Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tiamat2 04-20-07, 11:14 AM	Those of you with long memories might recall that I asked a variation of this question about three years ago, but I don't recall any resolution and that thread is long gone. What is a reasonable army size in the Forgotten Realms? The FRCS is all over the place when it gives the size of a nation's military. Let's look at some examples and then I'll pose some hypotheticals. Feel free to correct my data if I'm wrong, since I'm writing many of these examples from memory. 1. Akanax, in Chessenta, is said to have an army of 50,000 men in the FRCS. In the Old Empires supplement for 2e, Soorenar of Chessenta is said to have an army of 5,000 men. That's a lot of variation between two fairly similarly situated powers. 2. Mulhorand's army, I believe, is given a size of 20,000 men. 3. Waterdeep, in the City of Splendours 3e supplement, is said to be able to call out approximately 12,000 citizens in an emergency. 4. Other army sizes are given in the FRCS, but they are, almost without exception, borderline comically small (Cormyr's especially) and probably would have to be regarded as merely the elite core of a potential feudal levy type force. Now, some examples of where this can get sticky. 1. If you were invading the Moonshaes to unseat the Kendricks, would 1,000 men be a large enough force or laughably small? The Moonshaes have a small, decentralized population so it seems reasonable to me that their army would be only isolated garrison type forces in the hundreds. Perhaps, with time, the High Queen could command a host that numbered in the thousands, but I believe that it might require a herculean logistical effort to collect, transport, and maneuver such a force on the island chain. 2. If Akanax's army is 50,000 men strong, one wonders why they haven't conquered Chessenta already, if their primary enemy has only 5,000 men in their standing force. I believe its probably reasonable to conclude that city-states like Soorenar and Luthcheq could put 15,000-20,000 men in the field in a full-scale war, with smaller states like Mordulkin and Airspur coming in lower, and Cimbar coming in slightly higher. 3. How large of a force did the Jhannivvar Pretender have in the war against Zaranda in Tethyr? Tethyr is a large nation (over 3 million people relatively spread out if the map is to be believed), so I would think those armies might only number in the 10,000-20,000 man range at most. Certainly, though, in a nation as large as Tethyr, the army would be measured in thousands and not hundreds. Army size's are crude measures of a nation's ability to fight in a fantasy setting, given the importance of arcane and divine magic, but knowing how many men you would need for campaign hooks involving wars of conquest or defense is very helpful. The FRCS and other sources give these numbers on occasion, but they rarely seem to fit together to produce a coherent picture (which would allow you to extrapolate the numbers they don't give). I'm trying to put together what a reasonable army would be for a city-state like Calaunt (let's say in a war against Tantras) in the vast and in the Moonshaes example above.
Kerym Ammath 04-20-07, 11:33 AM	I generally go with a standing army of generally no more than 1% of the population as the standard size. If a country is engaged in a "cold war" scenario or is beset by potential enemies you might be able to reasonably go up to 2% of the population. All out war defending, your country against evil aggressors, well over a period of time you could probably get it up to 20% of the total population underarms. Of course that is not sustainable for any length of time and in a period of melee weapons the effectiveness of such minimally trained troops may be dubious. For the most 1% of the population could be a well trained standing army, any higher and there will be financial costs to your society which may prove to be to much of a burden.
BadCatMan 04-20-07, 11:43 AM	Akanax's army size is a little inflated, as the population and the army are one and the same ("This is Akanax!"). Looking between OE and FRCS, the total population is around 70,000, of which 20,000 live in the city itself, and 50,000 outside in the military camps. OE also says the army numbers 20,000; the other 30,000 include people who live and work in the camps but not in the army itself, and a lot of recruits (ie children). Soorenar on the other hand keeps a standing army of 5,000, and when needed boosts this up to 15,000, by hiring mercenaries, and conscripting citizens, slaves and gladiators (as they did in the 1357 war with Cimbar). The complex web of alliances and enemies in Chessenta keeps Akanax from dominating completely. I imagine they're a lot more like Sparta; they win all the battles but lose the wars. Again like Sparta, they may just be too afraid to lose their highly valuable warriors and stay mostly in home territories to defend. (In my Chessenta game, Akanax is withdrawing from the Akanal to bolster the city's defenses in case war breaks out with Tchazzar.) The near loss of the city in a war with Soorenar probably scared them. On the other hand, they did conquer Chessenta once - when Hoar/Assuran took King Hippartes as his avatar in the ToT. I think since then they have been recovering. If your interested in the armies of cities of the Vast on the other hand, check out the 2e FRCS and Forgotten Realms Adventures, which detail them.
Philalexandros 04-20-07, 03:06 PM	The three major factors determining this would be the type of culture in question, the preponderance of magic, and the resources available to sustain the army. Culture: I'll throw a few Chessentan-type equivalents first. Lacedaemon, the historical state of Sparta, had an army of (at its height), 9,000 heavy infantry (the "Peers," or "Similars"), and a really undetermined number (but probably not much greater than that of the Peers) of medium and heavy infantry (the Perioikoi, or dwellers-about; non-citizens that enjoyed a lot of independence and served the Peers as artisans and such). It could also supposedly field exponentially greater numbers of light infantry (from the helots), but this has never been susbtantively proven. To achieve the above, Lacedaemon relied on at least 100,000 slave helots (including men, women, and children)... perhaps more. Those helots were responsible for all food production and land-tending for the families of the 9,000 Similars and their theoretically similar number of family units. Macedon, prior to the Persian expedition, could raise approximately 45,000-50,000 soldiers from its own state, allies, and mercenaries. These included about 3-4,000 Companion cavalry ("knights"), 3,000 royal Hypaspists (elite infantry), an ultimately unknown number of phalanx pikemen (Alexander took 9,000; he likely had just as many left back at thome), and thousands of allied and mercenary light infantry, archers, slingers, skirmishers, etc. The native Macedonian units probably were made up of about 16% of the total Macedonian population (150,000?). The size of the above army bankrupted Macedon (ostensibly the richest state of the Hellenic world at the time), and would not have been possible had Alexander not begun beating Persians and seizing their treasuries when he did. Magic: States with more magic can afford to shrink their forces down. The Last Mythal Trilogy was contrived, IMHO, because I didn't feel the authors really researched the feasibility of warfare as they described it. I don't really see Elves massing formations of warriors for conventional warfare. As potentially ancient beings with a magical tradition, such arrays would be pointless, and a waste of potential. Rather, I imagine a magic-strong society focusing on "elite" units whose duty is to augment and protect magical powerhouses--like powerful wizards and clerics. A society of the scope of Evermeet wouldn't focus on spear-walls and conventional cavalry... not when it has fireballs, walls of fire, meteor swarms, earthquakes, and the like at is disposal. Resources: Athens didn't have the soil to spare for cavalry. As a result, its cavalry was comparatively inferior, even for its time. Macedon did, though, and they fielded the best cavalry of their age. It takes about 5-6lbs of food and water to feed a person every day. It takes more than that to feed a horse or a cow, which a person will either ride on or use to pull a supply wagon. How big an army will be is dependant on how long it can feed them for, and what its ability to resupply it is. This, of course, is again mitigated by magic. Some clerics can create food and water. Some mages can teleport people or supplies, or perhaps even maintain powerful portals some the same reason.
Stigger 04-20-07, 06:03 PM	Personally, I'd say that it would largely depend on training, equipment, sustainable resources, etcetera. 150 well trained, lavishly equipped, magically supported elite troops are certainly going to be more of a force than 150 peasants with padded armor and pitchforks. Get 1,000 of those peasants against the elite fellows and they could probably overcome them with sheer numbers, given the right motivation. As to specific stuff... the Moonshaes, not as big of a problem as you might think, unless you're approaching it from a perspective of modern logistical support doctrines, which don't really exist in Faerun as far as I'm aware. Generally, you live off the land and try to keep your supply chain as organic as possible, seize a port, then the farmlands, secure your supplies, and then start the larger military objectives with an eye towards keeping those resources intact as you march along the road to conquest. 1,000 soldiers seems a more than decent force for field battles, but won't leave you much leeway for garrisoning and guarding your rear areas. 3,000 seems preferable to me, but you could probably get away with 1,500 depending on how well training your troops are and whatever you decide the average Moonshae level of training is. Calaunt according to FR Adventures isn't exactly a premier military force. A six-ship navy with 73-man crews (captains are 6th-7th level fighters under 2e), and an army, The Teeth of Calaunt, listed at 6,000 (warcaptains are 5th level fighters with a 4th level illusionist for support, both under 2e rules). Both branches are described as ill trained brawlers, but well equipped, and given to occassional acts of piracy and orc hunting. They are noted however as hiring mercenaries when going to war or expecting orc attacks, with the mercenaries used up first, and the Teeth being used to raid, ambush, and charge in at the last minute to seize and claim the victory. The city isn't noted for mages over 5th level (again, 2e rules) since one of the Dukes actively hunts down and destroys more powerful mages in the city. That mercenary thing should give you a lot of leeway if you decide to use the stuff. Good luck with it though any way it goes. :)
dragonheart 04-20-07, 06:25 PM	While there are occasional stories of truely large armies throughout history most of these are later exaggerations.of the few remaining most were not so much armies as entire tribes of people on the move and fighting their way through "enemy" territory. the remaining few were all essentially "primitive" cavalry armies where they had the speed and mobility (as well as skill and training) to live off the land more or less indefinitely (think huns, avars, mongol hordes). in most "settled/civilized" areas no more than about 10% could be freed from the duties of tending the land to fight the wars so figure your "standing army + militia" at about 10% of the population and you will seldom go wrong. Less settled groups or more socially egalitarian groups (think the Dales & Moonshaes vs Sembia/COrmyr) have a more integrated culture and potentially upto 50-60% of the population can be mobilized for defensive fights (offensive is something else). SImilarly such groups (dales etc) arre more likely to start their defense well away from thier homes and run a mobile hit and run "bleed them till they quit" battle than a stand up "defend the city walls to the death" sort of battle - at least if they have any choice about it. MAgic does make certain type of combat more dangerous such as Phalanx fighting but it is still basically artillery and while it may force somewhat smaller groupings it is no more powerful than modern artillery and we still use something approaching massed formations at times. It also helps the provisioning but again it is not as wonderful as it first seems. SO provisions are still going to limit the time and distance you can fight at. remember that mainstay of modern sustained warfare - canned food - was not inventerd untill the nopleonic wars of the early 1800s. the only other military force to come up with something similar were the roman legions wiht their barrels of vinegar pickled vegetables and meats (say hello to 3 bean salad, sourkraut, pickled pigs feet, etc) with the vinegar used instead of water as a drink ration. betweent the 2 problems of field rations and manpower even long running wars (like the hundred years war) were actually fought more as a few yearly combats in early spring or late summer when rations were available and manpower could be spared. Even then few armies were ever larger tahn a few tens of thousands of soldiers total. For something like a moonshaes invasion expect a growing skirmish to weaken the invading party as they move forward while the moonshaes forces are built up until they outnumber the invaders by nearly 2:1 or 3:1 when the final climatic battle destroys the invaders.
Philalexandros 04-20-07, 06:36 PM	Sorry, I forgot about your examples! 1. Akanax, in Chessenta, is said to have an army of 50,000 men in the FRCS. In the Old Empires supplement for 2e, Soorenar of Chessenta is said to have an army of 5,000 men. That's a lot of variation between two fairly similarly situated powers. Akanax's army is unrealistic, unless given some data we're missing. Lacedaemon never fielded much more than 20% of that force's size in our world, and it depended on a dedicated slave-farmer populace of over 100,000. Akanax thus has some sort of unknown means of feeding a lot of full-time soldiers, or has an additional, rural populace that is not listed in its writeup. Beyond that, there has to be some socio-cultural tool in place that allows for 50,000 individuals to do as they wish. Beyond that, there is another socio-cultural tool in place that compensates all these soldiers or drives them to fight for nothing. Finally, Akanax has to be both remarkably egalitarian in its acceptance of recruits and/or remarkably effective in training so many people. 2. Mulhorand's army, I believe, is given a size of 20,000 men. The 20,000 are merely those currently occupying about 80% Unther, and they're also helped by an unstated (but presumably significant) number of armed, trained former slaves of Unther. 3. Waterdeep, in the City of Splendours 3e supplement, is said to be able to call out approximately 12,000 citizens in an emergency. Roughly 8% of the populace? Not bad. In Cormyr's case, I would argue that the large number of elite warriors (Purple Dragons; Puple Dragon Knights) and War-Wizards makes a large army rather unnecessary. They probably are supplemented by local garrisons used for protection only, due to the relationship between the Crown and the nobles. [quote]1. If you were invading the Moonshaes to unseat the Kendricks, would 1,000 men be a large enough force or laughably small? The Moonshaes have a small, decentralized population so it seems reasonable to me that their army would be only isolated garrison type forces in the hundreds. Perhaps, with time, the High Queen could command a host that numbered in the thousands, but I believe that it might require a herculean logistical effort to collect, transport, and maneuver such a force on the island chain. It all depends on the troops. If you were to say that Duke Eltan, along with his key allies and advisors and the core of the Flaming Fist were to invade, I'd say so. Especially if you weren't looking to control or hold territory. A non-magic heavy or less-than-incredibly-elite unit of 1,000 soldiers, though, would simply be harried and bothered to death. Every single noted population center numbers in the thousands and would thus be very difficult to seize. 2. If Akanax's army is 50,000 men strong, one wonders why they haven't conquered Chessenta already, if their primary enemy has only 5,000 men in their standing force. I believe its probably reasonable to conclude that city-states like Soorenar and Luthcheq could put 15,000-20,000 men in the field in a full-scale war, with smaller states like Mordulkin and Airspur coming in lower, and Cimbar coming in slightly higher. Akanax is either 1) Not very well thought out 2) Subject to constraints we known not of Not even the threat of the other armies uniting against them (or any other mitigating factor, really) justifies the prodigious size of their army if they're not going to be on the offensive. 3. How large of a force did the Jhannivvar Pretender have in the war against Zaranda in Tethyr? Tethyr is a large nation (over 3 million people relatively spread out if the map is to be believed), so I would think those armies might only number in the 10,000-20,000 man range at most. Certainly, though, in a nation as large as Tethyr, the army would be measured in thousands and not hundreds. Again, it all depends on the society. Classical Athens could field As many as 13-14,000 hoplites of its primary age groups during the height of its power. Athens' population at the time was over 200,000, but only 30,000 or so were citizens and thus subject to service as hoplites.
Tiamat2 04-20-07, 07:18 PM	Each Chessentan state has to include more than its capital city total, because the cities don't even total a 1/5th of the given population of the region. Its entirely possible that Akanax controls enough of the rich farmland near it to make an army of 50,000 physically possible, its just way out of line with almost every other total given in the FRCS.
BadCatMan 04-20-07, 10:32 PM	(Does no-one ever read my posts? Or see them?) Akanax is the Sparta-clone. Everyone's in the army, but the real fighting force is only 20,000 strong. They dominate the highly fertile farming lands of the Akanal and the Akanamere region to get their food.
Tiamat2 04-20-07, 11:39 PM	(Does no-one ever read my posts? Or see them?) Akanax is the Sparta-clone. Everyone's in the army, but the real fighting force is only 20,000 strong. They dominate the highly fertile farming lands of the Akanal and the Akanamere region to get their food. I saw your post. I just didn't consider it dispositive of the issue. I think the 2e explanation is reasonable, but the 3e FRCS had the opportunity to incorporate that data and declined, so you are still left with some explaining to do. You can explain it the way 2e did, invent a different explanation, or simply re-size Akanax's army to be more in line with the rest of the army sizes in FRCS.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 11:57 AM	Each Chessentan state has to include more than its capital city total, because the cities don't even total a 1/5th of the given population of the region. Its entirely possible that Akanax controls enough of the rich farmland near it to make an army of 50,000 physically possible, its just way out of line with almost every other total given in the FRCS. Right, and I figured that (the large, agrarian population) had to be the case. I just found it odd that no one ever bothered to mention such an important part of their society. If they had a large enough agrarian population, I suppose they could maintain 50,000 soldiers. It's just an exponential multiplier of the Lacedaemonian system. As for it being out of line, well, many of the other armies in the FR have significantly more magic, which often makes numbers irrelevant.
GothicDan 04-21-07, 01:08 PM	Magic really does make numbers irrelevant. One 5th level Wizard can take out 5 soldiers (1st level soldiers) in a round, from far away, completely protected from any possible attack they could make. Magic is why armies in Faerun tend to be smaller, more elite, and more versatile and capable. It's truly stupid to keep huge armies in these fantastical circumstances; this isn't LotR. We have chain lightning and meteor swarms. Area of Effect is the realm of the Wizard.
Tiamat2 04-21-07, 01:57 PM	Magic really does make numbers irrelevant. One 5th level Wizard can take out 5 soldiers (1st level soldiers) in a round, from far away, completely protected from any possible attack they could make. Magic is why armies in Faerun tend to be smaller, more elite, and more versatile and capable. It's truly stupid to keep huge armies in these fantastical circumstances; this isn't LotR. We have chain lightning and meteor swarms. Area of Effect is the realm of the Wizard. Unless you plan on having your wizards serve as garrisons, customs patrol, and police forces, army sizes are still relevant. Perhaps not as relevant as in a pure medieval setting, but relevant enough to where silliness like Akanax v. Cormyr needs to be explained, if only to reconcile it in your own head.
Karsus the Mad 04-21-07, 02:18 PM	Magic really does make numbers irrelevant. One 5th level Wizard can take out 5 soldiers (1st level soldiers) in a round, from far away, completely protected from any possible attack they could make. Magic is why armies in Faerun tend to be smaller, more elite, and more versatile and capable. It's truly stupid to keep huge armies in these fantastical circumstances; this isn't LotR. We have chain lightning and meteor swarms. Area of Effect is the realm of the Wizard. How many wizards are in the military? There's the war wizards of cormyr, but what's their numbers? Of those, how many are 5th level or higher? How many are 17th level in order to cast meteor swarm? Any high level wizard likely wouldn't actually be in a battle, but behind the lines or at a base, directing the actions of those spellcasters below him. That's cormyr tho', and most realms don't have a standardized order of mages to call upon in times of war. Numbers still matter. Training matters. As much as I dislike the idea, wizards are more support units in most scenarios.
Suin Bahhar 04-21-07, 02:36 PM	Agreed. The units would skirmish (moving while keeping each soldier 30 ft apart) to lessen the impact of area-attacks. When a melee starts the formations would closen and the flanking tactic mayhem starts. Still with enough defensive magics a thight formation could prove very effective too. Include a bard and a cleric in a unit with 100 soldiers in a phalanxfromation and these guys get realy resilient when buffed. These two factors make the mobility of an army very important too. I think race plays an important role here. Just look at warhammer fantasy. A fast race on a (magic) warpath will find skirmish tactics better while a slower race would prefer buffed and protected units. Forces can be sustained and gathered by magic. A warlord who does not take these things in consideration would be dead in no time. Maybe Arkanax (sounds rather arcanely) has some magical way of enhancing the sustainability of its armies. Give every soldier a spoon of Murlynd and a skin of endless water and they can eat and drink indefenitely.
Crust 04-21-07, 02:55 PM	Magic really does make numbers irrelevant. One 5th level Wizard can take out 5 soldiers (1st level soldiers) in a round, from far away, completely protected from any possible attack they could make. Magic is why armies in Faerun tend to be smaller, more elite, and more versatile and capable. It's truly stupid to keep huge armies in these fantastical circumstances; this isn't LotR. We have chain lightning and meteor swarms. Area of Effect is the realm of the Wizard. I agree, though I often wonder how accurate my assumptions are about mass warfare in my campaigns. I ran some large-scale battles during our githyanki Incursion campaign, and in most cases, the casters duked it out first before the ground troops advanced. Like Gothic suggested, one sorcerer with fly and stoneskin cast could obliterate a company of soldiers in short order and cause the survivors to drop their weapons and flee. The githyanki forces had powerful warlocks and sorcerers at hand, and my PCs and their allies had many powerful arcane and divine casters, so it was inevitable that the spellcasters would determine the outcome of the battle. Before either force charged, it was a fierce air-air mages' duel, trading dispels and counterspelling, firing wands, etc. Both sides understood that to send ground troops forward without accounting for the spellcasters would be like charging a line of machine gun nests with only bayonets. Once the spellcasters exhausted their spells or were killed, then the ground forces could engage, hopefully, without fear of heavy casualties, bolstered by whatever casters survived the initial duel (or who were left in reserve). There would be a fierce melee, of course, but it wouldn't be broken by cloudkills and cones of cold and rampaging earth elementals. Like others have suggested, perhaps there's no practical reason for tens of thousands of ground soldiers in any war involving PHB magic. The casualties would be too high when considering level 1 warriors or fighters encountering 1 5th level wizard.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 03:24 PM	Dan, Seconded. Theoretically, that same 5th level wizard could wipe out anywhere from 16 to 60 soldiers in close formation with a single fireball.* Beyond the deadly damage (5d6 fire damage = 20 damage on the average), a reasonable DM would also impose morale considerations depending on the magnitude of such a barrage. A trained, cohesive unit might be able to ignore 1-2 fireballs, but a cadre of a dozen 5th-7th level wizards unleasing 2-4 fireballs each would be devastating. Again, this is why I was kind of upset at the battle descriptions of the Last Mythal Trilogy. I simply didn't see the elves marching against demons in standard formations and such (and vice versa). *Assuming historically standard formations, with each soldier taking up approx. 3 feet of frontage, and with each soldier being next to his partner. If one were to go for very close formations, such as the Macedonian phalanx, each soldier takes up only about 2 feet of frontage.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 03:35 PM	Unless you plan on having your wizards serve as garrisons, customs patrol, and police forces, army sizes are still relevant. Perhaps not as relevant as in a pure medieval setting, but relevant enough to where silliness like Akanax v. Cormyr needs to be explained, if only to reconcile it in your own head. Again, it all depends on the society. Cormyr doesn't need as many soldiers because they have a sizeable corps of "elites," including a very large cadre of wizards, that are directly allied to the crown. The crown doesn't *want* many soldiers beyond that (at least, any more than are needed to protect their communities from humanoids and the like, and to enforce the law) because of their tenuous relationship with the periphoral nobles.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 03:41 PM	How many wizards are in the military? There's the war wizards of cormyr, but what's their numbers? I'm not 100% sure, but Ed Greenwood makes them sound as if they're sizeable enough. Of those, how many are 5th level or higher? All, according to Magic of Faerun. The PrC requires the WW to cast 4th level spells. How many are 17th level in order to cast meteor swarm? I would guess none, but the point is really moot. Several much lower level wizards could have just as much of an impact, if not moreso. Numbers matter only in certain scenarios. A magic-heavy realm really *needs* only insofar as occupying ground and policing a state is concerned.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 04:03 PM	Agreed. The units would skirmish (moving while keeping each soldier 30 ft apart) to lessen the impact of area-attacks. When a melee starts the formations would closen and the flanking tactic mayhem starts. Think about the mathematics of what you propose, though. An Imperial Roman Legion had approximately 5,300 infantrymen. Its frontage in open array was about 650 feet--and that's in a basic formation, with each cohort lined up 5-6 centuries deep. In an actual battle, that same legion would be about a fifth of a mile wide. Together with its auxilliaries, it would be about half a mile wide. Now, ancient generals wielding forces the size of 2-4 such legions (between 20-40 thousand men) often had trouble finding suitable terrain to array their forces properly. Even assuming a smaller army (20,000 men), we're still talking about a formation that's about a mile wide in a relatively open combat formation. Multiply this by five (as you say), and we suddenly have a formation that requires favorable ground about 5 miles wide. That general would almost certainly need magic just to transmit his orders! ;) Forces can be sustained and gathered by magic. A warlord who does not take these things in consideration would be dead in no time. Maybe Arkanax (sounds rather arcanely) has some magical way of enhancing the sustainability of its armies. Give every soldier a spoon of Murlynd and a skin of endless water and they can eat and drink indefenitely. The problem is that Akanax is not described as a really magic-friendly place.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 04:10 PM	Once the spellcasters exhausted their spells or were killed, then the ground forces could engage, hopefully, without fear of heavy casualties, bolstered by whatever casters survived the initial duel (or who were left in reserve). There would be a fierce melee, of course, but it wouldn't be broken by cloudkills and cones of cold and rampaging earth elementals. Ironically, this is how most of the battles in the Wars of the Successors (of Alexander the Great) are described. Absent of any general of genius like their dead monarch, the Διαδοχοι (Successors) fought battles that went kind of like this: 1) Elephants, CHARGE! (elephants tear each other to pieces; both sides had them) 2) Cavalry, CHARGE! (ditto) 3) Infantry, and whatever cavalry/elephants I have left (assuming I won those skirmishes), CHARGE! And that generally was the course of the battle. It's a very great challenge to come up with brilliant generalship that takes into account the "4th" dimension of magic. In the Chessenta I kept re-tooling, Chazzar (whom I renamed) kept his "Alexander"-like motif (duh, look at my user name) but was also a very powerful spellcaster (among other things) and excelled precisely because of his ability to master that extra dimension in combat.
Tiamat2 04-21-07, 04:45 PM	In my Chessenta, Cimbar/Akanax triumphed because the other side had far fewer troops (Soorenar) or idiotically excluded arcane spellcasters from their ranks (Luthcheq). These factors, combined with the fact that Cimbar was ruled by forces loyal to Tiamat, whose churches seem perfectly set-up to function as quislings (the churches of Tchazzer and Entropy, specifically), made the military battles themselves secondary. I think I will compromise and use approximately 2,000 men to invade the Moonshaes. Its a little larger than I had in mind originally, but people are right. One thousand men might be able to beat a standing army, but to siege and occupy a city like Caer Callidyr probably will take more men or more magic and I prefer more men.
GothicDan 04-21-07, 05:27 PM	Again, this is why I was kind of upset at the battle descriptions of the Last Mythal Trilogy. I simply didn't see the elves marching against demons in standard formations and such (and vice versa). I THINK (not going to say for sure) that Ed has commented at least once on Elven warfare and how it varies considerably from medieval/ancient warfare. I'd imagine it to be much more akin to modern warfare, if anything, and probably even more imaginative and complicated (Sun Elven analysis coupled with Moon Elven innovation = zomg).
Kerym Ammath 04-21-07, 05:49 PM	The way I see it magic is used principally for communication, deception, logistics, movement, and reconnaissance. Using it in a direct offensive manner at long range (fireball, meteor swarm) will simply expose said caster to counter battery fire. Sure he might take out a hundred troops, but he gets the equivalent of a bunker buster dropped on him. So just from that suggesting grouped units of wizards or other casters is pretty foolish. Area affect spells are really only usable until your units have closed with theirs. At medium ranges you have been under the cover of your opponents archers for several hundred feet, and are extremely vulnerable to concentrated volley fire (another reason massing the mages is not a good idea). Flying around exposes you to long range spells while the opponents mages hide amongst their troops, some of which may be illusionary. The side which is foolishly exposing these vulnerable assets will quickly find itself without them. So in short I don't think wizards or clerics greatly affect the actual outcome. They do however allow the use of modern tactics with fantasy assets, and the side without this capability is pretty much guaranteed to lose. Good planning, disciplined troops, and the full spectrum of assets is what is going to win a battle and a war, not someone throwing fireballs.
