2) You just fireballed my 10gp Silent Image.
Good, this is the kind of response I want!
Now we have Illusions on the battlefield, meaning every troop has to verified as legitimate before proceeding with the Magic.
I want to get away from the idea that it has to be Fireball. Fear will also destroy an enemy troop (though they get to live to fight another day), as can Summon monster, magic missile (if there are enough of them), stone call, etc. I merely mention Ffireball as the most iconic of low level AoE spells.
Or fog clouding a mass of archers. While melee troops close the distance. One really wierd thing for armies would be the witches healing hex cure as many wounded soldiers as you want.
Call me when you all catch up with the thread I linked.
Also let me know when we get around to discussing siege engines and the like too.
Or fog clouding a mass of archers. While melee troops close the distance. One really wierd thing for armies would be the witches healing hex cure as many wounded soldiers as you want.
That's for the MASH unit, clerics are going to be your combat medics with their channel energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or fog clouding a mass of archers. While melee troops close the distance. One really wierd thing for armies would be the witches healing hex cure as many wounded soldiers as you want.
Actually, better yet would be to make witch training required for everyone in your army.
Imagine how hard it would be to keep people down if every soldier within arms reach could heal everyone around him for 1d6 once per day. This works really well for massed troups. 100 troups x 100 troups = 10,000d6 per day. Even if you only did this for your support people, each commoner trading in one level of commoner for one level of witch and the heal hex... Every cook, every chandler, every blacksmith, all able to walk around going 'zap' all day long.
This is starting to sound like "but I have an invulnurability piercer proof invulnurability shield!"
It does sund that way, doesn't it?
But it's not really. The whole point of the post is to "evolve" warfare for dealing with magic. you have to start somewhere, and until someone comes up with a credible counter to that something (which they have) you have to stick with it. I have never said that wizards are the be all and end all of warfare, but I want to see credible counters to them, and by credible I mean counters that involve about the same level of investment as the scroll of (Fireball,Fear or whatever) and are easy to come by. Otherwise you could say that a 20th level (anything) would wipe the floor with my mage - which is true, but how easy is it to get a 20th level? 1st level mooks on the other hand are easy to come by.
also, your fireball does nothing against a pile of level 2 warriors and a level 1 cleric. Half the warriors pass the save, feed the cleric a potion, and then he channels to heal.
OK, leaving aside the difficulty of getting level 2 warriors, lets look at what happens:
The fireball goes off for 5d6 damage. that's an average of 17.5 damage, enough to reduce second level warriors to dying ubless uness they make their save. Half the warriors save (big assumtion) and take 8.75 damage out of their average 15. Assuming the cleric saves (big assumption too) and then channels, they all get 1d6hp (average 3.5) back, so those who did not save are on 1hp (assuming an average of 15hp) while those who did have taken 5.25 hp damage.
Now, it's the mages initiative again and he fires another fireball...result: 1/4 outright dead, 1/2 dying. 1/4 damaged to the point where they are no longer a credible threat (1 or 2 hp left I think)
or the warriors spread out and take cover. For a +3 total to their save. You will hit 5 or 6 guys, and they wont even go down. Then the cleric heals them.
This would be the solution I would look for. I don't even see the need for a cleric (though if you've got one I won't complain). the fireball is much less effective against troops in skirmish order, especially if they take cover. 375gp kill 20 is good investment. 375gp to kill 5 or 6 is less so...but still worthwhile against certain troops. remember that our archetypal knight costs about the same to equip, and could just as easily miss his first attack against the enemy and be impaled on an enemy lance. All that investment wasted. so 5 or 6 is still good vale for money.
also, towershields stop fireballs, since bursts don't go around cover.
I've seen this suggested in another thread, advocating Testudo formations to provide cover above and on 3 sides. Firstly, it is moving away from our archetypal knight which is what I want to see, but secondly I would reject it as it is still vulnerable to Fear, summon monster (in the rear), slumber/Deep slumber (unless they are Elves) etc. and due to the concentration of men, more would be in the area of affect of these spells than in skirmish order.
So far the most effetive counter to magic is to move to skirmish order to reduce the incidence of AoE spells on troop formations. I'm cool with that. Now we have troops on both sides skirmishing, interspersed with spellcasters casting spells. How would you buld an army that could defeat that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Level 1 NPC classes don't truly represent the warrior nobility of a culture.
Most nobility of the warhorse cultures trained from child-hood for their task and fought well into their 30's. They engaged in tourneys and the like and drilled tirelessly. The skill one would be looking at far exceeds a level 1 or 2. But to assume the level of fielding, equipment, and training of a typical medieval to late renaissance battlefield cavalryman, be it Western knight or Turkish sipahi, you're honestly probably talking about PC classes and a higher level than 2nd, with mounts capable of evading the magical bursts as well as direct-fire attacks(via mounted combat style shifts), and extra tricks and hp for sturdiness and added maneuverability. And when they get to a mounted charge, the damages are probably as good as that fireball.
2. The earlier assumption assumes higher level magic items taking out swaths of people of minion-level skill. Now, if one can assume that item crafters capable of producing area of effect items are out there, so too are shock troops of elite cavalry of equal level.
3. Those actual shmucks are far cheaper, silvers per day of fielding.
Now, talking about the level 1's and level 2's of a battlefield, those conscripts are 1 silver a day of fielding, with probably less than 25 gold in equipment (Longspears, javelins, padded or leather armor), often the responsibility of the peasants to scrape together at least partially. So even if you killed 20 peasants in a fireball perfectly, it may or may not have even equaled the other army in economic damages.
