While it will be very hard to forcefully recruit clerics into the army en masse, a king can probably get some aid from the dominant church(es) in exchange for something else, depending on the church in question. Some clerics might be willing to join the king just to spread the word of their faith (both to the soldiers of the army and to the opposing heathens).
Agreed. Clerics shouldn't be hard to bring on board, seeing that there are clerics of warfare, destruction, healing, good/evil, etc. There's always a cause.
Besides, if there is one thing we have learned from playing cleric PCs all these years is that clerics are just as mercenary as anyone else.
... Not everyone is either an amoral mercenary willing to fight for any cause ever...
Just the PC's. :-)
I'd actually argue that as education improves, you see more experts then commoners.
And even if we assume the classes are something voluntary, I'd much rather be an expert then a wizard.
Thats a discussion for another day.
Good point.
If you want to use Golarion, we can, but I don't run in the world, so all I can go by is what I've encountered in Jade Regent.
No spoilers, but I will note that there always seems to be people we can find to cast spells when we need them (up to 3rd level) in sandpoint, and even higher but we haven't had to.
Magnimar is, as far as I can tell, absolutely filthy with divine magic. It's got thousands of cults, each with it's own clergy, plus most of the major gods. That's a ton of magic for a world that has 'almost no magic'. We run into NPCs that are higher level than we are (granted we're 1st), but most of them could have done the jobs we've done so far (heck, the Innkeeper and the Town Sheriff could have solo'd everything we did).
I just don't get this idea that everyone is 1st level, because the NPC codex's, and the NPCs we encounter sure aren't.
Anyway, done. I can't debate house rules or specific settings when I either am not the author of the house rules, or don't know the specific setting. I can only debate the published rules, which assume high magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it will be very hard to forcefully recruit clerics into the army en masse, a king can probably get some aid from the dominant church(es) in exchange for something else, depending on the church in question. Some clerics might be willing to join the king just to spread the word of their faith (both to the soldiers of the army and to the opposing heathens).
Agreed. Clerics shouldn't be hard to bring on board, seeing that there are clerics of warfare, destruction, healing, good/evil, etc. There's always a cause.Besides, if there is one thing we have learned from playing cleric PCs all these years is that clerics are just as mercenary as anyone else.
I posited that churches and kingdoms with similar mindsets would naturally form with each other, and that any kingdom would have clerics, and clerics would have kingdoms, to back them up in war.
I was informed that was an idiotic assumption because gods won't let their clerics fight in a war. *shrug*
Gods have great big egos and their own ethics and politics and you're proposing that a king can impress clerics into his army. Almost no gods will put up with that any more than a king would put up with a common extortionist blackmailing his personal armsmen into doing his leg breaking. Secular authorities aren't in the clerical chain of command except possibly with regional or racial deities and gods outrank kings by the same sort of margin that a king outranks a commoner.
A king cannot engage in foreign policy independent of the dominant church in his realm unless his military is independent of divine casters.
Gods probably don't care about some minor brush war (except the gods of war, lol) and if it is a major war, the god's probably caused it. If a king is considering a war against his neighbour, he is going to take the likely objections of the realms major faith into account. You don't see Andoran preparing for the invasion of a Good nation because it is against the principles of their leaders and their faith. You do see them preparing for war against Cheliax because they believe it is right to do so (both their leaders and their faith). Here is an Epic struggle sparked off by the gods (or devils, in the case of Cheliax). Far from avoidng this war, religion is right at the heart of it. There have been numerous wars throughout history (both Earth's and Golarion's) where religion was a major factor. Far from acting as a peacekeeping movement, the gods are a continual source of friction.
No-one is suggesting that a King engages in foreign policy independent of the dominant church; since he is most likely a member of that church it seems unlikely that he would even consider something that is opposed to the views of that church. While he might consider something they aren't happy with for secular reasons, if the church steps in and register a formal objection he would most likely stop. But this is a rare occasion, not a common occurence.
|
Consider how long it took and how much blood was spilt to get the Catholic Church out of its dominant political position in Europe. And the Pope couldn't summon angels to punish secular rulers who seized monasteries or other church lands.But they can't summon angels to punish people, that would be going to war with the kingdom. And gods do not tolerate war. Ergo, the church can't do anything military or militant to the King. Therefore, they are driven out.
All that time it took to get the Catholic Church out of it's dominant position was due to the Church being very active in combat and militant, willing to turn the people against the kings and kill kings.
Pacifists tend to get railroaded out on a horse rather easily.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Not everyone is either an amoral mercenary willing to fight for any cause ever or a complete pacifist. There are people who opposed intervention in the French Indochinese War who supported intervention in the Kosovo War (most obviously Bill Clinton). It is entirely possible to believe one war should be opposed while believing that another war should be supported. Indeed, for most wars believing one side should be supported means believing the other should be opposed.
Gods have great big egos and their own ethics and politics and you're proposing that a king can impress clerics into his army. Almost no gods will put up with that any more than a king would put up with a common extortionist blackmailing his personal armsmen into doing his leg breaking. Secular authorities aren't in the clerical chain of command except possibly with regional or racial deities and gods outrank kings by the same sort of margin that a king outranks a commoner.
A king cannot engage in foreign policy independent of the dominant church in his realm unless his military is independent of divine casters.
Unless the King is also the head of the Church, as was the case in England and Russia and/or the King rules by Divine Right. If such is the case, the clergy directly opposing the ruler may be cause for excommunication as well as treason. If the King is truly favored by the particular deity, and not simply claiming divine mandate, the cleric may very well lose his powers for opposing that particular god's chosen ruler on earth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are historical examples of churches cheering on wars (e.g., the First Crusade, or the Muslim jihads, or Japanese state Shinto in the 1930s), as well as of religions slowing them down (e.g.,the Byzabtine reluctance to war on the Bulgurs after they converted to Othodox Christianity, or the Truce of God in medieval France, or some modern anti-war movements), as well as of states submitting war questions to the judgment of a religion (e.g., the Romans asking the priests of Mars to judge the legitimacy of a war before starting it, or Henry I of England asking the Pope's sanction for his invasion of Ireland).
So you have a wide range of historical examples to support whichever story you're trying to tell. You may even have different churches being of different opinions about a particular war, which gives the GM a great tool for drama, employers, support, and so on.
|
|
There are historical examples of churches cheering on wars (e.g., the First Crusade, or the Muslim jihads, or Japanese state Shinto in the 1930s), as well as of religions slowing them down (e.g.,the Byzabtine reluctance to war on the Bulgurs after they converted to Othodox Christianity, or the Truce of God in medieval France, or some modern anti-war movements), as well as of states submitting war questions to the judgment of a religion (e.g., the Romans asking the priests of Mars to judge the legitimacy of a war before starting it, or Henry I of England asking the Pope's sanction for his invasion of Ireland).
So you have a wide range of historical examples to support whichever story you're trying to tell. You may even have different churches being of different opinions about a particular war, which gives the GM a great tool for drama, employers, support, and so on.
This is especially true if the particular kingdom in question is religiously pluralistic. You may have one Church cheering the country on to war, while other churches staunchly oppose aggression (much like today). This gets especially complicated in cases where the deities are typically on the same side, such as Iomedae and Torag versus Sarenrae and Shelyn.
Doooooooooooting. Why are there so many cool discussions 'round here. Want to read them aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll...
I think armies would desire Clerics over Wizards. Clerics that can heal your troops would save countless soldier's lives - in some cases within minutes they're back on the main line. Wizards don't really become relevant in mass combat until they can cast Fireball; supplying them with expensive scrolls and wands of Fireball is cost prohibitive. Wand of Fireball or 100 guys in Scale+Shield with Spear and Shortbow?
Even then, a 5D6 Fireball is overrated. Sure, it'll probably kill 1st level Warriors (though an average 1st level melee NPC has CON 12 and 1D10+1 hit points, so the average 17-18hp Fireball isn't necessarily lethal), and then the retaliation begins and your squishy Wizard dies to massed archery (or counter-fireball, or one good 5th level Ranger with a Longbow).
High level Wizards are another story, but you won't get much of them, even if you mass produce Wizards. Only so many of them survive the meatgrinder to gaining levels. If you mass produce Clerics, though, you get a lot of guys that are very useful right from 1st level.
I think armies would desire Clerics over Wizards. Clerics that can heal your troops would save countless soldier's lives - in some cases within minutes they're back on the main line. Wizards don't really become relevant in mass combat until they can cast Fireball; supplying them with expensive scrolls and wands of Fireball is cost prohibitive. Wand of Fireball or 100 guys in Scale+Shield with Spear and Shortbow?
Even then, a 5D6 Fireball is overrated. Sure, it'll probably kill 1st level Warriors (though an average 1st level melee NPC has CON 12 and 1D10+1 hit points, so the average 17-18hp Fireball isn't necessarily lethal), and then the retaliation begins and your squishy Wizard dies to massed archery (or counter-fireball, or one good 5th level Ranger with a Longbow).
High level Wizards are another story, but you won't get much of them, even if you mass produce Wizards. Only so many of them survive the meatgrinder to gaining levels. If you mass produce Clerics, though, you get a lot of guys that are very useful right from 1st level.
Mass produce bards. Bards for every unit. Force multipliers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even then, a 5D6 Fireball is overrated. Sure, it'll probably kill 1st level Warriors (though an average 1st level melee NPC has CON 12 and 1D10+1 hit points, so the average 17-18hp Fireball isn't necessarily lethal), and then the retaliation begins and your squishy Wizard dies to massed archery (or counter-fireball, or one good 5th level Ranger with a Longbow).
It's just not big enough to be an serve the kind of massive destruction purpose people imagine unless employed against a type of very close order formation that would be under pressure to vanish from the fantasy battlefield anyway for numerous additional reasons. I'm still not sure everybody posting about fireball realizes how small a 20' radius is on the scale of a battlefield (rather than, say, on the scale of a dungeon room).
Just for kicks, good area battlefield spells would be more like Entangle (and since the original topic of the thread is economics of war: for a scroll of entangle, you get 4x the area of fireball scroll for 1/15 of the cost, effective for 10x the number of rounds)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, Coriat. Spells I think will be employed often in battle would be three types of things: Support spells (mainly for out of combat use), buffs/healing, and battlefield control. All these are useful as CL1 level 0 and 1 spells, which means they can effectively be used by low-level casters without being that expensive, and scrolls are usable by anyone with even basic UMD.
- Mending for semi-quickly repairing weapons and armor between battles.
- Purify Food and Drink to prevent bad supplies from becoming bad. Nauseous soldiers are dead soldiers.
- Alarm provides an effective additional layer of protection beyond sentries.
- Stabilize and cure light wounds as the standard staple life savers.
- Goodberry as a way to give lots of soldiers "first aid kits"; rather than giving the only 1st level druid in a platoon a wand of cure light wounds, give them a wand of goodberry and have them create like 20 goodberries so most soldiers can carry one in case they or a friend starts to bleed out.
- Clarion Call and Ventriloquism to allow communication.
- Faerie Fire as a long-distance targeting device. A 1st level druid (or someone with UMD and a wand) can paint a high-priority target at 440 ft to allow all the archers to know where to shoot.
- Obscuring Mist protects against ranged attacks quite effectively and is available to nearly every caster around.
- Abundant Ammunition + Magic Weapon can provide a whole group of archers with magic weapons that are both noticeably more effective (for basic 1st level archers or slingers it's probably a 25% damage bonus) and can penetrate DR if the enemy has monsters.
- And of course as you mentioned Coriat, entangle is a fantastic spell on a battlefield if there's vegetation around.
Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Druids are maddafakkin' BADASSES.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How to use a high-level mage in combat? Here's one idea
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, also, Bless is a 50ft burst which makes it cover quite a LOT of people (~300 squares).
Note that adepts (the npc class) would probably be the most common caster on the battlefield; not only can it be assumed that they're more plentifully available, the power difference between a 1st level adept and a 1st level wizard is pretty minor. Note also that adepts are divine casters, so can be given leather armor for protection. Since they're divine casters, they can all also get any spells on their spell list, so a first level adept will probably have spells prepared something like: mending, purify food and water, stabilize, bless, obscuring mist.