Philalexandros 04-21-07, 07:00 PM	At the risk of sounding rude, I have to say that your assessment seems a tad simplistic and one-sided. Not all nations have equal magical power, and thus the idea that spellcasters would automatically be countered by a like power is based on presumption rather than fact. For example, an elven army from Evermeet is going to be hard-pressed to find an enemy that can match it in magical might. The effects spellcasters can bring to bear are varied, and go beyong mere evocations. They also include powerful enhancers (Haste can significantly increase the capabilities of a small cohort of troops) and effects that shape the battlefield (a sudden wall of fire or stone can alternately protect a flank, send horses scattering, or separate enemies from their reinforcements). Ordinary soldiers are going to have a very difficult time affecting arcane spellcasters trained to warfare with ordinary weapons. Stoneskins and Protection from Arrow spells can do away with most threats, for example.
GothicDan 04-21-07, 07:03 PM	And there's also illusions. Super-useful on battle fields full of low level soldiers with abyssmal Will saves. In fact, Enchantment spells could be one of the most useful schools for actual battles.
Kerym Ammath 04-21-07, 10:01 PM	Not simplistic. If you are reading it as such you have misunderstood me. Wizards/Clerics etc. will inevitably get tied into principally in modern terms a ecm/eccm arms race. I am not assuming both sides have the same numbers, or equivalent quality of casters. I am assuming that both sides will want to shape the battle and that happens long before the two armies meet, and that is assuming they ever meet. This constant and necessary expenditure of magical resources will allow an army to conduct operations that a medieval army could not this is plenty valuable. They can buff, hide, transport troops and special ops team all of which are in my mind far more important than blowing each other up in the sky, or throwing fireballs, neither of which will truly affect the outcome of the battle. This becomes even more the case when these fireballs are targeted at illusions, and therefore completely wasted. All I am saying is that they are a vital component of an army without which success against an opponent who does have these resources is most likely a pipe dream. Under any circumstance trying to use your spellcasters as essentially close air support is a risk that an intelligent commander would never find himself needing to take. So if you are waiting for me to say that casters are the Queen of Battle don't hold your breathe. Every component of an army is necessary for it's normal function and is necessary for it's long term success. Ultimately what is most important is the leadership available to the army. It's officers, and for lack of a better term non commissioned officers individual initiative and ability to make immediate and appropriate commands is more vital, but severely hampered without the magically enhanced communication. You see the C3 of a medieval army is slow and crude. The complexity of maneuver and deployment is severely hampered by its need to essentially rely on purely visual signals. With magically enhanced C3 capabilities my maneuver ability and ability to deploy is now independent of line of sight. It now allow me to strike where and when I please. If I have an edge in magic I need simply retain it, which means risking these assets in a set piece battle is something only a complete novice would do. If I have no magic and he does I am doomed unless he is a novice or does not have the right kind of magic. Regardless of the magic situation however C3 speed allows me to employ the principles of OODA quickly and if I have trained my army to respond as quickly as possible to these quickly and distantly delivered commands I will rapidly ensure that the enemy is responding to my maneuvers, my actions. Once he is doing this he is reacting to me and the initiative of the battle has shifted away from him and as long as I continue to act quicker than him he will continue to be reactive. This is how you win in large scale battle or hand to hand combat, not with a magic bullet or in this case a fireball. If I act intelligently and maneuver properly he will eventually expend his vital resources at which point a full scale army on army battle may not be necessary. I could go on for hours discussing the variables, but those really don't matter. What matters is command, control, communications and if you have the right type of magical asset (like a mentat in dune or similar) you are now using C4 instead of C3. What matters is how well your army can impliment your commands, and how quickly. I hope I was clearer this time.
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 01:21 AM	Not simplistic. If you are reading it as such you have misunderstood me. Wizards/Clerics etc. will inevitably get tied into principally in modern terms a ecm/eccm arms race. I am not assuming both sides have the same numbers, or equivalent quality of casters. The two above statements do not reconcile with one another. The force superior in magic is under no constraint to operate in any manner that isn't advantageous to its side. ECM/ECCM conflicts occur only when one side is able to put forth ECCM to attempt to counter the enemy's ECM. If they don't have it, or if the enemy can neutralize their ECCM, then the point is moot. Precisely because there is no assumed parity, the wizards would not simply "[blow] each other up in the sky..." More to follow on this. Beyond that, your dismissal of their effects insofar as to how they could affect enemy units again borders on the simplistic and dismissive. Ten War-Wizards of Cormyr (each being at least an 8th level casters) can cast 40 fireballs, each of which will be lethal to any line soldier (average of 32 pts of damage). This means that with just one asset they can destroy about 2,000 soldiers (and that's not assuming metamagic; with Widen Spell, the casualties are doubled). I am assuming that both sides will want to shape the battle and that happens long before the two armies meet, and that is assuming they ever meet. So if you are waiting for me to say that casters are the Queen of Battle don't hold your breathe. I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. If magical parity is not an issue (and it's not; even equally-numbered opposing forces of equal experience will differ in spell selection and ability as well as motivation and teamwork, resulting in varying efficacy), then you cannot possibly assert the above. Ten experienced casters, as mentioned earlier, could whittle away the majority of a historical legion in a matter of less than 3 minutes. If winning a decisive battle was the objective, it is simply contrived to assume they would opt to scare enemies away (unless they were that kind-hearted) or "buff" their comrades for comparatively pointless melee combat. Under any circumstance trying to use your spellcasters as essentially close air support is a risk that an intelligent commander would never find himself needing to take. Absolutely untrue. If the commander has superiority in magic assets to the point that he can neutralize his opponent's while allowing for a surplus of his own, he is either patently idiotic (or simply cruel) if he's willing to let even a few of his men to die in combat when blasting hundreds/thousands of foes harmlessly is an option. Every component of an army is necessary for it's normal function and is necessary for it's long term success. Ultimately what is most important is the leadership available to the army. It's officers, and for lack of a better term non commissioned officers individual initiative and ability to make immediate and appropriate commands is more vital, but severely hampered without the magically enhanced communication. That's a perfect description of our own classical armies. Our modern armies do have their own "wizards," though. They are the same assets used so devastatingly after aerial superiority has been achieved. What you propose earlier is no different than a western-style general using his unopposed aerial assets to simply broadcast commands and reconnoiter the battlefield rather than bomb to waste entire divisions of the enemy. It's simply not realistic. You see the C3 of a medieval army is slow and crude. The complexity of maneuver and deployment is severely hampered by its need to essentially rely on purely visual signals. The problem here is that Faerunian armies are not necessarily "medieval" armies. Medieval armies in our world were, for the most part, a regression from advanced concepts of the Hellenistic, Roman Republican, and Roman Imperial states. To begin with, near-instantaneous commands could be issued tactically as of the 4th century BCE, and only got better during the era of the imperial Legions. Want more than simply being able to tell specific sub-units where to go, what to do, and when to do it? Even a magically indifferent society could invest its commander with a Ring enhanced with the Sending spell. A magically powerful society could do the same with (using the previous example) each Cohort commander. Alternately, it might have enough casters to have them leading each Cohort as well. With magically enhanced C3 capabilities my maneuver ability and ability to deploy is now independent of line of sight. It now allow me to strike where and when I please. That's all well and good, but are those effects comparable to those a wizard can summon? Simply put, no. Let's look at some of the average armies shown in the Realms. A 1st level human warrior (as shown in Silver Marches) faces off against his counterpart. Both have an AC of 17 and 7 HP, and both only enjoy a +4 attack bonus. Each has a less than 50% chance of hitting the other in a given round, and, even if one does hit, he or she will not kill their opponent on the average. The wizard could choose to continue to stay out of the fight; perhaps, like you advocate, he is enhancing the efforts of these comparatively inept individuals. Or, perhaps, he chooses to enhance their efforts. Neither course would really compare to taking out the better part of their forces before melee is even reached, perhaps even forcing a rout. If I have an edge in magic I need simply retain it, ... To what end? You just ceded initiative to an admittedly (magically) inferior force; depending on their imagination and leadership, you likely gave them the opportunity to inflict precisely the sort of damage that either restores parity or costs you the battle. See more below. which means risking these assets in a set piece battle is something only a complete novice would do. That's simply too timid an approach for a battlefield. The wise commander, knowing what he does about his enemy, allocates enough magical assets to counter his enemy's and uses the rest to ensure superiority at the crucial point of the battle. Only if he doesn't have proper intelligence on his opponent would your above proposal apply. In this case, what the commander has on hand is an interesting game of cat and mouse. I could go on for hours discussing the variables, but those really don't matter. What matters is command, control, communications and if you have the right type of magical asset (like a mentat in dune or similar) you are now using C4 instead of C3. What matters is how well your army can impliment your commands, and how quickly. I hope I was clearer this time. I'm more than familiar with C4 (you would actually be using C5 in the Realms). I'm a FAC by trade with the USAF, and I know all about the advantages given by proper command and control. What you forget here, though, is that all that C4 exists so that overwhelming firepower can be applied where it can hurt the enemy most. That firepower, incidentally, would not be infantrymen or tanks--it would be precision-guided munitions, of which the effects wizards bring to bear are the Faerunian counterpart. After all, economy of forces, much like initiative and overwhelming firepower, is another key factor in warfare. Waste not--want not.
MarkusTay63 04-22-07, 02:23 AM	Just to give you some idea of the ABSURDITY of numbers, Yamun Khahan had a half million warriors in his horde. However, because of tribal rules and customs, he only had access to about a third of them at a time (One third had to stay home and protect their own, and the other third had 'off', so this way he always had fresh troops and could cylce used ones back home). He used smaller groups to take Semphar and Khazari, but had a whopping 210, 000 men with him for his invasion of Shou Lung (This meant he used the reserves, but only from his own tribe). By the time the army finished with Shou and had 'encountered' Thay, his main force was whittled down to a mere 100,000 (which he used to attack Rashemen). The Rashemi were able to hold this force off for months, along with 40,000 Thayan troops SIMULTANEOUSLY! (shows you just how important magic is on the battlefield). Azoun's crusade, which included his own army and troops from all over the Heartlands and as far away as Tethyr numbered a mere 28,000. Yup, that was it... the 'grand army' of the Heartlands, going to engage 100,000 bloodthirsty barbarians (there numbers had been replenished and they had been well rested from wintering in Rashemen). To Azoun's credit, he was joined by 2000 Dwarves and 1000 Orcs (from Zhentil Keep) just before the battle. Truth be told, they should have had their @sses handed to them, but Azoun broke through the invaders and personally killed Yamun Khahan. The Tuigen became demoralized at that point and fled the field. The horde broke up soon after (like Alexander's army, once again), and most went home. If it wasn't for that single desperate move by Azoun, we'd all be speaking Tuigen right now. Which is actually a corrupted form of Imaskari, BTW. ;) My whole point is that a combined army of western powers couldn't even get up to thirty thousand men, so why does a single city have such a HUGE army? :confused:
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 03:07 AM	What did Alexander's army have anything to do with it, Markus?
Stigger 04-22-07, 11:35 AM	Think he was just citing it as an example of armies going home after the leader that pulled it together died. Not sure it had any direct bearing on anything other than as an example to clarify his thoughts on the Tuigans.
Tiamat2 04-22-07, 11:35 AM	The main reason that the Western Grand Army numbered only 28,000 men while Akanax, alone, can field 50,000 is that different people write different materials and the first priority in continuity editing apparently isn't to reconcile the army sizes. My concern is finding the scale that is "right" rather than just arbitrarily making up numbers and saying "oh that's just how its done in this region."
Stigger 04-22-07, 11:38 AM	Unfortunately, given the probable regional tendencies towards army traditions and configuration, dictated largely by terrain and available resources, not to mention cultural ideals, I think you are going to have to ultimately go with the "that's just how its done in this region" route.
Kerym Ammath 04-22-07, 11:53 AM	I see everything must be spelled out to satisfy, so in that interest I will attempt to be very detailed and exact. Maybe what I am trying to say will be understood this time, and yes this is a common problem I have had trying to explain the steps to a conclusion. So I will attempt to respond and explain better. The question or rather the argument as I see it is how to employ spellcasters in battle? When I spoke of ecm/eccm earlier the process of analysis was as follow. If I have fewer spellcasting assets I do not want to get involved in activities which will expend them without providing tangible benefit. In this situation operational security becomes more important. Mundane means of concealing information, visual tricks, complete need to know basis, and release of the real plan at the last moment, become means of overcoming or lessening the scrying advantage. If I have parity or superiority I can feel free to engage in this loop, it becomes necessary for the opponent to do as I previously stated to stay in the game. Or if I employ tighter operational security, well then I am just protecting my assets and keeping them available for more important things. Beyond that, your dismissal of their effects insofar as to how they could affect enemy units again borders on the simplistic and dismissive. Ten War-Wizards of Cormyr (each being at least an 8th level casters) can cast 40 fireballs, each of which will be lethal to any line soldier (average of 32 pts of damage). This means that with just one asset they can destroy about 2,000 soldiers (and that's not assuming metamagic; with Widen Spell, the casualties are doubled). Yes you are quite right 40 fireballs would wreak quite a serious amount of havoc on an army 1) without countermeasures, 2) assuming you are actually targeting real troops, and 3) assuming that no one is targeting you while you attempt to do this. When I speak of countermeasures I am not speaking purely of wizards, in fact I don’t like using strong assets unless the risk is acceptable for the potential gain. Having wizards fly up and start launching fireballs may be exactly what the opponent wants. In fact if I was on the receiving end of that first volley I would smile, because when I speak of countermeasures I am talking about a wizards worst nightmare. That is not another wizard, but a flying, greater invisibility, rogue of at least 10th level running around cutting throats, and throwing the mighty down. Good luck taking him out, it won’t be easy or fun. You are assuming that he is going to hit a substantial unit, it could be mostly illusion, with some troops thrown in to make it seem more than what it is. If it is seen through most likely it required a spell to counteract, regardless I bought time and hopefully set the enemy off balance. Regardless at worst it is a pawn takes pawn situation. Who would be taking aim at the exposed wizards, I don’t know maybe the better equipped archer unit which has been armed adamantine/magic arrows and dispersed throughout the regular archer units just in case they get the opportunity to launch in mass at a flying fool. The above risks are in my mind not worth the potential loss of vital assets. This is not even including the possibility that my assets are counter spelling from the safety of the masses. I risk little and he risks everything. Not a situation I would want to be in. I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. If magical parity is not an issue (and it's not; even equally-numbered opposing forces of equal experience will differ in spell selection and ability as well as motivation and teamwork, resulting in varying efficacy), then you cannot possibly assert the above. Ten experienced casters, as mentioned earlier, could whittle away the majority of a historical legion in a matter of less than 3 minutes. If winning a decisive battle was the objective, it is simply contrived to assume they would opt to scare enemies away (unless they were that kind-hearted) or "buff" their comrades for comparatively pointless melee combat. Even though spell selection and efficacy may be a factor, a degree of parity is possible, at least in so far as it can be used as a basis for beginning your planning. So yes I can and do assert that your available magical resources, compared to your opponents available magical resources, needs to be taken into account when formulating your overall strategy for the conduct of a war.Once again you are operating under the assumption that the casters will get to do as they wish. This is wishful thinking, unless you have gone through the process of eliminating or greatly reducing your opponents magical assets, and other assets capable of knocking out your casters. You are also operating under the assumption that your casters will even know where to target. Given your assumptions I can understand why you would believe that casters can be used as essentially airpower/artillery/tank all rolled into one. Absolutely untrue. If the commander has superiority in magic assets to the point that he can neutralize his opponent's while allowing for a surplus of his own, he is either patently idiotic (or simply cruel) if he's willing to let even a few of his men to die in combat when blasting hundreds/thousands of foes harmlessly is an option. And here I see your assumption is that you have gained near complete dominance in the magical asset category, and have removed nearly all threat to your casters. I would have to say based on your comments that you are operating and thinking about the situation in a political and post war vacuum. A caster of the 8th level since you have mentioned them previously will take me a hell of a lot longer, most probably years to replace, than it will take me to replace a spear levy. If I had dominance, to the point where the risk to my casters is minimal then sure I would fly them over and let them wreak destructive terror upon the now nearly defenseless enemy. Otherwise yes I am going to send a spear levy into a grinder if need be to win the war and assure the continued security of the nation state by allowing for the continued survival of my most valuable assets. It all comes down to risk assessment, and replenishment rates. Something your model does not seem to be taking into account. That's a perfect description of our own classical armies. Our modern armies do have their own "wizards," though. They are the same assets used so devastatingly after aerial superiority has been achieved. What you propose earlier is no different than a western-style general using his unopposed aerial assets to simply broadcast commands and reconnoiter the battlefield rather than bomb to waste entire divisions of the enemy. It's simply not realistic. I know how to utilize air support, and I think here is where our misunderstanding becomes apparent. You are assuming these assets are unopposed, whereas I am assuming any overt easily identifiable use will result in essentially a swarm of countermeasures coming to bear on the offending target. Security in anonymity, the wolf in sheeps clothing. Using these assets for reconnoiter, communication, and transport will most likely occur unopposed regardless of being able to gain complete superiority. Hence these are low risk activities even under conditions of assumed parity or even in conditions where you have inferior magical resources. The problem here is that Faerunian armies are not necessarily "medieval" armies. Medieval armies in our world were, for the most part, a regression from advanced concepts of the Hellenistic, Roman Republican, and Roman Imperial states. To begin with, near-instantaneous commands could be issued tactically as of the 4th century BCE, and only got better during the era of the imperial Legions. Want more than simply being able to tell specific sub-units where to go, what to do, and when to do it? Even a magically indifferent society could invest its commander with a Ring enhanced with the Sending spell. A magically powerful society could do the same with (using the previous example) each Cohort commander. Alternately, it might have enough casters to have them leading each Cohort as well. You are correct in stating that Faerunian armies are not necessarily medieval armies, in spite of how they are depicted in the novels. As far as speed of communication, sure I could give very basic commands quickly, and limited to visual range. Increased communication capability, increases the detail of orders given, the speed, the clarity, the distance. This essentially makes the battlefield much larger, and depending on quantity available can decrease the size of your smallest maneuverable units. This allows for a greater variety in tactical deployment, quicker response times, and means that a unit with this level of communication will most likely never be clumped into a standup Roman Legion packed like sardines formation. This change in tactics almost guarantees that your magical assets will most likely never get the ideal target they are looking for. Yes very different from medieval warfare. That's all well and good, but are those effects comparable to those a wizard can summon? Simply put, no. Let's look at some of the average armies shown in the Realms. A 1st level human warrior (as shown in Silver Marches) faces off against his counterpart. Both have an AC of 17 and 7 HP, and both only enjoy a +4 attack bonus. Each has a less than 50% chance of hitting the other in a given round, and, even if one does hit, he or she will not kill their opponent on the average. The wizard could choose to continue to stay out of the fight; perhaps, like you advocate, he is enhancing the efforts of these comparatively inept individuals. Or, perhaps, he chooses to enhance their efforts. Neither course would really compare to taking out the better part of their forces before melee is even reached, perhaps even forcing a rout. Once again you have them engaging in set piece battles, the wizard clearly sees or knows his target and can fire off in his vacuum of superiority. Yes if he gets the opportunity to get off cloudkills, chain lightnings, fireballs, and any other area effect damage spell without interference, at an ideal target yes I agree he is going to blow them into little pieces. My contention is that the fool who allowed you that uncontested shot is the one you need to thank, unless you went through the whole process of degrading is magical assets which I sure hope did not happen from wizard on wizard combat. Once again appropriate risk assessment. To what end? You just ceded initiative to an admittedly (magically) inferior force; depending on their imagination and leadership, you likely gave them the opportunity to inflict precisely the sort of damage that either restores parity or costs you the battle. See more below. Completely disagree with you here. The initiative is given up when you cease to maneuver and strike. Because I prefer to use normal assets backed up by magical assets is certainly not going to affect the over all flow of battle. I would always want to keep my magical assets as innocuous as possible, rather than painting bullseyes on their chest. That's simply too timid an approach for a battlefield. The wise commander, knowing what he does about his enemy, allocates enough magical assets to counter his enemy's and uses the rest to ensure superiority at the crucial point of the battle. Only if he doesn't have proper intelligence on his opponent would your above proposal apply. In this case, what the commander has on hand is an interesting game of cat and mouse. Yes, you do want to concentrate your firepower at the FOME however this is assuming it ever gets to the point where it is a classic battle. The battle I am envisioning is one of constant movement, feinting, decoys, assaults that melt away and turn into ambushes as they are counterattacked. The complete decimation of supplies, and avoidance of points of strength, let it die on the vine. I want the enemy to never know when, where, and how I am going to strike, and a large main force can often be the perfect way to attract and hold his attention. I have already stated where I believe mages shine in offensive operations, but their ideal use is in defensive applications. Taking fortified positions inevitably leads to the minimal dispersion in the attackers forces that lays him open to the kind of devastation area effect spells can have. If I were to engage in a classic battle, I would still use them to take out the enemies spellcasters first, then worry about the masses. No sorry I envision a very aggressive stance, just not in the classic sense. I'm more than familiar with C4 (you would actually be using C5 in the Realms). I'm a FAC by trade with the USAF, and I know all about the advantages given by proper command and control. What you forget here, though, is that all that C4 exists so that overwhelming firepower can be applied where it can hurt the enemy most. That firepower, incidentally, would not be infantrymen or tanks--it would be precision-guided munitions, of which the effects wizards bring to bear are the Faerunian counterpart. After all, economy of forces, much like initiative and overwhelming firepower, is another key factor in warfare. Waste not--want not. Well when you can’t tell where that point is, overwhelming firepower is kind of pointless. It is also kind of pointless when applied on an incorrect target, especially when you take reload times into consideration. I completely agree with what your saying, but only if we are dealing with a standard battlefield. Large cohesive units with minimum mobility. I am here you are there lets meet in the middle and fight. Magic opens up the next level of battle (which is where we have been headed in real life since WWI), it provides an army with the ability to perform careful surgical strikes against key components of the enemies machine. It allows for lightning strikes on supply lines, magical assets, command figures, their families, etc. Information and mobility allow for an entirely different kind of war to be fought. If I am looking to conquer do I really want to crush their army, no I want to remove key components, starve it, demoralize it, and eventually offer them a way out that gives me what I want. What is the point of ruling a depopulated land full of children who will grow up hating you, much better to let daddy live and serve you. To me at least the greatest advantage magic offers is mobility, communication, and firepower (when it is unopposed or used against the ideal target). Accurate information is of the utmost importance and with that everything is open. The army I see being used with this in mind is a professional standing army not a spear levy. The utility and lifespan of conscripts would be in serious jeopardy on any Faerunian battlefield. In summation I think we have similar ideas, just different assumptions of capabilities. Availability and accuracy of information, the build up to where you can utilize your magical assets, what risk is acceptable, what we are willing to sacrifice, and exactly what victory is. This is inevitable given that we had no parameters for this discussion. So if you would be interested in setting up some TDG’s let me know it might be fun. Lastly just in case you were wondering, I was a ground pounder so it is little wonder we came at it from different angles.
Tiamat2 04-22-07, 12:37 PM	Unfortunately, given the probable regional tendencies towards army traditions and configuration, dictated largely by terrain and available resources, not to mention cultural ideals, I think you are going to have to ultimately go with the "that's just how its done in this region" route. I simply disagree with you. I think that the wild fluctuations in army sizes are a product of quality control issues and not a product of intentional design decisions. Though you can invent excuses why Akanax needs 50,000 men to defend 20,000 people in their city or why Waterdeep needs only 12,000 people to defend 130,000 in their city and over a million in their domain, I think it just makes better sense to reconstruct the numbers in a more logical manner when constructing a war campaign hook.