Skilled laborers are 3 silver a day, and mounted mercenary shmucks are a little more, probably 100-150gp(war-train the light horse yourself, lance, javelin, sidearm of some kind).
4. Rock-paper-scissors.
Combined arms are the way to go. 20 peasant shmucks hurling javelins into a mage are still cheaper than that mage. But if that mage burns them alive from open field with no counter-magic available, excellent. If the horses skewer that mage, excellent. If the magi set in stakes or had battlefield barrier spells, great. If circles of magi controlled the weather and rained storms, awesome. If rows of catapults and flaming arrows peppered the battlefield, also great. To say all this, I think ultimate campaign did a wonderful job representing the value of diversity in fantasy warfare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, leaving aside the difficulty of getting level 2 warriors
I can't even take anything seriously when you're making comments like this. Just training would be enough to bring your guys up to level 2. Heck, the down time rules say that you put a level 2 in a squad, and then all the level 1's do Earn XP downtime activity. That's 400xp per day. So, 3 days later they are level 2.
This whole concept of 'Oh, everyone in the world but the PCs is level 1 to 5' simply doesn't fly. I'll give you 18 yo's are probably level 1. But 30yo farmers who've fought off wolves, raiding goblins, etc are not level 1. Nor are the militia guardsmen, and so on. Just go look at the npc books.
mdt the thread is DOA, he's already admitted he doesn't care where things would go, he wants to lead them the way he wants to see them. As such there is nothing to debate over.
He's not interested in how the system develops on its own he's interested in what he wants to see.
mdt the thread is DOA, he's already admitted he doesn't care where things would go, he wants to lead them the way he wants to see them. As such there is nothing to debate over.
He's not interested in how the system develops on its own he's interested in what he wants to see.
Yeah, I'm getting that. :) Time to stop feeding the under-bridge denizens. :)
That's later Mediaeval and largely responsible for the demise of the knight.
No, this technique was well established in the fairly early Medieval period. See, for example, the Battle of Golden Spurs in 1302, when the French knights charged the Flemish pikemen, stalled out, and were wiped out by the rest of the Flemish infantry. This didn't even need crossbowmen. It just needed a cavalry commander who thought as you apparently do -- that the armored knight ruled the battlefield.
What I meant was, the entire mediaeval economic setup was designed to raise, train and equip knights: entire villages existed to support their lord who was raised to war, trained for war and equipped for war. The entire feudal system was based on this.(To be fair, I am talking about western European Mediaeval society).
No. As in, no, that's not what "the entire medieval economic setup" was for.
I'm not arguing against combined arms, but which troop types? How why and where would they be deployed?
In a way that they would win, of course. I put my rock against your scissors, my scissors against your paper, and my paper against your rock. There is no one magic deployment to use that would always win, because both sides would use that deployment. it also depends on the terrain, skill levels, logistical situation, and so on.
And intent of combat -- after all there is a huge difference between a raid, a surgical strike, and a full on invasion. Or the "keep them up all night with randomness and retreating."
When you say knight I think at least a level 7 Fighter.
How about a group of 4 level 6 rangers with good stealth.
How about a group of Ranger3/Magus5 20 point buy
Str18, Con14, Dex14, Int14, Wis12, Cha7
2 Invisibility spells, one to get in and one to get out. Vital strike feat with a composite str4 longbow, make it magical +1 shocking as a swift action used with a single shot put on target with a true strike spell. You are looking at 18.5 points of damage a hit and then you move to behind a tree or other cove to make a stealth check to hide. Make this a strike force of four and you are taking out a target before it know what is happening. Add in max ranks in stealth and -1 to perception check for every 10ft. They could take out a few mages and be on their way,
So far the most effetive counter to magic is to move to skirmish order to reduce the incidence of AoE spells on troop formations. I'm cool with that. Now we have troops on both sides skirmishing, interspersed with spellcasters casting spells. How would you buld an army that could defeat that?
With cavalry. Load up on abjuration spells and run 'em down.
Congratulations, you have just discovered what literally millennia of military practice has confirmed. Cavalry beats infantry, artillery beats cavalry, infantry beats artillery. Rock beats scissors, scissors beat paper, paper beats rock.
Wizards are artillery, as was pointed out upthread. Of course they'll beat massed cavalry units, and the way to beat them is with skirmishers (infantry types). Now you're asking how to beat infantry, and the answer as you already know is with a cavalry charge.
(BTW, you don't want your skirmishers interspersed with spellcasters; you want your spellcasters operating behind a skirmish line to make best use of their range advantage. I don't think there's a single question you've asked on this thread that can't be answered fully with the three words "wizards are artillery.")
I think a great deal also depends on training time/expense of "special units." The rules don't really seem to define it. How long does it take to train a wizard? A cleric? A witch? How much money does it cost?
Just because players can select any class to be their PC doesn't necessarily mean it's cheap or easy for a nation to field a platoon of witches in their army, etc. I imagine not all disciplines are equal, and therefore tactics and counter-tactics would evolve based on the availability of such "magical artillery" units, as well as ranger snipers, druid infiltrators, etc. etc.
And fielding armies of wizards would take a large institution and schooling and take a while to set up. Same with clerics maybe not sure of witches.
The main problems with thought excercises like this is the underlying assumptions, as well as the lack of parameters.
