe seeing as a player myself). The fighter and cavalier have AC over 40, and next to nothing hits that on these levels. Even level-appropriate dragons need a natural 20 to hit.
I have had a third party observer spread the word that the "benevolent" NG kingdom in the east is using dirty scry&fry tactics and fighting without honor. Now most martially inclined countries treat them with contempt and the DCs to interact with them is higher. This has no real effect for now, as few kingdoms bother to deal with them, but it might be important down the road, when they need to rally others to their aide.
I have countered abuse when I have found it, and it just gets old. They have an income of close to 200bp per turn in the kingdom building, and had I not put my foot down and said "NO!" on the "withdrawal of funds" to get 2000gp per bp (they can effectively get 20000 or so per turn as long as they avoid a 1 on the check), they would likely have all the magical items the downtime would allow them to craft/buy.
*phew*
Silly rant, but there you have it. They are next to invincible as per the rules, and I am getting very very tired.
That sounds pretty similar to some of my older campaigns, when I allowed very high point-buys or let them roll their stats ( normally resulting in near 42 point-buy ( 3.5 system ) results for their stats ) and there were tons of unbalanced splat books from the last edition.
I said it a few times already, I guess, but for this campaign I've prohibited from the start some of the worst possible abuses of the system. I hope it works out as I wish it will.
As for your campaign, shouldn't the opposing kingdoms, including Irovetti, not also have the opportunity for unlimited item crafting and using the BP system as their personal piggy bank? Buff up his and his cohorts equipment as if they had crafted it themselves, with unlimited money and go from there. If needed, curse the stuff so that it isn't usable by anyone else but the original owner.
Your players are actively trying to break the system, so use those broken elements against them.
Two words: earthquake spell.One word: Siege.
It'll only take a couple weeks before all the people behind your 100' thick walls start starving. There's no point attacking the impenetrable fortress when you can just wipe out their food and water sources.
How many casters would it take to either create food and water enough, or grant access to food and water through some other magical means, to render that aspect of a seige almost irrelevant?
Even the concept of seige warfare may not be a good one in a world with so much magic available.
Not sure if this is already factored in but James Jacobs has said that walls Defense Modifiers don't stack across districts (on page 8 of the kingdom building sticky thread)
That does make everything much less ridiculous.... wait a second... how in the nine hells do they even... OK, that's it. I am just gonna take an evening later on and rework EVERYTHING the players have built. This math does not add up even calculating like a waiter and adding your tip and a little extra.
And while I am at it, I might rework everything so their abuse is gone. They have a few metric tons of magic shops that is responsible for almost half their 150+ BP-income per turn, and then add Jason's suggestion for raising the economy DC by 5 for every magical item sold.
Madness needs to end.
|
|
Attrition works well on low levels, but at high levels, warfare is next to pointless. Would there have been an escalation with Gadaffi if the EU/US coalition could scry on him and teleport a strike-team into his bedroom?
In a world in which this is not only possible, but a common strategy, every, and I mean EVERY ruler and other important person with resources and secrets he wants to protect (not to mention the Royal Heinie) will have protections against scrying and/or teleporting. The high priority most intelligent beings place on survival would demand that. General rule is that anything magic can do, magic can prevent, and people with resources almost always have access to magic.I have thought of this, but there is not a single able-bodied spellcaster working for the baddies in part 5. While Jason's original manuscript took this tactic into consideration and made Irovetti immune to scry&fry, none of his generals are. If they are in the field, they can be found and killed outright very quick by the PCs.
Non detection and misdirection are fairly low level spells. Even a 5th level wizard can cast them.
Thanks to the long duration it is not difficult to keep them running constantly even with low level casters.
Sure, non detection is hardly foolproof, but scrying a person that you know only from secondhand accounts is already difficult.
If your player use this tactic a lot give all important persons a ring that cast on the wearer non detection as soon as it is put on the finger.
Even a minimum level (5th) as it would count as "cast on yourself" so the difficulty to bypass the minimum protection will be a Caster level check of 20.
Make it a miscellaneous item (rod of office, headband, whatever) that cast an Extended version at CL 12 and cast it once/day. Cost 17.280 gp. Caster level check to get the guy 27.
Add a second item with Detect scrying (it already last 24 hours, so it can be cast at minimum level). 10.080 gp. The target know when he is successfully scryed.
The cost is not prohibitive and it will create some problem for people using that kind of tactic extensively.
Add rooms with permanent Private sanctum and even Dimensional lock if needed (I am a fan of Delayed teleport, but it don't exist in Pathfinder).
About Gheddafi, in RL he use the equivalent of that kind of defensive tactics.
Several "lairs", most of them with bomb proof refuges and/or within populated areas, so that it is not easy to kill him without harming innocent population.
Constants sweeps by security to find bugs.
Getting late or early to appointments to avoid being in a specific location at a appointed time.
Armed security constantly with him.
And so on.
|
|
One player even went so far as to call it a "cop-out" to say that their walls were made from wood (I assume you know that the Kingmaker campaign takes place next to a huge easily accessible and rather safe forest, and the only place to get wall-quality rock is in a dragon/cyclops/CR10+monster-infested mountain range to the east) when they had a defense score of such and such.
Next time, say they are made by brick and use the same stat of wood but flame resistant.
With a lake near and plenty of wood for the brick ovens they would be the most logical solution for the best buildings. In the D&D world brick have the added bonus that they aren't stone, so no rock to mud, shape stone and so on.
Most city walls in medieval times were a front and a back layer of bricks and stone with the space between the two walls filled with assorted stones with mortar poured over them.
None of the huge stone blocks we usually see depicted in fantasy fortresses.
How many casters would it take to either create food and water enough, or grant access to food and water through some other magical means, to render that aspect of a seige almost irrelevant?Even the concept of seige warfare may not be a good one in a world with so much magic available.
Too many.
A cleric can create food for 3 person * caster level with one spell.Our friendly god of plenty allow them to cast it repeatedly without problem (I don't see most of the local god approving getting food without work, but let's discount that).
A 5th level caster has generally 2 level 3 spell available. he can create food for 30 persons.
A 7th level cleric burning all his 3rd and 4th level spells will create enough food for 105.
A 15th level cleric burning all his spells of level 3 and abovea would create food for 1.125 people.
On average there is one 15th level cleric in a city above 25.000 habitants.
Chain casting Create food you can reduce consumption but not get enough food for a city (and that is without all the animals, 1 horse count as 3 people).
Note that while your 15th level cleric is busy creating food for the city, my attacking 15th level cleric is painting a Symbol of insanity on a shield, piling up all the protection he and his friends can cast on him, and flying over your city.
Anyone that get within 60' of him and see the symbol will have to save vs Will (DC 27 or more)or become permanently insane.
Your cleric without high level spells could do nothing against him.
So burning tons of spells to feed a city in time of war is not a solution.
|
Last November I was working on some fairly extensive revisions and expansions to the mass combat rules to iron out some of the wonkiness and to include rules for things like sieges, training troops, the use of garrisons and barracks, and so on. But, life intruded and I haven't really gotten back to it.
When you get further along, let us know. My group just started RRR, so I've still got time until I can throw armies against them.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
If you want to use magic to feed your populace during a siege, you should go steal some of Absalom's magical Cornucopia thingies.