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 01:46 PM	Kerym, I'm going to truncate your post in an effort to address the major points we disagree on. I think we both agree on how each army would confront the other given magical parity. Why do I center on non-parity? Precisely because the Realms do not exhibit parity. The number of states that can be staked up against one another with even near-parity can be counted on one hand. See more below for this. I would have to say based on your comments that you are operating and thinking about the situation in a political and post war vacuum. Not at all. I am using the established description of nations outlined in the FRCS and in Ed Greenwood's own notes. Elves have a prodigious number of spellcasters, on whom they center their military efforts. When they go to war, they bring disproportionate power and experience to the fight. It is precisely because of their unique societal and cultural outlooks that they don't invest in pointless spear levies and such, and concentrate instead on overwhelming magical power. Allow me to demonstrate using canon sources: Cormanthyr's army was 3,000 strong, without any reinforcements from the populace. A small number, but the average infantryman was a 6th level Fighter (!) at a time when the average stated human soldier was between levels 0-2, the latter being exceptional. More importantly, 300 wizards between 4th and 8th, 100 junior officers (9th to 12th level), and 50 senior officers (13th level+) made up their military arm. My earlier examples focused on a low-end, pitiful magical force--just for the sake of illustrating a fraction of what a powerful magical tradition could accomplish. Can you imagine what the above could do to any army listed in the Realms short of, say, Thay? Thay herself has 1,000 Red Wizards and about 5,000 allied mages to her name--her major issue is that she is a nation divided between several Zulkirs, each of whom has his or her own goals and motivations. By contrast, states that aren't named Waterdeep, Silverymoon, Cormyr (and perhaps Zhentil Keep and Rashemen) can't even begin to hope to match that kind of magical power. Incidentally, the numbers shown for Cormanthyr were out of a population of 60,000 or so souls. One can only imagine what Evermeet, with over 1.5 million inhabitants could project. Given this lack of parity so prevalent across the Realms, focusing on parity actually becomes the contrived course of action. Where your efforts are concerned, certainly an elven army would utilize magical effects to enhance the efficacy of its mundane troops across the board (C4, mobility, fighting ability, protection, etc.), but 3,000 elite infantrymen are, in fact, the "side-show" to the effects over 450 impressive wizards can bring to bear. Completely disagree with you here. The initiative is given up when you cease to maneuver and strike. Maneuver and striking is not limited to conventional forces. In this case, you are, in fact ceding the initiative when place yourself in reactive posture. Any injection of modern military doctrine in FR will be inaccurate at best, but if the western mode of war has taught us anything, it's that we strike hard, we strike fast, and we strike with contingencies in place to meet our enemies' counters. Interdiction assets are supported by SEAD, and are made possible thanks to C4 and Intel. If we don't have all those assets on our own, the political process is meant to make them available via allies. We don't send armor and infantry divisions to slog it out for fear that our air assets won't be able to deal with SAM systems, AAA, etc. Again, an F-15E Strike Eagle is not a wizard, but the investment in both the pilot and the airframe is very comparable to the investment in training and lore you mentioned earlier. Because I prefer to use normal assets backed up by magical assets is certainly not going to affect the over all flow of battle. In fact, it will. You can hang Damocles' sword on the opposing wizards, but if your commander has lost half or more of his army before melee is even joined (and that's assuming everything goes optimally for you and his host doesn't break), the political/strategic objective has more than likely been lost. Yes, you do want to concentrate your firepower at the FOME however this is assuming it ever gets to the point where it is a classic battle. The battle I am envisioning is one of constant movement, feinting, decoys, assaults that melt away and turn into ambushes as they are counterattacked. The complete decimation of supplies, and avoidance of points of strength, let it die on the vine. I want the enemy to never know when, where, and how I am going to strike, and a large main force can often be the perfect way to attract and hold his attention. I'm not sure I understand; are you implying the army is doing all of the above but in divided contigents, or that the army merely serves as a lure while the magi do all of the above? Well when you can’t tell where that point is, overwhelming firepower is kind of pointless. ... We have now departed into a completely different subject matter. You're not arguing along the lines of battlefield tactics anymore; you're describing a sort of magic-driven special operations doctrine. This is a completely subject matter that requires it own unique set of contigencies and countermeasures. Lastly just in case you were wondering, I was a ground pounder so it is little wonder we came at it from different angles. Being that I work with ground pounders, our views are more similar than you think. Our main point of divergence seems to be whether pitched battle would be offered (I believe it would be; lore shows that this remains the centerpiece of Realmsian warfare) and whether even near-parity would be present (I don't believe it would be; I think the material shows that this would not be the case except for a handful of nations, the majority of whom don't even fight one another for obvious reasons). Some minor quibbles follow below: In fact if I was on the receiving end of that first volley I would smile, because when I speak of countermeasures I am talking about a wizards worst nightmare. That is not another wizard, but a flying, greater invisibility, rogue of at least 10th level running around cutting throats, and throwing the mighty down. Good luck taking him out, it won’t be easy or fun. Well, let's see. Stoneskin is a given; striking someone isn't by any means automatic; said rogue himself is an even more exposed asset that can be targeted by any mage using a simple, 2nd level spell (See Invisible). Beyond that, magical traditions that provide for moderate-level casters in military forces are rather abundant in Faerun, and stated/qualified. Can the same be said about enchanted rogues serving military forces? I can think of one instance--the Flaming Fist, which has long been the exception to the rule where armies go. You are assuming that he is going to hit a substantial unit, it could be mostly illusion, with some troops thrown in to make it seem more than what it is. Actually, I do not. Ten widened fireballs alone overlap to the point that they can affect almost half the frontage of a Roman Legion. You're talking about illusions that have a very limited area of effect. Even if you assumed comparable numbers of casters, the limitations of the illusion spells mentioned ensure that either only a small fraction of their force could be duplicated during its march to the melee, or that a very good portion of the force could be doubled... but would have to remain static. Who would be taking aim at the exposed wizards, I don’t know maybe the better equipped archer unit which has been armed adamantine/magic arrows and dispersed throughout the regular archer units just in case they get the opportunity to launch in mass at a flying fool. That's a fair idea; depending on whether they have a shot or not to begin with. Sadly (I don't mean this sarcastically, btw), outside of the longer lived races, even "elite" units within armies are of a level low enough that I doubt what you propose is feasible. Beyond that, were I the commander of the magic-heavy force, I would initially target the enemy's missile units. There's not point, after all, in targeting those who can't affect you initially. We've already established that illusions will only protect so many troops; I'm not sure how an archer/crossbow/missile force of likely proportions will survive the barrage described above. At any rate, it's a pleasure debating with you. Out of curiosity, what unit did you serve with/are serving with?
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 01:49 PM	I simply disagree with you. I think that the wild fluctuations in army sizes are a product of quality control issues and not a product of intentional design decisions. Though you can invent excuses why Akanax needs 50,000 men to defend 20,000 people in their city or why Waterdeep needs only 12,000 people to defend 130,000 in their city and over a million in their domain, I think it just makes better sense to reconstruct the numbers in a more logical manner when constructing a war campaign hook. Agreed. I know that many things about the Realms are different precisely because of the "alien" societies and cultures that make it up... but, absent of qualifying information, and given that the Old Empires were a rather contrived add-on to begin with, I would say that one needs to creatively re-look large portions of this area (and not just the armies).
MarkusTay63 04-22-07, 03:03 PM	I would say that it is more then fair to assume it is something of a QC problem, but if we fall back on the 2e sentiment of 'inaccurate reporting', then we can justify some of it. If Akanax says he has 50,000, then that is because he is counting EVERY single male peasant living within his lands as part of his 'militia'. Other nations only count their 'regular army', while still others may only count their 'elite' fighting forces, and not local garrisons. Remember, Azoun's army, and therefore Cormyr's regular army, ony contains the numbers of troops directly controlled by the crown (which would include 'some' local levvies). In a feudal system, local lords have their own troops, only a small portion of which is assigned to the Crown at any one time. In an all-out war, Cormyr could probably triple that number in well-trained troops, and perhaps double that new figure again with untrained militia drafted from the countryside. You should assume the figures we read are the ones reported to 'the heralds' by the leaders; in most cases a country would lie about it's armies composition, either one way or the other. What did Alexander's army have anything to do with it, Markus?Re-reading that, I realize I was a bit vague. After the death of Alexander, his army, along with his empire, broke apart. This is what happened to the Tuigen when they too lost their unifying figure. History has shown that in most cases this will happen, because rarely is the predessesor as good a leader as the original (although in Alexander's case, his father was great - Alexander was EPIC!!!). Think he was just citing it as an example of armies going home after the leader that pulled it together died. Not sure it had any direct bearing on anything other than as an example to clarify his thoughts on the Tuigans.Exactly so, it's hard to have cohesive thoughts in the middle of the night. ;)
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 03:32 PM	Re-reading that, I realize I was a bit vague. After the death of Alexander, his army, along with his empire, broke apart. That's why I was confused--that didn't happen. Alexander's empire, such as it was, remained rather intact for the better part of 14 years. The first of the infamous wars of the Διαδοχοι/Successors were fought between generals who sought to prevent any one man from gaining too much power prior to the recognized heirs (and then heir; Phillip Arrhidaeos, a supposed mental invalid was once considered equal to Alexander IV, Alexander's actual son by Roxanna, but once the latter was born, the former's backing largely dissipated) reaching majority. In fact, the Macedonian political situation had seen comparably bad times and survived. What drove the dissolution of the empire was the fact that Cassander, the general who had Alex. IV in his custody, murdered the boy after he was pressed to allow him to ascend to the throne. This led to another war, and the final dissolution of the empire (as the Agead Dynasty was now destroyed). ... (although in Alexander's case, his father was great - Alexander was EPIC!!!). Agreed! :) (hence my nick; Friend of Alexander)
Stigger 04-22-07, 04:05 PM	I simply disagree with you. I think that the wild fluctuations in army sizes are a product of quality control issues and not a product of intentional design decisions. Though you can invent excuses why Akanax needs 50,000 men to defend 20,000 people in their city or why Waterdeep needs only 12,000 people to defend 130,000 in their city and over a million in their domain, I think it just makes better sense to reconstruct the numbers in a more logical manner when constructing a war campaign hook. Er, I think you misunderstand me there. No question its a result of poor quality control. I just think that given the rather poor editorial restraint that went into several bits of the Realms, ultimately you're going to have to break away from the official and put in something that makes sense to you (and more than likely everyone else given some of the wild numbers that went in to some places), given the region and its thought process for warfare, something you seem to take into account, rather than relying on 'canon' data for it.
Kerym Ammath 04-22-07, 04:31 PM	So as not to waste time. Good points :) Now to move on to the interesting portion which in my point is the new doctrine. I get where you are coming from by looking at the assorted published realms forces, which in my mind brings up all sorts of questions regarding the balance of power in the realms, and part of the answer might be where I was delving into. In order to speak about the overall strategy an army would use in my mind along with the individual unit tactics, I will start by building my ideal army. I will do this utilizing only PHB classes, and no prestige classes, in other words keeping it simple, with no nod toward a specific race. Additionally I will give notes as to individual roles, primary focus etc. of each member. This will be forthcoming in a separate thread, seeing as how I have guests enroute and I am sure Tiamat2 is tired of the hijacking. ;) Consider that an apology T2. P.S. 3rd Bn 8th Mar 2nd MARDIV 92-98 and 3rd Bn 25th Regiment 4th MARDIV 99-00
Tiamat2 04-22-07, 05:40 PM	Er, I think you misunderstand me there. No question its a result of poor quality control. I just think that given the rather poor editorial restraint that went into several bits of the Realms, ultimately you're going to have to break away from the official and put in something that makes sense to you (and more than likely everyone else given some of the wild numbers that went in to some places), given the region and its thought process for warfare, something you seem to take into account, rather than relying on 'canon' data for it. Then I did misunderstand, sorry. We were saying the same thing in a different way. I thought you were saying you should use the canon and just account for the wildness of the numbers by saying "different regions . . .".
Tiamat2 04-22-07, 05:42 PM	So as not to waste time. Consider that an apology T2. No offense was taken. My questions are largely as answered as they are going to be. If you had a more productive topic for the thread to take up, go for it.
Burningspear 04-22-07, 05:52 PM	now a question for u tacticians.. :plotting: How much of the 20.000 soldiers Mulhorand has mustered, will actually be in a position to fight the City of Messemprar? I am very interested in kicking the pharaoh boy's teeth in and need to know how feasible it is to field a player owned army, independent of anything the Messemprar mages/ nobles can field.. how much i would have to invest in leadership etc to make it work... apart from the fact that so many lvl 1 followers will never be up to scratch to any elite units, no matter how much magical backup they have..
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 05:56 PM	Remember, the 20,000 soldiers Mulhorand has in Unther are independent of their full army, and also do not include the thousands of slaves they have trained and armed.
Boda 04-22-07, 09:54 PM	If magic rules the battlefield, shouldnt Thay have won by now?(6000 reds!)
Philalexandros 04-22-07, 10:37 PM	As I stated earlier, Thay is divided amongst the various Zulkirs, each of whom has his or her own agenda. If one divides the Red Wizards down the middle, only about 120 (on the average) answer to each Zulkir. Doing the same to the less powerful wizards leave sone with 600 or so such magi. These wizards are not just available for war. Many do work or research for their masters. Others earn them coin at Thayan enclaves throughout Faerun. Still more likely ensure the Zulkir's law is enforced over the populace. It takes work to lord it over more than 800,000 subjects (the average population a Zulkir rules if one were to divide Thay's numbers equally), you know. ;)
MarkusTay63 04-22-07, 11:51 PM	True that, any single Zulkir could test a nation/city's defenses, any two might actually have a chance of doing something meaningful. Get up 3 or 4 acting in concert and it's all over. It's a good thing they're almost as quarrelsaome as the Drow, or the 'good guys' would be in deep trouble. The only time they work together is when Thay is threatened (like when they were attacked by the Tuigen, or the wars against Mulhorand). The single greatest asset that the nicer folks in Faerūn have going for them is that bad guys DON'T get along, at least not for very long. I would think part of the senior Harper's job is to maintain the status quo - if someone like the Simbul were to pose a serious threat to a group like the Red Wizards, it would give them common cause. The last thing most people want to see is a Unified Thay (or unified Drow, or Duerger, or Orcs, etc...). Gives me an Ebil idea... :plotting: The Harpers, or any other 'good' organization, would be just as interested in STOPPING people from attacking the 'bad guys' in any sort of force just for that reason. It could possibly be one of the reasons that Blackstaff made his deal with the Zhents - by limiting their area of effect he forces many of the powerful leaders to work against one another. As long as there was territory to expand into they each had their own agenda and things were going well for them. Now they must go East... right into the same regions that Thay is flexing it's economic muscles. Pretty sneaky... and smart. :D
Stigger 04-23-07, 02:02 AM	now a question for u tacticians.. :plotting: How much of the 20.000 soldiers Mulhorand has mustered, will actually be in a position to fight the City of Messemprar? I am very interested in kicking the pharaoh boy's teeth in and need to know how feasible it is to field a player owned army, independent of anything the Messemprar mages/ nobles can field.. how much i would have to invest in leadership etc to make it work... apart from the fact that so many lvl 1 followers will never be up to scratch to any elite units, no matter how much magical backup they have.. A lot... Leadership, Epic Leadership, the Leadership feats from Tome of Battle and Power of Faerun... it's going to have to be fairly high epic level PC's, all with at least Leadership/Epic Leadership, with leadership scores of at least 60 (I'd say on a guess 80+ would be much better) or better (depends on the feat lineups), to get together a force strong enough to tackle 20,000 regulars with a lot more irregular (semi-fodder) troops supporting them. Think you might have a chance of taking them out then, depending on how you set things up.
Boda 04-23-07, 06:19 AM	So this means that Shade is going to rule all? Their magiclly powerful and have a comon cause.
Philalexandros 04-23-07, 06:26 AM	Not necessarily. Shade is powerful, but not more powerful than, say, Thay or Evermeet. Their numbers and write-ups reflect that.
Stigger 04-23-07, 07:04 AM	Size and ability to actually hold the ground they conquer is a rather decisive limiting factor as well. Firepower is great, but you can't hold territory without the troops on the ground. History has demonstrated that little detail on more than a few occasions. Just don't see Shade as having the manpower to do all that much in the long term.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-23-07, 08:59 AM	well, a lot of good points- but like someone has said- magic is the wild card. We can talk history & military tactics all day & not get anywhere
Boda 04-23-07, 11:31 AM	Agreed. These quasi-battles where there is nothing but counting stats are very unrealistic. Warfare generally involves campaings of intelligence, sabotage, assassination, political play, troops movements, battlae tatics and peace keeping operations, wich there are many ways to counter any given force(magic or otherwise), if your trying to make sense, that is. It all depends on pespective, if you base on rules or novels, because both treat warfare in very different ways. You cant win a war (and live to boast about it)if your opponent has a clear advantage in any given warfare trait(magic, logistics, standart military personal, tatical positioning). Thay cant win because of political turmoil, Shade because of lack of numbers, Cormyr lacks(right now) economical muscle, Amn lacks army, Orcs lacks so many things, Mulhorandi lacks...something i not quite sure, Akanax lacks magic, so in the end, Luiren will rule!
Khaelieth 04-23-07, 01:32 PM	Roughly 8% of the populace? Not bad. The Wehrmacht must've fielded much more than that eventually. But in Faerūn, especially after reading the Elven Comeback novels, I think battles are weird. Spellcasters, giants and dragons can easily pummel whole armies. Reasons for them not to join in can be that the spellcasters actually don't like getting smashed to pieces by a catapult, the giants are too lazy or the dragon's sleeping. I absolutely detest squads of mages.
Stigger 04-23-07, 03:52 PM	Love squads of mages personally. Not really that much different from an artillery battery or CBE unit, just a lot more mobile.
ShadezofDis 04-24-07, 12:00 PM	Just a thought on the potential Moonshae invation. You might want to run it as a group of 3500 or so in number with 1500-2000 being the "core army" and the other's being irregulars who are more raiders than an army. They can move about in groups of 50-100 causing chaos, burning out towns, aquiring food and other items to bring back to the main force, cause people to flee to larger settlements (thus making it harder to defend these settlements) and what not. Basically much how the Lannisters made war in the Riverlands (if you've read A Song of Ice and Fire). You've got your main army that you keep control of and garrison settlements you've taken (probably with 50-100 troops depending upon the settlement size) and still have groups raiding and causing troubles for the various leaders of other settlements. Just a thought :)
Bonzai 04-24-07, 01:00 PM	Back to the original post, I would look at the overall population of the country in question. In times of peace, I would say 4-5% could be called upon to defend and take up arms. In times of war, that figure can jump up to 8-10%. Of that number, figure 1% of that are spell casters (This even works with Thay, in that they have hordes of slaves, dread warriors, mercenaries, private soldiers, and blood Orcs for every wizard). In the Moonshea's, also keep in mind that they are an Island chain, so you should be able to make a suprise strike, and secure a defensible beach head to fight from. It will also take time for them to marshal their forces and mount a counter attack, so you should be able to make decent headway before meeting heavey resistance. This was proven during the novels.
Boda 04-25-07, 08:05 AM	Wizards rule the battlfields, not only because they have powerful magic, but they are also the best swordfighters of the realms!
Boda 04-25-07, 08:08 AM	Note that orcs are the ones who most regulary gather the largest armies around(not that it matters, since they are all ill equipted, ill trained, ill lead,etc).
Stigger 04-25-07, 08:10 AM	You completely lost me there Boda... :blink:
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-25-07, 08:43 AM	Has anyone ever had a player walk around with a sorcerer using a brilliant energy staff or rapier thinking their PC is a Jedi? That's annoying... Anyway... mages are the "smart weapons" of D&D. But just like real warfare, you'll always need good old fashioned infantry troops to "plant the flag" as they say.
Stigger 04-25-07, 08:49 AM	Hmmm.. that brilliant energy thing hasn't ever come up for me. Think I need to get one to try it out. :D
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-25-07, 08:54 AM	It will be fun for all.. at first. Then your PC will take a feat like combat expertise instead of say combat casting, and pump ability increases into DEX, and charge everything clad in armor with the battlecry of "WooHooooo... What's his unarmored AC?" & then start humming the Star Wars theme.. "Da Da DA DAAAA dadada DAAAAAAAA DAAAAAAAAA..." yikes... :uh-huh:
Philalexandros 04-25-07, 09:21 AM	Strike the first "DA" and the third "da" in the "dadada" section. Neither are necessary.
Khaelieth 04-25-07, 11:05 AM	One thing I would like to do with wizards though: A uniformed wizards' guild with circle casting (much like the Red Wizards) that blast things into oblivion at a whim. Absolutely annihalate (sp?) their enemies, Lord of Chaos, Dumai's Wells chapter.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-25-07, 12:44 PM	Strike the first "DA" and the third "da" in the "dadada" section. Neither are necessary. Sorry.. just be glad I didn't type the half assed lyrics that he sings in tempo with the melody... :twitch:
Philalexandros 04-25-07, 12:47 PM	LOL! :D (I hope you know I was just kidding, right?)
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-25-07, 03:47 PM	:thumbsup:
Boda 04-25-07, 10:51 PM	You completely lost me there Boda... :blink: I was just using the orc example that big armies dont make big things by itself.
Burningspear 04-25-07, 11:10 PM	It will be fun for all.. at first. Then your PC will take a feat like combat expertise instead of say combat casting, and pump ability increases into DEX, and charge everything clad in armor with the battlecry of "WooHooooo... What's his unarmored AC?" & then start humming the Star Wars theme.. "Da Da DA DAAAA dadada DAAAAAAAA DAAAAAAAAA..." yikes... :uh-huh: :rofl:
Prince Indirian 04-26-07, 02:02 AM	Dan, Again, this is why I was kind of upset at the battle descriptions of the Last Mythal Trilogy. I simply didn't see the elves marching against demons in standard formations and such (and vice versa). . Hm, 2 words...SPELL RESISTANCE. There is not a demon (or Devil for that matter) that leaves home without it...the weakest of the "battle demons", the Babau has a SR of 14. And that's a regular Babau... Sure I know elven army was extremley elite (=high lvl, according to the authour 5 lvl+), otherwise they wouldn't have stood a freaking chance, fiends rule battlefield with supreme power. In contrast there are dozens of spells that temporarily enchant weapons en mass with so that they can pierce the Damage Reduction of fiends. Much more difficult with SR, because allmost all SR lowering spells are pretty much specific, so that it affects one target a time and some of better only lower it for the caster. While mass-enchantment spells can enable dozens+ to pierce DR. With that said, there are of course spells that bypass SR, but still most of the spells straight out of the PHB don't... The elves have quite a few advantages, I have always envisisoned them as having a conscript army and standing one...sort like, Israel, Russia, Denmark etc...
GothicDan 04-26-07, 03:03 AM	I thought any spells from the Conjuration school didn't incur SR checks? As well as the dozens of utility spells, divination spells, transportation spells, defensive spells, evasive spells, etc., that the Elves could have used in the battle with the fiends without actually casting spells on them that would have required SR checks...
Prince Indirian 04-26-07, 04:41 PM	I thought any spells from the Conjuration school didn't incur SR checks? As well as the dozens of utility spells, divination spells, transportation spells, defensive spells, evasive spells, etc., that the Elves could have used in the battle with the fiends without actually casting spells on them that would have required SR checks... I was talking about evocation spells (fireball, lightining etc), I thought that was apperent since we PhilA, was dissapointed in the elves mages artillery potential. I'll be more specific in the future. And how do we know the elves didn't use diviniation spells and transport spells (they did transport troops via magic didn't they) etc ? They could very well have used all of those and in at least some cases knowingly did. I mean the author can't spell out every spell by cast by every spellcaster ? From an offensinve in terms of ablowing up ranks hoards demons are harder to hit/damage (due to SR) and that was my main point. Sure alot spells can be used in various ways making them "offensive", but I am talking about meteor swarm, chain lightning and fireball...hope you get me now.
Khaelieth 04-26-07, 04:50 PM	The Elves should have summoned eladrins:D But I prefer negating magic as much as possible in large scale battles, toning it down a bit. Saying that spellcasters are rather counterspelling, negating and such. Other things are catapults! Destroy the wizard!
Philalexandros 04-26-07, 10:04 PM	Hm, 2 words...SPELL RESISTANCE. There is not a demon (or Devil for that matter) that leaves home without it...the weakest of the "battle demons", the Babau has a SR of 14. And that's a regular Babau... That has nothing to do with what I was trying to say, though. I questioned the idea of elves marching in human-like formations despite belonging to a completely different societal and cultural model. To use layman's terms, the Classical-era Athenians marched in hoplite phalanxes because their society was based on a land-owning middle class of heavy infantry. The Macedonians to their north initially based their army on cavalry, given that their society centered around horse-owning aristocrats. Elves are extremely long-loved, experienced beings that reproduce slowly. I don't see their armies being about stacking soldiers 10 deep and 250 across and calling it a battalion. EDIT: I could see why you would have interpreted my post as you did. To clarify, those were supposed to be two different points. Sorry!
Burningspear 04-26-07, 10:46 PM	That has nothing to do with what I was trying to say, though. I questioned the idea of elves marching in human-like formations despite belonging to a completely different societal and cultural model. To use layman's terms, the Classical-era Athenians marched in hoplite phalanxes because their society was based on a land-owning middle class of heavy infantry. The Macedonians to their north initially based their army on cavalry, given that their society centered around horse-owning aristocrats. Elves are extremely long-loved, experienced beings that reproduce slowly. I don't see their armies being about stacking soldiers 10 deep and 250 across and calling it a battalion. EDIT: I could see why you would have interpreted my post as you did. To clarify, those were supposed to be two different points. Sorry! Agreed, i see the elves being very carefull about "mis"using manpower like russians, its antithesis to what elves are, they reproduce to slowly to waste manpower like that... :tie:
GothicDan 04-27-07, 01:43 AM	A uniformed wizards' guild with circle casting (much like the Red Wizards) that blast things into oblivion at a whim. Absolutely annihalate (sp?) their enemies, Lord of Chaos, Dumai's Wells chapter. I imagine that goes on a lot in Thay, and if it came down to it, the Circlesingers (mentioned in the Evermeet novel) could probably due similar things. In fact, if I was representing an assault on an Elven stronghold, that's exactly how I'd portray their magical combat style - not the shoddy, disorganized, unimpressive stuff shown in the Archwizards trilogy. Circles of Elven wizards, High Magi and otherwise, in key strategic locations, linked mentally via magic and with easy means of transportation, each guarded by elite cadres of Clerics and Bladesingers, and maybe a few scouts. That's how I would have rather the Elves been portrayed in the Last Mythal trilogy, though I have no military experience to speak of; I'll leave it to Phil to comment on how efficient that would be. ;)
Prince Indirian 04-27-07, 09:48 AM	That has nothing to do with what I was trying to say, though. I questioned the idea of elves marching in human-like formations despite belonging to a completely different societal and cultural model. To use layman's terms, the Classical-era Athenians marched in hoplite phalanxes because their society was based on a land-owning middle class of heavy infantry. The Macedonians to their north initially based their army on cavalry, given that their society centered around horse-owning aristocrats. Elves are extremely long-loved, experienced beings that reproduce slowly. I don't see their armies being about stacking soldiers 10 deep and 250 across and calling it a battalion. EDIT: I could see why you would have interpreted my post as you did. To clarify, those were supposed to be two different points. Sorry! Oki...:).
Boda 04-27-07, 09:33 PM	Tigh formations of troops demand physicaly in strenght and stamina to withstand the pressure of clash of lines, and also demand high morale and discipline. Elfs are hardly the best examples of this type of soldier (dwarfs would fare alot better), so the efficiency of such tatics are doubtful. Elfs would fare alot better in light artilhary (archers, crossbows), and on specialized units (scouts, sabouteurs, assassins, spellcasters,etc) or even light cavalary( but not heavy cav, because it demands shock power, wich elfs lack). Elfs have pretty good fighter ,but they are mostly duelmasters(good on fighting small numbers), and what takes to make a good duelalist is not the same things that make a good infantryman. Besides, is i would live several centuries, i wouldnt risk my life so easily.
Philalexandros 04-28-07, 02:39 AM	A realistic set of Elven tactics has little to do with 99% of what was in the above post, but very much to do with the very last sentence.
Derren S. 04-28-07, 02:59 AM	I think battles are weird. Yes, battles in the FR are wired. As it was shown dragons and spellcaster would destroy armies, but the novel writers haven't recognized that yet. Look at the recent rage books. In there armies destroy scores of dragons with minimal losses. Or what about the older drizzt books where the drow attack mithrill hall? There spellcasters are also just for support and the majority of fighting is done by melee characters. And thats why war and battles in the FR are so strange. By all data we have it is clear that magic and monsters would dominate the battlefield, but the authors are stuck thinking in medival terms and so all "reports" (=novels&sourcebooks) we have about large scale battles in FR/D&D say that old sword&spear armies (that includes size, orgainization and tactics) dominate.
Stigger 04-28-07, 07:24 AM	Yeah, that is a pretty annoying convention the Realms seems to have picked up. Kinda flys in the face of a lot of other stuff really.
BadCatMan 04-28-07, 08:49 AM	The impression I get from accounts of battles like the drow attack on Mithral Hall is that spellcasters wind up fighting other roles in battle, leaving the common soldiers to still need to do a lot of traditional fighting. For example, Side A starts raining down fireballs in a general artillery strike, the Side B throws up shields. Side A buffs their troops, the Side B debuffs them. Side A lays down weakening effects, Side B dispels them. Eventually spellcasters fight their battle in the realm of magic itself, with counterspells, dispels and magic blockers. The spellcasters fight eachother. While they're occupied, common soldiers are still needed for all the normal tasks: assault the enemy position, seize the baggage train, defend their leaders and spellcasters from enemy soldiers (cause their vulnerable when spellcasting), and try to attack the same on the other side. The whole nature of fantasy warfare could turn full-circle to make traditional warfare a necessity beneath the fireballs of the mages. (Soldiers could still be trained to scatter when a fireball incoming of course.) That's my theory anyway. This is fantasy: it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to look cool. :)
Derren S. 04-28-07, 11:24 AM	An interesting theory but in reality you don't send an equal force against the enemy but a force which can counter the enemy. So you don't send your blaster mages against the enemy blaster mages but you send monks and rogues while your blaster mages do what they can do best, kill enemy melee soldiers. Or if you prefer a real life example, when the enemy attacks with tanks, you don't send your tanks against them (unless your tanks are flat out better than theirs) but attack copters. Not to mention that in D&D offensive magic is much more powerfull in such a situation. There are just too many ways to kill an enemy soldiers and the protection spells are too limited to protect a large number of men. When you focus on countering the enemy spellcasters you loose initative and you will take heavy losses as you can't counter everything the enemy spellcaster throw at you while the enemy takes no losses as your spellcasters are not attacking.