Since we can think up any possible scenario, it is always going to change what the best possible outcome is.
Apart from that, if we accept the flat economy, and availiability of any ressource (other than gold, being the economic value we are trying to limit), I can't think of a solution that is stronger than simply fielding masses of troops.
Let's use peasant, or other untrained hirelings, for 1 sp per day. Let give them lots of free clubs for bashing and throwing.
To counter the fireball scroll, we get 3750 of our peasants. For each extra fireball you are going to cast, we add just as many extra peasants. They are going to suck at their attack rolls, but the sheer number of attacks is going to ensure that any opponent (with less than DR 16) is going to succumb eventually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And fielding armies of wizards would take a large institution and schooling and take a while to set up. Same with clerics maybe not sure of witches.
Fielding a large army of witches may well be impossible (ditto sorcerers). You don't train sorcerers, you hope to find those born with The Gift. Similarly, your ability to find witches hinges on the mysterious patrons' willingness to make them.
To use a biological example,.... I don't know of any way to recruit large numbers of identical quadruplets. Wikipedia suggests there are fewer than 100 sets of all-identical quads world-wide. The pool from which to recruit -- the puddle, really, or perhaps the saucer -- just isn't that deep. Some games, most notably Ars Magica, suggest that the ability even to be a wizard is very rare among the common folk. Of course, PCs are special and you can make as many PC wizards as you like, but it may literally not be possible to pop your average Muggle commoner into Hogwarts and turn him into a wizard.
Similarly, just because you want to become a cleric of Qwertyuiop doesn't mean that the Dread God will accept you and grant you spells. It may be just as rare to be a spell-casting cleric as an identical quad. Depends on your universe.
Armies for centurys have always consisted of a few small elite or powerful troops and a mass of foot soldiers powerful units are either expensive or rare even a mounted knight would cost as much as 20-30 light infantry and there is a lot to be said for sheer weight of numbers look at the Russians in WW 2 the battle of stalingrad all they had at the start of that campaign was man power
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, brief point of order.
It wasn't the cannon that got rid of tightly packed men operating in huge blobs moving over the battlefield.
It was effective battlefield communication. You didn't need to keep everything in giant chunks so you could move it around like a child playing with blocks once you were able to radio in commands, or coordinate with folks down to squad level.
In the high magic world, I see situations where the General stands near the back, protected by some spells to prevent pesky teleporters or the like or by having two or three duplicate general-retinues around. He's probably got a cleric next to him who had Status (yeah its kind of high level, but he's the sodding general) cast on various high placed lieutenants so he can monitor their emotional position and whether they're alive or not. Or alternatively, there's some sort of message/sending web going on to keep everybody in contact.
Illusionists might also put giant glowing markers over given objectives so people know where to go in the hurly-burly of battle.
And regarding the statement about the fireball scroll wizard vs the knight. The knight has a salient advantage over the 1st level wizard. He has a horse, and he has a mouth. If needs be Sir Ehnpee Sea can ride off like a shot to get messages or communications to someone else. The wizard can't really send but one message with his fireball scroll.
And fielding armies of wizards would take a large institution and schooling and take a while to set up. Same with clerics maybe not sure of witches.Fielding a large army of witches may well be impossible (ditto sorcerers). You don't train sorcerers, you hope to find those born with The Gift. Similarly, your ability to find witches hinges on the mysterious patrons' willingness to make them.
To use a biological example,.... I don't know of any way to recruit large numbers of identical quadruplets. Wikipedia suggests there are fewer than 100 sets of all-identical quads world-wide. The pool from which to recruit -- the puddle, really, or perhaps the saucer -- just isn't that deep. Some games, most notably Ars Magica, suggest that the ability even to be a wizard is very rare among the common folk. Of course, PCs are special and you can make as many PC wizards as you like, but it may literally not be possible to pop your average Muggle commoner into Hogwarts and turn him into a wizard.
Similarly, just because you want to become a cleric of Qwertyuiop doesn't mean that the Dread God will accept you and grant you spells. It may be just as rare to be a spell-casting cleric as an identical quad. Depends on your universe.
Very true, but this is entirely subjective and not laid out in the game itself. If we are talking about warfare in a Pathfinder RPG game world, technically, unless the campaign re-writes the rules, all a character (npc or otherwise) needs to do to earn a level of cleric of Qwertyuiop is to worship Qwertyuiop and defeat sufficient challenges to earn the requisite xp. A failing perhaps in the ruleset, but its the rules as writen. So presumably in a world dictated by those rules, someone could knowingly direct his army into certain classes.
Obviously a GM could limit this, but its house rules, the same way its house rules of a GM says no monks in his campaign, or that weapon finesse is automatically gained and need not be taken as a feat.
Elite units might carry banners that create anti-magic fields.
The big battle, though, will probably carry out much like a battle in the 16th century. Only the explosions, flashes, and noise will be from spells rather than cannon and rockets.
The real heart of the battle will be in trying to eliminate the enemy command structure. This is what PCs are for. Scry and fry, flying invisible scouts, assassination...these are far more effective in PF than any parallel in the medieval world.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cannons are still arguably superior to utilizing wizards as field artillery though.
You can crank them out a lot faster, train any yobbo in their operation and they only require big hunks of metal as ammunition (that admittedly you have to lug around with you).
Come to think of it. Wizards would probably end up being used for logistics, communications and support, which provides a reason why wizards generally don't go in for field combat. Its not really impressive when you're being treated as a field radio, forcefield, and counter.
