Not long ago, I considered designing an army in PF, only designing the individuals and NOT using the Mass Combat rules.
However, there's an issue: If it's a more traditional classical/medieval army, then the army dies to someone saying "Fireball!" If I use too few troops, then it's not an army. If I make the troops too tough, then it's not a reasonable army to have.
So, in a world with Fireball, Glitterdust, Entangle (the spell), and other powerful magics, How would and army be reasonably designed?
It must be able to capture a city, to defend a city, to fight another army, and to fight monsters. It must be primarily composed of people level 3 and below, with lower levels and NPC classes being the most common (with specialists allowed of a handful of levels higher). It can't rely too heavily on the above-level troops to function.
If it can endure higher-level threats, or fight midlevel adventurers, that's a bonus.
But, what method would be good for designing an army that won't buckle under Fireballs in open combat but can still fight (almost, looking at you, Shadows) anything below a certain decent CR, like 12 or so? (I'm not asking for the army, just a way to design it)
(Also, no mass combat rules, please)
Perhaps along with the standard soldiers you have people who are built to stop spells. Though they don't even have to directly fight spells, they could just be built with resistances and/or things that make spell casting harder for opponents.
It really comes down to play style. If your GM populates the world with tons of 5+ level spell casters then you have a point. However if things are more sparsely utilized then a mundane army does pretty well.
It really comes down to play style. If your GM populates the world with tons of 5+ level spell casters then you have a point. However if things are more sparsely utilized then a mundane army does pretty well.
For this exercise, I am the GM. Part of why I'm trying to make this army is that I'm trying to find a way to justify a world in which those tons of level 5+ casters aren't needed for survival (without re-working the rules about what items can be bought in cities and what level spellcasting is available). The best compromise I can think of is that they're rather uncommon, but rather uncommon and very rare are entirely different things, for planning the armies.
It really comes down to play style. If your GM populates the world with tons of 5+ level spell casters then you have a point. However if things are more sparsely utilized then a mundane army does pretty well.For this exercise, I am the GM. Part of why I'm trying to make this army is that I'm trying to find a way to justify a world in which those tons of level 5+ casters aren't needed for survival (without re-working the rules about what items can be bought in cities and what level spellcasting is available). The best compromise I can think of is that they're rather uncommon, but rather uncommon and very rare are entirely different things, for planning the armies.
The problem is even with higher level casters if the caster goes to town in a battle he's going to run into the same problem a machine gunner blasting away on full auto all the time runs into: He's out of ammunition.
And his spells are going to be of limited impact if he is defending himself too. Quite frankly as long as level distribution is the same across all classes (that is there is the same percentage of people of each level of each class) the wizard is going to have impact but not unbalancingly so.
Basically you'll move into squad level teams moving to strategic goals and massing for a final push at key points in the battle. Access control to key positions and areas will be important and including some things that were normal parts of construction anyways like the use of lead (or lead lining) in building materials.
Firstly you can assume that the army has a least equal numbers of casters lv5 meaning that dispel magic, resist energy communal, etc are just as common as units with fireball
Heros of Battle(a 3.5 book) covered a ton of different topics pretty well about putting a lord of the rings style army into a d and d style game. I enjoy the image it paints about an army in this kind of setting being the equivalent of a modern army(replacing tech with magic). Foot soldier units change tactics and bring special equipment to deal with particular spells. Intelligence(the armie's diviners) reports that invisible units lie up ahead. Bags of flour are passed out, smoldering torches are passed out, everyone grabs a handful of sand when they pass the beach, etc. After the first fireball gets thrown everybody scatters, ducks in cover, dives in the water, pulls out tower shields, etc. Even spending 25gp on equipment per soldier, you can give a unit the tools necessary to deal with many Lv4 or lower spells. Heck you can tell any commoner with a sling to prepare an attack against any recognized caster
Assuming wizard is CL5, int 14, and took spell focus(evocation) the save dc16 and damage is on average 17. Soldiers are not aware of spellcaster so they use a standard marching distance of 10ft between each unit(using 10ft because that's what my party has found works best for us) to form a big rectangle formation. Soldiers are lv1 warrior humans who put their bonus into str so they have 10 con and 10 dex(can use stronger ones I'm just assuming average humans). In this formation the most units hit I could find was 9. At dc 16 with no bonuses 3/4 of those fail their saves. They have an average hp of 6 so they would die. The rest hit would go unconscious. Meaning that at worst, in the best conditions that a wizard could reasonably expect, they only killed 7 units with their biggest spell. They wouldn't have died if they had used either of their feats on toughness, any of them had made their perception check, they had used their +2 on con, etc.