Bonzai 04-28-07, 02:52 PM	Keep in mind though, that casters are an extremley limited resource. There are very few of them, and they can cast only a few spells per day. So yes, a few mages can cast widened and maxamized fireballs that takes out several troups at once. However, they can only do this a few times a day. So ultamatly, a mid level mage might take out what? A hundred low level troops in a day? Doing so would expose him to all kinds of danger (more than likely getting him killed), totally exhausting his resources, and ultimatly making only a small dent in an army that numbers in the 10's of thousands. Instead, from what I have read, casters tend to used to negate specific threats, strike specific targets, or find other ways to shape things that will effect the overall outcome of the battle. Things like dispersing them throughout special units, making them invisible or cloaked under illusion, to sneak around the enemy for a suprise ambush. Or teleporting troops into the enemy camp for a suprise attack against the enemy comanders. Or perhaps creating walls to temporarily bridge or hold back rivers to get an army across. Etc... In the end, the bulk of the fighting will be done by standard soldiers. Using standard tactics, fighting other soldiers. Casters are a tremendous help, and can tip the scales at a crucial moment, but over all, wars are generally won with blades, not spells.
Derren S. 04-28-07, 03:13 PM	Casters are not that rare in the realms. Cormyr has several thousand war wizards wach of them at least lvl 6 (I think). Every nation with a bit of spellcasting tradition in the FR would be able to get at least 500 spellcasters if there is a big war going on. When each of them can kill 100 soldiers a day that is a stopping power of 500000 soldiers, much more than what any realistic army in the FR can have. Yeah, there will be losses but every soldier, spellcaster or not is in the end an expandable ressources and when using your wizards will gurantee victory you will use them even when a quater of them dies. Its not that death is final in D&D anyway.
Lykor 04-28-07, 04:05 PM	Army sizes in the realms are pretty difficult to pin down. The population of Faerun is rougly comparable with the Late Middle Ages/Early Renissaince (minus the Black Death) - 68 million in Faerun and ~70ish million in Europe. However, Faerun is even more fragmented than Europe, with correspondingly smaller standing armies. Army sizes, particularly standing armies, were pretty small until Napolean. The overwhelmingly vast number of battles featured less than 10k people per side. I would say a good rule of thumb for a human standing army would be 10k grunts per 1 million population. This number can be adjusted depending on several factors: magic, race lifespan, tactics, and national status (ie feudal, empire, theocracy). The biggest problem is the disproportional value placed on casters. Even a mid-level wizard is deadly vs massed enemy infanty (with aoe spells like fireball, cloudkill, etc) able to wipe out most conventional armies quickly, and fly/invisibily/stoneskin/protection from arrows greatly increasing their survivability. They can summon additional monsters or create undead/constructs to bolster army size. In addition, they can buff their troops, making them significanly more deadly (haste, magic weapon, bull's strength). I think a good equivalent would be 1 mid-level (5-9) caster = 50 low-level (1-3) infantry.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-28-07, 04:42 PM	The impression I get from accounts of battles like the drow attack on Mithral Hall is that spellcasters wind up fighting other roles in battle, leaving the common soldiers to still need to do a lot of traditional fighting. For example, Side A starts raining down fireballs in a general artillery strike, the Side B throws up shields. Side A buffs their troops, the Side B debuffs them. Side A lays down weakening effects, Side B dispels them. Eventually spellcasters fight their battle in the realm of magic itself, with counterspells, dispels and magic blockers. The spellcasters fight eachother. While they're occupied, common soldiers are still needed for all the normal tasks: assault the enemy position, seize the baggage train, defend their leaders and spellcasters from enemy soldiers (cause their vulnerable when spellcasting), and try to attack the same on the other side. The whole nature of fantasy warfare could turn full-circle to make traditional warfare a necessity beneath the fireballs of the mages. (Soldiers could still be trained to scatter when a fireball incoming of course.) That's my theory anyway. This is fantasy: it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to look cool. :) Good points. I agree that in a battle that has magic on both sides, it would quickly become of a battle of counterspells & such. But even if one side has the magical edge, spellcasters are he MINORITY.. even if you're from Thay. One mage casting fireball at the frontlines would quickly draw the attention of every enemy with a weapon- and I don't care what level he is; he would be cut down like a blade of grass in a few rounds (unless he ran away- in which case he's out of the fight anyway) In any case, I compare magic in D&D battles to high tech modern weaponry. Its great if you have if, it gets the job done, but you'll always need your lowly infantryman to "plant the flag" and declare victory. Plus, even the mighty stealth bomber got shot down by conventional weapons... a mage can be killed by a low level warrior.. the do have **** poor HPs after all....
Boda 04-28-07, 05:22 PM	A realistic set of Elven tactics has little to do with 99% of what was in the above post, but very much to do with the very last sentence. So what is it based on? Arent elfs slightly weaker and less tough that, per say, dwarfs? Arent most elven fighting styles based on speed and skill over strenght? How many heavy elven cavalary or infantry exist? In fact, how many elfs pick shields as part of their primary gear? Please, elaborate your view of realistic battle elven tactics.
Philalexandros 04-28-07, 07:18 PM	This is a deep subject; I will attempt to give it the respect if deserves in the short space I have here. Virtually every mode of warfare reflects, on one level or another, how that society/culture viewed the concept of war and how it valued those who fought it. From the earliest times, socio-cultural values and constraints have decided who fought, in what capacity, and what efforts were taken to protect that combatant. The elves are a race where the average individual lives for several centuries, if not more than a milennium. As a race, they place a certain level of value on its life that doesn't correspond with the sort of archaic battlefield tactics we have come to expect from a fantasy setting. A lot of development we take for granted as humans was not necessary for Elves. Elves didn't have to develop their warfighting system as their social model evolved. That is, they didn't have to come up with the concept of land-owning hoplite or Republican legionnaire. They showed up to Faerun with an already established social system--courtesy of the creation method and fosterage espoused by their deities. Given these considerations, their cultural mindset, and the resources afforded by magic and high magic, it's simply very unrealistic that Elves would ever field the sort of army that (to use your example) Dwarves would expect to meet in a battle.* If you want a good example, Dan's take was very good, IMHO. Dwarves, on the other hand, are also a very long-lived race... but they have a different cultural mentality. Elven warfare might focus on equal parts artistry (Bladesingers) and overwhelming force (High Magi; Circles of casters), but Dwarves as a race would be realistically depicted as a melee-oriented force.
Boda 04-28-07, 09:40 PM	I agree that social-cultural values have a great impact on how a race views warfare. But ignoring the physical limitations a said race is denying the obvious. I do agree with Dan pespective on how elven warfare would make more sense, but to place elven war culture simply on social reasons is simplistic. Note that each race fights as it feels that makes more sense. Per example, Viking infantry formations engage enemy formations with strikes from above(axes and longswords), to maximize the fact that were taller that most oponents they faced, while Romans(latinos) stroke from bellow( with gladium-short sword), to maximize the shield protection and formation discipline, despite the fact that Romans were a highly agressive people, but still smaller then their northern enemies. My point is that quite likely, elfs realized that marching in tight formations, line against line, would be a waste of manpower, since they were outmatched by many races in that kind of position. It's like a wizard that tries to constantly cast magic in combat in only touch attacks, despite the fact that he doesnt have to, and places himself in a more difficult position(low hit points). Since you like Greeks, here a point: if the spartans are considerated the finest soldiers in ancient greece, and their tatics werent different from other greeks, what made them better? Maybe the fact that they were more disciplined, stronger, and add better morale?
GothicDan 04-28-07, 09:42 PM	The Spartans weren't considered the 'best soldiers.' That would probably go to the Theban Band. ;)
Philalexandros 04-28-07, 10:04 PM	I agree that social-cultural values have a great impact on how a race views warfare. But ignoring the physical limitations a said race is denying the obvious. See below. Per example, Viking infantry formations engage enemy formations with strikes from above(axes and longswords), to maximize the fact that were taller that most oponents they faced, while Romans(latinos) stroke from bellow( with gladium-short sword), to maximize the shield protection and formation discipline, despite the fact that Romans were a highly agressive people, but still smaller then their northern enemies. No offense, but the majority of what you described above is mostly based on generalization. Hardly any real-world societies developed their warfighting traditions on the basis of size differential. Hellenes fought Hellenes and nearby Asians for much of their history; the Norse peoples fought predominately other Norse people prior to their Viking period. Beyond that, Hellenic peoples were by no means large, and their entire war-fighting system prior to Phillip II (or, more accurately, Iphicrates the Athenian) was based on overhead spear-thrusts. Romans by no means limited their swordfighting approach to low assaults. If anything, the extant sources, which refer to horrible, amputation wounds, point at a lot of overhead cuts. As for formation discipline, the Roman legions, which afforded as much as 3 feet of separation between each man, were far looser than most people imagine--specifically so as to enable swordsmanship. All the same, the above are largely irrelevant details. Those techniques of combat were arrived at through an "evolutionary" process that dealt less with size consideration (hardly at all, in fact) and more with socio-cultural considerations. Elves, simply put, didn't have to go through that. They came to Faerun equipped with swordfighting, archery, and magical traditions. The Elves, quite simply, didn't have to base their technique off of their "low CON score" because they already knew that their magic made formation fighting pointless. Since you like Greeks, here a point: if the spartans are considerated the finest soldiers in ancient greece, and their tatics werent different from other greeks, what made them better? Maybe the fact that they were more disciplined, stronger, and add better morale? Societal conditioning, of course, instilled from an early age. It's no surprise that the Lacedaemonian war machine began collapsing after the Peloponnesian War. During that era, discrepancy in wealth, the disenfranchisement of the majority of citizens, and a departure from their societal ideals led to a general downward spiral. The Spartans weren't considered the 'best soldiers.' That would probably go to the Theban Band. I would disagree with that. The Sacred Band, or Ιερος Λοχος, was an exceptional unit, but it was merely 300 soldiers out of the larger Theban/Boeotian army. Qualititively, I doubt the Sacred Band was better than, say the Spartan Hippeis, or Ιππεις (Horsemen, or Knights, although they were infantry). What made the Theban army ultimately superior was the fact that Epaminondas was one of the first Hellenes to depart from standard hoplite tactics (credit should go to Miltiades for being the documented first, IMHO). Epaminondas made his left wing incredibly deep (most hoplite phalanxes were around 8 men deep; he shortened his overall front and made his left wing about 30-50 men deep) and refused his right wing--meaning he assaulted at an angle. With superior numbers and localized superiority, he destroyed the Spartan right wing with his own left wing. Given that the right wing of a phalanx was traditionally the spot of honor for an army's leaders, that meant that Epaminondas had wrecked the key portion of his opponent's force. Aaaaand I'm off my soap box! :D
Derren S. 04-29-07, 04:43 AM	Given these considerations, their cultural mindset, and the resources afforded by magic and high magic, it's simply very unrealistic that Elves would ever field the sort of army that (to use your example) Dwarves would expect to meet in a battle.* But in elven culture, every elf does also learn how to fight with a sword and a bow. That directly contradicts the "Spellcasting + high level specialists" doctrine posted before and promotes a "Throw in everything we got" attitude. The complete warefar system in D&D is a total mess. The rules and novels force a picture of medival warefare on use but it is clear that with so much magic and monsters medival warefare would not work. And even the different races themselves are not very thought out what warefare is concerned (see my above example about elves). Also as spellcasters dominate battlefields it is extremly stupid to not focus your armies around spellcasters. A FR nation who still creates melee armies as they existed in medival time make as much sense as a modern real world army which still uses phalanx formation and weapons.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 09:30 AM	But in elven culture, every elf does also learn how to fight with a sword and a bow. That directly contradicts the "Spellcasting + high level specialists" doctrine posted before and promotes a "Throw in everything we got" attitude. Derren, I'm not denying that this is the case. I'm stating that it's a totally unrealistic representation. The model Dan proposed is simply one that I think would fit a race that arrived on Faerun biologically, socially, culturally, etc., developed and complete. The complete warefar system in D&D is a total mess. The rules and novels force a picture of medival warefare on use but it is clear that with so much magic and monsters medival warefare would not work. And even the different races themselves are not very thought out what warefare is concerned (see my above example about elves). I agree completely. Also as spellcasters dominate battlefields it is extremly stupid to not focus your armies around spellcasters. A FR nation who still creates melee armies as they existed in medival time make as much sense as a modern real world army which still uses phalanx formation and weapons. Well, it all depends on that nation's ethos and the level of magical development it has undergone. Do remember that there is PLENTY of historical precedent for "illogical" tactics and weapon-use. Do I need to remind anyone of the slaughter of tens of thousands of cavalrymen in pointless charges against soldiers equipped with machineguns?
Derren S. 04-29-07, 09:51 AM	would fit a race that arrived on Faerun biologically, socially, culturally, etc., developed and complete. That would imo actually mean that the elves would have a big disadvantage in everything concerned warefare. "It is from their foes, not their friends, that cities learn the lesson of building high walls." -Aristophanes Unless the elves also had enemies where they lived before they migrated to Faerun (assuming they lived in some kind of paradise) their society would be totally unfit to support a war industry. There would be no social status for full time soldiers nor would there any place in elven culture for weapon (including spells) development and manufacture. They would also have no developed tactics etc. And even if they had enemies where they lived before, they were probably much different from what the elves face in Faerun so some major changes would still be neccessary. And it is much harder to insert such things into an existing culture than to build a culture from scratch which already includes those aspects. Well, it all depends on that nation's ethos and the level of magical development it has undergone. Do remember that there is PLENTY of historical precedent for "illogical" tactics and weapon-use. Do I need to remind anyone of the slaughter of tens of thousands of cavalrymen in pointless charges against soldiers equipped with machineguns? Yes, such things do happen, but normally they only happen once. By now most nations of every race in the Realms should have realized, either by observation or experience, that spellcasters are the way to go in warefare.
BadCatMan 04-29-07, 10:16 AM	(All IMO, of course.) There a lot of factors to consider when determining the nature of fantasy warfare: culture, history, environment, resources, as well as levels, spells available, magic items equipped, etc etc. It may very well be impossible to determine what ought to happen, and authors are left with whatever seems 'coolest' at the time. This would be true of fantasy and sci-fi warfare, within and outside RPGs. And D&D rules only loosely approximate real-life: a D&D game set during the Crusades or ancient Persia won't be quite accurate (even without magic). It may very well be possible that D&D rules only loosely approximate the real world of Toril if we could suppose there was one (especially when those rules keep changing). After all, the Forgotten Realms predate D&D, if you count Ed Greenwood's eight-year-old writings. Who knows, perhaps the real Torilian Fighter doesn't suck so much compared to the Mages and Clerics? :)
Stigger 04-29-07, 10:49 AM	From what little I recall of the pre-arrival elves, they were pretty adept at warfare and had a fairly large history of military conflicts... details on that are vague in my mind at best though. Though I'd tend to discard the idea that they arrived fully 'complete' as it flies in the face of logic, at least to my mind. No society or culture is ever 'complete', if it were, it'd already be well on its way to stagnation and death. Society and culture both evolve and adapt to fit the environs and conditions of wherever you may go. It may have been developed fairly extensively, advanced even, comparatively to their new neighbors, but not complete in a static sense. One of my major problems with a lot of the elves in general is that general assumption that seems to pervade, that they are essentially an unchanging, monolithic culture in a lot of respects... just makes no sense to me. As to the canon approach to warfare... yeah it is a jumbled mess, but at least they qualify that there are several different approaches to it available to the DM. Complete Warrior and Heroes of Battle help to mitigate it somewhat at least, though I could see where some would find it even more confusing afterwards if using it for anything other than the most general of guidelines. As to whether or not nations would have developed the idea that spellcasters are the current trump in warfare... culturally, a place like Chondath and Sespech have plenty of reasons to avoid spellcasters after disasters like the Rotting War. Amn's well established general distrust of arcane magic also would contribute to them relying on more conventional armies by and large. Sure spellcasters make for tremendous force multipliers, but its hard to imagine a nation that hasn't come up with basic counters to many of the advantages it presents that don't rely on magic. Rapid dispersal tactics, smoke or obstacles to interfere with line of sight, long range indirect fire archers to harrass spellcasters, even polished mirrors over a light source to blind them as they're casting, maybe forcing a concentration check, special forces groups that concentrate on eliminating spellcasters by stealth, just off the top of my head... sure those counters have counters themselves, but for every contingency a wizard must prepare for with a defensive or utility spell, that's one less offensive spell they have available to them. Certainly scrolls can offset that some, but it still kinda descends into a chess game from there really.
Boda 04-29-07, 01:07 PM	elven warfare wouldnt be complete at arriving on Faerun simply because many FR native creatures were unkwon to elfs before.Fighting orcs is alot different from fighting giants or mindflayers. I think everybody keeps forgeting that spellcasters arent that regimented like that(other them Cormyr, Thay, and a few others). If a nation has lets say 100 spellcasters, x% of them arent combat oriented(dont know battlemagics, no battle experience, or just plain coward), y% of them wont do battle for that nation(they can just move right?), and z% will only fight if the imediate surroundings(home or place of interest) are threatened. So, actually, there's isnt 100 avalable spellcasters but maybe 60 or less. And of course there's the alignment and faith(a church may declare itself neutral) factors to count on. If per example Amn would wage war on more magicly gifted nation, dont you think the shadow thieves would launch a campaing of assassination and neutralization of enemy spellcasters? So alot of them wouldnt even make it to the battlefield.
GothicDan 04-29-07, 01:36 PM	elven warfare wouldnt be complete at arriving on Faerun simply because many FR native creatures were unkwon to elfs before.Fighting orcs is alot different from fighting giants or mindflayers. Mind Flayers and Giants are just as multispheric as Orcs. Chances are the Elves met up with them in worlds other than Abeir-Toril. As to the rest of your post, Boda... Elves and their clergy and spellcasters have always functioned as one magically-supported unit. Magic to them is a fact of life, not so much an option.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 04:19 PM	That would imo actually mean that the elves would have a big disadvantage in everything concerned warefare. Why? Unless the elves also had enemies where they lived before they migrated to Faerun (assuming they lived in some kind of paradise) their society would be totally unfit to support a war industry. There would be no social status for full time soldiers nor would there any place in elven culture for weapon (including spells) development and manufacture. Corellon Larethian's portfolio and domains include war. The Elven socio-cultural model is as centered on those concepts as it is to, say, the arts and magic. Yes, such things do happen, but normally they only happen once. By now most nations of every race in the Realms should have realized, either by observation or experience, that spellcasters are the way to go in warefare. I'm sorry, but the above is simply not correct. The list of instances where tactics have failed to keep pace with, or match up to innovation is as long as history itself. Dan aptly addressed the idea of dealing with enemies.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 04:26 PM	Though I'd tend to discard the idea that they arrived fully 'complete' as it flies in the face of logic, at least to my mind. No society or culture is ever 'complete', if it were, it'd already be well on its way to stagnation and death. It flies in the face of human logic, yes. Perhaps complete is not the right word. Perhaps "sufficiently advanced" is. Human society doesn't have the benefit of a supernatural force fostering and guiding its developmental process prior to being released to the "real world," after all. :) As to whether or not nations would have developed the idea that spellcasters are the current trump in warfare... culturally, a place like Chondath and Sespech have plenty of reasons to avoid spellcasters after disasters like the Rotting War. Amn's well established general distrust of arcane magic also would contribute to them relying on more conventional armies by and large. I totally agree with the idea that the level of acceptance and incorporation of magic varies with the state in question. Sure spellcasters make for tremendous force multipliers, but its hard to imagine a nation that hasn't come up with basic counters to many of the advantages it presents that don't rely on magic. It depends on the level of magic one faces, of course. :) None of the examples that you mention below, for example, is a realistic counter to the sort of effects High Magic or a dedicated circle of powerful casters can bring to bear. They would, however, ably counter less-imaginative leaders with a lower magical tradition (the sort who would can only field a cadre of wizards capable of providing "artillery" support, for example).
Derren S. 04-29-07, 04:38 PM	Why? Because it is harder to change a already existing society to new adapt to circumstances than to create a society from scratch with that circumstances in mind. Thats especially true for long lived races like elves. I don't know where the elves originated from (Baybe GothicDan can enlighten me) but unless that place was a nearly exact copy of faerun the established military tradition will not work. And till the elves could change their society and strategy to fit into faerun they would have horrendous losses in any military engagement or there would be quite a bit of unrest as there have to be big changes in their already established society. Corellon Larethian's portfolio and domains include war. The Elven socio-cultural model is as centered on those concepts as it is to, say, the arts and magic. Portfolio or not, without enemies you can't have a war. When the elves did not encounter the monsters/other races of Faerun before they are not prepared for them no matter what Correlon says. And it is harder to change a already established society than to create a new one. I'm sorry, but the above is simply not correct. The list of instances where tactics have failed to keep pace with, or match up to innovation is as long as history itself. Dan aptly addressed the idea of dealing with enemies. You forget that those things happen only once. As soon as one tactic prooves outdated everyone will change the tactic, not only the ones who experienced this failure. And because of the success of Cormyr in warefare, the destruction of the golden horde (which lacked spellcasters to my knowledge) and more recently the appearance of the shades and the battles with the Phaerim most countries which care even a tiny bit for their military would have realized that spellcasters are a very powerfull force on the battlefield and would either use them themself as good as they can or develop counters to spellcasters (hundreds of conscripted pesants with spears do not count as counter to spellcasters).
GothicDan 04-29-07, 04:42 PM	Portfolio or not, without enemies you can't have a war. When the elves did not encounter the monsters/other races of Faerun before they are not prepared for them no matter what Correlon says. And it is harder to change a already established society than to create a new one. Who's to say they didn't encounter those races already? And I hate to tell you this, but Corellon can say and do just about anything he wants. He's a DvR 19 deity. You forget that those things happen only once. As soon as one tactic prooves outdated everyone will change the tactic, not only the ones who experienced this failure. That's just not true, and there's nothing else to say about this. As you said, societies are hard to change, and societies are the people that employ military tactics.
Derren S. 04-29-07, 04:45 PM	Who's to say they didn't encounter those races already? And I hate to tell you this, but Corellon can say and do just about anything he wants. He's a DvR 19 deity. Who says they did? It depends on where the elves come from. But you are the elven expert here so do tell me... And the only thing Correlon could have done to prepare the elves for the enemies on Faerun is to bring those enemies to them. Whats his alignment again? That's just not true, and there's nothing else to say about this. As you said, societies are hard to change, and societies are the people that employ military tactics. Whos society does change faster? Human societies where the people have an average live span of 40 which was created when humans had already contact with most races which currently exist in the realms or the elven society where elves have an average life span of 400+ which was created when they had no countact to (most) races in the realms which are now their potential enemies?
GothicDan 04-29-07, 04:46 PM	Who says they did? It depends on where the elves come from. But you are the elven expert here so do tell me... The Elves were around for long before they arrived in Toril from Faerie, as were Orcs and the like. So, chances are, they did encounter such monsters before, in other worlds. And the only thing Correlon could have done to prepare the elves for the enemies on Faerun is to bring those enemies to them. WHats his alignment again? No, he could have created them with anticipating such things in mind.
Derren S. 04-29-07, 04:52 PM	The Elves were around for long before they arrived in Toril from Faerie, as were Orcs and the like. So, chances are, they did encounter such monsters before, in other worlds. Who said this? I find it highly unlikely that there are orcs, dragons and dwarves in Faerie (at least by the name). So why would elves have met orcs before? Can even prove that the elves of FR have any kind of relation to the elves of other spheres? No, he could have created them with anticipating such things in mind. But that means that the elves must be a very young race as correlon does not have the ability to see into the future to see what enemies the elves will encounter in other spheres in the far future. Correlon is not omnipotent. So the only way he could do that is when all enemies of the elves already had been created so that Correlon could have known the,. And that contradicts that the elves somehow were more advanced than most other races.
GothicDan 04-29-07, 05:34 PM	Who said this? I find it highly unlikely that there are orcs, dragons and dwarves in Faerie (at least by the name). So why would elves have met orcs before? Can even prove that the elves of FR have any kind of relation to the elves of other spheres? Yes. They were almost all created by Corellon, with the exception of those of Eberron and Dragonlance. But that means that the elves must be a very young race as correlon does not have the ability to see into the future to see what enemies the elves will encounter in other spheres in the far future. Correlon is not omnipotent. So the only way he could do that is when all enemies of the elves already had been created so that Correlon could have known the,. And that contradicts that the elves somehow were more advanced than most other races. Uh. Well, orcs have ALWAYS been the racial enemy of Elves. Remember Corellon cutting out Gruumsh's eye?
Derren S. 04-29-07, 05:36 PM	Yes. They were almost all created by Corellon, with the exception of those of Eberron and Dragonlance. Book and page number please. Uh. Well, orcs have ALWAYS been the racial enemy of Elves. Remember Corellon cutting out Gruumsh's eye? There are more hostile races on Faerun than orcs. And considering that orcs have a rahter "odd" fighting style, tactics against orcs don't work very well against humans, dwarves or stronger monsters.
GothicDan 04-29-07, 05:41 PM	Book and page number please. Page numbers? No clue. However, the creation myths and the relations of one elf to the next are detailed in Complete Book of Elves. The original Legends and Lore also talks of Corellon creating Elves in Greyhawk, and Demihuman Deities tells of the same for FR. Did that happen before or after elves were created? Before. This is according to both the novel Evermeet and the Races of the Wild book, I believe.
Derren S. 04-29-07, 05:45 PM	The original Legends and Lore also talks of Corellon creating Elves in Greyhawk, and Demihuman Deities tells of the same for FR. And of course that happened quite some time before the elves settled on faerun or did it happen at the same time? If yes than it wouldn't mean anything as the elves would not have had time to adapt their society to what they found on Oaerth. I assume that the elves could get back to Faerie in the past and that knowledge was only lost "recently"? Because without a way of communicating the elves being on Faerie which later settled on Faerun don't get any advantage from the knowledge of the elves on Oerth. Before. This is according to both the novel Evermeet and the Races of the Wild book, I believe. I noticed that (hinted in the F&P). See my edit.
GothicDan 04-29-07, 05:50 PM	And of course that happened quite some time before the elves settled on faerun or did it happen at the same time? If yes than it wouldn't mean anything as the elves would not have had time to adapt their society to what they found on Oaerth. I assume that the elves could get back to Faerie in the past and that knowledge was only lost "recently"? Because without a way of communicating the elves being on Faerie which later settled on Faerun don't get any advantage from the knowledge of the elves on Oerth. You seem to be missing the point: they were CREATED largely with such knowledge. They did not have to share it with each other. At least, that's what I'm personally trying to suggest, to explain why they are shown to have martially developed so well at such a relatively young 'age' (able to fell dragons).