Wizard Lugyajunk: Will I get to show the foe the power of my arcane might?!
King: Stick to the general, counterspell or dispel any dangerous things you can. Maybe drop some wall spells or cloudkill if we need to really disperse a group. And oh yeah, memorize some of those floating disk spells, they'll help with carrying all those damned cannonballs!
Wizard L: Wait, what about my lightning bolts and fireballs! I can blow up entire formations!
King: Yeah, but so can the cannonballs. And they can do it more then a dozen times a day.
Wizard L: I'm going back to my tower.. Stupid King, conquer his entire kingdom with undead, that'll show him..
Elite units might carry banners that create anti-magic fields.
The big battle, though, will probably carry out much like a battle in the 16th century. Only the explosions, flashes, and noise will be from spells rather than cannon and rockets.
The real heart of the battle will be in trying to eliminate the enemy command structure. This is what PCs are for. Scry and fry, flying invisible scouts, assassination...these are far more effective in PF than any parallel in the medieval world.
I think it would look alot more like a modern battlefield then one from the 16th century. Magic isnt artillery, its accurate to 5 feet. A lot more like modern day precision munitions. People walking in block formations are going to get wiped out real fast. And fireballs dont land somewhere near your intented target, they land precisely where the caster meant them to. Ever hear of fireball formation? If you know there are enemy casters about, you spread out. And that really changes the face of warfare to a fire and maneuver sort of thing instead of big clashes of massed troops.
I think it would look alot more like a modern battlefield then one from the 16th century. Magic isnt artillery, its accurate to 5 feet. A lot more like modern day precision munitions. People walking in block formations are going to get wiped out real fast. And fireballs dont land somewhere near your intented target, they land precisely where the caster meant them to. Ever hear of fireball formation? If you know there are enemy casters about, you spread out. And that really changes the face of warfare to a fire and maneuver sort of thing instead of big clashes of massed troops.Elite units might carry banners that create anti-magic fields.
The big battle, though, will probably carry out much like a battle in the 16th century. Only the explosions, flashes, and noise will be from spells rather than cannon and rockets.
The real heart of the battle will be in trying to eliminate the enemy command structure. This is what PCs are for. Scry and fry, flying invisible scouts, assassination...these are far more effective in PF than any parallel in the medieval world.
Many good points. But while cannon were inaccurate at that time they did have a major advantage in ammunition. You can fire cannon non-stop for days on end. In a mass battle, you have mostly low-level casters and those will primarily consist of Adepts (who can't cast fireball).
Even if you had 5 5th level wizards, which would be an incredible concentration of resources, you are looking at 10ish fireballs and then zip. The 15-minute work day isn't a luxury you will have in large battles.
So these wizards will see 50 formations of enemy infantry approaching. How much difference can they really make in the larger battle? How many monsters does a low level wizard kill on a given day of adventure. My guess is that it isn't "a battalion's worth".
Cannons are still arguably superior to utilizing wizards as field artillery though.
You can crank them out a lot faster, train any yobbo in their operation and they only require big hunks of metal as ammunition (that admittedly you have to lug around with you).
Come to think of it. Wizards would probably end up being used for logistics, communications and support, which provides a reason why wizards generally don't go in for field combat. Its not really impressive when you're being treated as a field radio, forcefield, and counter.
Wizard Lugyajunk: Will I get to show the foe the power of my arcane might?!
King: Stick to the general, counterspell or dispel any dangerous things you can. Maybe drop some wall spells or cloudkill if we need to really disperse a group. And oh yeah, memorize some of those floating disk spells, they'll help with carrying all those damned cannonballs!
Wizard L: Wait, what about my lightning bolts and fireballs! I can blow up entire formations!
King: Yeah, but so can the cannonballs. And they can do it more then a dozen times a day.
Wizard L: I'm going back to my tower.. Stupid King, conquer his entire kingdom with undead, that'll show him..
They arent superior, its just a matter of an arms race. 1 cannon is not superior to 1 wizard. The same way 1 soldier is not superior to 1 Modern Battle Tank. It would be about the balance of forces vs the cost, and utilization. Maybe you have 200 cannons, and 10 wizards for hot spots.
Either way, as you say the personalities and specialties of the individual wizards would matter also. And given the diversity of people, there would be diversity among wizards and such as well. Some how I'd imagine sorcerors making up the artillery, and wizards being logistics and control, but again it would depend on resources.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its cheaper and easier to field them they're superior.
Putting bayonets on the end of every rifle is a better solution given realities of logistics then giving every warrior a masterwork sword if the swords cost 310gp and the bayonets 5gp.
Generally, the trick with wizard is typically the training. Also the replacement.
Spellcaster class types are sort of like fighter pilots. They're damn useful an improve your force multipliers, but if you start losing them, their replenishment is tricky. The fighters/warriors come from your rank and file populace generally. Your wizards come from study. Your sorcerors come from luck of birth.
The 2nd level expert managing the cannon, with his nifty Siege Engineer feat taking away his -4 ranged modifier probably only requires a few days to weeks of training on how to avoid having his artillery piece overheat or explode, or how to aim the thing. Meaning if he takes a crossbow bolt, or enervation ray, or is eaten by rabid fiendish kudzu he can be replaced. Also cannons can be captured and repurposed. Enemy spellcasters can't (unless you raise them, or get their spellbooks, but if they're 1st level its not worth the trouble on either account).