In other words while powerful a 5th level wizard that hasn't specialized in blasting very much has a surprisingly low mortality rate in anything under optimal conditions. While knocking out groups enemies is certainly useful we can assume that any properly equipped unit has a healer with a wand of cure light wounds and those soldiers will most likely recover quickly. This is especially true if they have a cleric that can channel positive energy
High level threats are the bane of any army. Most high level monsters have dr, spell res, etc that is designed to stop weak stuff from hurting it. Mid level pcs are doable. Pass out bows. They will roll enough 20s and they can bring down anything without dr eventually. Oil/Wand of magic weapon can help alot as it is cheap and lets them bypass some dr. Silver and cold iron are also pretty cheap ways to help overcome dr. Seige Weapons do enough damage to just go through dr and is more efficient/reasonable than those units using aid another. Acid is a cheap and effective way for them to contribute damage as acid res is way less common than fire. As a touch attack they might even hit on a roll lower than 20. A phlanax of tower sheilds can completely deny line of sight and line of effect. Smokesticks provide excellent cover and landing one next to a caster can stop him from doing anything. Nets can be used to bring down flying folks and shut down dex based people. Not saying give this stuff to every member but a unit should collectively have most of it
Good saves. I would say Antipaladins or Monks, since they have the best saves. Also pretty durable. I like the idea of a monk army personally, but whatever works.
It is impossible to 'justify' how a world with a lot of magic works, because magic. One of the main reasons I've always preferred lower-magic worlds - things just make more sense there, and are much easier to immerse into.
|
Low level guerrilla archers could be useful. Sure - they won't hit much, but even hitting on 20's they could be handy against anything without DR.
Several hundred level 1 archers with Rapid-Shot, and if no DR/Protection From Arrows, the first caster to stick his head up will be taking a few hundred points of damage even if they only hit on 20's. (400 shots from 200 archers would average 99 damage.)
Have every 4th or 5th trooper hauling mobile improved cover Assyrian style when in the open (way bigger than tower shields, but pretty useless in melee) and they won't be easily taken out by AOEs.
You couldn't win a high level battle with just them, but they'd still be a factor in it. (Just don't actually ever roll dice for them. You'd be at it all night. >.<)
Having done this exercise several times, both failing and succeeding on each side:
1-Defensive militias armed with light crossbows behind cover are the bomb. Cheap, plentiful if defending their homes (and motivated) rudimentary training at best.
2-Offensive forces should be small and skilled with abilities keyed to probable foes and terrain (no cavalry in mountains or swamps), small enough to move quickly and tight enough to react when things go wrong. Hiring mercenaries (PCs) is a good option.
It's difficult to fireball when rolling 20+ concentration checks per round.
The feat Spellbreaker might help. So could the Spellbreaker Inquisitor archetype. Oh, and don't forget the Witch Hunter.
Thanks for the advice, everyone!
So,james014Aura, why are you designing a Pathfinder Army? Are you designing your army in the capacity of a GM, a player, or something in between? A little context will greatly shape my advice.
I'm planning to host a homebrew frontier adventure (and/or horror/occult, but that one would ALSO need armies), and I want to design armies that would be involved, either sent to defend the frontier or sent by rivals to conquer. My starting idea, from which I remembered the Fireball problem, was based on a Roman Legion.
(Also, because I'm going to have plenty of time in the next week and want something to do. But, the army is for as a GM).
I considered troops and mass combat, but I find that abstraction too much for something I intend to be an integral part of the campaign.
|
|
Thanks for the advice, everyone!
So,james014Aura, why are you designing a Pathfinder Army? Are you designing your army in the capacity of a GM, a player, or something in between? A little context will greatly shape my advice.I'm planning to host a homebrew frontier adventure (and/or horror/occult, but that one would ALSO need armies), and I want to design armies that would be involved, either sent to defend the frontier or sent by rivals to conquer. My starting idea, from which I remembered the Fireball problem, was based on a Roman Legion.
(Also, because I'm going to have plenty of time in the next week and want something to do. But, the army is for as a GM).
I considered troops and mass combat, but I find that abstraction too much for something I intend to be an integral part of the campaign.
If you want to do the legionnaire vibe, just house-rule in the 3.5 tower shield. Since it gives full cover 'mode' instead of just full cover for you specifically at the time, a unit of troopers with tower shields can travel about the battlefield with full cover from all directions. The tower shields will break eventually, but not instantly. (and nothing says that they can't carry a backup)
That and all carry javelins (or pilums to Romanize it.) to take down scary low AC things like Ogres & Trolls at range and take advantgage of their #s. If you want to go Greek style, they can carry small reach weapons in one hand. (They take a -2 accuracy penalty, but they still get reach.)
I think there is a Style Feat to let you move around with cover when using a tower shield.
|
|
I think there is a Style Feat to let you move around with cover when using a tower shield.
Yes - but it's still only cover for you. In 3.5 a tower shield provided full cover in general, and so included your buddies, making it far superior to a unit as it can protect them from all directions. (I'm not actually 100% that you could move in full cover 'mode' or if I had designed that 3.5 unit to ready actions each turn to do so.)
I think there is a Style Feat to let you move around with cover when using a tower shield.Yes - but it's still only cover for you. In 3.5 a tower shield provided full cover in general, and so included your buddies, making it far superior to a unit as it can protect them from all directions. (I'm not actually 100% that you could move in full cover 'mode' or if I had designed that 3.5 unit to ready actions each turn to do so.)
Have you checked out it's extensions; Mobile Fortress and Mobile Stronghold.
|
|
Have you checked out it's extensions; Mobile Fortress and Mobile Stronghold.I think there is a Style Feat to let you move around with cover when using a tower shield.Yes - but it's still only cover for you. In 3.5 a tower shield provided full cover in general, and so included your buddies, making it far superior to a unit as it can protect them from all directions. (I'm not actually 100% that you could move in full cover 'mode' or if I had designed that 3.5 unit to ready actions each turn to do so.)
Still doesn't give total cover to anyone not adjacent to you, and they would be well out of reach of level 1-3 warriors anyway.
|
Not long ago, I considered designing an army in PF, only designing the individuals and NOT using the Mass Combat rules.
However, there's an issue: If it's a more traditional classical/medieval army, then the army dies to someone saying "Fireball!" If I use too few troops, then it's not an army. If I make the troops too tough, then it's not a reasonable army to have.
So, in a world with Fireball, Glitterdust, Entangle (the spell), and other powerful magics, How would and army be reasonably designed?
It must be able to capture a city, to defend a city, to fight another army, and to fight monsters. It must be primarily composed of people level 3 and below, with lower levels and NPC classes being the most common (with specialists allowed of a handful of levels higher). It can't rely too heavily on the above-level troops to function.
If it can endure higher-level threats, or fight midlevel adventurers, that's a bonus.
But, what method would be good for designing an army that won't buckle under Fireballs in open combat but can still fight (almost, looking at you, Shadows) anything below a certain decent CR, like 12 or so? (I'm not asking for the army, just a way to design it)
(Also, no mass combat rules, please)
You could use the NPC Codex rules for warriors here and and here.
Still doesn't give total cover to anyone not adjacent to you, and they would be well out of reach of level 1-3 warriors anyway.Have you checked out it's extensions; Mobile Fortress and Mobile Stronghold.I think there is a Style Feat to let you move around with cover when using a tower shield.Yes - but it's still only cover for you. In 3.5 a tower shield provided full cover in general, and so included your buddies, making it far superior to a unit as it can protect them from all directions. (I'm not actually 100% that you could move in full cover 'mode' or if I had designed that 3.5 unit to ready actions each turn to do so.)
But, when I was designing NPCs a while back for a "might use them later" I gave them Shield Wall, but that doesn't QUITE read as desired. But, homebrew campaign, so if the occasional elites had the armor master's handbook feats that wouldn't be too much and the weaker ones... hey, I can make that houserule, easy.
Thanks for the extension to tower shield usage; I was restricted to the phalanx soldier archetype for fighters before now.
And thanks everyone for weighing in; I've got some plans, now!
|
As for armies, there are a number of things to consider.
1. In the ancient world, armies are mostly gathered rather than designed. If the hobgoblin hordes of the Red Hand of Doom show up on your doorstep unannounced, you don't design the army you will use to face them. Instead, you gather everyone you can, equip them with weapons and deploy them on the field. (Hopefully many of them have weapons already--in much of the ancient and medieval world, the norm was for every free adult man to have a spear, dagger, shield, gambeson, and iron helmet (or at least that was what Henry II's Assize of Arms required every free Englishman to have)).
So, to some degree your question of "what do armies look like" is going to already be answered based on what your world's demographics look like.
There is the question of whether armies are feudal/tribal levies, local militia, or professional standing army/mercenaries. That will also be determined by setting too but effectiveness will help to determine what makes sense. (Historically, greek armies were citizen militia of varying qualities (Spartans being noted for their excellence), Roman legions were professional soldiers in a standing (or quickly raised) army, Gauls, Celts, etc relied upon tribal levies, the Danes, Saxons, Normans, etc relied upon feudal or tribal levies, and by the late middle ages/renaissance/reformation, a lot of the fighting was done by professional mercenaries. (As Machiavelli discussed at length in _The Prince_). Demographics and social/governmental structures will determine which of these are possible.
2. A lot of people on message boards over-estimate the effectiveness of fireball in battle situations. A lot will depend upon the caster level of the fireball, the level of the troops involved, and the presence of clerics (and whether they are positive or negative channelers) on the other side.
Fireball effects. A clvl 5 fireball does 17.5 damage on average. A 2nd level warrior with toughness will probably have 12-16 hp. A first level warrior might have as few as 5 or 6 hp. If we assume a moderate DC (15-16), we can assume a 25% pass rate on the save. Then we will have the following results. Green troops (lvl 1) failed save=dead or very close to dead. Passing the save=unconscious. Elite troops. Failed the save=unconscious, passing the save= still alive but injured.
The classic phalanx is a bad formation to face a fireball in and a single fireball could easily get 20 or even 36 soldiers if the unit is set up to be at least 8 x 8. However, a double skirmish line with five feet of space between every soldier along the lines of:
X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X
________________
_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X
means that the fireball will only get 6-8 soldiers.
Space that out further (ten feet between soldiers) and the fireball will only get 3-4. That still matters to the soldiers, but it's not going to change the course of a battle with 100+ combatants on either side unless it comes at a pivotal moment.
Now, spreading out further than the five foot spaced skirmish line may make it harder to defend against melee troops, but it is not hard for the double skirmish line to close ranks when the enemy is close enough to be in melee, and at that point, fireball will become ineffective due to friendly fire problems.
3. Magical mitigation for fireball. Communal resist energy fire could be cast before the battle and would change the math so that veteran troops (War 2s) are alive and injured if they fail the save and untouched if they make it. Green troops might be unconscious on a failed save but would be uninjured on a successful save. Either way, a 2d6 channel energy could completely eliminate the effects of the fireball. Since one presumes that 3rd level clerics are more common than 5th level wizards, nations whose priests channel positive energy could probably afford to field phalanxes even against foes who can fireball them.
4. Tactical mitigation for fireball. If a fireball caster revealed himself, a squad of 20 archers with rapid shot (assuming 14 dex and longbows), could easily put 40 arrows in the air at a bonus between +1 and +7 to hit (depending upon the presence of bards, order of the lion cavaliers, clerics with bless or prayer, greater magic weapon and cavaliers who could grant the volley-fire teamwork feat). If we assume the wizard has an AC of 19 (shield+mage armor), that will be between 4 and 16 hits for something between 1d8 and 1d8+4 damage each. (So between 18 and 136 damage). The wizard could be assumed to have protection from arrows which would absorb 50 hp of damage unless they were each given two arrows with greater magic weapon on them to counter it. Now the low end of that damage range is not going to stop the wizard and the high end is complete overkill. The wizard probably has at least 23 hp (average rolls and +1 from con or favored class). A simple bless will be enough to drop the wizard if he didn't cast protection from arrows. If he did cast protection from arrows, the archers probably need +4 to hit and +3, +5 to hit and +2 damage, or +6 to hit and +1 damage to drop the wizard in one round.
Prayer, inspire courage +2, and bless would do it. But volley fire and inspire courage +1 would do it too. A simple +1 greater magic weapon would also do it even if there aren't any other bonuses on the table.
So, in the caster mitigation sweepstakes, a squad of archers led by a luring cavalier (assuming that the army is getting bonuses from a bard or order of the lion cavalier already) is probably the most efficient way to eliminate casters who reveal themselves, but giving them each two greater magic weaponed arrows will almost certainly make sure. Even a higher level wizard who can afford stoneskin (cheaply countered by adamantine weapon blanch on the two anti-wizard arrows) will need to be careful about the possibility that they might be on the battlefield.
Another possibility if one side has a level 7+ cleric is lesser planar ally (or lesser planar binding for a wizard/summoner). A bearded devil or hound archon could teleport to the wizard and cut him down in pretty short order if he is not well protected. Several such creatures would be even more effective. If there is not a wizard, they might also be employed to attack enemy commanders.
5. Scale of the engagement. If there are 10,000 troops on each side of the battle, losing even 36 to a fireball is not going to sway the outcome. A lot of fireball casters would make a difference in that kind of battle but for a single caster to make a difference, he's going to need to be using something like sunburst, earthquake, or storm of vengeance. Similar reactive "geek the mage" countermeasures apply but at least earthquake and storm of vengeance don't reveal the location of the caster in the way that fireball does.
Adding this all together, I think that in a smaller scale battle with 100-300 combatants on each side, there are several possibilities:
A. A professional/mercenary army may well have a dedicated anti-caster squad of archers led by a luring cavalier (who knows Volley Fire) with a couple magic arrows each (from a scroll of greater magic weapon) if they know that the enemy has a wizard. Wind Wall or go home.
B. Armies will probably deploy in skirmish lines unless they have positive channeling clerics. If they do--and even a 3rd level chaplain is sufficient, communal resist energy: Fire and some positive channeling is enough to make a phalanx viable.
B2. Attacking will require more discipline and disciplined troops will be at a premium. Reforming at the last second from a skirmish line into a shieldwall on defense requires some discipline; doing so while charging to attack would be even harder.
B3. This will also put a premium on maneuvering and cavalry since flanking maneuvers (especially with cavalry) would be one way to mitigate the defensive advantage.
B4. Elite melee troops who can strike through a single or double deep shield wall and break the enemy line would also be at a premium. Historically, such troops were often countered by stacking the line against them, but with the threat of fireballs making it risky to mass a phalanx, such troops would be harder for people without positive channeling clerics to counter.
C. Levies will probably tend to segregate into a phalanx with a priest or two for backup while less experienced and less well equipped warriors form skirmish lines. In a feudal or tribal situation, the chief and his housecarls/household troops may form the elite wedge for attack and the phalanx/shieldwall on defense.
D. Evil forces are at a big disadvantage in any ranged exchange unless they rely on undead troops that can be healed by channeling negative energy. When they get up close, however, even a low-level evil cleric is a force to be reckoned with as channeling negative energy will eviscerate huge swathes of troops. That said, there are serious friendly fire issues unless the friendlies are undead, so it probably will not be employed until the end of the battle when the priest is alone. Good forces would only have a couple options: send in high level champions to engage the evil cleric or drop him with ranged attacks.
D1. With undead, however, evil clerics are a force to be reckoned with. They can protect their undead like good clerics protect the living and make a phalanx viable. And when their forces engage in close combat, they can channel negative energy to obliterate any living foes who are standing up to them. The only mitigating factors in this are:
D2. They have limited channels per day so if they use up their channels mitigating ranged attack damage and fireballs on the way in, they won't be able to channel energy once they hit the shield wall.
D3. They are just as vulnerable to the anti-caster archer squad as a wizard is--perhaps more so since protection from arrows isn't on their list.
D4. Damage on channel energy is relatively low, so even a level 5 cleric probably won't drop any of the elite Warrior 2s with toughness with a single channel. That gives a good cleric a chance to put them back together with a positive channel.