Derren S. 04-29-07, 05:53 PM	You seem to be missing the point: they were CREATED largely with such knowledge. They did not have to share it with each other. The knowledge of how to battle orcs isn't much help when fighting against humans or dragons. But at least its a beginning and means that the elves knew the concept of warfare when they came of Faerun. But that does not mean that they had an advantage. They had to learn like any other race on Fearun how to fight their enemies. And imno it does not explain why they defeated the dragons. That victory was "scripted" (like most historic events and FR novels are). There is no explanation for it except that it was supposed to happen and so it happened no matter what reason and logic would dictate. Thats why the FR (D&D) warefare is so messed up. Because things happen which according to rules and common sense should not happen. (Like having medival stiled armies in an magic&monster heavy enviroment)
GothicDan 04-29-07, 05:56 PM	Just because there's no written explanation doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Logic would dictate for something to happen, there would have to be a LOGICAL reason for it doing so. In physics, if something happens for no apparent reason, we don't just throw our hands up and go "It makes no sense! God must have scripted it to be so!" You think like a creationist/fatalist, Derren.
Derren S. 04-29-07, 06:00 PM	Are you really trying to compare nature laws with a fictional world?
GothicDan 04-29-07, 06:02 PM	Yes. Because in Faerun, deities CREATE the natural laws, as they see fit. Corellon and other powerful deities can 'script' nature however they want it to be, just like the creators scripted Faerun, and just like how God may have (to some) 'scripted' the real world. Now, if you go solely by the deities' powers in 3E, then I agree with you - nothing makes sense. But remember that the long history and culture of FR was not developed with 3E's rules in mind. If that bothers you, I would hope you would move on to a setting that DOES take more of 3E's ruleset into mind. This is how I analyze and play D&D - like I'm analyzing physics, with deities representing forces of nature. Therefore, I find reasons for it all to make sense. You don't have to do that. Now, I'm off to my fraternity meeting.
Alac Luin 04-29-07, 06:09 PM	The knowledge of how to battle orcs isn't much help when fighting against humans or dragons. <snip> And imno it does not explain why they defeated the dragons. That victory was "scripted" (like most historic events and FR novels are). There is no explanation for it except that it was supposed to happen and so it happened no matter what reason and logic would dictate. <snip> Read Evermeet. The elves defeated the dragons because of the Avrial. The Avrial were on Faerun fighting Dragons long before the sun/moon elves came to Faerun, so they were long practiced in the art of battling dragons. The sun/moon elves gave the Avrials the little nudge to tip the scales against the Dragons.
Derren S. 04-29-07, 06:11 PM	Yes. Because in Faerun, deities CREATE the natural laws, as they see fit. Corellon and other powerful deities can 'script' nature however they want it to be, just like the creators scripted Faerun SO Mystra "scripted" her death, Moradin "scripted" the decline of dwarves and Io (who was much more powerfull back then) "scripted that dragons would loose to elves and be periodically driven into rage? You might analyze the FR like a nature law, but I don't because you can't compare FR lore to physics. D&D, and with it, FR is a man made thing and that means it is inherently flawed. It is not stable but fluctuates depending on whatever is considered "cool" at the time when a novel or edition is written and on the personality/outlook of the person who wrote it. Things in D&D don't happen because there is a logical reason for it, but because someone decides that it should happen because he gets paid for it. And that often (imo always) means that something happens without any reason, because it is advantageous to WotC/TSR at the moment it is written.
Stigger 04-29-07, 07:44 PM	Unsurprisingly, I find myself favoring Derren's view of it. Too many people involved in the process of creating the lore to really be able to treat it as a single unified model of a world shaped by all knowing divine will. The idea that a divine being, big C in this case, implanted all the knowledge they would ever need is just... ridiculously nonsensical. And even if we presume that's true, what's to stop the other deities from doing the same to their creations? And why precisely does Corellon and the elves creation myth trump those of all the other races pantheons? Presuming they heard that story from Corellon himself, I'd say Araushnee was well justified in rebelling against the prick... that's moving awfully close to monotheistic drivel.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 08:20 PM	Because it is harder to change a already existing society to new adapt to circumstances than to create a society from scratch with that circumstances in mind. Thats especially true for long lived races like elves. No, actually you're just assuming that. I'll note for the record that none of us actually have any experience with societies of centuries-old beings. More importantly, see below. I don't know where the elves originated from (Baybe GothicDan can enlighten me) but unless that place was a nearly exact copy of faerun the established military tradition will not work. And till the elves could change their society and strategy to fit into faerun they would have horrendous losses in any military engagement or there would be quite a bit of unrest as there have to be big changes in their already established society. Uhm, conjecture? Furthermore, I hesitate to assign "horrendous losses" to any society that wields so much magic as to do away with any need with conventional tactical formations--the main part of the argument, that you have refused to even aknowledge for some reason. You forget that those things happen only once. As soon as one tactic prooves outdated everyone will change the tactic, not only the ones who experienced this failure. I assure you this is not the case. War chariots were used centuries after they became obsolete. To this day, Sudanese militia ride to war on horses, accompanied by helicopter gunships and jet aircraft on their attacks. And because of the success of Cormyr in warefare, the destruction of the golden horde (which lacked spellcasters to my knowledge) and more recently the appearance of the shades and the battles with the Phaerim most countries which care even a tiny bit for their military would have realized that spellcasters are a very powerfull force on the battlefield and would either use them themself as good as they can or develop counters to spellcasters (hundreds of conscripted pesants with spears do not count as counter to spellcasters). No one is arguing against this. What I'm saying is that many nations only have so much of a magical tradition to use. Portfolio or not, without enemies you can't have a war. When the elves did not encounter the monsters/other races of Faerun before they are not prepared for them no matter what Correlon says. And it is harder to change a already established society than to create a new one. Again, history works against you. The classical-era Hellenic city-states fought each other to the exclusion of anyone else for the better part of 5 centuries. Their armies, hoplite phalanxes with minimal cavalry and missile supporting assets were nothing like Asian armies; the generals leading them had no experience fighting Asian armies. Nonetheless, none of this prohibited the Hellenes from taking off on a highly successful series of conflicts spanning a period of more than 200 years, during which Hellenic-speaking armies marched as far off as India. Elves have the advantage of an incredible magical tradition and high magic to boot. They arrived to Faerun at a time when there were no organized human nations or any military traditions of note. They literally watched human civilization develop, and the idea that they were not able to adjust as needed to counter any human innovations is simply contrived.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 08:30 PM	The idea that a divine being, big C in this case, implanted all the knowledge they would ever need is just... ridiculously nonsensical. Why? He's a god. He had all the time he wanted to mold his creations in the image he wished. And even if we presume that's true, what's to stop the other deities from doing the same to their creations? That deity's mindset and/or the unique circumstances of the race's upbringing. Deity X may have had different ideas about what would make his created race stronger. Gruumsh might have had a more "Darwinian" mindset, and prefered the idea of letting his children go through a crucible of sorts (example; not saying it's canon). And why precisely does Corellon and the elves creation myth trump those of all the other races pantheons? Who said it does? Presuming they heard that story from Corellon himself, I'd say Araushnee was well justified in rebelling against the prick... that's moving awfully close to monotheistic drivel. Huh? I don't even get your point here. Incidentally, Aurashnee specifically qualifies why she went against Corellon, and none of her stated reasons make him out to be anything like a "prick."
Stigger 04-29-07, 09:39 PM	Thought the whole springing forth from his fallen blood thing kinda precluded the mold his creations thing, at least to me it does. Battle wounds turning into full fledged races doesn't exactly equate to 'careful' planning of a species, at least to my way of thinking. Nevermind that Corellon trumps thing, looking back I completely misread Dan's post there for some reason, the "Yes. They were almost all created by Corellon, with the exception of those of Eberron and Dragonlance." I took to mean dwarves and dragons for some unknown reason. That's what I get for posting things after reading medieval history books, just gets me in the wrong frame of mind. :D Which kinda invalidates the second part entirely... lol, just ignore me on that whole issue. Though if Corellon had been claiming to have created everything, I could see where Araushnee would have tried to stab him in the back.
Philalexandros 04-29-07, 09:50 PM	Which kinda invalidates the second part entirely... lol, just ignore me on that whole issue. Though if Corellon had been claiming to have created everything, I could see where Araushnee would have tried to stab him in the back. LOL, no worries. :D
Xavier_of_Cormyr 04-30-07, 08:56 AM	One thing that is being overlooked here- war is like real estate. Location, location, LOCATION!!! Different armies fare better & are trained & used to fighting in different locations. Elves are a mobile fighting force- a big army of navy SEAL's if you will. They rely on stealth, mobility, speed, and better technology (in this case, better magic) Dwarves are a unmatched infantry division. Devestatingly effective, but not too mobile. They can take a beating without breaking a sweat, but their effectiveness can be severely limited in certain scenarios. Basically, get a bunch of dwarves in an open field- a human army would mow them down (not as a rule of thumb, but smart money is on the humans) Elves in a forest would rip apart their enemies long before they even reached the elven front lines- guerilla tactics & mobility of small sqauds of skirmishers. I think everyone here can see my point.
Philalexandros 04-30-07, 06:56 PM	My whole point is that, realistically, no one should even get near the Elven forest! :D Myth Drannor was a realm of "only" 60,000 or so creatures, and it boasted about 400+ mages in its standing armed forces, between levels 8 and 15 or so, IIRC. Unless you're leading an Army of Darkness comprised of amazing amounts of Yugoloths and other obscene monsters, you really should have no hope trying to wage war on such people. If we're talking about a realm with High Magi, the prospect is even more ridiculous. We're talking about nations whose biggest guns have the power to potentially fracture continents. I suppose what you describe could hold true for smaller communities of Elves, but that's not really a war. Oh, and I'd put my money on the Dwarves. :D
Stigger 04-30-07, 07:26 PM	Have to say, much to his surprise I'm sure ;), I'm pretty much in complete agreement with Phil on the matter. Particularly about the dwarves...
Philalexandros 04-30-07, 09:37 PM	:eek: :dancin: :D
Derren S. 05-01-07, 02:21 AM	But elves do have other problems. Being forst living tree huggers means that elves have a big lack of ressources, starting from basic things like food and ending with advanced ressources like ore and spellcasting materials. They would neet a lot of their spellcasting just to survive and to keep their economy going. Not to forget that under the right circumstances a forest burns quite nicely. ALso for a race which would focus mostly on ranged combat (bow&spells) a forest is not a very good kind or terrain to fight on. Dwarven infantry is good for defense, but they are horrible at offensive unless underground. The same applies to the other small races. So they all would focus more on cavalery than infantery
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 08:29 AM	But elves do have other problems. Being forst living tree huggers means that elves have a big lack of ressources, starting from basic things like food and ending with advanced ressources like ore and spellcasting materials. Wrong again. I can, if you wish, post a link to a Candlekeep thread wherein Greenwood offers details on how the Elves subsist on food, how long they can go for, and what methods their societies use for food production. Beyond his ideas, common sense points to the ease with which relatively low-level non-adventuring spells could be developed for food production. Wall of Thorns, for example, could easily be converted to "Orchard of Berries", and Plant Growth, a 3rd level spell, could easily maximize existing orchard yields. Where ore is concerned, you again forget the capabilities of magic. The minimum-level caster needed for Wall of Iron can provide 55 square feet of 2-3 inches thick pure iron ore. That's a good amount of steel right there, from a minimum amount of work expenditure. Then again, there're also 2E spells like "Construction" which shows just how little mining and such Elves have to engage in to build their structures. They would neet a lot of their spellcasting just to survive and to keep their economy going. As illustrated above, not really. Not to forget that under the right circumstances a forest burns quite nicely. Can you say "Mythal"? ALso for a race which would focus mostly on ranged combat (bow&spells) a forest is not a very good kind or terrain to fight on. As mentioned, repeatedly, above, I'm disputing the notion that Elves would realistically wait for their enemies to get to their forests so they could engage them with their potentially weakest troops. Dwarven infantry is good for defense, but they are horrible at offensive unless underground. The same applies to the other small races. So they all would focus more on cavalery than infantery Why? Is there a tradition for small, elite armies losing battles in the open field against more numerous opponents?
Stigger 05-01-07, 08:47 AM	Dwarves use war pigs for cavalry, don't they? Having actually seen a boar once in my life, and hopefully never again, let me say unhesitatingly I'd run as far and as far as I could from someone mounted on a barded war pig while wearing full armor... and hope the maxim of only having to outrun my buddies held true.
Derren S. 05-01-07, 09:16 AM	Wrong again. I can, if you wish, post a link to a Candlekeep thread wherein Greenwood offers details on how the Elves subsist on food, how long they can go for, and what methods their societies use for food production. If you want to do that. But I doubt that those explanation will use common sense but instead give elves some new powers to explain how they are able to supply large cities with food in forests (and don't forget things like logistic needed for that system) Beyond his ideas, common sense points to the ease with which relatively low-level non-adventuring spells could be developed for food production. Wall of Thorns, for example, could easily be converted to "Orchard of Berries", and Plant Growth, a 3rd level spell, could easily maximize existing orchard yields. As you might see above, I don't accept "They have special things which are not in the book" explanations. Where ore is concerned, you again forget the capabilities of magic. The minimum-level caster needed for Wall of Iron can provide 55 square feet of 2-3 inches thick pure iron ore. That's a good amount of steel right there, from a minimum amount of work expenditure. Then again, there're also 2E spells like "Construction" which shows just how little mining and such Elves have to engage in to build their structures. The world consists out of more thing than iron. For example where do the elves get the gold dust from for the Wall of Iron spell? And having thinks like diamonds (common spell components) and coal (to make steel) also wouldn't be bad. Face it, except for wood a forest doesn't have a lot of ressources which a civilization of the thech level as the ones in FR require. Let me guess your answer will be "magic" As illustrated above, not really. After casting "Wall of Berries", "Wall of Iron", "Wall of Stone", "Wall of Tin", "Wall of Coal", "Wall of Gold Dust", "Wall of Diamonds", "Wall of Conveyor Band" (to distribute the food in the city) there wouldn't be many spell slots left. Can you say "Mythal"? And what would the Mythal do? Surpress all fires? Last time I looked Elves were not immun to cold. As mentioned, repeatedly, above, I'm disputing the notion that Elves would realistically wait for their enemies to get to their forests so they could engage them with their potentially weakest troops. And because the forest is so big they would have to spread their forces rather thin to catch an enemy before he enters a forest. And they would also need very good scouts to even detect enemies so far away that they still have time to intercept them. But the superelves are of course able to do that. Why? Is there a tradition for small, elite armies losing battles in the open field against more numerous opponents? Who says that the dwarven warriors are higher level than the enemies they fight? And there is quite a tradition of slow moving short range fighter loosing agains fast and mobile long range fighters.
Stigger 05-01-07, 09:29 AM	The world consists out of more thing than iron. For example where do the elves get the gold dust from for the Wall of Iron spell? And having thinks like diamonds (common spell components) and coal (to make steel) also wouldn't be bad. I think its usually referred to as trade with others... As to special things not in the book... most of the stuff in the books is pretty strongly geared towards adventuring. I doubt the Agricultural & Homemakers Spell Compendium would be a big seller for WotC, so why would more utilitarian spells ever see print? We see references to Calishite razors that don't cut skin and other trivial magics, and we can't rationalize that if they're using magic for that, then they aren't using magic to improve crop yeilds or the like? And because the forest is so big they would have to spread their forces rather thin to catch an enemy before he enters a forest. And they would also need very good scouts to even detect enemies so far away that they still have time to intercept them. But the superelves are of course able to do that. Trees give height for better vantage points... kinda hard to miss a dust cloud rising from an army on the march from height. Small parties, sure, those could be missed easily, but its a little harder to hide an army.
Derren S. 05-01-07, 09:37 AM	I think its usually referred to as trade with others... Trade what? Iron? Berries? Trees give height for better vantage points... kinda hard to miss a dust cloud rising from an army on the march from height. Small parties, sure, those could be missed easily, but its a little harder to hide an army. When the scouts see an enemy army while they are at the edge of the forest it is definatly to late to alert your army and be able to intercept them before they enter the forest.
Stigger 05-01-07, 09:53 AM	Wood, art, finished goods, herbal remedies, meats, etcetera and so forth... As to alerting your army, that's what horn relays and the like are for. As to attacking, that's what mages are for. You don't have to kill all of them to let them know its a bad idea to attack you. Take out the officers with a few fireballs or chain lightnings, usually fairly obvious as the guys on horses with the best armor, and the battle's pretty much over before it starts anyway. If they push on, that's what guerilla warfare is for...
Derren S. 05-01-07, 09:58 AM	As to attacking, that's what mages are for. You don't have to kill all of them to let them know its a bad idea to attack you. Take out the officers with a few fireballs or chain lightnings, usually fairly obvious as the guys on horses with the best armor, and the battle's pretty much over before it starts anyway. If they push on, that's what guerilla warfare is for... Only when you assume that the enemy comes with a medival style army and haven't we agreed by now that this would be not happen in the FR?
Stigger 05-01-07, 10:08 AM	So there's some other way of moving people quickly and efficiently that isn't columned? You intend for an army to travel in dispersed skirmish formations the entire time? Just getting operational organization back once its time to camp for the night would be a complete nightmare... much less trying to coordinate a battle. Unless you're presuming non-LOS communications as being readily and constantly available, you still need a relatively high degree of proximity of your forces simply to maintain a semblance of command and control, not even beginning to discuss logistics on the edge of a forest, most likely without a settlement nearby to act as a staging point and logistics hub... the attackers are almost certainly going to be at a disadvantage, just organizationally and logistically, simply by virtue of having longer lines of supply and communications.
Derren S. 05-01-07, 10:30 AM	Sigger, did you ever get the idea that those guys looking like officers might be nothing more than illusions and that the real officers are invisible? You assume that the enemy has a medival army (= Conscripted low level soldiers and no spellcaster support) When you include higher level characters then taking out the officers is not that easy anymore and without battle plan those attacking wizards will be toast.
Empirate 05-01-07, 12:59 PM	Stigger makes a good point about operational security that hasn't come up before: Even if you fight it out in wide, dispersal formation, you still have to march pretty much close together (as close as a medieval army would manage, that is). So an army would be most vulnerable on the march... which gives rise to a whole host of adventuring ideas right there! Thanks. I'd like to interject a few comments regarding the earlier topic of general FR warfare, before the thread is wholly turned into a "love elves/hate elves" deathmatch. 1. In real history, there have always existed very, very powerful states and communities alongside very, very weak communities. For example, at the time when the Romans built an empire, there were only small, mostly non-territorial states in all of Europe. When medieval european nations first encountered the Mongols, these so vastly outnumbered and outgunned them that one medium-sized expeditionary force could crush the armies of three kingdoms without breaking a sweat; the Pope proclaimed the Last Days, but the Mongols turned back because they wanted to be there in time to participate in the Khan election ballots. When Cortez arrived in Mexico, his few hundred men were powerful enough to tear apart Aztec armies measuring in the tens of thousands. Thus: it is neither improbable nor without precedent that states coexist in the same world that differ massively in military potential. Wether this fact has an impact depends largely on wether the states have any real opportunity and reason to go to war with each other. [I still agree Akanax' army of 50,000 is rather gross. Scratch a zero there] 2. Spellcasting is perhaps the most culturally specific detail of a given FR society. In some societies, magic in general is very very common (Elves), in some it is reserved for the elite, very much regimented and revered (Rashemen), in some divine magic is more or less discriminated against in favor of arcane magic (Thay), in some it's the other way round (Mulhorand), in some it's utterly abhorred on general principles (...can't think of an example there). You have to keep this in mind, as has been stated before, when trying to fathom FR warfare. Remember that in many cases, the army, especially if it's a standing army, is the most powerful entity in the political sphere. So if your army is highly dependent on a bunch of high-level spellcasters, you basically give these a lot of political clout. In the case of High Magic, it's difficult not to do this (those guys could just seize any kind of office they desire), but then, High Magi are generally thought of as rather wise beings. Following the problem of "quis custodit custodes" ("who guards against the guards?"), many historical societies have declined to give too much military responsibility to certain individuals. Much of the time, this also entered into tactics or at least general opinion of some weapon systems. In medieval times, the crossbow (and sometimes even the normal bow, which required much more training) were often damned and sometimes attempted to ban because they were too effective - not even a knight could defend against attack from afar, endangering the whole social system. Before the ruling elite decides to let somebody study magical warfare, they'd need a very good reason and very compelling measures of keeping this somebody on a tight leash. What happens if they don't have these can be seen from the example of Thay's rebellion against Mulhorand. 3. Warfare is only part of a larger political process that involves trade, diplomacy, espionage, and so on. Many conflicts can be prevented by the right choice of allies; by giving the other guys what they want so they don't have to take it by force; or simply because a war would cost far too much for the intended benefit. Remember that power is, for most nations, not something that needs to be had in and of itself. Elves especially don't seek power (not after the Crown Wars, anyway...) for its own sake. Sembia could possibly take Cormyr down, or the other way around, but both sides have nothing to gain from such a war, and everything to lose. In the current situation of trade and the occasional diplomatic squabble over borders, rights, tolls or whatever, both can make a decent living. The most important aggressor nations in the Realms (apart from secret societies) are probably Thay, which is prevented by internal power politics, and Zhentil Keep/Zhentarim, which is preoccupied with internal religious strife and the opposing Moonsea and Dalelands city states. Other than these, most countries coexist more or less peacefully because it is the sensible thing to do most of the time.
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 01:41 PM	If you want to do that. But I doubt that those explanation will use common sense but instead give elves some new powers to explain how they are able to supply large cities with food in forests (and don't forget things like logistic needed for that system)As you might see above, I don't accept "They have special things which are not in the book" explanations. They hardly deal with magic. I myself simply offered examples of how this could easily be accomplished without placing anything more than minimal levels of effort toward food production. Mythals would only do away with such considerations even more. Beyond that, you make assumptions about the size of Elven states. Myth Drannor was the jewel of Elven civilization, and it numbered only 60,000 or so citizens, including non-elves. The world consists out of more thing than iron. For example where do the elves get the gold dust from for the Wall of Iron spell? And having thinks like diamonds (common spell components) and coal (to make steel) also wouldn't be bad. Come on, Derren, this really isn't that complicated. Any number of spells can duplicate material. Magic, especially in the quantities wielded by elves, can easily replicate mundane labor. Do I really have to spell out that summoning full or quasi-elementals to locate material wanted and then using other magic to extract it might be more easy than the engineering efforts of hundreds or even thousands of commoners? Let me guess your answer will be "magic" OMG! Imagine that I would center my argument on the thing the Elves have in total abundance! How unrealistic! ;) After casting "Wall of Berries", "Wall of Iron", "Wall of Stone", "Wall of Tin", "Wall of Coal", "Wall of Gold Dust", "Wall of Diamonds", "Wall of Conveyor Band" (to distribute the food in the city) there wouldn't be many spell slots left. Good thing there's more than one wizard available, eh? There was over 400 wizards dedicated to *just military pursuits* in Myth Drannor alone, Derren. Furthermore, the labor described in my posts would not need to be a daily activity by any means. And what would the Mythal do? Surpress all fires? Last time I looked Elves were not immun to cold. Perhaps you should read mythal descriptions and/or the mechanics of the Seed itself and the powers it can convey. Control Weather, anyone? And because the forest is so big they would have to spread their forces rather thin to catch an enemy before he enters a forest. Sigh. Divination magic. And, for the umpteenth time, why rely on conventional forces that do not meed the societal model of Elves to begin with? And they would also need very good scouts to even detect enemies so far away that they still have time to intercept them. But the superelves are of course able to do that. See above. Really, I don't see the point of this. If you don't like Elves, I can respect that. Trying to pretend that a race so invested into magic would simply HAVE to rely on mundane tools, resources, and troop formations is silly, though. Who says that the dwarven warriors are higher level than the enemies they fight? Who says they're not? And there is quite a tradition of slow moving short range fighter loosing agains fast and mobile long range fighters. Sure, but there are also examples to the contrary. Even the largely infantry Roman legions were able to beat back Asian horse-archer armies when led capably. They, you will not, did not enjoy the benefits of having their own strong tradition of clerical magic.
boggler65 05-01-07, 04:41 PM	The simplest thing I can contribute is to focus less on specific RW examples, and more on what seems to fit culturally. Most places in Faerun seem to be city-states, or decentralized kingdoms with strong nobility, sort of mercantile republics. I would say that most places in the realms would have standing armies between 1-4 percent of their population, depending on the region. Unther and Mulhorand would probably have larger armies than say Aglarond or Sembia. Most locations would also have some sort of reserves, and in times of severe crisis would likely be able to call on a large part of the population to join a militia. Further more most nobles keep their own private forces, which would probably range between 2-600 men. Therefore a reasonable standing army would be between 5,000-20,000 men, while in times of war it would not be unreasonable for a militia to be raised, bringing the army of most regions to between 20,000-55,000; or for several regions, city-states, kingdoms to ally, combining their forces to between 55,000 and 100,000 or more. You definently have to keep in mind however that less populous races like Elves or Dwarves will have significantly smaller forces, but can be just as potent. Whereas races such as Goblins and Orcs, which frequently ally, but are weaker, and less organized could have many more.
Derren S. 05-01-07, 04:48 PM	You definently have to keep in mind however that less populous races like Elves or Dwarves will have significantly smaller forces, but can be just as potent. Whereas races such as Goblins and Orcs, which frequently ally, but are weaker, and less organized could have many more. Why would Elves be automatically be more organized than goblins? At least moon elves are also a chaotic race and thus wouldn't be any more organzied. I know that the "reality", as described in the novels and lore, it is different because the elf fanboyism and general good>evil rule in the FR dictates that elves must win easily but when fighting against a not chaotic enemy like humans, or worse a lawful one like hobgoblins, elves would be the disorganized one. @Phil Ok, you hooked me. Post that link which explains how elves can easily supply 60.000 elves with berries and other forest products without having large farms etc. As for the rest, your only answer is "they have magic" but you forget that the enemy attacking them also has spellcasters and you seem to assume that every elf is a spellcaster as somehow they never run out of spells even if they have to conjure every material they need. Yesm wizards are very powerfull on the battlefield and can beat normal (=medival) armies. But when the enemy uses small units of higher level adventurers your "wizards only" defense doesn't work anymore.