The mage academy probably also isn't going to want to feed its first level apprentices into the meatgrinder. Particularly as in day long engagements they'd turn into overglorified inferior crossbow men after the first twenty minutes of fling magic missiles hither and yon.
If its cheaper and easier to field them they're superior.
Putting bayonets on the end of every rifle is a better solution given realities of logistics then giving every warrior a masterwork sword if the swords cost 310gp and the bayonets 5gp.
Generally, the trick with wizard is typically the training. Also the replacement.
Spellcaster class types are sort of like fighter pilots. They're damn useful an improve your force multipliers, but if you start losing them, their replenishment is tricky. The fighters/warriors come from your rank and file populace generally. Your wizards come from study. Your sorcerors come from luck of birth.
The 2nd level expert managing the cannon, with his nifty Siege Engineer feat taking away his -4 ranged modifier probably only requires a few days to weeks of training on how to avoid having his artillery piece overheat or explode, or how to aim the thing. Meaning if he takes a crossbow bolt, or enervation ray, or is eaten by rabid fiendish kudzu he can be replaced. Also cannons can be captured and repurposed. Enemy spellcasters can't (unless you raise them, or get their spellbooks, but if they're 1st level its not worth the trouble on either account).
This is true in actual life as well. F-22s are friggan expensive, difficult to produce etc. But we still have them. We still use them as fighter gets. The nations with the resources to equip all their soldiers with MW swords, and back them up with evokers and conjurers will do so. Others will do what they can. The same way in the modern world, the US army has stealth bombers, Apache Gunships, Fighter gets and battle tanks, even though everything you are saying is true of those things. Sure 2,000,000 marines might be able to do the job on their own. The US armed forces choose to field 10,000 marines 50 jets, 50 bombers, 300 tanks, and 30 helicopters instead (numbers are arbitray and just for effect, I have no idea of the numerical makeup of a US Marien Battalion).
The mage academy probably also isn't going to want to feed its first level apprentices into the meatgrinder. Particularly as in day long engagements they'd turn into overglorified inferior crossbow men after the first twenty minutes of fling magic missiles hither and yon.
The entirely depends on the setting. If the mage academy if government or even military, it damn well might. Its all about resources and the ability to field those resources. Modern superpowers have TONS of resources, so they choose to divert them to the elite machines of war and the highly trained talented people to run them. AND they risk them in war alongside many more ground troops. So no, I dont think fantasy armies would choose not to employ evokers were 1000 crossbowmen might due. I think they would try to do as much of both as they had the resources to manage.
|
|
Ah, we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm not saying wizards won't be used as a combined arms force, but I am arguing they probably wouldn't be used as tip of the spear, and that artillery jobs are better handled by trebuchets, ballista, scorpions and the like as opposed to having an archmage stand by flying fireballs when he could make a bigger impact by providing shields, creating walls, neutralizing cloudkills, or providing battlefield coordination.
I guess I view wizards fulfilling more of a battlefield engineering role then fire support role or to use an aircraft example, I view Wizards more as C5 Galaxies and AWACs and even the occasional A-C130 Spooky then as tanks, or artillery pieces, or front line fighters.
Ah, we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm not saying wizards won't be used as a combined arms force, but I am arguing they probably wouldn't be used as tip of the spear, and that artillery jobs are better handled by trebuchets, ballista, scorpions and the like as opposed to having an archmage stand by flying fireballs when he could make a bigger impact by providing shields, creating walls, neutralizing cloudkills, or providing battlefield coordination.
I guess I view wizards fulfilling more of a battlefield engineering role then fire support role or to use an aircraft example, I view Wizards more as C5 Galaxies and AWACs and even the occasional A-C130 Spooky then as tanks, or artillery pieces, or front line fighters.
And I am saying they can fill any of those roles and that an army with sufficient resources would employ them in all of those roles, the same way modern armies of powerful nations employ advanced tech to bombers, fighters, gunships etc even though they could theoretically make due with just artillery pieces. It will depend entirely on the available resources. Even if some forces want to use wizards for other purpose, SOMEONE is gonna have wizards or sorcerors or fire clerics chucking fireballs and flamestrikes. And as soon as one army does it, they all will, and try to find ways to protecting their armies from them. There is just no way that a tool as effective as offensive magic wouldnt be used by armies if they had the option.
Personally, I dislike the idea that people in-world would (or could) be cognizant enough of game mechanics to make things like "investing in troops with evasion" possible.
That said, in the spirit of being helpful:
You have to temper your desire for realism with careful consideration of how much you want to change the traditional high fantasy world. For example, I'm no military scholar, but even I know that the advent of flight was a game-changer. Building a castle is a massive expenditure, spanning decades or even generations. In a world with flight, where the strategic value of such a fortification is greatly reduced, it may well be the case that no one ever bothered to build any -- ever. The point is that if you go too far down this road, you could easily find yourself with something that doesn't look anything like the typical fantasy setting. Which is fine, as long as you (and your players) know what you're getting into. :)
Personally, I dislike the idea that people in-world would (or could) be cognizant enough of game mechanics to make things like "investing in troops with evasion" possible.
Proprioception/Kinesthesic Awareness
If we can self identify a sense that most people don't even think about having, and figure out how to train it, how could people not recognize 'evasion' (which monks, rogues, barbarians, and a lot of archtypes) get and train for it? "Oh, hey look, all those monks seem to always come through the fireballs a lot better than the sorcerers do, let's figure out why!".
If we can self identify a sense that most people don't even think about having, and figure out how to train it, how could people not recognize 'evasion' (which monks, rogues, barbarians, and a lot of archtypes) get and train for it? "Oh, hey look, all those monks seem to always come through the fireballs a lot better than the sorcerers do, let's figure out why!".
Because people don't have their class tattooed on their forehead? Because like classes aren't bunched into convenient groups, getting fire balled repeatedly in controlled circumstances? Because even if they were, hit points don't necessarily translate directly into readily quantifiable physical injury?
Play your game the way you like, but please don't characterize my way of playing as ignoring the obvious.
If it were me and I had my own kingdom I'd invest in intelligence. I'd know what my enemy's capabilities are. If they had casters I'd counter their caster with my own. I'd use scrolls of dispell magic to counter scrolls of fireball for example. Next I'd use tactics to mitigate the effects of fireballs and such. Tactics to combat magic would have developed just as how tactics of war developed in the real world to take in the effect of guns, heavy artillery, missile and other offensive weapons.
This why mass combat is an abstract thing. You can add a spell caster unit to your army or spell breaker tactic to counter spell caster. Spell caster add the highest level spell they can cast to the armies OV, spell breakers add 4 to their DV. So it's assumed tactics are involved in dealing with magic a battle between armies.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalry beats infantry, artillery beats cavalry, infantry beats artillery.
Just a quibble--albeit an important one to any knight who's died on the end of a pike--but this isn't correct.
Well-trained and properly equipped heavy infantry can withstand a shock cavalry charge. This has been true even since Roman times. They cannot, however, withstand light cavalry (highly mobile horse archer types). Parthian horse archers beat the Roman legions this way; horse pistoleers beat pike squares this way.
Cavalry, in fact, is much better at beating artillery (and archers). Arty is powerful but mostly stationary; cav can close on it and destroy it unless the arty is in a defensive emplacement (like behind a castle wall, or archers behind thick mud and sharp stakes a la Agincourt, etc.). Cav moves in a looser formation and gets through the "beaten zone" more quickly, so it will also take fewer casualties from arty fire.
That artillery will, however, pound the bejeezus out of massed infantry advancing over open terrain.
Check out a book called The Art of War in the Western World by Archer Jones. It gives a really good explanation of how the rock-paper-scissors dynamic of combined arms changed throughout history.
Also put me in the camp of those who say that any knight who's wearing and riding 3k gp worth of armor and horse is probably not a 1st level warrior. Probably more like a 5th level fighter or cavalier. He's not going to come through it unscathed, but he is definitely going to survive a fireball and keep charging to deliver lancey pointy pain.
If we can self identify a sense that most people don't even think about having, and figure out how to train it, how could people not recognize 'evasion' (which monks, rogues, barbarians, and a lot of archtypes) get and train for it? "Oh, hey look, all those monks seem to always come through the fireballs a lot better than the sorcerers do, let's figure out why!".Because people don't have their class tattooed on their forehead? Because like classes aren't bunched into convenient groups, getting fire balled repeatedly in controlled circumstances? Because even if they were, hit points don't necessarily translate directly into readily quantifiable physical injury?
Play your game the way you like, but please don't characterize my way of playing as ignoring the obvious.
We absolutely do know our own classes.
Computer Programmer, Soldier, Pilot, Fighter Pilot (prestige class + Pilot), Marine Force Recon (Prestige Class + Soldier)
Want to know what your class is? Look at your resume. It's like your own little character sheet.
What do I know about Programmers? They are good at coding. They are good with electronics. What do I know about pilots. They know how to fly planes. Fighter pilots can fly combat jets, they have training in air to ground and air to air weapons. Marine Force Recon has survival training, weapons training, stealth training, navigation training, parachute training.
Your argument basically comes down to arguing that everyone has random skill sets and nobody knows what anyone can do and we just all hope our random skill set works when we run around in the world. Uhm, no, it don't work like that. If you train as a base class ranger, you train as a base class ranger. You get skills and abilities that you trained for, or supernatural abilities that you are granted, and if you teach someone else to be a base class ranger [i]he will consistently get those same exact abilities, every time[i].
Your argument basically comes down to arguing that everyone has random skill sets and nobody knows what anyone can do and we just all hope our random skill set works when we run around in the world.
Except I didn't say that. But in case you're keeping score, feel free to chalk up another straw dragon. :)
Your argument basically comes down to arguing that everyone has random skill sets and nobody knows what anyone can do and we just all hope our random skill set works when we run around in the world.Except I didn't say that. But in case you're keeping score, feel free to chalk up another straw dragon. :)
Sure, so that gives you what, 3 that you put up, and 3 that got burned down? :)
Sure, so that gives you what, 3 that you put up, and 3 that got burned down? :)
You win.
Can we go back to the topic now?
I don't think there's a single question you've asked on this thread that can't be answered fully with the three words "wizards are artillery."
(Snip)
So...when was the last time your artillery teleported across the battlefield? when did it cast illusions of attacking troops as false targets? when did it use True strike to make most of your arrows/bolts hit at extreme ranges? when did it last cast obscouring mist to hide from enemy bowmen? when did it go invisible to evade the enemy or get into range?
Spellcasteers are many things, and they can fulfil the role of artillery, but
btw guys there are lots of good responses here, I can't possibly respond to them all, just keep them coming!
Dot - I'll come back later...