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 05:54 PM	@Phil Ok, you hooked me. Post that link which explains how elves can easily supply 60.000 elves with berries and other forest products without having large farms etc. Derren, When you visit the link, it's the second post from the top. http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3684&whichpage=42 As for the rest, your only answer is "they have magic" but you forget that the enemy attacking them also has spellcasters... No, I don't forget that at all. I take into consideration that few non-Elven realm outside of Thay (and perhaps Mulhorand, though they would be more geared toward clerics) can come close to matching them in magical might. ... and you seem to assume that every elf is a spellcaster as somehow they never run out of spells even if they have to conjure every material they need. Again, I do not. I take into consideration the following: limited numbers, coupled with limited needs means limited requirements. As you'll see from Ed's post, Elven dietary needs are not that great. The simple methods he describes can easily be addressed with minor usage of magic such as those I described. Mythals reduce these requirements even more. A lot of the other "non-essential" requirements their society imposes on them are simply not as recurring as food. For example, a House of a couple of hundred Elves will only have so many individuals involved with martial activities--and thus, a wizard will only be needed to procure so much ore. Couple this with the described tendency of, say, Sun Elf smiths, to work on their projects for decades or even centuries and the idea of year-round human-style industry (for which your considerations are much more apropos) goes right out the window. Yesm wizards are very powerfull on the battlefield and can beat normal (=medival) armies. But when the enemy uses small units of higher level adventurers your "wizards only" defense doesn't work anymore. Why, because you say so? Never mind the fact that Dan and I propose that it is exactly THAT sort of force the Elves would most likely use (mages accompanied by bands of champions such as Bladesingers, etc)...
Derren S. 05-01-07, 06:08 PM	Derren, When you visit the link, it's the second post from the top. http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3684&whichpage=42 As expected Ed explains it by giving elves new and most importantly undocumented powerz (photosysthesis). Don't you think that such an ability would be documented in the gaming rules (for example ration use. See Draconians in the DLCS)? No, I don't forget that at all. I take into consideration that few non-Elven realm outside of Thay (and perhaps Mulhorand, though they would be more geared toward clerics) can come close to matching them in magical might. Also add Halruaa and Cormyr. Why Cormyr? Because other than elves those nations do not need to waste a majority of their spellcasting power to keep their economy going, starting from simple things like food and going to advanced machinery, equipment and spell components. An example: An elf wants to craft a sword or something simple like a pan. For this he needs iron so he goes to the local mage to get him to cast a wall of iron. For that he needs gold dust. As the elf does not have the required gold he needs to craft something to trade away, for which he does need raw materials again. That means back to the wizard to conjure that raw material. Or the wizard casts planar binding to get an earth elemental to mine some gold on the elemental plane of earth. But the elemental wants that the elve gives him something out of earth in return to keep the balance on the plane, for example a simple gemstone. So what now? Cast another planar binding to get the gemstone and continue this till he can pay the elemental with something he has? Of course the elf could simply fell a tree and craft something out of wood, but when elves have to pay for anything with wood products there wouldn't be much of a forest left. Or the elf could trade away some hunted meat or pelts. That would decrease the number of animals near the city (and elf or not, not many animals would be willing to live close to the city anyway). Also meat is not a very good trade good as it get bad very fast. To preserve it you either need magic (again) or salt. And where do you get salt in a forest? Maybe the wizard can conjure some salt... Compared to that a human simply buys some ore from an iron mine with the gold he got by trading away grain or livestock. After all there is enough free space to raise those things as he is not in a forest which also swarms with wild animals. A lot of the other "non-essential" requirements their society imposes on them are simply not as recurring as food. For example, a House of a couple of hundred Elves will only have so many individuals involved with martial activities--and thus, a wizard will only be needed to procure so much ore. Couple this with the described tendency of, say, Sun Elf smiths, to work on their projects for decades or even centuries and the idea of year-round human-style industry (for which your considerations are much more apropos) goes right out the window. And that would put the elves even more at a disadvantage. I a world with humans and goblins, you need to have a production capability which at least comes close to those two races. In your system the elves would probably still be busy to replace the swords they lost in the Crown Wars and by the time they finished one weapon another one has already rusted beyond usability. Don't forget that you also have mantain your structures and equipment which also costs ressources. Why, because you say so? Never mind the fact that Dan and I propose that it is exactly THAT sort of force the Elves would most likely use (mages accompanied by bands of champions such as Bladesingers, etc)... I was talking about the enemy army, not the elves. You assume that the enemy comes "medival style" with lots of conscripted pesants, knights in armor and no spellcasters. And as this topic showed such a force would easily be destroyed in D&D. And thats exactly why by common sense the enemy would not use such a army composition. Its just that the novel authors haven't realized that (or don't care).
Stigger 05-01-07, 07:27 PM	Sigger, did you ever get the idea that those guys looking like officers might be nothing more than illusions and that the real officers are invisible? And so your point is? Everyone around them still gets wasted and that's a little on the demoralizing side of things. And you don't need to even directly attack them to screw them over... You assume that the enemy has a medival army (= Conscripted low level soldiers and no spellcaster support) When you include higher level characters then taking out the officers is not that easy anymore and without battle plan those attacking wizards will be toast. Well, unless those high level soldiers and adventurers are growing on trees, there's only so many of them a given army is going to be fielding. Simple longevity is going to dictate that elves (and dwarves for that matter) have a higher average army level as compared to most given human kingdoms. Armies tend to imply forces in the hundreds at least, if not thousands... just what do you think the average level is going to be for a force that size? Add in things like superior terrain familiarity, limited approach options dictated by terrain, use of disorienting magic to make the enemy force consume logistics before they even meet your forces, use of simple tactics like eliminating the enemy forces forward scouts, quick fade strikes in terrain that favors elves, and the like and everything in just the terrain favors elves... there's a reason most armies avoid combat in forested terrain, since it tends to favor defenders by and large. The whole issue of elven chaotic nature meaning they can't organize into effective military units is just ludicrous... were you to say that they wouldn't maintain standing military units, I might agree with you, but there's no reason why they would be any less effective or organized, given the elven tendency towards being individuals while still focussing on community. The rest of it I'm not even going to go into, as you seem to prefer your elves as pointy-eared humans rather than as innately magical beings... that basis alone kinda disqualifies any meaningful debate since the foundational assumptions of both sides is fundamentally different.
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 07:58 PM	As expected Ed explains it by giving elves new and most importantly undocumented powerz (photosysthesis). Don't you think that such an ability would be documented in the gaming rules (for example ration use. See Draconians in the DLCS)? Fine, take them away Derren. Everything I typed above is still true. If one can create a Wall of Thorne, one could just as easily develop an Orchard of Apples with the same capacity. Also add Halruaa and Cormyr. I said "most." This should imply that there are more than just the two cited. Why did I cite those two off-hand? They are among the most populous nations, and have demonstrated interest in things outside of their borders. Halruaa is largely introspective, and Cormyr is not antagonistic against its neighbors. Why Cormyr? Because other than elves those nations do not need to waste a majority of their spellcasting power to keep their economy going, starting from simple things like food and going to advanced machinery, equipment and spell components. Not that you've by any means demonstrated how a culture with as much magic as the Elves will somehow "waste a majority of their spellcasting power" doing so... By the way--surely you could have come up with something more contrived than the example below. Wait, no, that would have to be your own bias speaking. After all, an unbiased individual might think thus: Elven House A (which, as reflected in the Evermeet or Cormanthyr sourcebooks, is an extended family unit as well as a political unit) has B population broken down into C numbers of smaller, sub-family units. They identifiy D concerns (requirements and extra stuff), which call for E resources. The House's spellcasters (perhaps with spellcasters from other Houses looking to pool resources) determine a best course of action and time-table for their work. That's too simple and sensical, though, isn't it? None of the concerns outlined in your example below can't be addressed, and most are simply exaggerated, off-the-cuff attempts at creating artificial difficulty (your remarks at trees or animals running out, for example). I guarantee you that, if you weren't so hell-bent on *winning* this argument rather than looking at all sides of the debate that you yourself could have addressed all of the considerations you brought up. Compared to that a human simply buys some ore from an iron mine with the gold he got by trading away grain or livestock. After all there is enough free space to raise those things as he is not in a forest which also swarms with wild animals. But, of course, all is well with your human society. No contrived examples to hinder mercantile activity or purchasing power. ;) And that would put the elves even more at a disadvantage. I a world with humans and goblins, you need to have a production capability which at least comes close to those two races. No, Derren... because they're not bothering to field armies as large as theirs, on account of having other means of defending themselves... Oh, what the heck. I'll elaborate. Each and every army, regardless of its size, needs some sort of a supply source. Case in point, each and every soldier will require (if human) approx. 6lbs of food and water, per day. That's not a figure I just pulled off the top of my head, by the way. You can research as far back as old Prussian Field Manuals or read new US Army field manuals. 6lbs of food and water/day is what you're looking at for an army on the march. So, each of your mundane armies needs to have this addressed, every day. Perhaps they have a supply train. If so, their train in and of itself requires resources. Horses, mules, and oxen require more resources than human beings. They also have a much more limited range when it comes to their own movement rate. Foraging, cavenging, hunting, and otherwise procurring food from the surrounding land can gain you more resources, but this slows you down. Splitting up your army into several smaller forces and separating them geographically (so as to attack from many fronts) also puts less strain on the landscape one is going through, resources-wise, but it brings up issues of security. Your individual components are not likely to go much farther than 15-20 miles per day with a supply train on their back, or more than 30-40 at most without. How fast can they respond to come to the aid of individual components being taken out by an enemy that can transport itself instantly, and can monitor their progress (and lack of security) via magic? For magical armies, see below. In your system the elves would probably still be busy to replace the swords they lost in the Crown Wars and by the time they finished one weapon another one has already rusted beyond usability. Don't forget that you also have mantain your structures and equipment which also costs ressources. Derren, I'll gladly engage in this debate... but not if 50% of your post will be pointless histrionics. I was talking about the enemy army, not the elves. Oh, I know you did. I was pointing out that what's good for the attacker is good for the defender. What you're not taking into account, however, is that there isn't exactly a surplus of these individuals in every single nation out there. Thay has such numbers, as I pointed out above, but then again... she doesn't. An individual Zulkir doesn't, at any rate, not for an invasion of something along the lines of Myth Drannor. Perhaps two might, but now we're dealing with political realities. Do Zulkirs trust one another to band together for an intercontinental expedition? Do they trust the other Zulkirs to leave their lands alone? What about Cormyr? Why would Cormy invade Cormanthyr? For no reason whatsoever? How about Halruaa? All the way to the Shining South, and always looking little beyond her own borders. This isn't even assuming a Mythal. Add that, and things just got stupid. You assume that the enemy comes "medival style" with lots of conscripted pesants, knights in armor and no spellcasters. No, you *assumed* that's what I think. And as this topic showed such a force would easily be destroyed in D&D. And thats exactly why by common sense the enemy would not use such a army composition. Its just that the novel authors haven't realized that (or don't care). Again, Derren, you assume that all nations have a potent magical tradition. That's simply not true. Different nations have different magical resources. Those without extensive arcane traditions will have to, as a rule, rely on conventional armies and tactics. Some will have more advanced "mundane" tactics than those we identify with "medieval" earth, but few will have what it takes to take on a highly magical nation. This is exhibited by the fact that Cormanthyr went unconquered until the overwhelmingly powerful Army of Darkness invaded.
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 08:00 PM	The rest of it I'm not even going to go into, as you seem to prefer your elves as pointy-eared humans rather than as innately magical beings... that basis alone kinda disqualifies any meaningful debate since the foundational assumptions of both sides is fundamentally different. That pretty much sums up the situation here.
Boda 05-01-07, 10:32 PM	Elves live of sunlight and water?! Sea elfs included? Drow? And here i tought that they loved woods because they're vegetarian. What is the range of a mythal's efects? The ultimate tool against elfs? BREEDING POWER! They cant replenish their ranks Anyway, some races are naturally superior(in a military sense) to others, and being magic the mightiest tool in FR, magic beings have an advantage. But that doesnt mean that there arent ways to counter or reduce that advantage. All in all, warfare is very poorly described in guides and novels on FR. And by the way, that all column vs magic thing, in the american civil war, artilhery was in high use, and still marching in columns was also in high use...so, maybe evocating will not be as efective as it is assumed. I'll would put my money on divination as the magic war winning tool.
Philalexandros 05-01-07, 11:08 PM	Elves live of sunlight and water?! Sea elfs included? Drow? No. I suppose I could ask the question, though. And here i tought that they loved woods because they're vegetarian. They love the woods because their deities are so tied into the woods. Why would you think them vegetarian? From the beginning, Elves have worshipped gods that included hunters. What is the range of a mythal's efects? It all depends on the Mythal. The ultimate tool against elfs? BREEDING POWER! They cant replenish their ranks That's why that worked for so long against them, right? But that doesnt mean that there arent ways to counter or reduce that advantage. Sure, but some societies are so magically powerful as to make this highly unlikely. How're you going to counter someone who can get together with his friends and sweep the entire nation you're marching through in a hurricane? What are you going to do after you "trick" the Elves into letting you fight them in a Mythal that (like Silverymoon's) grants each defender Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Ironguard, Bless Weapon, Magic Missile, Shield, Shocking Grasp, and other spells? How about other potential Mythal powers, such as, and I quote Lost Empires of Faerun, a Meteor Swarm dropping each and every time [Creature X] comes within its boundaries, with no limit? In fact, what would you do if some Elf High Mage decided to play the humans' game, and marched an army against you that enjoyed the benefits of a Mythal centered on the caster? "Ho-hum, I'll just recreate the Wards of Silverymoon on me. Now, every elf within 1,000 feet of me gets all these benefits, and any enemy within, say, 1,000 feet of me can't cast teleportation spells, can't use spells with the "evil" or "death" descriptors, can't use evocation spells of a fire type, has its invisibility purged, etc. And by the way, that all column vs magic thing, in the american civil war, artilhery was in high use, and still marching in columns was also in high use...so, maybe evocating will not be as efective as it is assumed. I'll would put my money on divination as the magic war winning tool. 1) Civil war artillery was not nearly as effective as evocation magic 2) Civil war artillery was nowhere near as numerous as the mages of some of the states we're talking about 3) Civil war artillery was nowhere near as accurate as mages
Xavier_of_Cormyr 05-02-07, 12:12 AM	Its a shame this thread spiraled into a arguement.. it was going nicely... :rolleyes:
Burningspear 05-02-07, 12:24 AM	Dwarves use war pigs for cavalry, don't they? Having actually seen a boar once in my life, and hopefully never again, let me say unhesitatingly I'd run as far and as far as I could from someone mounted on a barded war pig while wearing full armor... and hope the maxim of only having to outrun my buddies held true. Boar = medium, Dwarf = medium = poor Boar's back :tie:
Stigger 05-02-07, 01:36 AM	It'd probably just make the boar that much more aggressive... then I'd really be running. :blink: As to a mythal's range and area of effect, it depends on how you design the mythal, so it varies with the mage who crafted it. Base range is a 100' radius though if I recall correctly. As to the column issue, most modern armies still use columns for long range movement, just with vehicles rather than infantry on foot. Essentially the modern verion is the concept of land based strategic redeployment. It works, plain and simple, and makes keeping a semblance of organization much easier.
Derren S. 05-02-07, 02:06 AM	The rest of it I'm not even going to go into, as you seem to prefer your elves as pointy-eared humans rather than as innately magical beings... that basis alone kinda disqualifies any meaningful debate since the foundational assumptions of both sides is fundamentally different. Elves are in no way innately magical. They do not get a single spell or magical abilitya from birth (except Drow). The only is that they have better magical schools, thats all. Gnomes are innately magical, not elves. The problem with you and Philalexandros is that in nearly every post you invent new new powerz which the elves apparently have to explain why the elves are so superior to everyone. Start arguing that what the FRCS says the elves can and can't do and don't invent things because Tolkien said that elves are an uber race. As for the "elves are always higher level" argument. Don't forget that a human can get born, grow up, achieve glory and a high level and maybe die from old age before a elf born at the same time is even old enough to start leveling. So I wouldn't be so sure that elves always have a big level advantage
Stigger 05-02-07, 02:19 AM	I don't recall ever inventing a singly new "powerz" for the elves to be honest... maybe if you could point one out I could properly respond to that. As to innately magical, the immunity to sleep effects doesn't qualify all of a sudden? The bonus to saves against being enchanted doesn't qualify? The keen senses and enhanced vision don't qualify? The "Wizardry comes naturally to elves" from the PHB doesn't qualify as innately magical? I think you're confusing spell-like abilities with innately magical natures.
Derren S. 05-02-07, 02:35 AM	I don't recall ever inventing a singly new "powerz" for the elves to be honest... maybe if you could point one out I could properly respond to that. As to innately magical, the immunity to sleep effects doesn't qualify all of a sudden? The bonus to saves against being enchanted doesn't qualify? The keen senses and enhanced vision don't qualify? The "Wizardry comes naturally to elves" from the PHB doesn't qualify as innately magical? I think you're confusing spell-like abilities with innately magical natures. I count "innately magical" as new power (but you are right, its mostly Phil in here who does such things, and he is also only quoting Ed who seems to answers every question about elven society with a new power the elves have) because it leads to that you think that even a average elf is somehow an much better wizard than a human but that is not the case. The only real spellcasting advantage elves have over other races are their high mages (because of lore) and other nations are close to catch up (epic red wizards, shade arcanists). immunity to sleep: biological function, has nothing to do with casting spells or otherwise produce magical effects keen senses: Again biological. Also nearly every other race has those senses too. save bonus: Again nothing magical. Its simply that their minds are harder the affect with hostile magic. "wizardry comes naturally": Nonsense for PHB elves. If the elves favored class would be sorcerer or another spontaneious castr class like the gnomes have, then it would be true. But you do not need any special natural apitude to become a wizard. As long as you are smart enough you can learn how to cast wizard spells. The two elf races who has an advantage here are sun elves and drow. Drow because they sometimes do have supernatural(spell like?) abilities and sun elves because of their Int bonus which means they produce more elves who are able to learn to cast spells. But moon elves do not produce any more individuals with Int>10 than humans do. Dwarves have nearly all of the above too, sometimes even better and no one would call them magical (only clerical, if at all). Why? Because the elves=magical and dwares=unmagical is a holdover from Tolkien and not based on any evidence in the race description/qualities as far as D&D is concerned. In this thread I complained that the novel authors haven't realized how much magic does impact the battlefied and thus still use medival armies and tactics because the technology level of D&D is more or less (romantic) medival. And nearly the same thing happens with the races. Many people (including authors) still think that elves and dwarves are the same way as they are described in Tolkiens work because D&D is also fantasy and fail to realize that those races have different characteristics and abilities than in Lord of the Rings which are outlined in the PHB. I realize that to some people I might look as if I want to make elves into different looking humans, thats not the case (or rather mostly not). What I want is to make D&D elves (and the other races) into something different than what they were in Lord of the Rings. For elves that means to give them some of the problems the other races also have, and yes by that I look at what humans have. Thats probably it looks like I am "humanizing them". I can't stand 1:1 Lotr rippoff races which can only live like in Lotr by giving them lots of undocumented powers which strangely adventuring members of their race don't have. For elves that means I don't want them to be able to make everything better than everyone else without explanation. And I want them to also have ressource problems and that they are not able to sit in a forest, never fell a tree but are able to get enough supplies, be it food, wood, iron or exotic components, with some unexplained and undocumented methods out of thin air. Because if you are honest, that is the same logical mistake as the army issue.
Stigger 05-02-07, 02:54 AM	Given the lore behind those racial traits, I'd completely disagree with your assessment of them. The Keen senses bit I might concede however. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion you really don't like elves in the slightest and are letting that colour your view of them... I'm not that fond of them myself really, but the lore is seriously in disagreement with your viewpoint there. I will concede that the mechanics seriously conflict with the lore of them, but the lore came before the mechanics, and so in my view tends to override it. Elven PrC's are seriously gimped compared to their human counterparts, the Elven High Mage compared to the Netherese Arcanist is just a sad joke, and I really can't see a compelling reason to go Bladesinger with the cost benefit ratio it produces, but like I said, the lore trumps those mechanics in a lot of respects, at least where the Realms is concerned. Perhaps you don't share that view of prioritization, in which case you have a valid point mechanically speaking. But like I said before, we seem to be coming from two very different, and in most respects mutually exclusive perspectives, so meaningful debate isn't really all that likely. Though I'm still curious as to what new "powerz" I've invented for them... ;)
Derren S. 05-02-07, 03:04 AM	I edited my post heavily. Maybe you will find your answer in there. And I am more of a rules guy than a lore guy. Yes, the rules do change, but to my knowledge elves, ruleswise, were in no edition that superior to everyone else as they are in the lore. I am simply arguing that the FR elves should be a bit more "in tune" with their racial abilities and "out tune" with what they are in the Lord of the Rings. As for the PRCs, maybe I missed something but I do not know many human PRCs. Maybe you are meaning the non-elf restricted PRCs they can take nevertheless?
Empirate 05-02-07, 04:33 AM	Yadda yadda yadda. Go bore somebody elf... err, else, with your elf war. Why do these threads always break down in pointless argument when there are still very interesting points to make on the ORIGINAL subject matter? Just my two cents. Call it trolling if you wish... :nonono:
ShadezofDis 05-02-07, 08:20 AM	Derren S., Please, please, please. Just give one example of these "strange elf powers." Just one. More to come... (That's foreshadowing right there folks!) So I'm a lil crazy right now, it's early :p
Stigger 05-02-07, 08:29 AM	Actually I would consider dwarves magical... ;) As to the rest of it... well, you either accept Ed's explanations or you don't. In a literal sense however they are canon unless WotC contradicts them at some point, hence those attributes are official for elves in the Realms until WotC says otherwise, like it or not. Your dislike of LotR I completely share, and largely agree with in most respects, as I've stated on a few occassions rather vociferously, but I don't see the elven issue as a major one for me. Maybe its because I generally don't pay that much attention to them in my preferences towards Hin and Gnomes... Didn't mean the PrC thing in relation to just human PrCs, but to most PrCs in general. Not sure why, but for some reason WotC seems to feel a need to make anything specifically elven weaker than it would be anyone else... at least it seems that way to me more often than not.
Philalexandros 05-02-07, 08:50 AM	Elves are in no way innately magical. They do not get a single spell or magical abilitya from birth (except Drow). The only is that they have better magical schools, thats all. Gnomes are innately magical, not elves. I didn't say they were innately magical. I said they had a larger magical tradition then most other cultures/societies. You, by contrast, wish to simply downplay what magic can do. The problem with you and Philalexandros is that in nearly every post you invent new new powerz which the elves apparently have to explain why the elves are so superior to everyone. Uh, no I don't. I have done two things in this thread: 1) Addressed what I feel are unrealistic practices *given the canon material in established products.* 2) Pointed out what *I* feel would make more sense given the resources outlined in said canon material. Start arguing that what the FRCS says the elves can and can't do and don't invent things because Tolkien said that elves are an uber race. Well, Derren, that would be quite the argument if that's what I was doing. It's not, though, and when this topic began I was arguing on behalf of ALL cultures with large magical traditions. As to what the FRCS says they can do, it states very little (which is why much of this is focused on earlier editions). As for the "elves are always higher level" argument. Don't forget that a human can get born, grow up, achieve glory and a high level and maybe die from old age before a elf born at the same time is even old enough to start leveling. So I wouldn't be so sure that elves always have a big level advantage Now you're naming my arguments for me? That's rich. Actually, my argument was that the canon material doesn't support your thesis regarding *numbers,* which is what I specifically mentioned. Were your argument valid, the Flaming Fist (an army that does possess the levels and resources to stand up to Myth Drannor's Akh'Velarn and Akh'Faern for a short while) would have its equivalent elsewhere. It doesn't. Such a collection of high-level individuals united under one human banner and for the purposes of fighting wars for one state is, in fact, rather unique. Hence, my hesitation to acknowledge the multiple such instances needed to take out, say, a Cormanthyr. All that, of course, is completely assuming there is no Mythal in place, nor High Magi to simply *do away* with said army before it even gets near their realm. But to Derren, that's just *powerz* (you mispelled the word, by the way... :rolleyes: ).
Xavier_of_Cormyr 05-02-07, 09:18 AM	ok.. there is a "new thread" button somewhere on your screen... press it & then go to town with your debate. :duel: or you could just drop the subject...
Boda 05-02-07, 12:17 PM	Sure, but some societies are so magically powerful as to make this highly unlikely. How're you going to counter someone who can get together with his friends and sweep the entire nation you're marching through in a hurricane? What are you going to do after you "trick" the Elves into letting you fight them in a Mythal that (like Silverymoon's) grants each defender Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Ironguard, Bless Weapon, Magic Missile, Shield, Shocking Grasp, and other spells? How about other potential Mythal powers, such as, and I quote Lost Empires of Faerun, a Meteor Swarm dropping each and every time [Creature X] comes within its boundaries, with no limit? In fact, what would you do if some Elf High Mage decided to play the humans' game, and marched an army against you that enjoyed the benefits of a Mythal centered on the caster? "Ho-hum, I'll just recreate the Wards of Silverymoon on me. Now, every elf within 1,000 feet of me gets all these benefits, and any enemy within, say, 1,000 feet of me can't cast teleportation spells, can't use spells with the "evil" or "death" descriptors, can't use evocation spells of a fire type, has its invisibility purged, etc. Isnt high magic only possible on evermeet? What would i use against a high mage? A netherese arcanist, a witches circle, a red wizards circle, a imaskar sorceror,..., hah, a chosen! Why do you assume that i would be tricked in fighting inside a mythal area of effect? If there are destroying their own country with a hurracane, wont this mean that next year, their enemies have the work cut out? Has for them marching with mythal like protection, you realize that mythal's powers are defined, so if i cause a landslide, trebuchet bombardment, launch a hurracane own them, it's very unlikely that the high magic will save them. 1) Civil war artillery was not nearly as effective as evocation magic 2) Civil war artillery was nowhere near as numerous as the mages of some of the states we're talking about 3) Civil war artillery was nowhere near as accurate as mages[/QUOTE] Define effective. And yet was more numerous then most elfs states. Not as accurate, but could go on for long time and greater range. You always assume Cormanthyr or Evermeet power and numbers. So can i assume a powerful and numerous human nation to? Or i can only pick weak ones?
Philalexandros 05-02-07, 05:07 PM	Gentlemen, I will create a new thread to address the above debate. I suggest we carry our party there and leave this thread alone. Although, to be fair, the central focus of this elf debate is, in fact, about whether magic can offset the need for large amounts of troops... a debateable point that is tied into the main topic. Right?
Derren S. 05-02-07, 07:31 PM	Ok, no elf talk in here anymore. The comparisation between civil war artillery and mages is quite good. As shown spellcasters are much more powerfull than cannons. And they are also more versatile. A medival army would have no chance against an army equiped with 18th century cannons and likewise a medival army would have no chance against a army with spellcasters. Using massed armies (medival style) in D&D is extremly stupid (except in special circumstances when you have an nearly unlimited supply of soldiers, see undead). A massed medival army would only have a chance to win with a very huge number advantage and the losses would be so horrendus that the army would not be able to fight a second battle. So every war leader who wants to fight a enemy with spellcaster would either need to have 1. more, better spellcasters 2. Special anti spellcaster tactics like small, dispersed units, hidden snipers, etc. No matter what is used, the army and tactic would be very different from the normal medival ones. And if the enemy does not have spellcasters a leader would also search to include spellcasters in his army because they offer such a big advantage.