In the great war of fireball Armageddon, 100 scrolls of fireball were used. They were placed into the hands of 1st level wizards and sorcerers to use for the Imperial artillery.
Of these 100, 20 were not successful at first attempt to activate, and 5 of those 20 were extremely unsuccessful (probability would predict 4 such backfires, but one of the five was in fact treason covered by plausible deniability). The backfire rule being used was that the spell went off, but the opposition got to determine where it was directed. Coupled with the use of enchantment spells and the like on the battlefield, this great confusion resulted in the imperial artillery deciding to use wands in the next war.
Okay, I've been thinking about the question of wands vs. scrolls all day. Wands are expensive, but don't have scroll mishaps associtesd with them. A wand of fireball costs 11,500gp. I can get 30 scrolls for that price.
Now let's assume that the two armies of skirmish order infantry are charging towards each other. at 600' apart, the fireballs begin. IIRC a lightly armoured person can run 120' in a round. With both sides runniuing, they are 240' closer (360' apart} at the end of round 1, 80' apart at the end of round 2 and meet on round 3. Once they meet you can't fire fireballs without hitting your own side (and it's often confusing as to whose side someone is on anyway. At some point we will have to discuss battle standards, their role and the effect magic has on them). So in effect you get 2 rounds of fireballs before they meet.
Now, it doesn't matter how many spellcasters you got, that wand can only be used by 1 guy for 2 fireballs (3 if he's lucky and there are slower troops/ bad terrain to cross/ stragglers or whatever). That kills 10 of the enemy.
30 scrolls however, given to 15 level 1 spellcasters can all go off. a dc6 caster level check needs to be made (not sure what that means, but I think you roll and add your level, with 1 always a misfire). You would need to roll a 5 or higher (I think) to succeed, so 4/20 (or 1/5) fail. That's 6 scroll mishaps. Even if they all go on your own troops, thats 24 on the enemy or 120 dead at a cost of 30 of your own guys. That's an acceptable loss.
So, you keep your wands, I'll keep my scrolls. We'll see who wins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, so that gives you what, 3 that you put up, and 3 that got burned down? :)You win.
Can we go back to the topic now?
Sure,
My biggest concern with the system has always been "What makes someone eligable for PC classes, and what doesn't"? Because, let's look at it, if you were a kingdom, you'd never train Warriors, Adepts, or Experts for your fighting forces, your intelligence forces, or even your support forces. In all measurable ways, the PC classes are vastly superior.And it can't be 'THE PCS ARE ADVENTURERS' because too many of the classes and archetypes are dedicated to people in the military. The system doesn't give any good reason why most of the standing army wouldn't be PC classes. Nor why the militia wouldn't train Fighter levels rather than Warrior. The only people who should be getting the NPC classes are people who are basically self taught. Your wilderness bandits, your farmers (experts), your self-created cults (adepts). No church should reasonably be training adepts, a cleric or inquisitor or paladin is worth 10 adepts after a few levels. Even at level 1 they're worth 2 or 3.
My biggest concern with the system has always been "What makes someone eligable for PC classes, and what doesn't"? Because, let's look at it, if you were a kingdom, you'd never train Warriors, Adepts, or Experts for your fighting forces, your intelligence forces, or even your support forces. In all measurable ways, the PC classes are vastly superior.
And it can't be 'THE PCS ARE ADVENTURERS' because too many of the classes and archetypes are dedicated to people in the military. The system doesn't give any good reason why most of the standing army wouldn't be PC classes. Nor why the militia wouldn't train Fighter levels rather than Warrior. The only people who should be getting the NPC classes are people who are basically self taught. Your wilderness bandits, your farmers (experts), your self-created cults (adepts). No church should reasonably be training adepts, a cleric or inquisitor or paladin is worth 10 adepts after a few levels. Even at level 1 they're worth 2 or 3.
I've always viewed it as essentially a question of plot importance -- important characters (everyone run by a player, plus key NPCs) get PC classes, background characters get NPC classes (like Wild Cards in Savage Worlds). But that's probably what you mean by "THE PCS ARE ADVENTURERS," so I doubt you will find that answer satisfying.
OK, here's another issue. Is True strike worth it?
Let's compare troops: a spellcaster armed with a composite longbow and a wand of True strike costs 850gp (let's assume he got the proficiency somewhere; either he is an elf or he burns a feat to get it or something). 20 of them will cost 17,000gp
For that price I could outfit 170 bowmen with a composite longbow. So let's compare these 2 troops against our lightly armoured skirmishers.
Let's give our targets the best possible armour - a chain shirt, and let's say they have a generous dex of 14, but no shield. So, AC 16.
at extreme range (1100'), the ordinary bowmen get a grand total of -14 to their attacks (+1BAB, +3Dex, -18Range). That means they only hit on a natural 20. That's a 1/20 chance of hitting or an average 8.5 hits.
our spellcasters get +0BAB, +3Dex, -18Range but they also get +20 for True strike. net bonus: +5. That means they need to roll 11 or more to hit, or 50%. That's 10 hits.
the next round, the enemy has run into the next range bracket. Our normal bowmen get a total of -12, so still need a 20 to hit, another 8.5 hits.
our spellcasters are now at a bonus of +7 for a hit on a 9 or more or 60% hit rate. That's 12 hits.
On the third round, bowmen get -10 and still ned a natural 20 so another 8.5 hits. Spellcasters have a 70% hit rate and get 14 hits.
on the 4th round: -8 and +11 for 8.5 and 16 hits.