Philalexandros 05-02-07, 07:58 PM	Agreed. :)
Stigger 05-03-07, 02:10 AM	Well that just took the wind out of the arguement if we're all in agreement... :tongue:
Derren S. 05-03-07, 02:15 AM	So, what now?
Stigger 05-03-07, 02:36 AM	Back to the elves I guess... :D (kidding, kidding... :hides: )
Derren S. 05-03-07, 02:50 AM	One thing I forgot. In here spellcasters were mostly reduced to battlefield artillery. But that is only one function spellcasters can perform out of many. Spellcasters can do (more or less well depending on the level): Artillery/Blasting Information gathering Misdirecting the enemy Supply Reinforcments Siege warefare Increase the mobility Commando style raids Increase the offense of your other troops Increase the defense of your other troops Disrupt the enemy Healing/preserve your troops And while spellcasters can't do all of this the same time, most spellcasters can change their role within a single day. With so much utility spellcasters offer it is suicidal to fight a war in D&D without spellcaster support. While we talked only about wizards, there is another thing in D&D which makes war much different than in real world medival times. The level structure and HP system. The power difference between a conscripted pesant and a trained fighter is in D&D much higher than in the real world. In the real world a pesant with a crossbow could reasonably effectivly kill a knight., In D&D a trained knight (lvl 3 or so) laughs at a pesant with a crossbow. Even if the pesant hits, the knight has enough HP to survive. Trained fighters can great cleave through hordes of conscripts without being seriously injured. That reduces the effectivnes of conscripted pesants even more so that in D&D they are more or less wasted money and a burder for the supply chain.
Stigger 05-03-07, 02:54 AM	Unless the other side doesn't have it either... ;)
Derren S. 05-03-07, 02:57 AM	Unless the other side doesn't have it either... ;) Which is even more of a reason to get spellcasters because when the enemy does not have them your spellcasters will utterly dominate. To use a real world analogy, when an enemy does not have an air force, you don't say "Great, now I can leave my airforce on the ground", you say "Great, now I can bomb the enemy to pieces unhindered" + See edit.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 03:05 AM	I also got to thinking about the probability of the role of spellcasters in military affairs. Let's face it: intellectual types tend to go into certain fields of study/interest more than others. In other words, nerds, for whatever reason, usually don't like engaging in violent situations where they could very much be actually killed. Playing a video game is one thing, but that's different, isn't it? (If you don't agree with me making this stereotypical stance, then there's no need to bother discussing the rest of this post. I'm firmly aware of the fact that I'm making a generalized statement, and am not in the mood to hear all of the 'but not always..' and 'maybe's...' and the like.) Thus, how truly available are magic users for combat? It depends largely on culture, as well, I suppose. A lot of the cultures of the Realms seem to focus on at least a vaguely Hermetic approach to magic, and the primary spellcasting attribute of Wizards is Intelligence: this would give us wizards more typical of the above type. That's why, after reaching a certain level of might and riches, wizards so often return to their towers to simply research and live in luxury. Ed has explained that mages are insanely paranoid and never want to die, and often take extreme measures to prevent harm to themselves. This would make the availability of wizards willing to engage directly in violent military affairs extremely limited, with varying cultural tendencies and historical events still to be factored in individually, of course. But in general, I think just finding any wizards for your armies would be an extremely difficult thing to do, and I wouldn't assume any such magical parity in battles unless the armies we're talking about are already defined in canon, and they contain such wizards as written. Now, sorcerers are a different story. I don't care about them enough to analyze the situation for them, though.
Stigger 05-03-07, 03:12 AM	For wizards, I could see the young ones doing it, who are working their way up the ladder, so to speak. Older ones, say when they start qualifying for Archmage status, the arguement Dan made up there would hold gallons and gallons of water I would say. Of course you'll get exceptions to that, but in general, it would likely hold true. The problem with getting them in large numbers though would be monetary cost, and large portions of the military budget going to supporting them. Arguably that would be a reasonable cost for a wealthy and stable nation, as in Cormyr's case, but for a lot of other smaller nations, the costs would soon outweigh the benefits in the long run. Which kinda suggests a role for mercenary spellcasters who hire out their services on an as needed basis...
Derren S. 05-03-07, 03:14 AM	In a world where it is a known fact that by reading books you can learn to manipulate reality and throw huge fireballs at enemies a lot more people would study than only "nerds". And it wouldn't surprise me whan a kingdom does sponsor such things (and together with the magical schooling also teach them them a very "patriotic" outlook so that they can count on them in times of war). When not in a war thos spellcasters are probably free to do what they want, so you don't have to pay them and they increase their knowledge on their own or at least craft some usefull magical items.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 03:17 AM	I think the ONLY reason why Wizards really adventure at lower level is that they're lower level, and have little other choice for gaining more power and money. That's not really the case in some cultures, though - specifically, magocracies and Halruaa in particular. Since the entire society basically caters to wizards and the pursuit of wizardly knowledge, there's no need for them to 'adventure' at all (in the commonly perceived D&D sense). Yet their overall level of arcane magic is hardly suffering, I might add.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 03:20 AM	In a world where it is a known fact that by reading books you can learn to manipulate reality and throw huge fireballs at enemies a lot more people would study than only "nerds". And it wouldn't surprise me whan a kingdom does sponsor such things (and together with the magical schooling also teach them them a very "patriotic" outlook so that they can count on them in times of war). Not everyone can become a wizard. It requires not only a certain level of intelligence, but also a dedication to a very strenuous academic lifestyle that does not appeal to many people. And the fact that wizards are so weak at low levels, and often killed before they can ever cast a fireball, would also be a huge discouragement; and those who in life only study wizardry to be able to throw around fireballs are the ones most likely killed. The more intelligent someone is, the harder it is to "teach them patriotism." In a world where it is a known fact that by reading books you can learn to manipulate reality and throw huge fireballs at enemies a lot more people would study than only "nerds". I just don't think the actual reality of the work vs. the gain makes this as likely as you seem to think. To me, the route to doing such things in real life on this level is physics. In fact, that's almost specifically the reason I'm studying physics. Yet, physicists are rarely the ones who directly engage in or decide on wars or any directly violent military affairs. More often than not, they've been coerced into doing so by their governments. This coercion wouldn't work so well on wizards, though, since the reason you need them in the first place is that you're incapable of handling wizards (enemy ones).
Philalexandros 05-03-07, 08:20 AM	Cultural/societal mindset would be the driving factor behind the willingness of wizards to engage in warfare, regardless of level. Warlike/aggressive societies such as Narfell and Raumathar stand as examples of states where the wizard wasn't just part of the military tradition--he was the central piece in it. Likewise, Cormyr (depending on the part of the country) could count on spellcasters who wish to invest themselves in the military of their nation. Other states might not have such a culture, and thus not have a surplus (or even that many, period) of spellcasters to aid in a military expedition. Regarding the different roles spellcasters can undertake on a battlefield, I think they could tackle far more than we think--depending on their equipment. A wizard with 1-2 wands for offensive magic has freed up a good deal of spells for other endeavors. His level, IMHO, would be the biggest limiting factor on what he could/couldn't do.
Stigger 05-03-07, 08:43 AM	Don't forget the ever popular rings of wizardry and intelligence boosting items for even more slots... would make for a remarkably versatile spellcaster really, particularly in support roles. The one really limiting factor I see though is battlefield commanders not understanding what options a really competant wizard opens up, and ending up just not utilizing them to their best advantage. The same case could probably be made for wizards just not having as keen an understanding of applied military science as the commander and having the same problems. All the weapons and spells aren't all that useful without the proper doctrine to help you understand how best to use them afterall. I mean, most of us have at least a vague understanding of how lethal modern weaponry can be, television or books have probably shown us that much. Some of us may have even read a Tom Clancy non-fiction book or two on modern military units and the most basic levels of doctrine. However I'd be willing to bet that very, very, very few of us, myself included, could come up with a coherent and effective battle plan that would best utilize everything at the disposal of a modern military commander. It takes tremendous amounts of education and training to be able to achieve that sort of understanding of warfare... and just being good with a blade isn't good enough to be a general. What matters more than having the wizards and the weapons is having the trained officer corps who actually knows how to use them. The fact that Red Knight isn't yet a lesser power kinda points toward that professional officer corps just not existing widely yet... which would make the more traditional medieval army structures fairly likely in the absence of superior doctrines.
Philalexandros 05-03-07, 08:54 AM	Your last paragraph is spot on. In fact, the hard task is really not coming up with a good plan that replaces our technological innovations with use of magic. The hard task is coming up with a good plan that does just that, but is still realistic to the thought process of somewhat "archaic" states. I have a feeling that this is what a lot of people are having trouble approaching when we were arguing about what magic can do and what people can do to counter it. When a nation doesn't have a grand magical tradition, it's a bit contrived to assume they'll know how to counter it. Even if a nation has a decent magical tradition, unless it is a central facet of their society, it is unlikely that they will shape their armies and tactics around a magical core. It's more likely that they will do the reverse. What that means is that the objective DM has to artificially almost "dumb down" the tactics of a state, depending on its model, to properly reflect the limitations on tactics. To put it bluntly, no one would argue that men like R.E. Lee or Bedford Forrest were fools... they planned and operated under the constraints of their time. No one would stack of battalion after battalion out in the open to exchange "broadsides" with their enemies at murderously close range, though. ;)
Xavier_of_Cormyr 05-03-07, 10:18 AM	The more intelligent someone is, the harder it is to "teach them patriotism." I take offense to that GD, even if you didn't mean to knock us intelligent patriots.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 01:11 PM	I take offense to that GD, even if you didn't mean to knock us intelligent patriots. That's your perogative. ;) Though I doubt reasonably intelligent people who also happened to be patriotic were "taught patriotism," so much as they decided to be that way through their own analysis.
Bonzai 05-03-07, 06:11 PM	I forget which book it was in the Cleric Quintet (the 2nd one I think), but I thought it was a pretty good representation of how elves should fight. It's been a few years, but as I recall, a large Orc horde was attacking an Elven Forest. The elves were outnumbered something like 10 to one. The typical strategy was to post a large contingent of archers at the forest perimater, and shower the hord with arrows under the cover of the trees. The Orcs would sustain terrible losses, but the horde would usually overwhelm the perimater. The next phase would be to retreat to pre-arranged ambushes, deeper into the forest. Their wizards and druids shape the terrain to funnel the invaders into certain areas, where they are ambushed with arrows and magic. If these positions are over run, they retreat further, fighting a guerrilla war of attrition, seeking to demoralize the army. If the Invaders make it all the way to the city, then they make a last stand, and actually start with hand to hand combat. If I remember right, the Orcs had a wizardess with them, and she gave them the tactic of burning down the forest before entering. They started slashing and burning, and actually started making headway. They still took some heavy losses, but they had the man power to spare, and their casters can only put out so many fires before there isn't anything more that they can do. With the fires raging, the elves had to retreat without ambushing, and the orcs had a clear path to the center of the forest. This brings it back to my earlier post about combat in the realms. Magic is a powerful tool, but the bulk of the fighting is done through traditional means. Casters are of more use shaping the battle field, facilitating tactical strikes, or countering the opponents big guns. As far as elves having an advantage... I would say only in the forest or in other terrain that they are intimatly familiar with. On a wide open plain, on nuetral territory, I would give the edge to humans. They tend to wear heavier armor, have more numbers, and decent casters themselves. Underground? It goes to the Dwarves. Each of these races has specialized tactics that give them advantages in their home turf. Take the Dwarves for example. Their smaller stature means they are less cramped in narrow tunnels. Before the Thunder blessing, they were relativley few in number, so they tend to wear good armor, and focus on quality weapons. Two dwarves in full plate can hold a choke point against a far greater force, for quite some time. They can see in the dark, meaning they can see a dark blind enemey approach before being spotted. They are masters of stone work, and have learned all kinds of ways to trap their tunnels. In those situations, it is really hard to beat the Dwarves. Yes, they are less likley to have casters along with them. But if an invading force with a caster comes around a sharp corner in a tunnel, he may find himself face to face with a Dwarven Axe. The advantage he once had is pretty much negated.
Philalexandros 05-03-07, 06:29 PM	Let's not get into novels again...
Stigger 05-03-07, 07:20 PM	Weenie... ;)
ClobberinTime 05-03-07, 09:30 PM	There are some ways you can protect massed troops, and in some ways its easier because almost all of the spells and objects that are usefull are area effects. The best I have found is the Rod of Fire Extinguishing. The Druid spell Fireward (PGtF) also is very good. No reason why there can't be a lightning or acid version of the same thing, but given the prevalence of the Fireball spell, it would truly be an Evil DM who made all the opponent mages take energy substitution. Rings of Counterspell and Counter Spelling in general becomes very usefull, I can't remember if you can counterspell area effect spells though through the ring. Wands or even magic items with dispel magic, readied to counterspell enemy mages. Some lower level epic spells using either the Ward or the Mythal seed are very usefull. Even some low tech items like potions of energy resistance. (300gps) If you have a bunch of psions around, Damp power is very good. Anyways there is more but I can't remember them right now.
ClobberinTime 05-03-07, 09:32 PM	Oh yeah so the general deal is that you can protect a small area, enough for like 100-200 cavalry or something, and boy will they smash a whole in that spread out light infantry formation you all have been so hyped up about.
Philalexandros 05-03-07, 10:11 PM	ClobberinTime, I can only suggest you go back and re-read the posts. No one, to my knowledge, has suggested anything about spread out, light infantry. Insofar as the items you mentioned, you do realize that a lot of those are more rare than actual spellcasters, don't you?
Burningspear 05-03-07, 10:24 PM	I take offense to that GD, even if you didn't mean to knock us intelligent patriots. but where does in ones eyes Patriotism stop and become terrorism? i think those 2 are very entwined and it depends on who is viewing them decides what is what, not the one doing the "patriotics". (in fantasy and in RL, not to stir any RL political or ethical debates, just to show the different sides of a problem viewing the same thing and coming to different conclusions) :)
Philalexandros 05-03-07, 10:28 PM	The two aren't even really relevant concepts. Terrorism specifically relates to efforts to accomplish one's goals through the use of fear. It, in and of itself, is not an extreme of patriotism. Fascism is a concept popularly tied in with extreme patriotism, but even that's not very accurate. Neither has much to do with one's capacity for intelligence, incidentally. There have been many intelligent patriots (Founding Fathers, anyone?), tyrants (Nazi Germany was led by some fairly astute individuals), and terrorists.
Stigger 05-04-07, 01:39 AM	It all depends on who's doing the viewing... and how they choose to characterize things. Look at PETAs or ALFs direct action types, I'd call most of them terrorists, as would others, and yet others think of them as heroes and martyrs... Ultimately, any political or whatever belief taken to an extreme will lead to labels like terrorist. Patriot is generally taken to mean something firm, but ultimately moderate, with relatively benign connotations, until it is taken to that extreme, where it ceases being patriotism and becomes something else.
GothicDan 05-04-07, 07:58 AM	Again, I'd like to reiterate/clarify what I meant regarding patriotism... In that when I said it was harder to TEACH it to an intelligent person, I meant just that. It's a decision that an intelligent person would come to, but in general, trying force any sort of ethical or moral abstract on someone of greater than average analytical skill (which is what Derren seemed to have been proposing) would be harder than doing the same on someone of average (or below average) intellect. That being said, I think that the Nazi party of Germany really qualified as nationalistic more than patriotic. As to the founding fathers... I'll just say that none of us knew exactly what was going on in their minds, nor the reasons they wrote what they did. I always got the feeling that they just knew enough about symbolism, positive thinking, and the masses of the common man, to have to appear patriotic in the wake of their subculture and home (the colonies) facing total degredation.
Stigger 05-04-07, 10:12 AM	Kinda hard to debate that Nazis were indeed nationalists, as it was part of their full name. ;) And there is tons of stuff to let us know what the founding fathers were thinking at the time, lots of letters and writings they put out explaining their views and reasonings. Jefferson in particular left a plethora of materials for us to view...
The_Shaman 05-06-07, 07:46 AM	I'm not how good it is to put nationalism in the Realms, especially as far as elves are concerned... I mean, for us it might be completely natural, but I'd usually keep it out of most places. "but where does in ones eyes Patriotism stop and become terrorism?" How big does an apple have to be to become a pear? Patriotism or Nationalism (as the form that is most prevalent today) might employ different tactics. Terrorism is one of them, but it need not be limited to patriotic causes.
Khaelieth 05-06-07, 08:46 AM	The two aren't even really relevant concepts. Terrorism specifically relates to efforts to accomplish one's goals through the use of fear. It, in and of itself, is not an extreme of patriotism. I've got to tread lightly, but isn't threatening a less powerful country with war then terrorism?
Derren S. 05-06-07, 08:49 AM	Oh no. Please stop the talk about terrorism at once. This is a gaming board. Such topics don't have a place here.
Stigger 05-06-07, 01:49 PM	Terrorism is a way to wage a war though, even if a particularly ugly one. While I wouldn't consider it a particularly valid way of waging a war, it does have its roots in guerilla warfare taken to an ugly extreme. Hence, it does actually kinda have a place in a discussion of warfare. Khaelieth, that's not terrorism in that case, its usually referred to as gunboat diplomacy, though I seem to recall a more recent term that's escaping my mind at the moment.
Lady_Mhaor 05-06-07, 01:58 PM	godwin's law. . . 198 post sheash
The_Shaman 05-06-07, 04:24 PM	I've got to tread lightly, but isn't threatening a less powerful country with war then terrorism? Not quite (although a more liberal interpretation of the definition would allow it), but it is possible to conduct what is known as "state terrorism", in which a state (similarly, it may be "clan terrorism," I guess) where a state uses its own resources (army, police, etc) for terror. It depends on the definition of terrorism, again, but it's possible even in a pseudomedieval setting. Think the Zhentarim organizing death squads to cleanse a region under their control of "undesirables" (kill 1, scare 20, that kind of thing). Just because it wasn't called terrorism in the 11th century, doesn't mean it's not terrorism in our eyes.
Karsus the Mad 05-06-07, 07:35 PM	I've got to tread lightly, but isn't threatening a less powerful country with war then terrorism? Nope. It's called international politics;)
Boda 05-06-07, 10:07 PM	Terrorists, rebels, revolutionaries, these are names that big armies use to describe small armies. It all depends on the pespective.The zhentarim cover ops are as terrorist as the harpers.
Philalexandros 05-06-07, 10:08 PM	Exaggerations Away! Terrorism, despite the many and varied definitions tossed around in daily conversation, is ideologically (religiously, racially, etc.) motivated violence directed at intimidating and coercing... but the hallmark of said violence is attacks against civilian targets and infrastructure.
Khaelieth 05-07-07, 06:53 AM	I wasn't saying it was terrorism, I was just saying that if you used that definiton, terrorism would be a very broad spectre of things. But Zhentarim death squads would be neat tbh. But Harpers are bandits, not terrorists! Vile people that steal our rightfully earned cash and slaves!
Boda 05-07-07, 07:53 AM	I wasn't saying it was terrorism, I was just saying that if you used that definiton, terrorism would be a very broad spectre of things. But Zhentarim death squads would be neat tbh. But Harpers are bandits, not terrorists! Vile people that steal our rightfully earned cash and slaves! Ok, harpers arent terrorists, they are gangsters(harpers=shadow thieves).This is political discussion right? So moral has no place.
Lykor 05-07-07, 09:46 AM	The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror, not to achieve a goal. Terrorists work only for themselves, not for anyone, especially not for those who believe different from themselves. Harpers are not terrorists because they protect everyone, regardless of anyone's personal views. They also don't target "good" people, nor do they wantonly slaughter innocents. The Zhentarim aren't terrorists either. They have a clear goal: conquer the world. While they don't have any reservations about killing, torturing, etc people, they use fear as a tool and not as the end itself. They are more like Fascists. The random vampire/insane archmage is a terrorist. They cause suffering for the sake of suffering. They have no goals.
The_Shaman 05-07-07, 10:20 AM	Lykor, I must disagree. Terror is usually a means, not an end. Hence, using terrorism for political (or any other) purposes is, in fact, more likely than just causing mayhem for mayhem's sake. Chances are, even the insane archmage or bloodthirsty vampire will not go out of their way to cause terror unless they have some goal in mind - insane or inscrutable goal, perhaps, but a goal nonetheless. Webster definitions (which I think can be considered valid even in this setting): [b]Terrorism[b]: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion [b]Terror[b]: ... 4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror> So in a way any systematic use of acts that are designed chiefly to intimidate a group can be considered terrorism. The Zhentarim, a xenophobic gnome tribe, the Harpers - no matter who does it, it would be such. It may be a feasible way of conducting hostilities (if not actual war - terrorism is actually a way to avoid an open battle) even in a fantasy world. It's a hybrid of psychological and open warfare, and it has existed way before the term was coined. Britannica tends to limit its definition to causing terror within a populace (thus focusing on "peacetime" terrorism), but this definition is often broadened. An orc tribe that has settled in a forest, if it wakes up to find their high chief and shaman with slit throat, and if it has access to 20th century dictionaries, would probably call the elves "terrorists" (among other things). We might call it a "commando raid". The elves - "vengeance". The terms need not be mutually exclusive, and in cultures with less of a tradition of organized armies (halflings, some elves, some gnomes, various human tribes) it might be an acceptable part of warfare, especially when facing a numerically superior foe.
ClobberinTime 05-07-07, 11:41 AM	Most Americans views of terrorism are seen through the lenses of Al Queda and the attacks of 9/11. For the most part this is an aberration, in that the terrorists don't have an espoused goal other than something akin to genocide. Well they do espouse one, but it is likely subterfuge. Terrorism in its modern sense was invented to force Colonial European powers out of their colonies. The first and best example of modern terrorism is the struggle of the IRA in freeing Ireland from their British overlords. The goal is to make occupation an economic liability so that the colonial power will have to grant independence. Terrorism of this sort has a strikingly successfull pedigree. i.e. the struggle for Israeli independence in the late 1940's agains the British, the struggle of the Algerians agains the French, and other examples like Viet Nam, and Rhodesia.
ClobberinTime 05-07-07, 11:46 AM	ClobberinTime, I can only suggest you go back and re-read the posts. No one, to my knowledge, has suggested anything about spread out, light infantry. Insofar as the items you mentioned, you do realize that a lot of those are more rare than actual spellcasters, don't you? The whole first page and discussion of elves is rife with discussion about successfull tactics useable in fantasy warfare. Insofar as you might not understand the magic system of D+D and the vageries of costs of item creation, feel free to ask me any questions you like, and I will certainly reduce them to a form you can understand. :)
Stigger 05-07-07, 12:51 PM	Er, terrorists always have a stated goal... some more realistically achievable than others, but the goal is always there. Without the goal, they cease being terrorists and enter into the realm of the cult or criminal... though I can't think of a single group that would qualify as having no goal whatsoever beyond violence... just because its not rational to the rest of us doesn't mean its not rational to the psychos espousing it.
ClobberinTime 05-07-07, 02:46 PM	Er, terrorists always have a stated goal... some more realistically achievable than others, but the goal is always there. Without the goal, they cease being terrorists and enter into the realm of the cult or criminal... though I can't think of a single group that would qualify as having no goal whatsoever beyond violence... just because its not rational to the rest of us doesn't mean its not rational to the psychos espousing it. I guess what I am saying is that previously terrorism was a preamble to a negotiated settlement, like in the four cases I listed above. Its not a preamble to negotiation if my goal is to destroy everybody that disagrees with me, and probably you are right, some of the recent terrorism is more 'cult' like than anything else.
Derren S. 05-07-07, 02:59 PM	Which recent terrorism? I don't thing the FR has much of a terrorism problem (except the normal evil cults but that is standard). If you want to talk about the real world go to a politics board. In here only FR/D&D talk please.
Stigger 05-07-07, 08:35 PM	I don't think its so much destroy everyone who disagrees so much as everyone who isn't Muslim get the hell out of the Holy Land sort of thing... It's not that hard to see where someone could see a number of foreign troops from traditionally adversarial nations being that close to Mecca and Medina could really upset them. Just take a look at the various parades and holidays in Northern Ireland or the Balkans, and the historical events their based on... Dunno if most Americans would get it, but a lot of people around the world can hold a grudge for an incredibly long time, beyond what to us would seem all reason. So to bring it back around a bit, if the Church of Bane managed to capture and hold Tantras and slaughter all the local Tormites, what do you suppose the reaction would be? Of course there would be a local insurgency coming from any who lived... as is the case in Mintar after Teldorn and Co. seized it. Wouldn't the Banites classify them as terrorists, ignoring that its part of modern parlance, rather than a typically Realmsian term? To paraphrase an old saying, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, it all depends on whos doing the defining. There just isn't a clear line as to what really seperates the two. You could probably say that attacking civilian targets would be a clear difference. But, using Mintar as the example, what if the 'rebels' start hitting the homes and businesses of Banite sympathizers and collaborators? Isn't that hitting a civilian target, though pretty well justifiable? Or we could refine that a bit more to say deliberate indiscriminate targetting in civilian areas... sure, that would probably work about 90% of the time, but desperate times call for desperate measures and all that, and it could work if you want to undermine undecided peoples confidence in the government and its ability to protect its citizens... as tactics go, it does tend to be pretty effective in sowing dissent among your enemies. One of the problems with terrorism is that it is vastly nebulous and incredibly hard to define more often than not. Not to be a prick or to justify their acts, but depending on how its rationalized and who's doing the looking, the acts are either craven and base, or heroic in the face of overwhelming odds... if you see what I mean there.
Burningspear 05-07-07, 08:53 PM	Which recent terrorism? I don't thing the FR has much of a terrorism problem (except the normal evil cults but that is standard). If you want to talk about the real world go to a politics board. In here only FR/D&D talk please. That the discussion now borders on RL, does not mean it is about RL, the definitions of the topic are taken from RL as they are and thats always the case with such "realistically" subjects/ topics. To be able to define Fantasy subjects there have to be RL parallels top equate to. Not that that helps ease or define the subject itself any easier... lol...
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 12:28 AM	Just a note on terrorism, I don't really feel there is any "terrorism" in FR, as that is only a more recent term, what you are probably looking for is "unhonorable combatants", which, really, means the same thing. Remember, honor is important to the people of FR, while in modern terms it has lost all importance. That's my "I haven't been around for a few days" 2 coppers :D
Khaelieth 05-08-07, 07:48 AM	Remember, honor is important to the people of FR, while in modern terms it has lost all importance. The drow will probably agree. *Stabs*
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 09:27 AM	The drow will probably agree. *Stabs* The Drow are beneath my notice. ... Get it???? huh??? Anyhow, even the Drow have a convoluted honor system. If a Drow operates outside of it then they will be shunned, if not hunted down and killed or sacrificed.