On the fifth round the enemy troops meet your own side and a melee forms. let's say the bowmen have precise shot, the spellcasters do not.
The bowmen are at -8 for 8.5 hits. The spellcasters are at +9 for 14 hits. This will continue until the battle ends.
As you can see, the spellcasters outperform the bowmen for the same price. A worthwhile investment. The bowmen are only worth having if they move forward into a better range bracket (let's see...the spellcasters can get a max of 19 hits, to outpeform that 170 would need to get approx. 15% hit rate or 3/20. against AC16 that's -2AB or Higher. that's 4 range brackets or 331'-440' feet away) but at that range they are vulnerable to fireball...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure,
My biggest concern with the system has always been "What makes someone eligable for PC classes, and what doesn't"?
According to the guidelines on creating NPCs in the PRD, a character in a standard (i.e., not a "low-magic" or "gritty") fantasy setting may take a PC class as their first class level if their stats are equivalent to a fifteen point-buy or better. Typically this means NPCs with PC classes will be built on the Elite Array. NPCs with the Standard Array, however, take NPC classes as their first class levels, and tend to live lives inconducive to gaining a PC class even after they level up. If a character starts his career as a Commoner,just as you say he's not all that likely to get the training to be anything else even if he levels up.
Once a Commoner 3, say, is conscripted, a commander in need of some really good troops might take a few weeks and retrain him and others like him (that is, fairly tough, gritty, experienced people) in the skills needed to replace those Commoner levels with something else per Ultimate Campaign. Or he might not; also per Ultimate Campaign, an army of Fighter 3s isn't that much more effective than an equally-large army of Commoner 3s, and the extra time the Commoner army spent fighting, gaining Morale and Tactics, might be more valuable than the time spent retraining into Fighters.
My biggest concern with the system has always been "What makes someone eligable for PC classes, and what doesn't"? Because, let's look at it, if you were a kingdom, you'd never train Warriors, Adepts, or Experts for your fighting forces, your intelligence forces, or even your support forces. In all measurable ways, the PC classes are vastly superior.
Well, the quick answer is that you don't train people to be NPC classes (except possibly for experts, who are actually quite useful). NPC class happens if you don't have the talent and aptitude for a PC class.
The system doesn't give any good reason why most of the standing army wouldn't be PC classes.
Most of the army doesn't stand. The first "standing army" in post-Roman Europe wasn't until the 15th century, and it wasn't until the 17th century that Britain got one. England, the country, never had a standing army in its entire history.
Standing armies are expensive. Standing armies are politically dangerous, because they have a tendency to obey their commanders over the civilian government. Unless you're actively at war, you don't want an army around.
... which means when you do want an army around, you need to rely on mercenaries and/or millitia.
OK, here's how I see a perfect battle on a perfect battlefield shaping up (of course there's no such thing so at some point we will have to discuss terrain and how it affects troop make-up)
two armies line up on ridges 1500' feet apart (I picked that distance as an arbitrary amount a bit larger than the furthest range of the best missile weapons). between them lies a perfectly flat plain. The light troops begin to advance towards each ither across the plain.
When they get to 1200' feet away, crossbowmen begin to fire at them, largely inneffectually.
at 1100' spellcaster bowmen begin a steady drain on their numbers which continues into melee. In an attempt to prevent casualties, enemy spellcasters amongst the advancing troops respond with illusory troops and obscuring mist spells.
When the troops are 600' apart, spellcasters on both sides open up with scrolls of fireball and stone call, tearing gaping holes in enemy ranks, but also hitting the occasional silent image or being obscured by obcuring mist.
and then the melee begins. What arms/armour should our would be skirmishers wear? Two handed weapons? reach weapons? sword and board? Two weapon fighting?
remember, at this point, a well drilled group could theoretically form into close ranks, it is debateable as to whether or not they would be the target of a fireball (ultimately it depends on how many of your own side would be caught in the blast and whether or not that constitutes acceptable losses).
Have I missed anything?
Standing Army, in this case, would be all your knights and squires and soldiers who are out riding the borders, hunting down bandits, and such. Most countries had a standing army, they just didn't call them that. They called them bailiffs and sheriffs and wardens and all those other people who basically kept people from poaching, from stealing, city guards, town guards, etc. Again, all those people should be trained in PC classes, because it makes no sense to train them in NPC classes.
The argument about the skills is fine for why someone with poor stats would be in those, but that would be the people who can't actually get a job as a city guard or forest warden or body guard.
Also note that while countries didn't usually have standing armies, there were always 'the King's men' who were usually two or three times the size of the largest Baron's force. And the various barons and such had men at arms to guard their land against thieves and cut throats (really it was to keep the next baron over from taking a choice field).
Again, all those men (thousands for a big country) should be PC classes. Now, there's nothing in the game rules about it being faster to train a warrior than a fighter, nor an expert over a rogue.
I agree that it might be a problem if the next country over sneak attacked you, and you don't have time to train people out of being warriors (village peacekeeper) and commoners (farm hands) and into fighters and cavaliers and such, but, other than utterly failing your keeping track of your enemies movements, you should have a good 6 to 12 months warning your neighbor is gearing up and allowing you to gear up.
And yes, considering a warrior 1 get's 1 feat, and a fighter 1 get's 2 feats, that's a big bonus. And a rogue with 1d6 sneak attack vs an expert (plus bonus skill points) is much better.