Stigger 05-08-07, 09:30 AM	It (honor) hasn't lost all importance at all... at least if the Marines I know are any indication. That's a convoluted issue though, and definitely off topic, so gonna avoid it really. Though I'd disagree about the dishonorable combatant equating to a terrorist, at least automatically. A lot of the techniques and tactics ascribed to the Zhents and others in things like Champions of Ruin and Lords of Darkness could pretty easily qualify as a form of terrorism. Even Champions of Valor touches on it with the Knights of the North. I think part of the reason the correllation isn't made is because we're so used to the word terrorist being associated with modern weaponry and mass destruction, rather than extending the definition to the tools available in the realms. Functionally though, whats really the difference between a Zhent Skymage fireballing a caravan and a terrorist setting up landmine on a busy road? For all intents and purposes their pretty much the same thing as far as I'm concerned... and for very similar reasons. Its kinda hard to classify Zhents as anything other than terrorists if one really takes a good look at them, at least as far as I can tell... particularly when they operate in lands other than those they control, ie Cormyr or the Dales.
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 09:46 AM	It (honor) hasn't lost all importance at all... at least if the Marines I know are any indication. That's a convoluted issue though, and definitely off topic, so gonna avoid it really. I'm talkin in general rather than specific people or institutions, further, I'm only speaking of my part of America and specifically about the lack of societal importance towards honor. . . if that makes sense :) Though I agree that it's a more "hands off" subject. And there certainly are "terror groups" in the Realms. The Cult of the Dragon is almost an exact match for "generic terrorist group". However, in the Realms the term terrorist doesn't exist, AFAIK, while the term "dishonorable combatant" really covers all the bases; Attacking citizenry Using poisons Sabotage against nonmilitary targets etc. Further, one of the big misconceptions, IMO, is that the military is viewed through a modern lense and most of this debate was structured from an omniscient commander view, which I also find a misconception, based purely on my view that powerful mages don't let others know their powers. The War Wizards are . . . more pervasive in their knowledge of the mages in the orginization but they certainly don't know everything about all the mages in the War Wizards. One of the more difficult parts of running the Realms for myself is how ignorant or missinformed NPCs may or may not be :)
Stigger 05-08-07, 09:55 AM	Note that "...classify them as terrorists, ignoring that its part of modern parlance, rather than a typically Realmsian term" I stuck in up there in post #212. Getting into semantics there Shadez... and we all know where that leads. :D Not sure how the debate would work without the omniscient commander POV though. I'd agree that the modern lense has skewed things a bit, particularly in the views of relatively advanced doctrines being in general widespread use, which I find somewhat amusing given Red Knights relatively obscure status. It seems to me that with Tempus' prominence, more attention is payed to individual prowess rather than to any formalized idea of actual military science.
Boda 05-08-07, 09:56 AM	The Zentharim are the terrorists that won. Now they are much like modern Iran. The Cult of the Drgon are close to being terrorists in a al-quaeda sense, while the fire knives are more of a assassination squad with a political twist.
Stigger 05-08-07, 10:05 AM	I don't think either of them have very good real-world analogs to be honest... beyond anything but the most superficial levels at least. Too many differences for most comparisons to work, really. Fire Knives have some basis though, could fairly easily compare them to various English noble families, and their struggles with the Crown, though highly (near grossly) embellished from actual history.
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 10:23 AM	Note that "...classify them as terrorists, ignoring that its part of modern parlance, rather than a typically Realmsian term" I stuck in up there in post #212. Getting into semantics there Shadez... and we all know where that leads. :D I've been off the clock for days man, just don't have the time to catch up with the whole thread. :) Glad you're being your usual clever self. Not sure how the debate would work without the omniscient commander POV though. I'd agree that the modern lense has skewed things a bit, particularly in the views of relatively advanced doctrines being in general widespread use, which I find somewhat amusing given Red Knights relatively obscure status. It seems to me that with Tempus' prominence, more attention is payed to individual prowess rather than to any formalized idea of actual military science. Me either, but we'd have to know who the actual commanders are, who the wizards are, who the commanders aids are, etc etc etc in order to ACTUALLY figure out who would win what fight. And lastly, I think that Tempus has the prominence because the actions of the individual are . . . well, I believe they have more impact than in modern conflicts. Most wars are going to involve less than 10k troops on either side (unless you're talking the "big powers" in a "full out conflict") and most of the troops would be of the "noble retainers" type, rather than "official national military" and probably don't work particularly well with other "noble retainers" or the peasent levies or the King's Guard (or other, more nationalized force) ect ect. Which gives more opportunity to infiltrate lines, break lines of combatents, etc. At least, IMO :D
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 10:31 AM	The Zentharim* are the terrorists that won. Now they are much like modern Iran. Ummm. . . there is some truth in the "The Zhentarim* are the terrorists that won." in the sense that the "original orginization" was taken over by Manshoon and then taken over by Fzoul. . . The Cult of the Dragon are close to being terrorists in a al-quaeda sense, while the fire knives are more of a assassination squad with a political twist. The Cult of the Dragon is almost exactly like a modern (within the last 50 or so years) terrorist group, be it al-quaeda or . . . well, I was gonna say the IRA but then in looking at wiki I found that I can't really say that without saying which IRA and I'm not completely sure that they operated in a cell structure. Phew. As for the Fire Knives, haven't read about them much, so I can't really comment other than they seem like a standard "powerful thieves/assassins guild". :)
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 10:37 AM	So to bring it back around a bit, if the Church of Bane managed to capture and hold Tantras and slaughter all the local Tormites, what do you suppose the reaction would be? Of course there would be a local insurgency coming from any who lived... as is the case in Mintar after Teldorn and Co. seized it. Wouldn't the Banites classify them as terrorists, ignoring that its part of modern parlance, rather than a typically Realmsian term? To paraphrase an old saying, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, it all depends on whos doing the defining. There just isn't a clear line as to what really seperates the two. You could probably say that attacking civilian targets would be a clear difference. But, using Mintar as the example, what if the 'rebels' start hitting the homes and businesses of Banite sympathizers and collaborators? Isn't that hitting a civilian target, though pretty well justifiable? Or we could refine that a bit more to say deliberate indiscriminate targetting in civilian areas... sure, that would probably work about 90% of the time, but desperate times call for desperate measures and all that, and it could work if you want to undermine undecided peoples confidence in the government and its ability to protect its citizens... as tactics go, it does tend to be pretty effective in sowing dissent among your enemies. One of the problems with terrorism is that it is vastly nebulous and incredibly hard to define more often than not. Not to be a prick or to justify their acts, but depending on how its rationalized and who's doing the looking, the acts are either craven and base, or heroic in the face of overwhelming odds... if you see what I mean there. Well fine then, I finally read your friken post and it says almost exactly what I was moving towards :p No wonder I called you clever :D Anyhow, attacking the citizenry is both easy and effective, it's also VERY dishonorable. . . depending upon the situation and who's doing the attacking. In a siege type situation it's pretty standard to harm the citizenry during the siege and it's not uncommon that when the attacking army breaks the wall then there is going to be some killing and other atrocities commited towards the citizenry. Yep, it's getting nebulous already :) Anyhow, to bring it back to the game table, I'd say that attacking the citizenry on purpose would be an evil act. :)
Khaelieth 05-08-07, 11:01 AM	The Cult of the Dragon is almost exactly like a modern (within the last 50 or so years) terrorist group, be it al-quaeda or . . . well, I was gonna say the IRA but then in looking at wiki I found that I can't really say that without saying which IRA and I'm not completely sure that they operated in a cell structure. Please don't touch upon such issues here=) But they (did) work in cells. But I don't think there are any terrorists in Faerūn, in the sense that I would never use the word about any medieval group. Terror tactics is something different, if the Zhents decide to put a town to the sword, I wouldn't call them terrorists.
ShadezofDis 05-08-07, 11:36 AM	Please don't touch upon such issues here=) But they (did) work in cells. More than fair enough and I'm certainly not saying the Irish want to be ruled by undead dragons :rimshot: Sorry, couldn't help myself :)
Stigger 05-09-07, 04:09 AM	Somehow I get the feeling this is turning into an issue of semantics... which I don't have the patience for at the moment.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 05-09-07, 08:43 AM	yeah so.... um, what was the original topic here? :confused: oh yeah... army sizes, tactics, and composition. Here is a conversation starter... which armies employ "unusual" troops as part of their standard army? (undead count) Thay uses undead like they're going out of style, Evermeet has everything from a few dragons, to unicorn cavalry. Surely this is a factor...
Stigger 05-09-07, 09:22 AM	The Mindengulph (or however that's spelled) Company was pretty much an unusual mercenary company... Fangshields probably qualify as well... Could be those wackos in Luthceq have a squadron of spheres of anhiallation floating around... don't know if you could really call any army truly 'standard' in a lot of respects actually. Seems most units would be relatively unique entities unto themselves in terms of composition, numbers, and the like... wouldn't really get standardized regular units until Red Knight was a considerably more prevalent deity I don't think.
Khaelieth 05-09-07, 02:04 PM	More than fair enough and I'm certainly not saying the Irish want to be ruled by undead dragons :rimshot: Sorry, couldn't help myself :) :D Hmmm... You've got the Purple Dragon Knights and War Wizards in Cormyr. Silver Ravens in Sembia. Red Wizards and their humanoid armies in Thay might qualify as non-standard units, and then you've got the Syphillisian Empire, whom employ ogres and ogre mages. Hmmm... *Ponders* The Drow might have some non-standard units.
ShadezofDis 05-09-07, 02:29 PM	Dwarven Boar riders ftw! And there's been mention of a Cyric cavalry unit that rode war bulls (which would be close to as devestating as elephants) Now, these are quite so exotic as I think Xavier is asking after, but I like em ;)
Stigger 05-09-07, 06:21 PM	Syphillisian Empire... that just conjured up such wrong imagery in my head... do yourselves a favor and avoid books on medieval epidemology... :blink: Ahem... Quite a few aerial cavalry units out there really... so I'm not sure that really qualifies as non-standard anymore. Think there's at least 6 or 7 mentioned specifically that I can think of off the top of my head.
Balafre 05-09-07, 09:02 PM	It's an interesting thread but I still feel a little bit confused can somebody give me a clear explanation of how it all works based on an example let's say An ambitious cleric of Bane wants to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Scardale Town and Sembian forces were alerted by this so they take arms to prevent Zhent occupation If we rely on your infos, 8% of the population would be military, Scardale Town is 4 440 so it would give them an army of about 360!!!!!!! How could we determine the size of the Zhent and Sembian Army and we are still not talking about the other Dales who will gather troops to help Scardale (even though they'll have to keep a lot in their respective Dale because of the Drow menace) Also, if we want our PCs to participate how the rules work in a war game, how do you determine casualties every 5 rounds? How would golems infused with spellfire (long story, another plot!!) on the side of the Zhents could affect the war? Is the Shaking Plague could still affect the Sembian army?? Can somebody give me some answers :confused: :confused: See ya!!! :D :D
Stigger 05-10-07, 01:40 AM	8% military enlistment would be remarkably generous I'd say... unless you're including reserve militia as well. I'd put it at closer to 1-2% personally, since I doubt they'd have recovered a formal military just yet, and likely aren't really encouraged to do so by the 'powers that be'. As to army sizes for the Zhents and Sembians... depends on how determined they were to take the dale. The Sembians would probably send in a relatively small force at first, then feed in troops as needed since they have very short lines of communications and supply to Scardale. The real problem for the Zhents is facing an enemy like that... they need to send in a force capable of securing the harbor at the least, probably in the form of shipborne marines, along with at least a marginal force to secure the town and the heights of the Scar to prevent the high ground being taken and artillery placed there to start pounding their ships into driftwood. I'd guess that would have to be at least 200 troops, though that's probably cutting it close. They'd have to have a significant follow up force not more than a day or two behind on ships ready to offload in the harbor in a hurry to secure and expand the beachead. I'd say around 3000 to 4000 troops to make it credible against the forces likely to come to bear on them later. I seriously doubt they have the naval tonnage to move forces that large by sea though (all at once anyway), so I'd guess you'd have to go with maybe 500 to 600 more troops (being generous I think with their sealift capacity), and move more in fairly regularly, along with general logistics. Then their real problems start when the Sembians start feeding in reinforcements and just grind them to death with faster reinforcement and logistics... and if they can manage to push up the Scar and take a ridge, the artillery from the high ground is going to make that seizure fairly untenable. Add in the likelihood of Cormyrean support for Sembia, along with the other Dales, and the odds get even longer. Add in the likelihood of a Sembian and/or Cormyrean naval blockade and the odds get worse... Personally I'd say they'd go after Harrowdale first, since they don't really face any of those significant problems in an immediate sense and can afford to take a bit more time, since the Sembians can't react nearly as quickly as they can in the case of Scardale. For the mechanics stuff, I'd seriously recommend Heroes of Battle, it gives a lot of helpful hints for running battlefield encounters. The Golem question is near impossible to answer without knowing much about what sort of stat block they have (not that I'm really the one to ask about that). The Shaking Plague... no idea if that's been taken care of or not though. Could affect any and all sides though if its still around, more likely whoever holds the port itself being hit worst. That's my take on it anyway, hope it helped some. :)
Derren S. 05-10-07, 03:17 AM	For the mechanics stuff, I'd seriously recommend Heroes of Battle, it gives a lot of helpful hints for running battlefield encounters. But it also introduces many logical loopholes starting from unlogical combat in general (massed infantery in a setting with lots of area spells) to a completly different combat system which contradicts the standard D&D combat.
Khaelieth 05-10-07, 05:54 AM	Those Nimbral knights... the Flying Hunt? I'd guess they are relatively non-standard.
Stigger 05-10-07, 07:11 AM	Those loopholes can be closed with a bit of DM interpretation. Complete Warrior mentioned something along the lines of this stuff as well, though I seem to recall it touching on 'classic' fantasy warfare and 'modern' inspired fantasy warfare. Sure the mechanics aren't perfect, but they are fast and relatively easy to modify to suit ones needs. I don't necessarily see much problem with massed infantry either really, since they still maintained those formations even under indirect arrow volleys, despite it not making a whole lot of sense tactically. Just think of it as doctrinal inertia and you'll probably be much happier with it. ;) I'm not sure what was contradictory in it though... Unless maybe you're talking about the flowcharted semi-narrative bit they added in there, which completely makes sense to me. I don't see much problem with 'scripting' a battle to suit your campaign needs though... hell, that's kinda one of the aims of modern warfare, for events to go off when, where, and how they were planned to.
Derren S. 05-10-07, 01:28 PM	I'm not sure what was contradictory in it though... The contradiction are the mob/unit rules. 20 level 1 warriors would be killed by a 10d6 fireball no matter if they make their save or not but somehow a mob out of 20 level 1 warriors survive that easily. Likewies a unit of archers can slowly wither down an adamantine wall (5d6? damage) while 20 individual archers can't even overcome the hardness of said wall.
The_Shaman 05-10-07, 04:59 PM	8% military enlistment would be remarkably generous I'd say... unless you're including reserve militia as well. I'd put it at closer to 1-2% personally, since I doubt they'd have recovered a formal military just yet, and likely aren't really encouraged to do so by the 'powers that be'. In today's world, perhaps, but the feudal system - and in fact practically any other of that period - were afaik quite good in mobilizing a large percentage of the population for military duties. If I remember correctly my history lessons, at the time of the Reconquista Spain had some 10% of its male population as "knights" and their ilk, which at that time included practically all career soldiers; there might have been some more who joined the militia. In today's economic world, that would leave to an economic crises, but economics in that period might work a little different. How many people would be in the "military" of a nomadic tribe, for example?
GothicDan 05-10-07, 05:10 PM	Remember that Faerun is NOT the same as our medieval period. In some ways, it's far more proper to make analogies with modern world demographics... Such as in the case of military issues, for example. At least, that's true for the more 'civilized' regions.
Stigger 05-10-07, 05:53 PM	The contradiction are the mob/unit rules. 20 level 1 warriors would be killed by a 10d6 fireball no matter if they make their save or not but somehow a mob out of 20 level 1 warriors survive that easily. Likewies a unit of archers can slowly wither down an adamantine wall (5d6? damage) while 20 individual archers can't even overcome the hardness of said wall. Ah, right, I see your point there. I just ignore those parts of it to be honest, preferring to handle large scale combat in a largely narrative manner. I'm pretty much in favor of never rolling a single die for what happens offstage beyond casualty levels for particular battles, which I usually decide well in advance. Shaman... what Dan said pretty much summed up my views on the matter. The presumptions of medieval society applying just don't work without a strong centralized monotheistic church that was absolutely the foundation of everything in society. That's just not the case on Faerun, so it tends to invalidate a lot of those presumptions on anything but the most superficial of levels.
Xavier_of_Cormyr 05-10-07, 05:58 PM	As far as the 8% estimate... that really depends on the culture. Thay (or they did in the past) supports a large army, while say the dalelands has a modest militia. And for the unusual units... dwarven boar cavalry kicks ass... just beacuse. And on the dwarven theme... the defenders of Mithral hall are backed a few "Dwarven Ancestor" guardians (MM IV I think) which is uncommon and badass...
The_Shaman 05-12-07, 08:06 AM	Remember that Faerun is NOT the same as our medieval period. In some ways, it's far more proper to make analogies with modern world demographics... Such as in the case of military issues, for example. At least, that's true for the more 'civilized' regions. Not the same, perhaps, but it could be similar in several respects. Of course, like everything in FR, it depends a lot on the region, but the FRCS section on society had me thinking along the medieval lines.
Balafre 05-12-07, 08:36 AM	Ok thanks Stigger for the infos I realize that planning a war in the game is very difficult, not only youve got to determine to army size and it's components (how many infantries, levels, magic, etc) but you also got to think about the geographical position and the transport of the troops and the supplying line required for them and in the case of the scenario that i proposed it would be impossible for a Zhentarim army to keep a Dale town for too long cause they would be killed by the multiple reinforcements from the other Dales and Cormyr + Sembia!!!!!!!! ouuuuffffffff!!!!! :eek: :eek: so let's come back to my example Stigger, if the ambitious cleric of Bane decide to attack Harrowdale instead: Harrowdale Town population: 4206 so 2% of it would give about 80 soldiers only including any tactical force or special caracters (Ellarian Dawnhorn F5/W4, leader of the 7 Burghers)!!!!!!!!! Is that logic????? :confused: :confused: The total population of Harrowdale: 42 061 2% of it would give 840 soldiers, is that a good number??? How a Zhentarim could possibly gather 3000 troups?? Where they get all those people from??? And now imagine Sembia gets into it!!!! overall population of 2 462 400 so with the same standard of 2% including tactical forces of Silver Ravens it gives more than 49 000 for the army, even if they take only 15% of it they could send 7 350 soldiers in the field, plenty enough to crush the Zhentarim army!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: WOW, this war thing os very difficult to size up :confused: :confused:
Kerym Ammath 05-12-07, 08:44 AM	Size your forces to create a challenge for your players. 2% is fairly realistic for a standing professional army, however I am sure you will have a much larger militia/reserve, which could be called up to varying degrees. Of course the more people you have fighting for a prolonged time, the greater the effect of a war on your economy, and the future health of your settlement.
Derren S. 05-12-07, 09:51 AM	Not the same, perhaps, but it could be similar in several respects. Of course, like everything in FR, it depends a lot on the region, but the FRCS section on society had me thinking along the medieval lines. That is the problem. A lot of people, including novel authors think of the FR as a medival world, but with all the magic especially the warefare is not everything but medival. And that leads to silly army sizes etc. Because the authors want to build romantic medival armies totally forgetting the enviroment they are operating in.
Stigger 05-12-07, 10:46 AM	so let's come back to my example Stigger, if the ambitious cleric of Bane decide to attack Harrowdale instead: Harrowdale Town population: 4206 so 2% of it would give about 80 soldiers only including any tactical force or special caracters (Ellarian Dawnhorn F5/W4, leader of the 7 Burghers)!!!!!!!!! Is that logic????? :confused: :confused: The total population of Harrowdale: 42 061 2% of it would give 840 soldiers, is that a good number??? How a Zhentarim could possibly gather 3000 troups?? Where they get all those people from??? And now imagine Sembia gets into it!!!! overall population of 2 462 400 so with the same standard of 2% including tactical forces of Silver Ravens it gives more than 49 000 for the army, even if they take only 15% of it they could send 7 350 soldiers in the field, plenty enough to crush the Zhentarim army!!!! Well, do keep in mind that a lot of those forces Sembia has will be kept relatively static more than likely. You have to consider a couple of things however... first off, how much impetus Sembia would have for defending Harrowdale, which probably isn't much, so I doubt it would commit significant forces to its defense, if any. More likely it might try to come to an agreement with the Zhents over spheres of influence and cut a back-room deal over who gets what Dale... particularly if the Zhents are willing to give them significant trade concessions and agreements. Sembians can be bought off, which is good for the Zhents... and Harrowdale really has no allies outside of the Dales, though perhaps Cormyr might send in forces to help, but they have the same problems that the Zhents do, only a bit more magnified given the larger distance between the two. From the conventional neighbor side of things, the Zhents wouldn't have all that much significant opposition facing them if they brought in 2-3000 troops. As to where to get those troops from, that kinda depends. Last I looked they have around 10,000 members, official ones anyway. But also consider that you're talking about a cleric of Bane, who might have followers of their own that are technically outside of the Zhentarim. Toss in the leadership feat for him and maybe one of his allies and you could conceivably get a large force together with only some drawn from the ranks of the Zhentarim, the rest coming from worshippers of Bane drawn from the surrounding region, and maybe it will start to make more sense how he got the number of troops you might need. You could probably hedge closer to the 2000 number really with Harrowdale fairly safely. If you decide to bring in things like the local elves and the Cormanthyran drow into play, things could get a little dicier for them... but that could cut both ways really, as several Dales might feel threatened enough not to devote too much force in the even that the drow take the opportunity to launch an offensive while their army is away. Also consider the timing of the attack. Perhaps a campaign launched in the late fall would buy them time to seize the Dale, which doesn't have significant defenses as I recall, somewhere around 2-400 troops spread out among the Dale I think, and prepare fortifications over early winter and early spring, before anyone could actually launch a counter-attack. If I'm not mistaken, Volo's Guide to the Dales should have a pretty good detailing of Harrowdales defenses, and may be available as a free PDF download from the older edition stuff on WotC's main site. If not, the PDF should be pretty cheap, around $4 from various RPG sites. Really though, those are only things to consider. My best advise is to draw things up according to the way you want and need them to happen for the sake of the story and not worry about the details too much. Maybe just take them into account and come up with a reason why someone is or isn't getting involved in the fight... maybe Cormyr is still to weak after the death of Azoun... maybe Sembia is still reeling from the impact of that lunar fragment... maybe the rest of the Dales are too locked up in defending against the drow... could give you a lot of opportunities to cut down the numbers to where you're more comfortable with them and really allow you to let your PCs take center stage in liberating the Dale. Hope it helps some. :)
The_Shaman 05-12-07, 10:49 AM	Size your forces to create a challenge for your players. 2% is fairly realistic for a standing professional army, however I am sure you will have a much larger militia/reserve, which could be called up to varying degrees. Of course the more people you have fighting for a prolonged time, the greater the effect of a war on your economy, and the future health of your settlement. QFT. In a realm with a lot of small countries, city-states, and the like, chances are most would not have a big army in the modern sense of the world, and instead a lot of the people would receive some basic militia training in case their community comes under attack. However, mobilizing them for an extended period - especially if they have to wage war in a faraway land - might be extremely costly. Magic can be a significant change, but even in the realms not many organizations have the services of a higher-level mage, and those are often far from willing to forget their own business and dedicate their time for a war that would be little problem for them anyway. Likewise, most wannabe pillagers and looters would do wise to avoid a wizards' tower.
Stigger 05-12-07, 10:52 AM	Not the same, perhaps, but it could be similar in several respects. Of course, like everything in FR, it depends a lot on the region, but the FRCS section on society had me thinking along the medieval lines. Yeah, I'd agree that the FRCS painted a very strange picture of the Realms, with all the mentioning of feudalism and the like... made absolutely no sense really in the face of the older lore. Either that or whoever wrote that section had very little idea what the term feudalism actually means or implies to a society. Some clarification of what that term actually means and how it functions in the Realms would have made it easier to not just discard it out of hand. That feudal model just completely eliminates any possibility of adventurers springing up, much less roaming the land without being arrested and hanged simply for being armed and armored...
Balafre 05-12-07, 12:51 PM	Oh youre right Stigger my approach of all this seems too mathematic for it's own good :D :D :D your explanations are quite good just want to know, whats up with the sembian lunar fragment??? think I missed something here :embarrass
The Ubbergeek 05-12-07, 12:53 PM	Yeah, I'd agree that the FRCS painted a very strange picture of the Realms, with all the mentioning of feudalism and the like... made absolutely no sense really in the face of the older lore. Either that or whoever wrote that section had very little idea what the term feudalism actually means or implies to a society. Some clarification of what that term actually means and how it functions in the Realms would have made it easier to not just discard it out of hand. That feudal model just completely eliminates any possibility of adventurers springing up, much less roaming the land without being arrested and hanged simply for being armed and armored... Feudal in the sense of feudal era. plus, there IS realms who are very much like our world, in the societal organisaion of this part of our past, from the Moonshea Isles (spelling?) to Cormyr.
Alac Luin 05-12-07, 06:30 PM	feudalism only means the "lords, vassals, fife" social organization. the laws about "only nobles can carry swords" is only a local law many feudal states have, it is not necessarily to be considered feudalism. Cormyr is really the most obviously feudal country in the Realms. It even does have all the arms and armor laws. Adventuring companies must be registered, weapons must be "peace tied", merchants can only import a limited number of swords, etc. In general, all it takes is for a farmer to work on land that is actually owned by someone else, and they in turn pay homage to someone else is really all feudalism is. Peasants pay taxes to a local Lord, the local lord pays taxes to the crown. In Turn, the crown expects the nobles to fight wars as officers and raise armies from the local populace. This is feudalism. I'll admit, this structure is not as widespread as the FRCS makes it out to be, but is common enough in the Realms.
Stigger 05-12-07, 07:52 PM	I dunno about that... fuedalism has a very ugly context, which generally includes such wonderful institutions as serfdom. There's just too much societal freedom for that term to really work for me, too much of it was tied up with the Church for it not to have very unworkable meaning. I think I would have preferred something like an administrative monarchy or something like that. Its a bit of a semantical issue I'll admit, but having studied far too much European history, its hard to get away from the actual practices of the system as opposed to the technical definitions for me. Balafre, its got a few minor spoilers attached to it, so I'll avoid details, but in a nutshell the lunar fragment thing is a recent development from a novel, not terribly sure on its details beyond an uber mage-psionicist pulling down one of the Tears, and large sections of it crashed into Sembia. I've not read the novel, nor do I really intend to, but I think you can probably find more information over in the general FR section in the Rain of Fire thread. Personally, I usually ignore most of the novels, but it makes for as good a reason as any for keeping Sembia out of it, otherwise you could always put their non-involvement down to politicking and intrigue between the various Selkirks, Miklos and his aunt whose name just flew out of my head... Elzbieta or something maybe.
GothicDan 05-13-07, 09:31 AM	Its a bit of a semantical issue I'll admit, HA!! Semantics makes the world go 'round!
Stigger 05-13-07, 02:04 PM	That certainly does seem to often be the case with you Dan... :tongue: