Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bort333 07-03-05, 03:37 AM	:eek: My goodness. Within a war setting a wizard is just a destructive death machine. Fireball = Dead troops. Lighting bolt = dead troops. Flame Wave = dead troops. Sudden Maxamized Force orb = death commander.
Roreck 07-03-05, 03:52 AM	well first off DUH! secondly the party wizard isn't the only one in existance (or at least he/she shouldn't be) In the DMG it states that an army would most likely have divisions/squads of mages and clerics. Also at another point it compares Mages to nukes stating that two nations would be reluctant to use them against each other for MAD (mutually asured destruction) reasons. To minimize the effect of the parties one wizard in a war scenario have the enemy have a group of wizards counterspell the wizard. Note: That wizard and sorcerer can be used interchangably in the case of this post
smrtgmp 07-03-05, 04:25 AM	How are fireballs and the like any different from grenades and mortar fire in a real war? Of course they are dangerous; the ability to desimate enemy formations should not be overlooked. However, both sides of the conflict will have access to the same magics, and you must remember that magic does not exist in a vacume. Tactics will evolve to deal with spellcasters on the battlefield, such as countering them with other spellcasters or hidden snipers. Archers sprinkled amonst foot soldiers can keep an eye out for enemy spellcasters, and ready an action to attempt to disrupt them when they try to cast. This is also a good counter to enemy flyers, who would otherwise dominate a landbound formation. One of the team work benefits in Hero's of Battle revolves around avoiding area attacks. I forget what its called, but I think it gives everyone in the team the benefits of evasion as long as they are close enough to their team leader. I could be wrong about the specifics, though.
Chaotica Maxima 07-03-05, 04:31 AM	*Digs up Heroes of Battle* Its called Friendly Fire Evasion, and it grants you Evasion, but only against spells your team members cast. So unless your so close to the enemy that the wizard wants to nuke the frontline (Which would then include you ofcourse :P), thats not going to be of too much help.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 04:56 AM	Archers would be useless. Any wizard worth his intelligence will set up a wind wall to protect him from archers or will simply be invisible. And wizards are much more dangerous than mortars as they are 100% accurat. Wizards countering other wizards also won't work as the wizard countering must be rather close to the attacking wizard. If the attacker is behind the frontline the other wizard has to stand right in the middle of the battle to counter him which isn't a good position for a wizard. And give me a single logical reason why a kingdom wouldn't use wizards in a war? Thats like a moderny army not using tanks and helicopters (when availaibe)
Nom 07-03-05, 08:26 AM	Assuming you can afford and have access to sufficient wizards of sufficient level to throw many AoE attacks... Some ways to deal with AoE casters (of varying effectiveness): - covert ops before the battle starts - guerilla warfare - hit and run attacks - get into melee quickly - "turtle" formations (full cover for an entire squad)
The Mailman 07-03-05, 12:25 PM	If you want ideas of how spellcasters interact with and affect large scale combat, check out some of the recent WOTC novels. A series about Cormyr comes to mind, where there were several large scale battles between magic-weilding humanoids and mixed regular troops. There was a series about the return of the city of Shade, with elven armies versus the phaerimm. The various Drow-related novels include the drow and duergar typical mix of spell-like abilities and military strategy. And, the series they're now advertising on the D&D home page--"farthest reach" I think--has an army from Evermeet fighting off magic weilding demons. Each of these demonstrate plenty of tactics for battle strategy when there are arcane and divine magic-weilding units on each side.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 12:30 PM	I am not convinced that those novels will be much help. The FR is not know for its logical appliance of magic and I heared that at the battle for Everska magic was used in rather unlogical ways. Also most D&D novels don't follow the game rules and most what happens in the novels is completly impossible in the game.
Saric 07-03-05, 12:34 PM	:eek: My goodness. Within a war setting a wizard is just a destructive death machine. Fireball = Dead troops. Lighting bolt = dead troops. Flame Wave = dead troops. Sudden Maxamized Force orb = death commander. Smart commanders know that their troops will come under fire by magic so they pick up spellcraft, and have their troops ready an action to disperse in every direction on his command. most mages tend to center area effects in the middle of large groups to maximum effect... therefore most humanoid's speed is 30 feet, avoiding typical aoe ranges. Or, you can arm the troops with tower shields and ready action to claim total cover from the blast zone when it comes.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 12:38 PM	Problem with the readied action is that the troops will only move slowly (archer bait) and they can't fight while readying. So it is not really an alternative.
valvorik 07-03-05, 01:03 PM	It has a discussion of the fact that in high fantasy DnD 3.5 classical model ancient warfare wouldn't exist and warfare would resemble more modern - era with magic playing the role of artillery, communications, air power etc. That also means that magic users would, like artillery, airfields, artillery, be the targets of heavy offensive power. You don't send in the troops if the enemy artillery hasn't been neutralized. Conversely, you generate troops with special weapons and tactics to do so, the equivalent of the RPG and the TOW missile, etc. If magic makes the grunts' lives cheap, it makes the magic user's life worth the price of ending. Antimagic Field (which has a respectable duration), arrows of Slaying etc. all become regular stock items. The life expectency of a "battle mage" is about as good as a WWII bomber crew - sure like that bomber crew you inflict terrible damage, destroying key installations, troop emplacements, even at times a city. But live through your 25 missions and you're beating odds (a British pilot's life expectancy in the Battle of Britain was 87 hours air time, in 43-44 an american aircrew was expected to survive 15 missions on average). The few prestige classes like "mage slayer" become very important and trained up regularly. Like aircrews and pilots, they are the cream, trained and glorified but hard to replace - an arcanist or priest takes (if you use the starting age rules as a guideline) even longer to train and replace. By the 3rd year of your "great fantasy war", how many magic users are left? Any of 12th level plus are holed up in secure emplacements and their locations kept secret. The body of the 18th level archmage killed at the battle of Feldenburgh is a treasure if recovered intact to resurrect.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 01:06 PM	The life expectancy of wizards, especially high ones would be much higher than that as they have defenses which are very hard to neutralize. Invisibility and wind wall would protect them from nearly any mundane attacks the enemy can mount and enemy wizards would be stupid to attack other wizards as that means leaving their secure position. If anyone in the army survives it will be the wizards.
valvorik 07-03-05, 01:08 PM	DnD is designed to be a dungeon game (not literally but in terms of rules etc.) and it takes work to "make it work" in terms of maintaining warfare consistent with feel and other assumptions of a fantasy setting. Black Company or forthcoming Iron Heroes variant d20 systems are probably better if you don't want to sweat all that work.
ClementWillowbreaker 07-03-05, 02:18 PM	The Complete Warrior has a section about different styles of war with different levels of magic, so Heroes of Battle isn't totally required to educate those who aren't big on versimilatude. One of its main points is that Magic=Industrial Warfare when it comes to style. Modern tactics deal with explosions, long-range devastation, rapid transport, aerial attack, heavily armored installations, etc. All of these must be accounted for by successful armies to wage war. So in a heavy-magic conflict, medieval war isn't the ideal anymore. This is actually good, because it places large amounts of control and influence in the hands of smaller numbers (ie the PCs). A typical party can shift the tide of a conflict, while a squad of 14th century pikemen would have a hard time affecting anything but the life and death of individuals farther than 10ft from their position.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-03-05, 02:33 PM	In fantasy war, formations are looser, siege engines and highly moble units are more common, and commanders can communicate via Sending or Message across great distances to multiple sub commanders. At the same time; Counter specialized sorcerers are pressed into service, pitting thier vast array of lightning and fire as counterspells to enemy wizards, sniper rogues with a single scroll of True strike lie invisibly in wait for someone on the opposing lines to start waving thier hands and chanting so he can take 50 damage from a crossbow bolt, and monsterous mercenaries wade into combat. The rule of all worlds is evolve or die and AoE spells are something you have to evolve around.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 02:56 PM	Except that those sniper rogues have to be within 30 ft of their target...
Tony111 07-03-05, 04:50 PM	Derren has countered every argument put forth so far. -Tony
Derren S. 07-03-05, 04:56 PM	I wouldn't say countered (there isn't really much to counter here). Only pointing out that some of the tactics proposed here don't work. That the tactics would be different from real world medival tactics is out of question but I also don't know how they would look like. The D&D setting also don't considers this. they also promote standard medival tactics (or even older ones. Phalanx fighting wasn't really a medival tactic) even though it is obvious that they are a bad choice against magic and monsters.
valvorik 07-03-05, 05:07 PM	A couple of other posters have said, building on Complete Warrior. I admit to "taking it on faith" given min/maxing potential in DnD that if you are prepared to accept a narrow base of usefulness (too narrow for a character in well-rounded dungeoneering campaign but not for a military unit), you can minmax 'mage killer' units such that even Foresight won't be sufficient to save a mage who is taking signficant steps to aid their side in battle (e.g., you need not rely on surprise round loss of Dex bonus). Warmage needs to (a) be effective in dealing damage to enemy troops and (b) ward off attempts to take him out on battlefield and off it. Magekiller needs to (a) kill warmage. Narrower focus wins.
Derren S. 07-03-05, 05:14 PM	Not always. A mage killer has to be high level to gain much out of his build and pitted against a high level wizard in a war setting where the wizard is behind the frontlines he would be easily disposed. You have to consider the ressources needed to even be able to attack the wizard. The wizard can use 3 of his own spells, fly, invisibility and wind wall to become nearly immun to conventional attacks. To bypass those defenses the magekiller either also has to be a wizard or needs to make extensive use of magical items to even get to the wizard. Slaying him will even be more difficul and will require even more ressources.
Vaelan 07-03-05, 06:15 PM	A few concentrated volleys (rules from Heroes of Battle) could easily take out a Wizard. It wouldn't be too hard for 56 people (50 level 1 Warriors, 5 commanders, and one level 5+ Wizard) to deal about 10d6 + 10d8 damage to an invisible, flying Wizard behind a Wind Wall in a single round.
valvorik 07-03-05, 06:21 PM	If so, Fly is short duration, Wind Wall is immovable once cast (and a bit of a tip off of where to look) and also short duration (and if flying leaves another direction open). Invisiblity is reduced considerably in value by See Invisibility which lasts longer and has no range limit. I didn't mean 'mage killer' as any particular class but rather a concept. A unit for that purpose would comprise different classed characters all with their own abilities to contribute from the Druid with Control Weather to ground all fliers or Fog to render battlefield mysterious and Earthbind vs fliers, to the Divine Agent with Antimagic Spell as a Godly Gift to the Monk with Mage Slayer and Pierce Magical Protection feats and Sun School feat etc.
BeyondFated 07-03-05, 06:38 PM	The thing is, all of you assume that the opposing factions would send huge armies at each other. Likely, it would be more guerilla warfare until one side felt that they had dissabled enough of the enemy casters to mount an assault. Also, why do oyu all assume that the wizards would all be holed up? If they were way behind the army, they wouldn't be able to hit bull! Therefore, to be effective, most of them would have to be above the battle, ala Fly. And guess what? If their over the battle, the enemy wizards are too. So if they try to cast Fireball, guess who's countering with their own Fireball? Also, no mage would be without a number of Dispell Magic on hand. Really, I think that mages would take care of themselves, leaving Joe Swordyman to worry about the stabbin and such dow below.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-03-05, 06:46 PM	Except that those sniper rogues have to be within 30 ft of their target... Invisible.
Vanigo 07-03-05, 08:14 PM	Invisible. Because, of course, there certainly won't be anyone with see invisibility nearby. It's something that will certainly be tried, but it's also going to be defended against. I think magical warfare wolud be closer to modern warfare than medieval warfare, but there wolud be important differences. Most glaringly, there would be no such thing as long-range fire support. Nothing in the game can reach more than about a half-mile, and only an extremely high level mage can do even that. Mages with teleport could take the place of modern fighters and bombers, but lower-level mages would have to be close to the action all the time; they move too slowly to be based somewhere safe. Large numbers of troops would be extremely difficult to move quickly - the only spell that'll do the job is teleport circle, and that can't move more equipment and supplies than the soldiers can carry on their own backs. Individual squadrons, however, would be pretty easy to teleport around. Fortifications would be hard to build quickly; you need anti-teleportation magic at the very least, and magical walls are all but a necessity to be more effective than tissue paper against disintegrate. The amount of time and money needed to create even the simplest magic equipment would probably favor training a small number of elite soldiers rather than large numbers of poorly-trained ones. Divination magic would be very important, as would spells to foil divination. Illusions would be of great tactical importance. Communications wouldn't be nearly as good as what the modern military has. There are communication spells, but the only one that holds a candle to a simple walkie-talkie is Rary's telepathic bond - and that doesn't have the duration to serve the same function.
massiah omega 07-03-05, 09:05 PM	i think that one thing that everyones forgetting is that the PC wizard or sorcerer is a rarity in terms of population ratio's. an army would be likely to have mabey one or two mages blasting away with blasty kill spells. i would expect that there would be groups of adventurers stalking about to try to get to the blasty-kill-mage too. also the mesures and countermesures would keep building up and up each side of the war trying to keep up with the other. another interesting part of fantasy war is the fact that higher level characters can summon some blasty-kill-demons and monsters to pit against the enemy forces......Dragon=killy fun. just what i think anyway.
Vanigo 07-03-05, 10:16 PM	i think that one thing that everyones forgetting is that the PC wizard or sorcerer is a rarity in terms of population ratio's. an army would be likely to have mabey one or two mages blasting away with blasty kill spells.Perhaps, but one or two mages blasting away with blasty kill spells is zero or one more than you need to destroy an entire army using medieval tactics.
Keenath 07-03-05, 10:33 PM	I see no reason to believe that a fireball-casting wizard has any greater influence on battlefield mechanics than a howizer or a cannon battery. Less, in fact. On the field of battle, a wizard can nuke positions from quite a distance away, providing fire support unlike even a large group of archers. I think, on the fantasy battle field, we can expect to see some changes that reflect modern war more than historical war, but not a complete change in the nature of warfare. For example, a wizard becomes a very valuable asset. He will be in the strongest of strong points, defended as zealously as the king himself. This, in itself, is a weakness; if wizards aren't out striding the field, they aren't dropping fireballs indescriminantly. A wizard will contribute only where he can reach, not uniformly. A wizard has only a limited number of shots. Modern artillery (or even renaissance cannon) can lay down a virtually unlimited amount of fire, with reload time taken into account. A wizard of moderate power can only produce his best attacks perhaps five or six times each day at best. That's a major limitation! (Remember -- powerful casters are RARE. Most of the time, a war wizard will be 5th level or there abouts. Certainly not above 10th level!) I think fantasy warfare would tend to have long battle lines, like traditional medival warfare, but would also favor the formation of small, powerful, high-speed squads -- in short, adventurer parties -- whose purpose it is to move quickly across a field of battle and provide force where it is needed. This is similar to the role of cavalry in traditional tactics, but magnified by magic and the level system. I think the impact of wizards as a whole would not be much greater than that of cannon. A battery of cannon can lay down absolute destruction on a small area, just like a wizard, and they didn't completely destroy the nature of war. A wizard is admittedly more mobile, but has limited spellcasting power. Consider -- with fireballs prepared in all his available slots, a wizard or sorcerer at level 6 or so could put down perhaps 6 to 8 spells. A fireball could hit, at most, 32 people in one shot (check your battlemat for this, it's true). Assuming, generously, that every hit is a kill, a wizard can kill on the order of 200 or 250 people per day. I'm not saying 250 is a small number, but it really isn't very significant compared to an army numbering in the ten-thousands -- and that's not an unusually large army. A wizard, like a cannon, isn't important for sheer killing capacity so much as the tactical advantage of applying force where it is needed most. All in all, Heroes of Battle has it pretty close to right -- you should see small squads cris-crossing the battlefield to help their side win, while wizards drop fire carefully for the best effect, and the rest in long picket-lines, positions, and strong-points like we're used to seeing.
LordHell 07-03-05, 11:03 PM	Wizards/Sorcerers dominate a D&D war setting. They are the airpower of the modern world, but even more out of proportion due to a relative lack of defence. SAMS can knock out airplanes, afterall. The problem with comparing them to artillery/grenades etc in a modern world is that modern tactics are vastly superior to what would be used in a D&D setting. In a D&D setting your average army is just a bunch of rabble with no real discipline, not capable of asymmetrical tactics to thawt mages. Even a Roman era army would be hard pressed to even get close to a small group of Wizards/Sorcerers without routing first. These armies rely on forming masses of men bunched together and closing for melee. Modern armies use range and surpressing fire to outmanouver enemy forces, and arn't usually packed in a dense formation. A grenade is proportionally more effective against a medieval army than a modern army, which makes Wizards even more lethal. For example, I don't think a bunch of Wizards would be anywhere near as lethal against a Modern army as a D&D one. I am currently running a campaign that is a war setting, and spellcasters are present at major battles. In fact, a recent major battle between two powers was dominated by spellcasters. It comes down to who has more spellcasters wins. Usually the normal soldiers rout well before getting into and sort of effective range for firing back, since spells like fireball have a minimum of 450ft range. The saving grace in my campaign is that usually very little Wizards/Sorcerers in any given army. Maybe 1 for every 1000 men, and there are very few high level ones. The most devistating effect they have is morale. One 5th level Wizard can take out possibly 100 men before running out of spells, but the effect on morale is devistating. Don't forget Clerics. Clerics are effective at dispelling/counterspelling Arcane casters spells, and are possibly more numerous (campaign depending).
LordHell 07-03-05, 11:19 PM	I see no reason to believe that a fireball-casting wizard has any greater influence on battlefield mechanics than a howizer or a cannon battery. Less, in fact. ........... A wizard has only a limited number of shots. Modern artillery (or even renaissance cannon) can lay down a virtually unlimited amount of fire, with reload time taken into account. A wizard of moderate power can only produce his best attacks perhaps five or six times each day at best. That's a major limitation! (Remember -- powerful casters are RARE. Most of the time, a war wizard will be 5th level or there abouts. Certainly not above 10th level!) .............. I think the impact of wizards as a whole would not be much greater than that of cannon. A battery of cannon can lay down absolute destruction on a small area, just like a wizard, and they didn't completely destroy the nature of war. A wizard is admittedly more mobile, but has limited spellcasting power. Medieval artillery was wildly innaccurate, even Roman artillery which was supurb engineering wasn't incredably accurate. While artillery could effect morale, I'd rather a bunch of Wizards than artillery any day. Wizards are far more effective than artillery, mainly due to accuracy, and in my opinion are way more decisive. Even later cannons, while have massive range and firepower, would not be as devisating as a Wizard. The reload time is also an issue. A bunch of catapults or even Roman Repeating Scorpions could not take out cavalry if it was charging through a gap or around a flank. A couple of Wizards probably could. Bringing artillery to a field battle would be a bit of a joke. Bringing spellcasters would not All in all, Heroes of Battle has it pretty close to right -- you should see small squads cris-crossing the battlefield to help their side win, while wizards drop fire carefully for the best effect, and the rest in long picket-lines, positions, and strong-points like we're used to seeing. Does Heroes of battle address morale? Facing devistatingly accurate fire from a bunch of Wizards would be enough to make anyone rout. Wizards IMO are a decisive force, much like modern airpower. They are much more effective in terms of damage on morale and actual firepower than artillery which would miss its mark most of the time. Consider this. Wizards could barrage a particular point in an enemy line, allowing cavalry through the gap to harrass the rear. They could completely wipe out a flank. Even low level Wizards can use invisibility, alter self, protection from arrows, etc, and move behind enemy lines to assassinate generals, commanders, whatever. These are things ancient/medieval artillery cannot do.
Roreck 07-03-05, 11:58 PM	Just a few points: 1) About Wizards vs Canons: sure a level 5 wizard (with 16 int minium) has only two level 3 slots perday. Meaning that if they fire 2 fireball they are out of spells. But don't you people remember the greatest asset of Wizards? SCROLLS a few days/weeks before a battle start scribing those scrolls. That increases a wizards fire power greatly, also allowing lower level wizards/sorcerer as well as rogues/bards (who have put enough ranks in UMD) to start laying down some mighty fireballs on enemies. Plus Scrolls are not that expensive considering the cost to put an army into full-plate (375gp per scroll of fireball compared to the 1500gp per full-plate or 600gp Half-Plate). Scrolls also ensure the wizard may not have to be put in danger to blast the enemy. Wizards could instead spend every day scribing scroll and handing them off to Rogues/Bards who, with their greater HP and sneaking skills (generally) and UMD, can lay the magical smack down where it is needed without endangering the percious high level wizard. 2) about moral: I would think wizards using Enlarge Person would be another hit to enemy moral. A few large fighters could turn the tides. Again scrolls of enlarge person would be usefull in this matter. More from me later :D
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 02:04 AM	Aren't level 10+ characters supposed to be legendary? In otherwords, rare? Add to that that there aren't very many mages compared to fighters in the first place, and that each mage can only cast so many spells a day. I think most of you are over estimating how effective mages would be in a war, even a more midieval style one. Plus Scrolls are not that expensive considering the cost to put an army into full-plate (375gp per scroll of fireball compared to the 1500gp per full-plate or 600gp Half-Plate). Who said everyone's going to be in full plate? I'd expect most to be in leather, with full plate reserved for the elite commander types. When you keep in mind that most commoners see only a handfull of gold in their life, 375gp is horribly inefficient.
Roreck 07-04-05, 02:29 AM	Who said everyone's going to be in full plate? I'd expect most to be in leather, with full plate reserved for the elite commander types. When you keep in mind that most commoners see only a handfull of gold in their life, 375gp is horribly inefficient. you are right most COMMONER only see 375 gp in their lives. Can the same be said of aristocrats that tax the living c**p out of commoners from like birth to death I doubt it. The level one aristocrat begins with 6d8 X 10 (max 480gp min 60gp average 240 gp) meaning they have a much better chance of acuiring magical items/hiring mages to do so. And considering by my math (using PHB formula for scribe scroll) it costs a wizard 187gp 5sp to make a scroll of fireball themselves (plus 15 XP if your dm plays with that rule my dm houserules differently so no XP cost for me yippie :D ) And of course in times of war the king could order magic shop (yes I hate the term but w/e) to lend out their goods to the country in return for payment later (weather or not the king repays the debt is another issue). And it should be obvious but adventures usually have a lot more gold than commoners thus the party wizard could purchase a large number of scrolls and ride off into battle as it were (other than the ocasional magic item what do wizards need to buy again ohhh yeah SCROLLS every wizard has a few of those hanging around or they should).
Keenath 07-04-05, 02:51 AM	Medieval artillery was wildly innaccurate, even Roman artillery which was supurb engineering wasn't incredably accurate. While artillery could effect morale, I'd rather a bunch of Wizards than artillery any day.Until they worked out rifling, yes, cannon were pretty random. That's why you put four or five on a hilltop together -- combined, you have a much better fire rate and you can be pretty sure of hitting what you intended to. Keep in mind the purpose of artillery, particularly in the period we're talking about. It's meant to break up enemy lines, not make pinpoint takedowns. Strong melee units like heavy cavalry or cataphracts are there for bringing down the power at a point. Artillery was for sowing confusion and terror in the ranks. It's somewhat distracting and upsetting when a thirty pound metal ball goes whizzing past and takes out a dozen guys in a line before it stops. And it's even more annoying if you've reached the point where that ball may or may not explode a few second later (the fuses weren't even close to reliable). A wizard is there for much the same reason. A twenty foot kill-zone isn't a big deal, but it's HORRIFYING when you do it in the middle of a battle! Wizards are far more effective than artillery, mainly due to accuracy, and in my opinion are way more decisive. Even later cannons, while have massive range and firepower, would not be as devisating as a Wizard.Are you referring to, for example, WWII-era indirect fire weapons, howitzers and the like? Because if you think a wizard compares favorably to twenty five pounds of TNT, you're crazy. Moreover, as I alluded to, artillery is capable of indirect fire. That's no small matter! A wizard has to have a line of sight to his target, or very nearly (within 20 feet, for a fireball). Even a WWII gun could strike accurately at a range of over 12 kilometers! Show me a spell with a 40,000 foot range, and I'll concede that wizards dominate battlefields. The reload time is also an issue. A bunch of catapults or even Roman Repeating Scorpions could not take out cavalry if it was charging through a gap or around a flank. A couple of Wizards probably could.I doubt it. Cavalry are elite troops, so you have to figure they have some class levels. Throw a five-die fireball at some mounted 4th level fighters. You probably won't kill even one, though you might take out some of their horses. And while fire rate is critical, even it falls by the wayside when you start asking how many times it can do it. A machine gun with a fire rate of three thousand rounds per minute is pretty useless if you only have ten bullets, isn't it? Same thing with a wizard. His rate of fire is irrelevant, because he'll only have a few shots and needs to make them count! And again, if you assume BOTH sides have wizards, somebody is probably playing counter-caster and screwing up some of those shots. Does Heroes of battle address morale? Facing devistatingly accurate fire from a bunch of Wizards would be enough to make anyone rout.Yes, it handles morale quite well. Wizards IMO are a decisive force, much like modern airpower. They are much more effective in terms of damage on morale and actual firepower than artillery which would miss its mark most of the time.Are you talking about the earliest cannon, or modern(ish) artillery? Civil war cannon were already capable of hitting accurately, if slowly. And by WWI, we had indirect fire with multi-kilometer range, which could pinpoint a target by mathematics alone or by spotter -- usually a combination of the two, using math to get close, then a spotter for fine adjustment. Consider this. Wizards could barrage a particular point in an enemy line, allowing cavalry through the gap to harrass the rear. They could completely wipe out a flank. Even low level Wizards can use invisibility, alter self, protection from arrows, etc, and move behind enemy lines to assassinate generals, commanders, whatever. These are things ancient/medieval artillery cannot do. Are you fully aware of how large a flank is in an army of ten thousand? It isn't something a single wizard can "wipe out", or even significantly weaken. You're correct about the assassin end of things, to some extent. A general, again, is somebody with quite a few class levels. He's no weakling to be killed by a single knife. Furthermore, a wizard can do all those things, but so can a rogue. And so can real-life people. Wizards can, with magic, just barely keep up with other people who have spent their time training physically. They aren't the be-all, end-all assassin. Not even assassins are. The most fearsome assassin is a level 1 commoner who really doesn't like you and doesn't mind slipping something into your food. Or, for that matter, doesn't mind dying to deliver a coup de grace.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 03:02 AM	Heroes of Battle is complete crap. That indirect unaimed arrows are stronger than aimed direct arrows should show that. :rolleyes: Wizards are much better than artellerie. Wizards can kill anyone on the battlefield when they want to. and while blasting areaspells which can take out hundreds of people at once mostly seems the best choice wizards can be used for targeted elimination and dominating an enemy commander is also handy. Killing a wizard on the battlefield is nearly impossible. When flying and invisible only a handfull of enemies can even detect the wizard who can be evaded easily. With wind wall the wizard is protected against all normal ranged weapons he doesn't need mubility then but can simply continue to throw spells from where he stands. Compared to artellerie which is unprecise, slow, vulnerable and is easily destroyed I favor a wizard any day. Edit: Complete Warrior makes some good suggestions how fantasy warefare might look. Don't forget, equiping a sorcerer with scrolls of fireball and a wand of magic missiles cost less than giving the knight a horse and full plate.
Ehlijen Iswa Tschingjo 07-04-05, 09:32 AM	Well, a flying, invisible Wizard should be able to smear a large group of assorted rable. Just as a comparable fighter with appropriate gear should. If you assume that any wizard able to cast/scribe invisibilty (and it'd have to be greater if you want to stay hidden), fly and multiple fireballs per day would be used in the front lines of a battle, you better be paying him GOOD! First he needs to be at least level 5 with some extra XP to spare, and he needs to have at least 15 INT (14 if you put a stat bumb into it) and if they meet both those criteria, they're probably adventurers and we all know what advetnurers expect from a hard days work in payment.... :D Also consider that large scale battles (and they'd be big if there's more than 1 wizard per side) ca take hours. A wizard casting a spell every 6 seconds is gonna be useful how long? And when comparing the prices of scrolls and full plate keep in mind that the full plate is permanent while the fireball is one use only, meaning if unexpected reinforcements show up, one is still there, the other not. In short: Wizards shouldn't be in the battlefield. Instead they'll be crafting scrolls, potions and wands for low level acolytes trained in UMD.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 09:42 AM	A full plate is only permanent untill it gets destroyed or lost. A sword is even easier destroyed. Horses die very quickly. Nothing is permanent in war. And wands normally hold long enough for one battle and probably as long as a horse lives in battle or a armor stays whole.
Norhg 07-04-05, 09:58 AM	Settings where magic is common, where mages work for money and spellcasters can take the place of living weapons might be where AoE spells are too powerfull. But if magic is commonplace battlefields would look like those of the last century. I play medieval settings. It was a long time since Human Fighters didn't outnumber Wizards one to hundred for me, Sorcerers being even more uncommon and Clerics being the stuff of legends. Looking at the common mage we see that it takes years for him to master his casting. Lifelength is an issue, 40 year olds would be seen as people who should not be brought to the battlefield. And mostly, there is no reasons for Mages to enter the fields of battle. Arcane secrets are not unlocked in the company of warriors but in their tomes, studies and in relics from hidden pasts. And does anyone remember the text "written" by Elminster in the FRCS, a world more magical than I play in though, describing why mighty people didn't just solve everything. The main reason was, for everyone with an interest in one thing there is many who have interests in other things. Say that your Wizards go out on the battlefield for say the sole reason of money, then those loyal to the other side must aid theirs or risk loosing everything. This is what works in the campaigns I am in. Magic has happened on the battlefields we have seen, but in those cases it was always from Independant spellcasters who got stuck between the armies. Though we saw a necromancer once. And I must say that those can alone change more of the "classical" battlefield than any other with their Animate Dead spells.
Nyferto 07-04-05, 12:33 PM	Derren? Have you actually played War time campaigns in D&D? A lone Wizard is screwed in them, he certainly isn't going to develop in one. First off - Windwall isn't mobile, it stays where you cast it and it only effects a limited direction, any siege engine or even a Giant will just bulldoze you right through it. Ever seen a Hulking Hurler throw a Boulder before? Secondly, an Assasin would have an even easier time, given landscape - it's not too hard to generate cover (enough to hide an army behind) and with some of their CAdv spells - it's death attack at 1000ft if your lucky. You can't even see that far because you haven't got enough ranks in spot. Invisibility is naffed, a wall of arrows doesn't actually use an attack role to hit - it just hits an area and you make a reflex save - you'd die the instant you left the confines of wind wall (or it expires). Alternatively they just use the cover of night and snipe you out of non-existance with a troupe of Rangers who just maneuvered round the area and shot you in the back with you on their favoured enemy list with bane arrows. Then you have to remember that warfare doesn't happen on the usual time scale and you don't know when it strikes and you really don't know what's going to be thrown at you (sometimes literally), then you've got the flying mounted warriors who really don't care what you're doing, the teleporting assassins who took out your base, the Gating mass conjurers who are providing an army themselves. A wizard is better in support and defence, but even then he's limited. It's more useful if he can support other groups with artillery and protection or supply magical arms. -- As for AoE spells, cover will cover most of them. That's simple stuff like tower shields and the terrain - y'know like how normal modern troops would use it. Defence is also more universal than offence.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 12:58 PM	Derren? Have you actually played War time campaigns in D&D? A lone Wizard is screwed in them, he certainly isn't going to develop in one. Who is talking about a lone wizard? And a very high level lone wizard is certainly a match for an normal army. He simply sends his pet balor at them. First off - Windwall isn't mobile, it stays where you cast it and it only effects a limited direction, any siege engine or even a Giant will just bulldoze you right through it. Ever seen a Hulking Hurler throw a Boulder before? Hulking Hurler is a high level PRC with a low range. A equal wizard can do many things against that. When a giant is near enough to charge the wizard he has done something wrong. And sige engines are very vulnerable and do pitfull damage. before they can shoot the wizard would havedestroyed them already or killed the crew.[/quote] Secondly, an Assasin would have an even easier time, given landscape - it's not too hard to generate cover (enough to hide an army behind) and with some of their CAdv spells - it's death attack at 1000ft if your lucky. You can't even see that far because you haven't got enough ranks in spot.[/quote] And as the assasine can't see the wizard he can't attack him. Also the assasine has to attack from a position behind the wizard otherwise his shot will be blocked by the wind wall so he must get behind the enemy frontlines. Invisibility is naffed, a wall of arrows doesn't actually use an attack role to hit - it just hits an area and you make a reflex save - you'd die the instant you left the confines of wind wall (or it expires). Alternatively they just use the cover of night and snipe you out of non-existance with a troupe of Rangers who just maneuvered round the area and shot you in the back with you on their favoured enemy list with bane arrows. Even a volley of arrows is blocked by the wind wall. Also the wizard can move 60 ft. a round, more when he is flying. to cover the whole area with a volley you need hundereds or even thousands of archers. And good luck sniping the wizard when he sleeps in a rope trick. Then you have to remember that warfare doesn't happen on the usual time scale and you don't know when it strikes and you really don't know what's going to be thrown at you (sometimes literally), then you've got the flying mounted warriors who really don't care what you're doing, the teleporting assassins who took out your base, the Gating mass conjurers who are providing an army themselves. Notice that except for the warriors you are talkning about wizards? A wizard is better in support and defence, but even then he's limited. It's more useful if he can support other groups with artillery and protection or supply magical arms. [Quote] support with artillery->Blasting enemies as discussed here. And I rather have a wizard killing dozens of enemies a day than have him burn XP and GP to make potions or even weapons which are very likely to be lost when the solder who carries them dies.[quote] -- As for AoE spells, cover will cover most of them. That's simple stuff like tower shields and the terrain - y'know like how normal modern troops would use it. Defence is also more universal than offence. Tower shields are useless. The wizard simply places the fireball behind the soldier with the shield. There is always an opening and the wizard can aim his spells precisely at this spot. And many touch spells simply ignore tower shields.
Vaelan 07-04-05, 01:16 PM	Heroes of Battle is complete crap. That indirect unaimed arrows are stronger than aimed direct arrows should show that. Only if you have an extremely competent and prepared commander. But that shouldn't make a difference...? :confused: Even a volley of arrows is blocked by the wind wall. A volley could conceivably clear a Wind Wall cast by a Wizard of moderate level.
Lokiyn 07-04-05, 01:17 PM	Which is why every kingdom should have one hideously expensive set of the bracers of antimagic from the Arms and equipment guide. Given to a monk, barbarian, fighter, or rogue who has been trained in the use of said bracers and your caster artillery is going to be in major trouble.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 01:25 PM	Only if you have an extremely competent and prepared commander. But that shouldn't make a difference...? :confused: Compare the effect of aimed arrows and a volley of arrows against things with DR and hardness. While the aimed arrows all bounce off harmlessly the volley does damage. A volley could conceivably clear a Wind Wall cast by a Wizard of moderate level. What do you mean with clear? All the arrows touching the wall will be blown away. There is nothing to "clear". Which is why every kingdom should have one hideously expensive set of the bracers of antimagic from the Arms and equipment guide. Given to a monk, barbarian, fighter, or rogue who has been trained in the use of said bracers and your caster artillery is going to be in major trouble. And the attacker will be hacked apart by the wizards body guard or blasted by orb spells. Thats a good example how you loose hideously expensive items to the enemy. And even when the attacker gets through to the wizard, he simply flies up a bit and is out of reach.
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 01:38 PM	I don't see why Wind Wall keeps on getting thrown around when Protection from Arrows would be a much more effective (mobile and long lasting) defence for a wizard.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 01:47 PM	Because PfA gives /magic DR which is easily overcome. It is good as secondary line of protection or when you know that the enemy doesn't has magical weapons but Wind Wall is safer.
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 01:50 PM	Overcome by what? What is an army of primarily 1st level fighters going to shoot at you? You think those volloys of arrows are going to be Seeking Arrows +5? Even a +1 arrow is too expensive to waste on every common archer.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 01:51 PM	Nope, but the enemy wizards could cast magic weapon on 50 arrows and give them to a squad.
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 01:55 PM	Again, where are all of these wizards going to come from? How many times are they going to be able to cast Magic Weapon? I would think Magic Missile or Sleep would be a much more efficient use of the spell slot anyway.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 01:58 PM	D&D is a high magic world. Wizards and clerics are not a rareity. And spending a spell to create 50 +1 (or even more) arrows is hardly a waste. Even when you craft those arrows it is cheap because each individual arrow only costs 47 gp.
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 02:10 PM	Just because DnD is a high magic world, it doesn't make mages and clerics common. And you still haven't proven why casting Magic Weapon on an arrow is a better use of the spell slot than casting Magic Missile or Sleep. Each casting of Magic Weapon enhances ONE arrow, not 50. Even when you craft those arrows it is cheap because each individual arrow only costs 47 gp. "Only" lol. So 47gp for a magic arrow vs 1/20th gp for a regular arrow. This idea is more brilliant than giving every grunt full plate or using scrolls of Fireball like candy lol...
~Black Knight~ 07-04-05, 02:15 PM	Well, if you have high enough level wizards/sorcerers to cast fireball, then there are surely regular troops of equal level, who can survive those fireballs.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 02:17 PM	Clerics wizards and druids are common. Look at the town generation rules. When you also count Adept the list get very long. And giving a +5% chance to hit and to ability to always disable a enemy soldierr on a hit and the ability to penetrate the mentioned PoA is good for 47 gp or a 3rd level spell slot. Also another disadvantage of PoF is that it can be dropped by damage. 10 archers firing at the wizard and PfA is gone. It is a good secondary protection, but I rather trust wind wall and invisibility.
Alienfreak 07-04-05, 02:34 PM	Fly is short duration 1min/level isnt exactly what i would call short duration. How many battles with 100+ rounds have you seen so far? And a lesser metamagic rod of extend isnt expensive. Wind Wall is immovable once cast (and a bit of a tip off of where to look) and also short duration (and if flying leaves another direction open) 1. Then you just stay hwere you are :) 2. Wind is visibible? I never see if theres wind blowing outside. Except if something is influenced by the wind. 3. 1rnd/level is pretty much. So you can fling 10 deadly spells. And yeah ... lesser metamagic rod of extend? 4. Why should you leave one direction open? Invisiblity is reduced considerably in value by See Invisibility which lasts longer and has no range limit. Only the enemies Spellcasters can see him. Noone else. So it doesnt reduce it greatly. So if they try to cast Fireball, guess who's countering with their own Fireball? Also, no mage would be without a number of Dispell Magic on hand. 1. They still have to be in reach. And Fireball has a reach of about 800ft? I dont guess you have to be right above where all the others are? 2. Dispel Magic is great, but who memorizes that many? I guess they will need Fireballs,2 . Invisible. Mages have see invisibility. No Mage would let an invisible Rogue fly withing 30 ft of him. Secondly, an Assasin would have an even easier time, given landscape - it's not too hard to generate cover (enough to hide an army behind) and with some of their CAdv spells - it's death attack at 1000ft if your lucky. You can't even see that far because you haven't got enough ranks in spot *cough* You have to do an SNEAK ATTACK with an MELEE WEAPON in order to deliver the Death Attack. That gives in an effective range of 5 ft. Wow. Pretty dangerous for every flying wizard out there. As for AoE spells, cover will cover most of them. That's simple stuff like tower shields and the terrain Tower Shields give you cover against ONE side. Just place the AoE spell behind it. Killed. A volley could conceivably clear a Wind Wall cast by a Wizard of moderate level. ??? What rules are you referring to? Not D&D 3.5 i guess. Given to a monk, barbarian, fighter, or rogue who has been trained in the use of said bracers and your caster artillery is going to be in major trouble. *cough* Fly *cough* Well, if you have high enough level wizards/sorcerers to cast fireball, then there are surely regular troops of equal level, who can survive those fireballs. Ok. There are 10 peeps of every PC class around. The army consists of 1000 Men. I guess the remaining 900 Peeps are still 1st, arent they?
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 02:50 PM	I'm not disputing Wind Wall's effectiveness. The problem with the spell is it's pitiful duration, which would protect the wizard from a woping, single volley. The spell would be more effective if cast in front of a group. But even then, using the spell slot for a Fireball in the middle of a squad of archers to stop many volleys would be more efficient. PfA lasts for hours; combined with invisibility it would protect a wizard from multiple volleys. It's a better personal defence. It's also a lower level spell, which lets the mage save it's higher slots for artillery.
Dragonsblood 07-04-05, 02:52 PM	1min/level isnt exactly what i would call short duration. How many battles with 100+ rounds have you seen so far? Large scale battles last more than 5 minutes lol We're not talking about a dungeon crawl.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 02:53 PM	PfA will be enough most of the time. But against the specialized assasines which came up multiple times it won't work. Wind wall takes care of that too. And why not use it on a group of wizards? One mantains the wall while three others blast away without needing any protections. When the guy has no more wall spells someone else casts one then all go invisible and flying and leave the battlefield after inflicting serious damage.
Disme 07-04-05, 03:01 PM	I can never see a D&D army consisting of tightly packed (ie AOE fodder) troops. Even if neither side used wizards, all it would take is 1 bored wizard (ie my character) to cast fireball with the fell animation metamagic feat. Their we go, where once there was 2 large legions clashing, there is a horde of ravenous undead. Speaking of wich, why limit it to fireball? Me thinks fear woulb be much more devestateing. Mob mentality means once a few start running, more will follow, even if not affected by the spell. Oh, and I like cloudkill much more.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 03:04 PM	Firebrand is the perfect example of a battlefield spell. Its 4th level but a huge, customnizable area. Various fear effects and illusions would also be very effective.
Saric 07-04-05, 04:19 PM	Tower shields are useless. The wizard simply places the fireball behind the soldier with the shield. There is always an opening and the wizard can aim his spells precisely at this spot. And many touch spells simply ignore tower shields. If you readied an action to block the fireball from where it orginated that wouldn't work unless you had multiple mages.
Derren S. 07-04-05, 04:20 PM	If you readied an action to block the fireball from where it orginated that wouldn't work. Then the wizard would just use targeted spells. And readying means the soldiers are moving at half speed and can't fight. perfect archer target.
LordHell 07-04-05, 06:12 PM	Until they worked out rifling, yes, cannon were pretty random. That's why you put four or five on a hilltop together -- combined, you have a much better fire rate and you can be pretty sure of hitting what you intended to. Keep in mind the purpose of artillery, particularly in the period we're talking about. It's meant to break up enemy lines, not make pinpoint takedowns. Strong melee units like heavy cavalry or cataphracts are there for bringing down the power at a point. Artillery was for sowing confusion and terror in the ranks. It's somewhat distracting and upsetting when a thirty pound metal ball goes whizzing past and takes out a dozen guys in a line before it stops. And it's even more annoying if you've reached the point where that ball may or may not explode a few second later (the fuses weren't even close to reliable). The period when artillery weapons were used to any effect during a field battle was roughy after the 1450's. This was also when armies were starting to field hand held gunpowder weapons. Unless your D&D campaign setting was set where gunpowder was being fielded by armies, then artillery was primarily used for sieges. I cannot really think off the top of my head any field battle where artillery was ever used to any notable effect before the 1450's in a D&D time period (swords, catapults, etc). Yes it had an effect on morale, but during THIS time period an insignificant one. Artillery pieces were also a logisitical nightmare, and many of them worked poorly in bad weather. A wizard isnt massively unaccurate, isnt a logistical nightmare, and can function in all weather enviroments. A wizard is there for much the same reason. A twenty foot kill-zone isn't a big deal, but it's HORRIFYING when you do it in the middle of a battle! Its even more horrifyig when it hits all the time, instead of whizzing over your head or being fired once every ten minutes. Are you referring to, for example, WWII-era indirect fire weapons, howitzers and the like? Because if you think a wizard compares favorably to twenty five pounds of TNT, you're crazy. Moreover, as I alluded to, artillery is capable of indirect fire. That's no small matter! A wizard has to have a line of sight to his target, or very nearly (within 20 feet, for a fireball). Even a WWII gun could strike accurately at a range of over 12 kilometers! Show me a spell with a 40,000 foot range, and I'll concede that wizards dominate battlefields. I assumed that people would have thought im only talking about D&D and early era artillery/siege weapons. Given the choice between a 155mm Howizter and plenty of ammo and a Wizard? I'd take the Howizter. I doubt it. Cavalry are elite troops, so you have to figure they have some class levels. Throw a five-die fireball at some mounted 4th level fighters. You probably won't kill even one, though you might take out some of their horses. This of course is dependant on your campaign setting, but In my campaign setting cavalry at at best 2nd level Fighters. Most of them are 2nd level Warriors. They're not nessesarily better fighters than men-at-arms (Warriors), but they're certainly better equipped. One fireball - even if it doesnt kill them - is likely to kill their mounts. A 5th level fireball does an average of 17.5 damage on a failed save. Even if it kills nothing, its going to shock them, break up their formation, and leave them badly burned and wounded. They will be ineffective as a shock weapon and the fireballs job is done. And while fire rate is critical, even it falls by the wayside when you start asking how many times it can do it. A machine gun with a fire rate of three thousand rounds per minute is pretty useless if you only have ten bullets, isn't it? Same thing with a wizard. His rate of fire is irrelevant, because he'll only have a few shots and needs to make them count! And again, if you assume BOTH sides have wizards, somebody is probably playing counter-caster and screwing up some of those shots. A wizard by himself, maybe. A Wizard with scrolls and wands can put out a lot more firepower. You'll also note I alluded in my posts that Wizards dont just blast ranks of men, they use their spells tactically to create gaps or take down flanks. They dont need the ammunition of a artillery piece because they will always hit. An artillery piece wont. Roman artillery such as the Balista was much more accurate than other weapons such as catapults, oangers, etc, but it also didnt have the same area of effect. Are you talking about the earliest cannon, or modern(ish) artillery? Civil war cannon were already capable of hitting accurately, if slowly. And by WWI, we had indirect fire with multi-kilometer range, which could pinpoint a target by mathematics alone or by spotter -- usually a combination of the two, using math to get close, then a spotter for fine adjustment. Im not even really talking about cannons. Im talking about artillery used in the D&D timeframe, which according to the DMG is up to 14th centuary weapons. You will see in my posts I said a bunch of Wizards would be pretty ineffective against a modern army compared to a medieval one. Admittadly the 'D&D' timeframe is confusing, due to the equipment in the PHB ranging across a large timeframe. When I think of D&D however I think of roughly the 12th and 13th centuries. Are you fully aware of how large a flank is in an army of ten thousand? It isn't something a single wizard can "wipe out", or even significantly weaken. Yes im quite aware how large flanks of armies can be. Numbers however don't matter diddly squat, morale does. You send one unit routing and that is going to send a chain reaction through the entire flank. One Wizard may be hard pressed to collapse a flank against an few thousand soldiers, but using my ratio of 1:1000 (which is highly conservative, it could be much higher than that, campaign depending) a few Wizards could cause enough casualties, probably hundreds, to cause that flank to rout and collapse. I'd rather be shot at by wildly inaccurate artillery than screaming fireballs that hit every time. Wouldn't you? After all, by the time you engage the artillery is most likely to stop, the fireballs arn't. You're correct about the assassin end of things, to some extent. A general, again, is somebody with quite a few class levels. He's no weakling to be killed by a single knife. Who said a general has to have class levels? Ceasar was a great general, and he was killed by a knife. Furthermore, a wizard can do all those things, but so can a rogue. And so can real-life people. Wizards can, with magic, just barely keep up with other people who have spent their time training physically. They aren't the be-all, end-all assassin. Not even assassins are. The most fearsome assassin is a level 1 commoner who really doesn't like you and doesn't mind slipping something into your food. Or, for that matter, doesn't mind dying to deliver a coup de grace. Do take note this is the middle of a battle we're talking about where the enemy general is usually surrounded by bodyguards and moving around the battlefield on horseback. A rogue is not going to be able to do diddly squat. Without the means to see invisibility the other army is doomed. Wizards vs Wizards of course this tactic is less viable, but it is something artillery certainly cannot achieve. Dont turn this into a Wizard vs Rogue discussion. This is Wizard vs D&D time period artillery.
LordHell 07-04-05, 06:31 PM	For the whole equipment side of things, I think its pretty silly to assume that an army is going to be fully equipped in Full Plate and Tower Shields. Your campaign world can have whatever you want in it, but remember the longest lasting, richest, and arguably strongest empire on in the history of the real world only managed to field small numbers (~6000 men) with Tower Shields and the equivalent of Banded Mail. The peak of this empire had roughly 168,000 such men, but they were spread out across most of the known world at that time. Most 12th and 13th centuary armies, around the period that D&D took place, your average men-at-arms would have studded leather, a wooden shield, and a spear or pike. Your average Knight would have a lance, mace/sword, and chainmail. They would also be massively undisciplined. It was only up till about the 17th century where post-Roman European armies (Note European, not the Mongols) started having and sense of discipline at all in their ranks.
valvorik 07-04-05, 06:35 PM	Fireballs are Spread effects, they reach around barriers like shields (see PHB). Much of the discussion says to me that the answer to this "debate" is simply, "what does your DM want to make it". Statistical factors such as frequency of types of characters, social values (is "devastating magic" a "weapon of mass destruction", allowing no surrender and thus unethical), degree to which outsiders and monsters can be incorporated into armies etc. all play into "how does it work". It works the way you want to make it work. If your DM has decided even high level wizards are anticipated and won't survive long on battlefield, then they won't and vice versa. If your DM has decided that a battlefield should be no more or less dangerous then a dungeon (Heroes of Battle prescription) then the wizard can help in about four engagements a day before odds tip against them. So if you're DM, decide on best flavour for your group and campaign and if you're player check on what your DM has/will decide.
Vanigo 07-05-05, 03:22 AM	Your campaign world can have whatever you want in it, but remember the longest lasting, richest, and arguably strongest empire on in the history of the real world only managed to field small numbers (~6000 men) with Tower Shields and the equivalent of Banded Mail. The peak of this empire had roughly 168,000 such men, but they were spread out across most of the known world at that time. Dude. China. The Chinese were known to lose armies numbered in the hundreds of thousands without batting an eye. Regardless, most D&D nations don't have anywhere near the level of resources enjoyed by either empire. Counterspelling isn't terribly useful in warfare. It's a matter of range. You can't counterspell a spell unless it's being cast within the range of that spell (or medium range if you use dispel magic). A very high level mage using enlarge spell could pull it off sometimes, but for the most part it's not going to come into play unless you mix your counterspellers in with your front-line troops. A mid-level wizard might not be able to destroy an entire army, but well-placed fireballs and the like can easily shatter the tight formations that are so important in magic-free medieval warfare. Troops relying on tight formations would be easily destroyed by breaking their formation with a couple fireballs and charging them before they got a chance to close ranks. The precision of fireballs as opposed to artillery means that you could break their formation literally seconds before the forces collided. The wizards would be either in the air or a few hundred feet behind the front ranks, surrounded by an escort; they'd peel off once the fighting started. A medieval army that expects to face wizards would have to find ways to remain effective in a looser formation to minimize casualties, and they'd have to be able to close gaps quickly.
Nyferto 07-05-05, 03:51 AM	How the hell are you going to kill an army by hiding behind a windwall all day. If you're a threat, they'll just walk round you, at which point you need to re-apply your position and cast the spell again. At which point you're screwed if your ambushed between points. Seriously, what's the spot skill of a Wizard? Compared to the distances warfare combat actually takes place on. Fireballs do reach round cover, but a wall of tower shields doesn't provide much scope for "getting round". Roman armies are a good example, and I don't see how your fodder for archers when your behind tower shields and can't be hit by them - that's one of the main reasons for having tower shields in the first place. If you try targeted spells you're now talking about much closer ranges with less overall victims (if any), not only that but you have to expose yourself each and every time you cast a spell. Why the hell are you talking about Orb spells? Do you know how many you'd have to cast to take out a 100,000 strong units? Seriously - learn about the scematics and practical application. If you're going into Warmages and wartime, you're talking splat books - this means hell for any caster in a wartime environment, you're talking Azn's with Sniper Shot and other spells that allow them no-range limit on Death Attack. You're talking Hulking Hurlers (a low level PrC) with the ability to brutal/power throw a far shotted mountain at someone. Given the number of spells you'd need to prepare and the potential force you could go up against, Wizards are hideously flawed in warfare. AOO's spells are easily handled and anything else leaves you open to imeadiate counter attack. This isn't one person vs one lot of inadequate troops, this is your army of everything vs theirs of the same. It's not so clear cut.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 05:01 AM	You really need to learn how spells work. The wizards stay behind a wind wall and throw fireball after fireball at the enemy through the wall. When they run out of fireballs they get their wands of magic missiles and start shooting. Distance of the warefare? Do you want to make me laugh? When most of your troops are equipped with melee weapons, at what distance do you think combat will happen? The wind wall protects then from archers and melee troops have to first close to the wizard who of course are stationed behind the own troops so they have to first get through them while beeing constantly bombarded by magic missiles. Hulking Hurlers? Lol. Thrown weapons have a low range. A large Hulking Hurler as a total range of amazing 50 ft. Compare that to the 400+ ft. of the wizards. Also they are easily recognizeable because of the rocks they carry and because THEY HAVE TO BE LARGE!. How many large creatures will you find in an army? Assassines death attacking the wizards at range? Fine, when he can get behind then to get through the wind wall. To do this he must walk around the whole army the wizard has and then be close enough to reach the wizards with his bow. Good luck to do that. Seriously learn to read. I never said the wizards are fighting alone. And AoO spells are not easily handeled. Shields don't work, armor doesn't help. Do you want to give out potions of resist energy to every soldier of the 100.000 man army?
Vaelan 07-05-05, 05:08 AM	Compare the effect of aimed arrows and a volley of arrows against things with DR and hardness. While the aimed arrows all bounce off harmlessly the volley does damage. I think you need to read the description for a volley again. I'll go ahead and quote the relevant sentence. All creatures in the target square take damage as if they were hit by one-fifth of the arrows fired... First distinction: only creatures take damage. Only objects have hardness. As for DR, it is not bypassed by a volley either. All creatures in the target square take damage as if they were hit by one-fifth of the arrows fired. If the creature has DR 15, then none of the arrows would actually deal any damage to the creature and thus the volley wouldn't deal any damage to it either. What do you mean with clear? All the arrows touching the wall will be blown away. There is nothing to "clear". Wind Walls are only 5 feet high per caster level. It is possible for a volley to bypass the Wind Wall entirely by going over the top of it.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 05:13 AM	Wind Walls are only 5 feet high per caster level. It is possible for a volley to bypass the Wind Wall entirely by going over the top of it. And wind wall is at best a 2nd level spell. That means the wall is 15 ft. high. To hit a person standing directly behind a 15 ft. wall the arrow must come down perfectly vertically or otherwise it shoots too far or touches the wall and that is impossible to do with a bow except at close range firing nearly directly up or be a genious in calculating wind effects on an arrow. Here a little picture W W MW AAA M = Mage W = Wind Wall A = Archer Tell me how the archers can hit the mage without the arrow going through the wind wall.
Nyferto 07-05-05, 07:35 AM	You really need to learn how spells work. Why? The wizards stay behind a wind wall and throw fireball after fireball at the enemy through the wall. When they run out of fireballs they get their wands of magic missiles and start shooting. This is ridiculous, you never answered the question, but I must take your answers as a blatant - No I have never actually played in a properly run warfield campaign, much less with a Wizard. Why is the enemy stagnent? Why is there only one unit you're fireballing, how many people do you seriously think you can take out each round, you only need a wall of 6-9 people with towershields to completely negate a fireball attempt if it's in such a linear method of attack. If your beloved windwall is badly positioned, another troupe from a different direction will just kill you. A Wand of Magic Missile? Please, each round you'll hit a maximum of 5 people with pitiful damage who only need a lesser globe of invulnerability to hide behind. In the meantime you've been mauled quickly by the rest of the army who you had no defence against. Distance of the warefare? Do you want to make me laugh? When most of your troops are equipped with melee weapons, at what distance do you think combat will happen? Depends who's feeding the information, do you really think they'll strike you from a position where you can easily strike back? How far do you think you can identify them as enemy? How far do you think trained archers can pick you out from? For all you know, you've been ambushed by a bunch of people you had no hope of spotting first, at which point not even Windwall will save you. Who said most of the troops are melee anyway? Who says they even need troops? What about specialist units, you think you're alone in the universe all of a sudden, no one can make it beyond 1st level and they all pick up maces? Given that all long bows have a maximum range of 1000ft, and that a first level Human Warrior can have PBS and Farshot, it's upto 2000ft for a basic archery troupe. You do know by the time you get to Magic Missile wandage you're actually down to medium range, which means you're moving outside of Windwall. The wind wall protects then from archers and melee troops have to first close to the wizard who of course are stationed behind the own troops so they have to first get through them while beeing constantly bombarded by magic missiles. Not if they're even vaguely tactical, the MM are minor, the ability to disrupte it's targeting is something a bunch of commoners could do, it takes a standard action and hits very few targets, who says the melee troops are going to stand around, what happened to the mounted cavaliers or dragoons? What about the elven troops all flying on Pegasai or the Gnoll Rangers with you on their list of Favoured enemies? Hulking Hurlers? Lol. Thrown weapons have a low range. A large Hulking Hurler as a total range of amazing 50 ft. Compare that to the 400+ ft. of the wizards. Also they are easily recognizeable because of the rocks they carry and because THEY HAVE TO BE LARGE!. How many large creatures will you find in an army? Err no. Hulking Hurlers can throw upto twice their size in ranged weapons, that means Gagantuam Javalins as a minimum, check out the range of those. Then you have to remember that the range for improvised weapons is actually based on Strength and can be doubled by Farshot. Then you're talking about killing them, fireball isn't a oneshot kill for them, and you're assuming they're front line. How many large creatures in an army? Well if it's an Army of Giants - quite a lot. Assassines death attacking the wizards at range? Fine, when he can get behind then to get through the wind wall. To do this he must walk around the whole army the wizard has and then be close enough to reach the wizards with his bow. Good luck to do that. As above, range isn't that much of an issue, Dimension Door is an Assasin spell, not to mention the vast array of backgrounds he could have and if he really wanted to a Monk/Azn with the right tactical feat could death attack you in one action at the range of Dimension Door (essentially the same as Fireball). Seriously learn to read. I never said the wizards are fighting alone. And AoO spells are not easily handeled. Shields don't work, armor doesn't help. Do you want to give out potions of resist energy to every soldier of the 100.000 man army? Then why are you constantly reffering to them as the saviours of war? They're pathetic in war, they're at most a minor contribution to an epic struggle. AoO doesn't work at all. All you need is a simple command to spread out after the spell is cast and it's wasted (and so are you), Cover will kill most of them, terrain can mean they'll sneak up on you, the amount you can target in a round is pitiful. W W MW AAA M = Mage W = Wind Wall A = Archer Well they only have to take a few steps down on the map to actually be able to strike him, if they're mounted they can practically screw his tactic and actually maneuver around the wind wall, and if you've only got 3 archers in a unit, then I'd worry about the other 97 about to flank you.
The Mailman 07-05-05, 10:20 AM	Y'know, I think I've lost the point of this discussion--or someone has--or something... If the point is: AoE spells are just too powerful in war settings, then I think many suggestions have been made as to how wizards would be countered or eliminated, the most important of which being, there would be casters on both sides providing offensive and defensive magic. There are, of course, a million and one ways a caster can negate the effect of or kill another caster (even one hiding behind an all-powerful wind wall). Magic-item-equipped non-casters could generate similar results. Standard troops are not rendered useless because: (a) there are lots of them--small groups of casters can't get everyone at once; (b) eventually there must be actual melee--simple ranged casting will eventually run out and combat will be requred to attain the objective, moreover, when the spellcaster runs out of power, the hordes of non-casters are still just as effective. If the point is: Casters are better than artillery pieces, or non-casters, then I think, on a one-for-one basis, you're probably right. But there will be casters on both sides right? If not, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that the army without magic is going to be on the short end of the stick--War of the Worlds anyone?
Keenath 07-05-05, 11:03 AM	The period when artillery weapons were used to any effect during a field battle was roughy after the 1450's. This was also when armies were starting to field hand held gunpowder weapons. Unless your D&D campaign setting was set where gunpowder was being fielded by armies, then artillery was primarily used for sieges. I cannot really think off the top of my head any field battle where artillery was ever used to any notable effect before the 1450's in a D&D time period (swords, catapults, etc). Yes it had an effect on morale, but during THIS time period an insignificant one.Okay, well, if you read the beginning lines of my post, I said that we could get a fair idea of the effect of a wizard on the battlefield by looking at what LATER artillery did. As in, 1500s era cannons. I'm not comparing a wizard to a cannon from his own period, but to the deadly cannon of later times -- that's roughly how much he'll affect the battlefield. Yes, by that time they did have musket troops. The difference is relatively minor; a cannon hitting men with guns is pretty much the same as a cannon hitting men with swords. The weapons had changed by the era of Napoleonic warfare, but the tactics were still very much centered around a solid battle line and manuvering columns as single units. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any armies outside the Philistines who hired hill giants, so comparing the battlefields may be a bit of a useless exercise. This of course is dependant on your campaign setting, but In my campaign setting cavalry at at best 2nd level Fighters. Most of them are 2nd level Warriors. They're not nessesarily better fighters than men-at-arms (Warriors), but they're certainly better equipped.What? So you get a level 10 wizard to support your point, but I'm only allowed level 2 warriors for knights? :rolleyes: Give me a break. D&D is a HEROIC setting, which means knights are PC-classed with a moderate number of levels. Level 4 fighters are somewhat well-known, with blazons that people might recognize. That sounds like a knight to me. A level 1 or 2 fighter would probably be a squire (knight in training), some sort of light cavalry, or a sergeant in charge of the pikemen. Even if it kills nothing, its going to shock them, break up their formation, and leave them badly burned and wounded. They will be ineffective as a shock weapon and the fireballs job is done.Why? Why would a fireball in a D&D battle be worse than a strong opposing force in a real battle? These are troops that have trained for this! Why would the opposition they expect break their spirits? Yes im quite aware how large flanks of armies can be. Numbers however don't matter diddly squat, morale does. In Heroes of Battle, a unit makes a morale check when their number is reduced to half its nominal value. If they fail the morale check, they MIGHT flee the battle. You overestimate how easy it is to rout enemies. Who said a general has to have class levels? Ceasar was a great general, and he was killed by a knife.Yeah, again, heroic setting. A general is going to be personally powerful. I mean, heck -- the Black Knight (from Ivanhoe, not Monty Python!) obviously has class levels, he's one of the best fighters in the world. But if we're looking at reality, a knife to the chest or across the throat kills him as easily as any other man. If you put in wizards, you have to put in everything that comes WITH wizards, and that means some individuals are powerful. Heroic. Do take note this is the middle of a battle we're talking about where the enemy general is usually surrounded by bodyguards and moving around the battlefield on horseback. A rogue is not going to be able to do diddly squat.Never heard of a disguise? Poison? And obviously your generals don't need sleep the night before, and your battles never last more than a single day. Geez, how simple war must be for you! Without the means to see invisibility the other army is doomed. Wizards vs Wizards of course this tactic is less viable, but it is something artillery certainly cannot achieve.You know the wizard is only invisible until he shoots once, right? And if he'd like to fly, that's further crippling his ability to cast fireballs. Dont turn this into a Wizard vs Rogue discussion. This is Wizard vs D&D time period artillery.No, it's wizard compared to artillery of equivalent power level, and how they affect the battlefield. In D&D people wouldn't develop artillery, because they HAVE wizards and suchlike around. They don't need it! You should use something similar as a metaphor, to see what it would do to combat. For example, in a high-magic world, we can expect to see normal troops with magical communications -- equivalent to the guy with the radio in Vietnam -- and lots of artillery on the battlefield. Those two factors will tend to push battle into a mode of trench warfare and small-squad manuver rather than grand battle lines with thousands of men lined up to fight. Normal D&D probably won't have enough magic for that, though, so there's not so much impact.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 11:23 AM	Why is the enemy stagnent? Why is there only one unit you're fireballing, how many people do you seriously think you can take out each round, you only need a wall of 6-9 people with towershields to completely negate a fireball attempt if it's in such a linear method of attack. If your beloved windwall is badly positioned, another troupe from a different direction will just kill you. have you pleyed a wizard in a war setting? If yes then certainly not for long because he died when using such stupid tactics. You can't simply walk around a wind wall when the wall is 400 ft. away from you. You need several rounds to get into a position where you can shoot past the wall and that also means you must move through the enemy frontline fighters while beeing bombarded by the wizards. So in short pretty much impossible to do. And 9 persons with tower shields can not negate a fireball. You probably think of somethink like the turtle fomation the romans used. That doesn't work because to block of all directions the people on the outer side of the formation need two tower shields (to block to their front/side and up) and the people on the edges need three. And as setting a tower shield is a standard action this is impossible. And as fireball is a spread it will go through the hole and spread inside the turtle fomation killing all soldiers inside. Good planning. A Wand of Magic Missile? Please, each round you'll hit a maximum of 5 people with pitiful damage who only need a lesser globe of invulnerability to hide behind. In the meantime you've been mauled quickly by the rest of the army who you had no defence against. So every soldier is equiped with rings of spell storing with lesser globes. Right. And those pitfull damage is enough to kill a 1st level commoner which made up the bulk of your army. Depends who's feeding the information, do you really think they'll strike you from a position where you can easily strike back? How far do you think you can identify them as enemy? How far do you think trained archers can pick you out from? For all you know, you've been ambushed by a bunch of people you had no hope of spotting first, at which point not even Windwall will save you. Who said most of the troops are melee anyway? Who says they even need troops? What about specialist units, you think you're alone in the universe all of a sudden, no one can make it beyond 1st level and they all pick up maces? LOL. Read the topic title again. This is about mages and AoO spells in a war. Two armies clashes against each other, not Adventure group vs. army or adventure group vs adventure group. Identifying the enemy is easy. You only have to recognize that they are not on your side. And I suppose all commoners and soldiers are 10th level fighters in your world? Given that all long bows have a maximum range of 1000ft, and that a first level Human Warrior can have PBS and Farshot, it's upto 2000ft for a basic archery troupe. You do know by the time you get to Magic Missile wandage you're actually down to medium range, which means you're moving outside of Windwall. No. You simply let them waste their ammunition against you wind wall while you kill the enemy front line troops. Also at this distance they woun't hit anyway and even a wizard can survive a hit or two. Or how about the wizard uses a tower shield as long as he is advancing? (or uses a shield bearer who stands in front of him?) Not if they're even vaguely tactical, the MM are minor, the ability to disrupte it's targeting is something a bunch of commoners could do, it takes a standard action and hits very few targets, who says the melee troops are going to stand around, what happened to the mounted cavaliers or dragoons? What about the elven troops all flying on Pegasai or the Gnoll Rangers with you on their list of Favoured enemies? The melee troops are not standing around. They are fighting your melee troops. The cavaliers have lost their horses to fireballs or other attack spells, as have the elven troops on pegasi and since when are dragons a normal part of an army? And the Gnoll rangers a busy fighting against the human rangers with favored enemy gnoll. Err no. Hulking Hurlers can throw upto twice their size in ranged weapons, that means Gagantuam Javalins as a minimum, check out the range of those. Then you have to remember that the range for improvised weapons is actually based on Strength and can be doubled by Farshot. Then you're talking about killing them, fireball isn't a oneshot kill for them, and you're assuming they're front line. How many large creatures in an army? Well if it's an Army of Giants - quite a lot. Ah, yes. A Lvl 7 giant is a threat to wizards and every army has them. A good thing that the prismatic great wyrms in my army eat them before they can do any damage. You can't tell me that Giants with this PRC are a normal part of an army. That you need such a high level character to counter some rather low level wizards shows that they are powerful. When such characters are common, the wizard would throw disintegrates and circle of deaths around, not fireballs. As above, range isn't that much of an issue, Dimension Door is an Assasin spell, not to mention the vast array of backgrounds he could have and if he really wanted to a Monk/Azn with the right tactical feat could death attack you in one action at the range of Dimension Door (essentially the same as Fireball). Except that you can't act after dimension dooring. Enough time for the wizards or their body guard to blast the attacker. And how many 7th level assasines (13the level character) are commonly in your army? See your hulking hurler example. The ressources needed to stop a low level wizard is enorm, at least with your tactics.[quote] Then why are you constantly reffering to them as the saviours of war? They're pathetic in war, they're at most a minor contribution to an epic struggle. AoO doesn't work at all. All you need is a simple command to spread out after the spell is cast and it's wasted (and so are you), Cover will kill most of them, terrain can mean they'll sneak up on you, the amount you can target in a round is pitiful. All of your soldiers ready actions to spread out when a spell is casted at them? But they already ready an action to use their tower shields and to disrupt the wizards.... Cover on a battlefield? Do you know how old battlefields looked like? Free open areas. no cover except from people standing before you. And even when you make the save, the damage from a 5th level fireball is enough to kill a common soldier. W W MW AAA M = Mage W = Wind Wall A = Archer Well they only have to take a few steps down on the map to actually be able to strike him, if they're mounted they can practically screw his tactic and actually maneuver around the wind wall, and if you've only got 3 archers in a unit, then I'd worry about the other 97 about to flank you. Think again. You were speaking about shooting above the wall. This isn't a top down view, but a profile of the situation. To do your tactic they don't have to walk " a few steps" but probably more than half a mile when they don't want to stand in the middle of the battlefield.
Dark_beebles 07-05-05, 11:46 AM	1st off Crag top archer/assassin can snipre a wizard from a mile away and get sneak atk. Plus as assassin new spells let them bypass any miss chance due to wind conditions (ie wind wall) 2nd. You think its gonna be a wave after wave assault on the walls? Heck no. 2 wizards going at it would be whoever got the drop on the other. Telekensis has long range..and can pick up 25lb's/lvl. Windwall wont stop a 250lb boulder crushing the other wizard for massive dmg. (1d6 per 10lb's x 1d6 for every 20 feet it drops.) Wizard with invis and fly hurls a boulder a mile on another wizard is splat. Or just have a few casters with comet fall. 3rd Depending on the power of enemy wizards, clerics, They can use planar ally/binding and get the wizards with teleporting/incorpreal/invisible stalkers/earth elementals.
Derren S. 07-05-05, 11:50 AM	Really good tactics to stop some 5th level wizards/6th level sorcerer.... Do you really think if I would made tactics for high level wizards who can use binding/telekinesis or are as high as the assasine you postI would use such cheap tactics? And I didn't even consider PRCing the wizards.
Vanigo 07-05-05, 11:54 AM	Why is the enemy stagnent? Why is there only one unit you're fireballing, how many people do you seriously think you can take out each round, you only need a wall of 6-9 people with towershields to completely negate a fireball attempt if it's in such a linear method of attack. If your beloved windwall is badly positioned, another troupe from a different direction will just kill you.First of all, tower shields are only so tall, and a fireball can wrap around the top of an obstacle just as easily as it can wrap around the side. The bottom works, too, unless the tower shield is actually pressed against the ground. Secondly, a wind wall can be shaped however you like; A fifth level caster can make a cylindrical wall 15 feet across, protecting him from all angles of attack except straight up. AoO doesn't work at all. All you need is a simple command to spread out after the spell is cast and it's wasted (and so are you),Pssh. Simple? You're talking about spreading a formation over probably twice as much ground as it normally occupies. If you're in a place where you've got room to do that, you're not in a place where you're going to be fireballed anyway. Not to mention that if you're talking about more than around 20 people in formation, spreading out would take longer than you have before the fireball hits - the bigger the formation, the further the people on the edges have to walk. On top of that, once you've spread out your formation you're much more vulnerable to ground attack. Cover will kill most of them, terrain can mean they'll sneak up on you, the amount you can target in a round is pitiful.You may not kill many guys, but killing a couple dozen horses will blunt a cavarly charge nicely, especially if you plant it right at the tip of the wedge. It'll also break a hole in an enemy formation so that your wedges will cut through them with ease. W W MW AAA M = Mage W = Wind Wall A = Archer Well they only have to take a few steps down on the map to actually be able to strike him, if they're mounted they can practically screw his tactic and actually maneuver around the wind wall, and if you've only got 3 archers in a unit, then I'd worry about the other 97 about to flank you.As I said earlier, a wind wall is shapable. Besides, even if it's only 30 feet long and completely straight for whatever stupid reason, that still protects the wizard from attacks from almost 180 degrees.
Nyferto 07-05-05, 12:54 PM	have you pleyed a wizard in a war setting? If yes then certainly not for long because he died when using such stupid tactics. You can't simply walk around a wind wall when the wall is 400 ft. away from you. You need several rounds to get into a position where you can shoot past the wall and that also means you must move through the enemy frontline fighters while beeing bombarded by the wizards. So in short pretty much impossible to do. What are you talking about, it's your stupid tactic to stand there and hope the enemy engage you on your terms. Who says they're 400ft away? Who says they don't just get out of your effective range or hide or anything. You're claims all base around straightforward situations where the enemy is stupid. You don't need any rounds to move around if you just fire over the wall in a volley, and no matter how you shape the wall it will always have vulnerable points. Combine that with attacks coming from more than one direction and your tactic is a tactical impossibility. It's not just you on a stand off, it's you vs units and people. Your taking way too many assumptions into this, War doesn't play out so simplisticly. And 9 persons with tower shields can not negate a fireball. You probably think of somethink like the turtle fomation the romans used. That doesn't work because to block of all directions the people on the outer side of the formation need two tower shields (to block to their front/side and up) and the people on the edges need three. And as setting a tower shield is a standard action this is impossible. And as fireball is a spread it will go through the hole and spread inside the turtle fomation killing all soldiers inside. Good planning. It doesn't go through holes, it's a spread it goes around total cover and anything else is meaningless. Combine that with your limited scope for aim and they don't have to try hard. You can't leave the confines of the wind wall, this effectively constricts your ability to target the fireball in the first place. Depending on their positioning they may not need to block it entirely, they only need to block the spread from passing too far. Setting a tower shield can be done as a reactive action anyway, as can spreading out to minimise the damage you do - it's extremely easy to disrupt AOE spells and their effectiveness. Also remember that it only has a 20ft spread - that's the basic movement speed for practically everything that's bigger than tiny. [quyote] So every soldier is equiped with rings of spell storing with lesser globes. Right. And those pitfull damage is enough to kill a 1st level commoner which made up the bulk of your army. [/quote] 1st level Warriors have 10 hps, you only need 1 low level Sorc or Wiz with the globe spell to grant complete immunity and there are ways to expand it's effect, and again you make too many assumptions about the enemy. LOL. Read the topic title again. This is about mages and AoO spells in a war. Two armies clashes against each other, not Adventure group vs. army or adventure group vs adventure group. Identifying the enemy is easy. You only have to recognize that they are not on your side. And I suppose all commoners and soldiers are 10th level fighters in your world? No, but they're not just 1st level commoners like you make out. Sure mages will make an impact when there are none on the other side, but if you actually run the statistics for an average kingdom, there will be plenty of people who are able to support in war - many of them will not be limited to simple tactics. For some reason you think the same doesn't apply to you. How easy is it to recognise that someone isn't on your side, think about what you have to look out for, the distances your talking about and the average spot skill of a Wizard. Then throw in any range of terrains and menial magical support and you've got hell to deal with and only fireballs and MM to throw out. No. You simply let them waste their ammunition against you wind wall while you kill the enemy front line troops. Also at this distance they woun't hit anyway and even a wizard can survive a hit or two. Or how about the wizard uses a tower shield as long as he is advancing? (or uses a shield bearer who stands in front of him?) Why are they so stupid again? If they can't hurt someone - they stop whilst some other Anti Mage unit takes over, it doesn't take much. If he's using a Tower shield he's got a hell of a Arcane Spell Failure chance and a massive to hit penalty. He's also got to set it and it won't work that well anyway. The melee troops are not standing around. They are fighting your melee troops. The cavaliers have lost their horses to fireballs or other attack spells, as have the elven troops on pegasi and since when are dragons a normal part of an army? And the Gnoll rangers a busy fighting against the human rangers with favored enemy gnoll. Who says? Taking too many assumptions about your ability. If your troops are taking on theirs - then you can't really fireball your own troops can you? Ah, yes. A Lvl 7 giant is a threat to wizards and every army has them. A good thing that the prismatic great wyrms in my army eat them before they can do any damage. You can't tell me that Giants with this PRC are a normal part of an army. That you need such a high level character to counter some rather low level wizards shows that they are powerful. When such characters are common, the wizard would throw disintegrates and circle of deaths around, not fireballs.[quote] Giants are a part of most worlds, they have cizilisations and Hulking Hurlers are specifically designated as a War unit. Where'd you get your PGW from? Who says they're high level - in war you face everything that joins in. Wizards can't even cast those spells, and even then they're single target and slow and shorter range. Except that you can't act after dimension dooring. Enough time for the wizards or their body guard to blast the attacker. And how many 7th level assasines (13the level character) are commonly in your army? See your hulking hurler example. The ressources needed to stop a low level wizard is enorm, at least with your tactics. That's why I mentioned a tactical feat that lets you attack as part of a Dimension Door, you only need one. Who says it's a low level wizard? If so - you really think a low level wizard could actually fireball that much, or even present any amount of threat to anything? All of your soldiers ready actions to spread out when a spell is casted at them? But they already ready an action to use their tower shields and to disrupt the wizards.... Cover on a battlefield? Do you know how old battlefields looked like? Free open areas. no cover except from people standing before you. And even when you make the save, the damage from a 5th level fireball is enough to kill a common soldier. Please get some more insight into real battlefield campaigns. They do either or - it doesn't matter, you only need to set a shield once and then move after it. Who says it's an old battlefield? Stop making assumptions. Open fields are where people try to avoid confrontations because it means open battlefields and no cover - that's why you attack and move through places with cover - to avoid ambushes. Think again. You were speaking about shooting above the wall. This isn't a top down view, but a profile of the situation. To do your tactic they don't have to walk " a few steps" but probably more than half a mile when they don't want to stand in the middle of the battlefield. Or they could just charge right through it. Still doesn't stop them being flanked, still doesn't mean your fireball will actually work, throw in some terrain and see how you fair. TTHHHHHHHHHHHH TTHHHHHTTTTTHHH HHHTTHHHHHHHHHHH w HHHHHHTTHHHHHHHHH w HHHHTTTTTHHHHHHHHH W w HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH w is the wind wall directed against the fire A is where they are but you can't see them yet W is you H is hill side T is tree lines
Derren S. 07-05-05, 01:46 PM	What are you talking about, it's your stupid tactic to stand there and hope the enemy engage you on your terms. Who says they're 400ft away? Who says they don't just get out of your effective range or hide or anything. You're claims all base around straightforward situations where the enemy is stupid. You don't need any rounds to move around if you just fire over the wall in a volley, and no matter how you shape the wall it will always have vulnerable points. Combine that with attacks coming from more than one direction and your tactic is a tactical impossibility. It's not just you on a stand off, it's you vs units and people. Your taking way too many assumptions into this, War doesn't play out so simplisticly. Wow, my low level wizards just succeeded in breaking the battle formation of a entire battle line by just standing there. the enemy is on the rethreat and can be picked upon by archers (with volleys as you love them so much). And you can't fire a volley over a 15 ft high wind wall when the taget behind it it is only 5 ft high. To do that you have to be standing directly in front of the wall and shoot and shoot nearly straight up. You also can't walk around the wall as this means you have to march rhight through the enemy battle line. Learn some geometry. It doesn't go through holes, it's a spread it goes around total cover and anything else is meaningless. Combine that with your limited scope for aim and they don't have to try hard. You can't leave the confines of the wind wall, this effectively constricts your ability to target the fireball in the first place. Depending on their positioning they may not need to block it entirely, they only need to block the spread from passing too far. Setting a tower shield can be done as a reactive action anyway, as can spreading out to minimise the damage you do - it's extremely easy to disrupt AOE spells and their effectiveness. Also remember that it only has a 20ft spread - that's the basic movement speed for practically everything that's bigger than tiny. Fireball goes through holes when they are 5ft.5ft big. Do you even know how fireball works? The mage can let the fireball explode anywhere where he can see. And yes, the fireball even travels through the wind wall. No restriction through the wall. And you simply can't get full cover from all sides because some people must hold two or three tower shields to block off all direction which is impossible. The edges of the formation will be open as would either the front or the top. There will always be holes where the mage can put the fireball in (Yes, even behind the formation). From there the fireball will spread through the entire formation killing them. And when you entire army does nothing on teh field than standing and readying action to spread when a AOE spell is casted at them they already have lost because they can't fight. And this tacting wouldn't even protect them from otehr spells like magic missile or, because you like it high magic, circle of death. So every soldier is equiped with rings of spell storing with lesser globes. Right. And those pitfull damage is enough to kill a 1st level commoner which made up the bulk of your army. 1st level Warriors have 10 hps, you only need 1 low level Sorc or Wiz with the globe spell to grant complete immunity and there are ways to expand it's effect, and again you make too many assumptions about the enemy. You have one 8th level sorcerer (7th level wizard) for every 8 warriors you have? Lol. Open the DMG and read about town generation and class demographic. Getting a few 5/6 level caster for your army isn't extremly hard. Making 1/0 of your army 8th lvl sorcerer is. And when 8th level caster are so plentyfull, Firebrand will be used instead of fireball which goes right through your globe. Roasted army I say. No, but they're not just 1st level commoners like you make out. Sure mages will make an impact when there are none on the other side, but if you actually run the statistics for an average kingdom, there will be plenty of people who are able to support in war - many of them will not be limited to simple tactics. For some reason you think the same doesn't apply to you. How easy is it to recognise that someone isn't on your side, think about what you have to look out for, the distances your talking about and the average spot skill of a Wizard. Then throw in any range of terrains and menial magical support and you've got hell to deal with and only fireballs and MM to throw out. Commoners make up 95% of all population. Guess who is used to make out the bulk of the army. What tactics? Walking as archer through the enemy front line fighters to stand directly in front of a wind wall to fire a arrow straight up so it might be carried over the wall and hit, by pure luck the mage who is standing 10 ft. away from you? Or the tactic to simply run away and hide when you see a wizard on the battlefield, leaving your flank open so that the enemy can march through the hole you made and slaughter the rest of your army? That are really effectiv tactics every general should know. Discerning who is the enemy and who not is easy. Thats what banners and uniforms are for. And when you think the mages will throw fireballs at enemies who are in the middle of a close combat fight you are a really bad tactican. Why are they so stupid again? If they can't hurt someone - they stop whilst some other Anti Mage unit takes over, it doesn't take much. If he's using a Tower shield he's got a hell of a Arcane Spell Failure chance and a massive to hit penalty. He's also got to set it and it won't work that well anyway. Setting a tower shield doesn't work well. Interesting. You should keep that in mind when making your examples. Ok, extra for you an explanation. 1. Front line fighters move into position. 2. Mages position themself behind the front line fighters protected by tower shields/shield bearers 3. battle starts. 4. Tactics are recogniced. The armies begin to march towards each other. 5. Wiazrds move into position, still protected by the shields. 6. Wizard drop the shield (free action) and casts a Wind Wall (standard action) 7. Wizards start to throw attack spell at the enemy. 8. When the wizards need to relocate, they pick up their tower shields and are again protected when they move out of the wind wall. Who says? Taking too many assumptions about your ability. If your troops are taking on theirs - then you can't really fireball your own troops can you? No, you can't (well theoretically you could. Its just not a good idea). For this situation you have chain lightning and magic missile. You do fireball them when they are closing in, perform a flanking manuver, when they are archers or generally in all other situations when the enemy is not in close combat. Ah, yes. A Lvl 7 giant is a threat to wizards and every army has them. A good thing that the prismatic great wyrms in my army eat them before they can do any damage. You can't tell me that Giants with this PRC are a normal part of an army. That you need such a high level character to counter some rather low level wizards shows that they are powerful. When such characters are common, the wizard would throw disintegrates and circle of deaths around, not fireballs. Giants are a part of most worlds, they have cizilisations and Hulking Hurlers are specifically designated as a War unit. Where'd you get your PGW from? Who says they're high level - in war you face everything that joins in. Wizards can't even cast those spells, and even then they're single target and slow and shorter range. Yes, Giants are so war happy that they will always join other races armies. Ok, make my 6the level sorcerer a lvl 18th Alhoon Initate of the Seven Veil. You face everything that joins... And you really have no idea about wizards. They have extrem long range, just short of very specialized archers who have hefty penalties to hit at that range and are as fast as everyone else, even faster when using magic. That's why I mentioned a tactical feat that lets you attack as part of a Dimension Door, you only need one. Who says it's a low level wizard? If so - you really think a low level wizard could actually fireball that much, or even present any amount of threat to anything? Where is that feat located? Low level wizard, or better sorcerer. 6th level, Cha 16 = 4 fireballs. Take three of them and you have 12 fireballs which each does 6w6 damage. Even with a failed save that will kill any 1st level warrior let alone commoner. And with feats like sudden things can get really devastating. Please get some more insight into real battlefield campaigns. They do either or - it doesn't matter, you only need to set a shield once and then move after it. Who says it's an old battlefield? Stop making assumptions. Open fields are where people try to avoid confrontations because it means open battlefields and no cover - that's why you attack and move through places with cover - to avoid ambushes. Very intelligent. Set the shield to block one facing, and let the wizard know the 4 other directions you are vulnerable from. But I guess your idea of intelligent wizards and tactics is that the wizards always fireball from the direction the shield faces to. And excuse me, to make an ambush you need to have cover. On a open field the chance to lay an ambush is rather slim. And cover or not, moving a huge army will be noticed. Or they could just charge right through it. Still doesn't stop them being flanked, still doesn't mean your fireball will actually work, throw in some terrain and see how you fair. TTHHHHHHHHHHHH TTHHHHHTTTTTHHH HHHTTHHHHHHHHHHH w HHHHHHTTHHHHHHHHH w HHHHTTTTTHHHHHHHHH Ww HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH w is the wind wall directed against the fire A is where they are but you can't see them yet W is you H is hill side T is tree lines I assume that this is a top down view, or? When yes then the Archers can simply not hit the wizard behind the wall no matter where they hide. And if this is a profile it is the same. They can't hit the wizard without their arrows thouching the wall even with indirect fire. Get a ruler and try it out on the monitor by drawing lines from all spaces the archers can hide to the wizard. Direct shots are impossible. And inderc shots are only possible when the archers go as near to the wall as they can and fire nearly straight up (80 degree or more). And hitting something this way is nearly impossible. Also your picture was wrong anyway. I corrected it for you (see above)
Lokiyn 07-05-05, 01:56 PM	Of course i like the shrink item trebuchet team. Lets take an item back at the military Hq A wondrous item of shrink item 1/day Total Cost? Base Price 6,000gp. A wondrous item of permenancy (up to level 3) 1/day Total cost? Base Price 18,000gp These items never leave for the front lines. Instead it used to convert siege engines into small portable units given to 2-4 man teams (depending on the particular siege engine). Suppose the hypothetical wizard starts attacking from behind the wind wall. Archer group a relays info back to the siege teams. If they can sucessfully hold him for a bit the siege teams can set up several trebuchets and start pounding the wizards postion. (I've used this as a wizard in adventuring its more than a little funny to watch goblins turn a corner to meet mr balista.)
Alienfreak 07-05-05, 03:41 PM	Assassines death attacking the wizards at range? Fine, when he can get behind then to get through the wind wall. To do this he must walk around the whole army the wizard has and then be close enough to reach the wizards with his bow. Good luck to do that. AGAIN: Death Attacks can be only delivered via melee weapons. No range at all!!!! 1st off Crag top archer/assassin can snipre a wizard from a mile away and get sneak atk. Plus as assassin new spells let them bypass any miss chance due to wind conditions (ie wind wall) 1. Sneak attack has a range of 30ft. 2. Death Attack has an range of 5ft. 3. Name of the spell? Its no miss chance. 3rd Depending on the power of enemy wizards, clerics, They can use planar ally/binding and get the wizards with teleporting/incorpreal/invisible stalkers/earth elementals. Let me guess ... i cant do the same to get some bodyguards? 2nd. You think its gonna be a wave after wave assault on the walls? Heck no. 2 wizards going at it would be whoever got the drop on the other. Telekensis has long range..and can pick up 25lb's/lvl. Windwall wont stop a 250lb boulder crushing the other wizard for massive dmg. (1d6 per 10lb's x 1d6 for every 20 feet it drops.) Wizard with invis and fly hurls a boulder a mile on another wizard is splat. Or just have a few casters with comet fall. Comet Fall was erratad. You didnt really read the description of Telekinesis, did you? You can move one object up to 20ft per round or just take some objects and hurl them at someone who is within of 10ft/level of the objects. would take longer than you have before the fireball hits It has no flying speed. It just detonates. So no Chance to escape. Well they only have to take a few steps down on the map to actually be able to strike him, if they're mounted they can practically screw his tactic and actually maneuver around the wind wall, and if you've only got 3 archers in a unit, then I'd worry about the other 97 about to flank you. Ok. You are 800 ft away. So they just move 60 ft to one side and then are able to shoot around it? You dont really believe that? And you guys always have an Wizard vs Army in mind. But its Wizard and Army vs Army. So you can t just move anywhere you want. The wizards army is still there and will hamper your movement. It doesn't go through holes, it's a spread it goes around total cover and anything else is meaningless. Combine that with your limited scope for aim and they don't have to try hard. You can't leave the confines of the wind wall, this effectively constricts your ability to target the fireball in the first place. Depending on their positioning they may not need to block it entirely, they only need to block the spread from passing too far. Setting a tower shield can be done as a reactive action anyway, as can spreading out to minimise the damage you do - it's extremely easy to disrupt AOE spells and their effectiveness. Also remember that it only has a 20ft spread - that's the basic movement speed for practically everything that's bigger than tiny. 1. Readied action? They are in a battle and have better things to do than to ready against an wizard and doing nothing else. 2. You can aim an Fireball through the smallest holes. You just have to hit it with an ranged touch attack. No Range increments ... and a hole is probably AC 15 ... uh ... really hard stuff. 1st level Warriors have 10 hps, you only need 1 low level Sorc or Wiz with the globe spell to grant complete immunity and there are ways to expand it's effect, and again you make too many assumptions about the enemy. The troops will have to advance. A globe spell is inmoverable and you will need hundreds to cover your troops. That's why I mentioned a tactical feat that lets you attack as part of a Dimension Door, you only need one. Who says it's a low level wizard? If so - you really think a low level wizard could actually fireball that much, or even present any amount of threat to anything? 6th level wizard with an wand is enough to outright kill any 3rd level warrior on the field. Im not motivated to read through the whole useless things here. ONE HINT: Go read the rules. Really. It helps. I could quote so many posts with ruling errors in here ... its ... yeah ... unbelievable.
mvincent 07-05-05, 04:33 PM	I would think wizards using Enlarge Person would be another hit to enemy moral. A few large fighters could turn the tides.Possibly, but I recall a valid tactic that involved casting enlarge on your enemy to make him a better target (-2 AC, less cover, and makes it harder for him to move around).
mvincent 07-05-05, 04:51 PM	A twenty foot kill-zone isn't a big deal, but it's HORRIFYING when you do it in the middle of a battle!But just imagine a Symbol of Sleep, Persuasion, Pain, etc. With a 60' radius, they can affect nearly x10 the number of enemy soldiers (even sicker if it is Widened to 120'). And the symbol can be made permanent.
Alienfreak 07-05-05, 05:06 PM	Lesser metamagic rod of widen spell all the way! 40ft Fireballs pretty kick ass. Radius. So an 80ft diameter killing zone (app. 26.4 meters diameter).
mvincent 07-05-05, 05:45 PM	Lesser metamagic rod of widen spell all the way!From where? I don't see it in the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm).
tiercel 07-05-05, 09:54 PM	So you want to keep your army from being fireballed back into the First Age? Let's see what's available: 1) Illusions. You don't get a Will save to disbelieve the illusion until you interact with it, and just looking at it briefly from 300' in the air before casting isn't going to cut it, especially if your Spot check is a whopping +3. Wands of silent image are a lot cheaper than wands of fireball. Have fun burning your daily allotment of spells and charges off of wands and staves against my first-level spell effects. (Yes, true seeing can counter this, but that's a bit higher level than just being able to fly around with PfA on and throwing fireballs. Plus, you'd still have to get within 120' of your potential targets, which is maybe closer than you'd like to get; if nothing else, you're getting within dispel range...) 2) Fog. Even characters with one level of adept, not to mention druid, cleric, sorcerer, or wizard, can use a wand of obscuring mist... if you don't mind using the 2nd level fog cloud or just having flying casters of your own using obscuring mist 30' off the ground, you can create a very low-level cloudbank. Having one low level caster per 20 grunts isn't ridiculous. That's just Core. I wouldn't find it surprising at all if an enterprising wizard decided to research a spell that created a bigger cloud of normal, harmless fog, or one that moved. Fog doesn't stop you from dropping AoE spells blindly, but you never know if you are hitting anything, much less anything good, before you fire. Once units start getting engaged in melee AoE spells become impractical if the whole fight is going on under a cloud deck (unless you REALLY want to get within 10' of the ground or less...) 3) Realize what air superiority means. This is pretty obvious, but an army in D&D that goes to war without magi is like a modern real-life army going to war with no artillery or air support. Realistically any army needs to be, if at all possible, ready to contest fantasy "air superiority" -- your madly fireballing mage should find himself in trouble if he's loaded up to take out enemy grunts and finds himself facing an enemy mage out for him. If nothing else, your magi should keep him and his buddies busy long enough for the main armies to get to grips. If you have an army that can't contest this "air superiority", you'll have to adjust tactics. Just like you don't successfully fight a conventional battle against a contemporary army with an overwhelming tech advantage, you don't face off against an opposing army of anything like your numbers and a big magic advantage in anything like a standard set-piece battle. The obvious response, of course, is to go to guerrilla tactics. Even with teleport, enemy mages can't be everywhere at once, and fireball isn't that effective if there are never more than a few targets to hit. The other response is to attack with massive numerical superiority (and, if at all possible, surprise) and "zerg rush" them. If you don't care about casualties and can soak a few dozen fireballs (not to mention firestorms and sunbursts), this can work. A final note: I don't see why a Roman-style "testudo" (tower shield full-cover formation) woudn't work against AoE spells. You take total cover, so if the fireball goes off somewhere nearby it can't go through nearby squares because they are also occupied by soldiers also taking full cover. Basically the entire formation is surrounded by a mobile solid barrier that blocks line of effect (but not from targeted spells). Given that a solid barrier normally has to have a gap of 1 square foot to allow line of effect through, I don't think that the inch or three separating soldiers' tower shields is going to allow your AoE spell to blow right through. (On the other hand, if you want the formation bad enough, they will be pretty tightly packed and eventually you will destroy their shields with enough damage, even after half damage and hardness.)
ssvegeta555 07-05-05, 10:27 PM	One thing that accured to me was that when a wizard is 400+ft away and casts a fireball on a group of soldiers. IMO the fireball would take some time to travel there, it doesnt have spedd of light like lightning does. So maybe it's possible to give those soldiers a bonus to reflex saves and some might be able to get out in time to avoid the spell all together. Just a thought.
Sceadeau 07-06-05, 01:48 AM	How does your little bead get through the wind wall? Fireball requires a bead be chucked to the appropriate spot, and if it hits anything along the way, it detonate prematurely...so wouldn't you have to step outside your wind wall to cast your fireball? And if so, what would you use for protection during that time period?
Vanigo 07-06-05, 02:23 AM	How does your little bead get through the wind wall? Fireball requires a bead be chucked to the appropriate spot, and if it hits anything along the way, it detonate prematurely...so wouldn't you have to step outside your wind wall to cast your fireball? And if so, what would you use for protection during that time period?It's a "bead" of magical energy, unaffected by winds. A final note: I don't see why a Roman-style "testudo" (tower shield full-cover formation) woudn't work against AoE spells. You take total cover, so if the fireball goes off somewhere nearby it can't go through nearby squares because they are also occupied by soldiers also taking full cover. Basically the entire formation is surrounded by a mobile solid barrier that blocks line of effect (but not from targeted spells). Given that a solid barrier normally has to have a gap of 1 square foot to allow line of effect through, I don't think that the inch or three separating soldiers' tower shields is going to allow your AoE spell to blow right through. (On the other hand, if you want the formation bad enough, they will be pretty tightly packed and eventually you will destroy their shields with enough damage, even after half damage and hardness.)A testudo isn't what you'd call solid. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo]Observe.[/quote] Note the big 'ol gaps at the top around the edges. It helps - it's awfully hard to plant a fireball in the middle of that formation - but it's far from perfect. Setting a tower shield can be done as a reactive action anyway, as can spreading out to minimise the damage you doSince when? Is this some new rule in Heroes of Battle or something? They can be done as readied actions, but of course that takes a standard action to set up.
Derren S. 07-06-05, 03:19 AM	A final note: I don't see why a Roman-style "testudo" (tower shield full-cover formation) woudn't work against AoE spells. You take total cover, so if the fireball goes off somewhere nearby it can't go through nearby squares because they are also occupied by soldiers also taking full cover. Basically the entire formation is surrounded by a mobile solid barrier that blocks line of effect (but not from targeted spells). A little picture (Top Down view) EFFE FMMF EFFE E = Soldier on the edge F = Soldier on the front M = Soldier on the middle Assuming this is a small formation trying this tactic whatever it is called. Also, before I start, remember that a wizard can place the fireball above the formation and it will spread downwards. The soldiers in the middle have no problem. They only have to hold their shields upwards and be protected from all sides (theoretically). They block upwards, and their comerades block the sides. The soldiers on the front have a problem. They also have to block upwards, but also have to block their front as there is no one standing before them. And as they can't use two tower shields at the same time, either their front, or their top is unprotected, which leaves a 5x5 ft. hole in the formation unprotected. The Soldiers on the edge have it even worse. They have to protect their front, top and side. And covering three direction with a single shield is impossible. So especialy at the edges there will be wide holes. And because the fireball is a spread one such hole is enough. The fire will then spread inside the formation killing everyone. You don't even have to detonate the fireball in the midle of the formation. Detonating it in front of such a hole outside of the formation is enough to make it spread into the formation. EFFE FMMF BEFFE B = Fireball
Dark_beebles 07-06-05, 03:31 AM	Darren, you think windwall will stop you from a assassin/crap top archer? He can Shoot a arrow over a mile, and get sneak attack and his arrows aint subject to any wind condition that isnt hurricane. I am sorry but deal with a touch attack flat footed, no mirror image, invis, displacement, or ghost form gonna stop that archer if his sole job is to stop a wizard from casting a spell. I love to see the wizard make a spot check from a mile away (thats -535) if your wondering. And all the archer does is rdy his action to interupt the wizard spell...death attack as well from the 1st arrow will more then likely kill the wizard anyways
Derren S. 07-06-05, 03:39 AM	Darren, you think windwall will stop you from a assassin/crap top archer? He can Shoot a arrow over a mile, and get sneak attack and his arrows aint subject to any wind condition that isnt hurricane. I am sorry but deal with a touch attack flat footed, no mirror image, invis, displacement, or ghost form gonna stop that archer if his sole job is to stop a wizard from casting a spell. I love to see the wizard make a spot check from a mile away (thats -535) if your wondering. And all the archer does is rdy his action to interupt the wizard spell...death attack as well from the 1st arrow will more then likely kill the wizard anyways So how is the archer spotting the wizard and knowing when he is casting a spell? Does he have +535 to spot?. You also still fail to provide the source of the spell which protects the arrow from winds (And it would also interest me where the PRC is found). How high level is the character? Also unless the spell says that the arrow is protected from wind wall, the wall still blocks the arrow as the wall doesn't follow the normal wind rules.
Vaelan 07-06-05, 04:14 AM	Tell me how the archers can hit the mage without the arrow going through the wind wall. It is technically possible, but not very reasonable. The assertion that the archers must be as far or closer to the wall is assuming that there isn't any wind resistance. Definitely not reasonable though. If I were going to go after a Wizard with a Wind Wall, I'd hire a level 7 Druid to fly over the Wind Wall and dispel it, at which points my archers would all let loose with their volleys and kill the Wizard. I'm sure a Druid would be happy to provide such limited aid for government protection of wilderness or similar incentives.
Nyferto 07-06-05, 04:15 AM	Wow, my low level wizards just succeeded in breaking the battle formation of a entire battle line by just standing there. the enemy is on the rethreat and can be picked upon by archers (with volleys as you love them so much). Breaking it? It's one unit and how many fireballs do you have again? You haven't broken it if it was in a loose formation, tight formation is only useful if your going up against enemy troops in tight formation- it's a wizard behind a wind wall. And you can't fire a volley over a 15 ft high wind wall when the taget behind it it is only 5 ft high. To do that you have to be standing directly in front of the wall and shoot and shoot nearly straight up. You also can't walk around the wall as this means you have to march rhight through the enemy battle line. Learn some geometry. But you can fire a high volley of arrows at such an angle that they will catch the Wizard no matter how close he is or where he is. They can attack from a position that does mean they ignore the linear wind wall, they can attack from flanks you haven't covered - they can be on flying mounts and kill you. Fireball goes through holes when they are 5ft.5ft big. Do you even know how fireball works? The mage can let the fireball explode anywhere where he can see. And yes, the fireball even travels through the wind wall. No restriction through the wall. And you simply can't get full cover from all sides because some people must hold two or three tower shields to block off all direction which is impossible. The edges of the formation will be open as would either the front or the top. There will always be holes where the mage can put the fireball in (Yes, even behind the formation). From there the fireball will spread through the entire formation killing them. And when you entire army does nothing on teh field than standing and readying action to spread when a AOE spell is casted at them they already have lost because they can't fight. And this tacting wouldn't even protect them from otehr spells like magic missile or, because you like it high magic, circle of death. For starters, they don't do both, they do one or the other - depending on the scenario. Secondly, there is no 5ft gap in a bunch of people with tower shields. Thirdly, Fireball needs line of effect to it's destination, at which point it's fairly easy to block completely. Please do some targeting schematics and understand that you only need a row of 4 people to stuff a fireball. You have one 8th level sorcerer (7th level wizard) for every 8 warriors you have? Lol. Open the DMG and read about town generation and class demographic. Getting a few 5/6 level caster for your army isn't extremly hard. Making 1/0 of your army 8th lvl sorcerer is. And when 8th level caster are so plentyfull, Firebrand will be used instead of fireball which goes right through your globe. Roasted army I say. Getting a few people of other classes won't be too hard either, and you only need one to kill many wizards. Getting a few counter Wizards isn't too hard either, neithers getting a bunch of lower level ones to just Magic Missile you out of existance, whilst your worrying about the troops who will kill you - you've missed the Mounted Pegasai Elven Paladins or the ensuring Druids - and your stuck behind a windwall with nothing but Fireball spells to handle all of them - I've said that before, please take note. Commoners make up 95% of all population. Guess who is used to make out the bulk of the army. What tactics? Walking as archer through the enemy front line fighters to stand directly in front of a wind wall to fire a arrow straight up so it might be carried over the wall and hit, by pure luck the mage who is standing 10 ft. away from you? Or the tactic to simply run away and hide when you see a wizard on the battlefield, leaving your flank open so that the enemy can march through the hole you made and slaughter the rest of your army? That are really effectiv tactics every general should know. Discerning who is the enemy and who not is easy. Thats what banners and uniforms are for. And when you think the mages will throw fireballs at enemies who are in the middle of a close combat fight you are a really bad tactican. Make the spot check at 400ft with no ranks in the skill. Stop thinking of this as a standard medieval warfare with hundreds of troops out in the open and start thinking about the reality of fantasy warfare. Setting a tower shield doesn't work well. Interesting. You should keep that in mind when making your examples. Ok, extra for you an explanation. 1. Front line fighters move into position. 2. Mages position themself behind the front line fighters protected by tower shields/shield bearers 3. battle starts. 4. Tactics are recogniced. The armies begin to march towards each other. 5. Wiazrds move into position, still protected by the shields. 6. Wizard drop the shield (free action) and casts a Wind Wall (standard action) 7. Wizards start to throw attack spell at the enemy. 8. When the wizards need to relocate, they pick up their tower shields and are again protected when they move out of the wind wall. 1. They already are in positon 2. Mages are better off lending support in the middle of secondary troops or away from imeadiate fire and protected from obvious assualts. 3. Initiative is decided 4. Standard Tactics go out the window as a bunch of Demons are gated in and start tearing things up 5. The base is under attack from Invisible Stalkers 6. So is their base 7. Assassins arrive to take out the generals 8. The Giants are late - they're being held up by a Titan 9. Shock Troops of Scouts decimate your ranks from behind It doesn't work the way you think No, you can't (well theoretically you could. Its just not a good idea). For this situation you have chain lightning and magic missile. You do fireball them when they are closing in, perform a flanking manuver, when they are archers or generally in all other situations when the enemy is not in close combat. So now your 11th level at least? You do realise each standard action is one you need to defend yourself from all angles? Yes, Giants are so war happy that they will always join other races armies. Ok, make my 6the level sorcerer a lvl 18th Alhoon Initate of the Seven Veil. You face everything that joins... And you really have no idea about wizards. They have extrem long range, just short of very specialized archers who have hefty penalties to hit at that range and are as fast as everyone else, even faster when using magic. Where is that feat located? Low level wizard, or better sorcerer. 6th level, Cha 16 = 4 fireballs. Take three of them and you have 12 fireballs which each does 6w6 damage. Even with a failed save that will kill any 1st level warrior let alone commoner. And with feats like sudden things can get really devastating. Complete warrior - you're dead in many different ways. AOE Spells are waste of time, dehibilitating stuff will work better, you can't just be an 18th level character because the situation changes - you are what you are and a caster isn't that hot in combat unless he trains for it - even then it's not the AOE's that will cause the most damage. Very intelligent. Set the shield to block one facing, and let the wizard know the 4 other directions you are vulnerable from. But I guess your idea of intelligent wizards and tactics is that the wizards always fireball from the direction the shield faces to. And excuse me, to make an ambush you need to have cover. On a open field the chance to lay an ambush is rather slim. And cover or not, moving a huge army will be noticed. You don't have to set it until he fires, at which point you can re-set it for free. Because you're in a singular point within a windwall and you can only fire the bead in a straight line it will always be directional. You don't move through open fields - no-one does that with things like artillery in the way. And if you do then it's all the easier to charge through and kill the artillery - or use your own against it. I assume that this is a top down view, or? When yes then the Archers can simply not hit the wizard behind the wall no matter where they hide. And if this is a profile it is the same. They can't hit the wizard without their arrows thouching the wall even with indirect fire. Get a ruler and try it out on the monitor by drawing lines from all spaces the archers can hide to the wizard. Direct shots are impossible. And inderc shots are only possible when the archers go as near to the wall as they can and fire nearly straight up (80 degree or more). And hitting something this way is nearly impossible. Also your picture was wrong anyway. I corrected it for you (see above) You don't even know to cast windwall until someone shoots an arrow, at that point you've been pinned down because arrows will kill you. At this point you've now got a situation to counter attack from with little ability to retaliate, not only that but they were actually first level elven sorcs who have just launched a hoarde of MM at you.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 04:20 AM	Darren, you think windwall will stop you from a assassin/crap top archer? He can Shoot a arrow over a mile, and get sneak attack and his arrows aint subject to any wind condition that isnt hurricane. I am sorry but deal with a touch attack flat footed, no mirror image, invis, displacement, or ghost form gonna stop that archer if his sole job is to stop a wizard from casting a spell. I love to see the wizard make a spot check from a mile away (thats -535) if your wondering. And all the archer does is rdy his action to interupt the wizard spell...death attack as well from the 1st arrow will more then likely kill the wizard anyways AAAAAAAAAAAAH YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING ME MAD!!!! Do you actually care about what other peeps write!? Im really near insulting you guys. Because you just arent able to read rules. D-E-A-T-H A-T-T-A-C-K-S H-A-V-E T-O B-E D-E-L-I-V-E-R-E-D B-Y M-E-L-E-E W-E-A-P-O-N-S!!!!! (this is the 3rd time i write this) And Sneak Attacks have an range of 30 ft. So no over a mile wizard killing.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 04:40 AM	Breaking it? It's one unit and how many fireballs do you have again? You haven't broken it if it was in a loose formation, tight formation is only useful if your going up against enemy troops in tight formation- it's a wizard behind a wind wall. 4 widened Fireballs are enough to outright destroy any formations there are on a 320ft line. I guess that will even kill your "loose formation". That 320ft are now free for your own troops to advance. I guess that one can be called breaking the enemies lines? But you can fire a high volley of arrows at such an angle that they will catch the Wizard no matter how close he is or where he is. They can attack from a position that does mean they ignore the linear wind wall, they can attack from flanks you haven't covered - they can be on flying mounts and kill you. 1. Its not possible to fire an volley in such an angle. Its possible if you are standing right in front of the wind wall. Otherwise it isn possible 2. A Wind wall can be shaped as an cylinder. No angles from where you arent protected. 3. You still forget the wizards army. And flying mounts. Guess what say to an nice scorching ray? For starters, they don't do both, they do one or the other - depending on the scenario. Secondly, there is no 5ft gap in a bunch of people with tower shields. Thirdly, Fireball needs line of effect to it's destination, at which point it's fairly easy to block completely. Please do some targeting schematics and understand that you only need a row of 4 people to stuff a fireball. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Testudo_formation.jpg 1. Right behind the first line. To the right and the left. A 5ft gap. 2. You just need to do an touch attack against an hole to fire your fireball through it. So an diminutive hole would have an touch ac of 18 (no range increment). Not hard to hit. And that holes kinda 1 inch. 3. Just place the Fireball to their right. And since you are flying you can just place it right behind them. Getting a few people of other classes won't be too hard either, and you only need one to kill many wizards. Getting a few counter Wizards isn't too hard either, neithers getting a bunch of lower level ones to just Magic Missile you out of existance, whilst your worrying about the troops who will kill you - you've missed the Mounted Pegasai Elven Paladins or the ensuring Druids - and your stuck behind a windwall with nothing but Fireball spells to handle all of them - I've said that before, please take note. 1. Please tell me which one you need to kill many wizards. 2. For countering you have to be very close. 3. Magic Missile? You arent really in the rules, arent you? Shield blocks Magic Missiles. And for the case it gets dispelled. Have an brooch of shielding. Very cheap. Very effective. 4. Pegasi Mounted Elven Paladins? Refer to the last quote. And what about my Nightmare Mounted White Ethergaunt ... lol 5. Just because you memorize Fireballs in the 3rd and 4th grade. Why do you only have em? No 1st and 2nd grade? And probably the 5th? Make the spot check at 400ft with no ranks in the skill. Stop thinking of this as a standard medieval warfare with hundreds of troops out in the open and start thinking about the reality of fantasy warfare. Only natural 20s will be able to spot anything. But yeah. He is still invisible. Guess what. Complete warrior - you're dead in many different ways. AOE Spells are waste of time, dehibilitating stuff will work better, you can't just be an 18th level character because the situation changes - you are what you are and a caster isn't that hot in combat unless he trains for it - even then it's not the AOE's that will cause the most damage. AOEs are most definatly the ones that will kill your army. Because most of your fighters will be level 1. Live with it. You don't have to set it until he fires, at which point you can re-set it for free. Because you're in a singular point within a windwall and you can only fire the bead in a straight line it will always be directional. You don't move through open fields - no-one does that with things like artillery in the way. And if you do then it's all the easier to charge through and kill the artillery - or use your own against it. 1. So your troops still do nothing in a battle except than readying for the wizard to shoot his fireball? Pretty useless troops. 2. You cant re-set an tower shiel for free. 3. You are still flying. 4. But you can just place it to their right or left. You don't even know to cast windwall until someone shoots an arrow, at that point you've been pinned down because arrows will kill you. I walk into the battle with my PfA. Someone shoots me once. INSTANTKILL!! Yeah ... right. At this point you've now got a situation to counter attack from with little ability to retaliate, not only that but they were actually first level elven sorcs who have just launched a hoarde of MM at you. Which have medium range. Not long like my fireballs. So i have an range of about 800ft and they have an range of 130ft. WOW! And still my shield spell likes MMs.
Fiery_Overlord 07-06-05, 04:50 AM	Are we assuming 11th level characters are on both armies? Because I can think an Rogue 5/Assassin 6 would be a real easy answer to a 11th level mage in the dead of night before the battle. Or a greater dispel magic from your wizard against any protective barriers and archers with a ready action to pin cushion anyone trying to cast spells. But if that is "too subtle" for you A readied hold person from the opposing war cleric on the wizard when he drops his shield should reduce the wizard's usefulness(you don't have to wait for him to drop the shield to target him but after the shield is down the archers can go to work). Since the cleric can cast Spell Resistance and other spells that can boost saves, and has a decent AC with a magic large shield and some good magic armor and a respectible BaB and mudane weapon he can keep his eyes on potential foes unaffraid of counter attack. (without cringing cowardly behind a tower shield) Also clerics have better divination spells then wizards (especially Commune) So they could know what to be ready for (Is Resist Fire going to be useful in the next battle?) Standard mundane tactics break down in systems with heroic characters. Rogues/assassin tend to trump individual character universally and are for the investment require greater investment for the enemy to couter act. War Clerics tend to trump wizards on an actual battle field. It is about playing your trump cards where your enemy isn't ready for them. About the wind wall, assuming bothsides has magic who says they would let the other side stand? Also Wind wall does not block line of effect so lightning reaches very well and could hit troops behind the wizard, or call lightning from clerics...
Derren S. 07-06-05, 04:54 AM	Breaking it? It's one unit and how many fireballs do you have again? You haven't broken it if it was in a loose formation, tight formation is only useful if your going up against enemy troops in tight formation- it's a wizard behind a wind wall. The formation is broken because the unit is runing away and hiding at the mere sight of a wizard when using your tactic, leaving the battle line broken and allowing flanking amuvers without even a single fireball fired. But you can fire a high volley of arrows at such an angle that they will catch the Wizard no matter how close he is or where he is. They can attack from a position that does mean they ignore the linear wind wall, they can attack from flanks you haven't covered - they can be on flying mounts and kill you. Wind walls are not ,linear. They can be shaped to a cylinder if the caster wants. Good luck finding a waek spot in that. Fire a volley at an agel to hit the wizard? Yes, that angel would be above 80 degree and the archers have to stand 10 ft. in front of the wizard. Do you realy consider this tactic viable? And flying mounts have to hover directly above the wizards to hit and before they get there they will be killed by wizards archers or other flying troops. For starters, they don't do both, they do one or the other - depending on the scenario. Secondly, there is no 5ft gap in a bunch of people with tower shields. Thirdly, Fireball needs line of effect to it's destination, at which point it's fairly easy to block completely. Please do some targeting schematics and understand that you only need a row of 4 people to stuff a fireball. Ok, you really don't know the rules. 1. Read my example why there will always be holes 2. Read it again 3. Read it again, now you migth have understood it. Yes, they can block depending on the situation. And the wizard will fireball the holes depending on teh situation. And when the soldiers always ready an action, this formation is practically out of combat because they don't do anything other than blocking making them a perfect target for archers (As they ready to block spells, archers can take them down easily as their shields are not yet raised) or for two wizards (One fireball to trigger the ready, the other fireball to shoot at the holes). I have to do target shematics? You are the one who tinks it is viable for archers to fire 80 degree volleys. And learning the rules shouldn't hurt you too. Getting a few people of other classes won't be too hard either, and you only need one to kill many wizards. Getting a few counter Wizards isn't too hard either, neithers getting a bunch of lower level ones to just Magic Missile you out of existance, whilst your worrying about the troops who will kill you - you've missed the Mounted Pegasai Elven Paladins or the ensuring Druids - and your stuck behind a windwall with nothing but Fireball spells to handle all of them - I've said that before, please take note. Are you dumb or,...well. Its a army vs. army. Moth sides have wizards, both sides have winged troops etc. How often do I have to say this again. You have winged trrops? What a surprise I also have them. Its not a wizards again a army. The wizards are not standing alone on the battlefield. They are standing behind the frontline of melee fighters, flanked by bodyguards/archers Make the spot check at 400ft with no ranks in the skill. Stop thinking of this as a standard medieval warfare with hundreds of troops out in the open and start thinking about the reality of fantasy warfare. *sigh* It is very easy to see 30-40 men or more from 400 ft away. You don't have to recognize their faces. Is the banner they are holding on our side? No. Fireball them. Are the uniforms one of ours? Are they standing on our side of the frontline? All these things can be used to decide who is on your side and who not. All without a single spot check. 1. They already are in positon 2. Mages are better off lending support in the middle of secondary troops or away from imeadiate fire and protected from obvious assualts. 3. Initiative is decided 4. Standard Tactics go out the window as a bunch of Demons are gated in and start tearing things up 5. The base is under attack from Invisible Stalkers 6. So is their base 7. Assassins arrive to take out the generals 8. The Giants are late - they're being held up by a Titan 9. Shock Troops of Scouts decimate your ranks from behind It doesn't work the way you think And your interpretation is the correct one? 1. Yes, in position for starting the battle which means not yet in combat distance. 2. Yes, thats why they are stationed behind your own battle line. 3. Corect. After that, the armies start to perform manuvers and advance at each other 4. Good thing my celestials will take care of them 5. Which my guard dogs succesfully sniffed out and my grimlock mercenaries killed them 6. No. 7. And find out the general is just a illusion which is part of an ambush from his bodyguard supported by a diviner. 8. Which got killed by a dragon 9. Before beeing entangled. how did they even got there? A And of course you forget that all this my army can do as well. So now your 11th level at least? You do realise each standard action is one you need to defend yourself from all angles? You are the one who throws high level people around like candy. I tried to stay under lvl 8, but when you start to use high level people at every opportunity I can too. And you must be talking to yourself. Your troops continously ready actions. Only one wizard has to cast wind wall to protect a group of wizards. The others can start blasting right away. Complete warrior - you're dead in many different ways. AOE Spells are waste of time, dehibilitating stuff will work better, you can't just be an 18th level character because the situation changes - you are what you are and a caster isn't that hot in combat unless he trains for it - even then it's not the AOE's that will cause the most damage. Says the one who uses Hulking Hurlers as regular troops. Thats the beauty of wizards. Give them two or three scrolls and they are trained for war. Harder to do with sorcerers of course. And you still fail to provide a single argument which shows the AoOs are weak in war, except you special "tactics" which will leave your whole army open for regular attacks. In this case the wizards did win the battle alone with their presence. You don't have to set it until he fires, at which point you can re-set it for free. Because you're in a singular point within a windwall and you can only fire the bead in a straight line it will always be directional. You don't move through open fields - no-one does that with things like artillery in the way. And if you do then it's all the easier to charge through and kill the artillery - or use your own against it. What the heck are you talking about? Show me the rules where it says taht you can reposition your shield for free. Once it is set, it is set. The wind wall doesn't block the LoE or LoS of the wizards in any way. They can fire at every point of the battle field in rage and not be hindered by the wall. The bead isn't affected by the wall the slightest. When you want to charge the wizards, you have to first get through the battle line and the bodyguards. And petting wizards against wizards is a bad idea because htey have a very similar rage. When one wizard wants to reach the others he has to stand right on the frontline where he is chopped apart easily. When the frontline is crumbling then it is possible of course, but at that point the wizards have done their work already and are rethreating You don't even know to cast windwall until someone shoots an arrow, at that point you've been pinned down because arrows will kill you. At this point you've now got a situation to counter attack from with little ability to retaliate, not only that but they were actually first level elven sorcs who have just launched a hoarde of MM at you. LOL. So a cop doesn't wear his bullet proof vest until he is shot at... Casting a Wind Wall is the first thing the wizards do when reaching their position, visible archers or not. They have prepared itr anyway, so why not use it? Edit: @Alienfreak: I think there are some spells which allows ranged death attacks. Lets wait what he responds. Also the wizard doesn't even need to hit the gap. He can let the fireball explode in front o the hole and it will still spread through teh formation @Overlord: The problem with hold person is that it has medium range as has dispell magic. The wizards are certainly not so dumb and standing anywhere near the battlefield. They are standing far enough away that their long range spells can rach the front line enemies, but not more. To affect them with spells, even with long range spells the enemy wizards have to stand near the frontline (long range spells) or even at the wrong side of the frontline (medium range spells) which both means quick death to the wizards. And I only was assuming that one or two dozend of 5th/6th level cahracters is the best you can muster. Nyferto is the one who drives the level way up by constantly using Lvl 10 or more characters. I am just responding to this.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 05:12 AM	think there are some spells which allows ranged death attacks. Lets wait what he responds. He refers to Snipers Eye. Its an 4th level Assassin Spell. So the Character has to be 12th level for that alone. And it allows you to deliver Death Attacks at an range of 60ft. Just as it does for Sneak Attacks. So he still has to get within 60 ft ;) and it has an duration of 1rnd/level. So it has to be cast as he is within range. Not a good place to waste time ;).
Derren S. 07-06-05, 05:15 AM	There is also Sniper Shopt. 1st level Assasine spell lets your next attack be a sneak attack regardless of range (when the other conditions for sneal attacks are fulfilled) But no mention of a death attack. And I have yet to find the spell which lets your arrow be unaffected by wind or the PRC Cragtop Archer. Hmm, sounds like a Raptoran PRC. I have to check.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 05:20 AM	Yep. But you are right. Sneak Attack =! Death Attack. So having the Ability to Sneak Attack at range isnt the Ability to Death Attack at range.
Fiery_Overlord 07-06-05, 05:21 AM	Well then lets just make it a Travel/War cleric Dimenional Door (also Long range) in and Teleport (really long range) out and see how any wizard fairs in melee with a well armored war cleric?? I bet you'll never guess who I think is the best spell caster for war? *cough*war cleric*cough* BTW Travel and War is just such a nifty and natural combo. For a substantial battle one 11th level character isn't outrageous, but then you have the whole aspect of which trumps which in what situations.
Derren S. 07-06-05, 05:26 AM	Yes,teleporting is a problem, but it is high level and not normally availiable. A surprise teleport might kill the wizards depending on the troop size transported, but they are death in turn when the bodyguards attack. And when high level enough, wizards can cast a redirect teleport or whatever spell to protect them (Don't know what level this spell is) Dimension dooring is less of a problem because its lower reach and because you can't act after dooring. You might send the wizards temporary leaving their position, but the bodyguard will take care of the enemy before they can do much damage.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 05:28 AM	Ok ... Cleric with War and Travel. But what about my Nightmare Mounted White Ethergaunt? And as we are at it. Why not giving an Nishruu to every army? Come on. Thats ridiculous.
Fiery_Overlord 07-06-05, 05:32 AM	Ok,I respect the low level stuff you are refering to, especially from skirmishes involving only a few hundred, like minor rural feudal lord squabbling. There is a rather simple way to settle this. I have seen a set up for a site called battle grounds, they are currently working on a Drow vs Illithid skirmish of "scouting patrols", what is we submit our battle idea to them? (travel and war is a natural combo conceptually, a major part of a battle is reaching it, especially for expansionist empires, look at the great "marches" in history for examples)
Derren S. 07-06-05, 05:32 AM	A cleric with War and Travel migth strech it, but For this tactic you only need a Travel Cleric. War clerics can serve at the front.
Nyferto 07-06-05, 07:41 AM	A unit moving in a dispearsed formation isn't broken - units do this in modern warfare - they move over terrain as they see fit individually and reform into formations when they don't need to move. Same for people facing fire - they don't move in tightly packed clusters, they move in waves. Fireballs aren't that effective against long line formations. Neither are wind walls. Fireballs do not move through small little cracks and do damage, it moves around total cover upto 20ft from the centre of it's radius. Quote the rules on this one, they don't move through cracks. Not only that, but strictly speaking each shield (all in a row) provides total cover, it doesn't give any gap to move through so you can't actually target a fireball inside or directly behind a wall. Technically they provide total cover to everything behind them as well which will impede your ability to target (you can't target something with total cover), so back lines are safe and if you're on the ground you can't target very effectively. From different positions you might be able to chisel away at a wall - but please remember, each time you are wasting resources trying to destroy one unit out of an entire army. Combine that with your supposed army some how firing through a wind wall and no-one else doing anything, AOO's are massively inefficient in War. Please remember the scope of the scenario. If you really think you can fire a Fireball through a fine to diminuitive hole in a by the rules no holes wall. You've already pointed out by your lack of willingness to respond that Wizards successfully targeting at the ranges you're talking about is minimal by their low spot skills. Then you've got to spot such an object with an inherent bonus on hide checks with a massive (-40) penalty at such ranges. You seriously think you can pinpoint a banner and the people holiding it without aid at 400ft? You seriously think people can't deny such tactics by not bothering to carry such things? Seriously - get a clue about battlefield combat. As for the rest, War is nowhere near as simple as your making out. You have to handle everything with everything else. You might hold up a unit of peasants with a Wizard, but you only need one specialist unit to kill every last one of them. You only need an equal level Paladin to charge through and kill one, a Druid could do it easily, so could a Rogue - infact practically every single PC will be better at war than a Wizard. And of course you forget that all this my army can do as well. No, you forgot that all this is happening at the same time. Calculate the statistics for one kingdom with 7 towns, 5 cities, 1 metropolis, 20 villages and 40 hamlets. Then count how many NPC's of particular classes you will have. Then multiply that by every other kingdom in a world, throw in the other races that will have warrior units. Throw in some tamed monsters and then add in support from each any every plane in existance. Your wizard isn't that unique. It only takes one more powerful PC to hamper his effect in war and if it's a more durable PC it's going to kill a lot more wizards than you will. After you've wasted spells on diversion tactics and your imobility has hampered you and all you've got to defend yourself is a bunch of weak offensive spells - you'll wish you picked different options and actually tried something that would actually be effective.
Derren S. 07-06-05, 08:13 AM	A unit moving in a dispearsed formation isn't broken - units do this in modern warfare - they move over terrain as they see fit individually and reform into formations when they don't need to move. When the enemy is approaching the loose formation is vulnerable. So either they get slaughtered by charging melee troops or blasted away by fireballs. Simply reforming int a formation takes time, which you don't have when the enemy is approching. When you do it before that the fireballs start flying. Same for people facing fire - they don't move in tightly packed clusters, they move in waves. Fireballs aren't that effective against long line formations. Neither are wind walls. 1. Fireball has a 40 radius diamater. When crashing into a line that are 8 dead soldiers. And when there is only one long line it is easily broken and routed. 2. Learn geometry unless the line is very close to the wind wall, the wall protects them unless the line is several miles long. Also READ THE DAMM SPELL. Multiple times. Untill you understand that the Wind Wall can be shaped like a cylinder providing protection against all sides. Fireballs do not move through small little cracks and do damage, it moves around total cover upto 20ft from the centre of it's radius. Quote the rules on this one, they don't move through cracks. Not only that, but strictly speaking each shield (all in a row) provides total cover, it doesn't give any gap to move through so you can't actually target a fireball inside or directly behind a wall. Technically they provide total cover to everything behind them as well which will impede your ability to target (you can't target something with total cover), so back lines are safe and if you're on the ground you can't target very effectively. Do you actually read my posts? Apparently not. A 5ft. x 5ft. big hole is not a "small little crack" and there will be holes no matter what you do with the tower shield. Case 1: Soldier protects a side with the shield. Wizards lets the fireball explode on one of the three other sides or above the soldiers head where the fireball spreads downward and kills the soldier behind his shield Case 2: Soldier protects against attacks from above. Wizard places a fireball directly in front of him, or any other side except over the soldiers head One of this cases always happens even in a turtle formation. From different positions you might be able to chisel away at a wall - but please remember, each time you are wasting resources trying to destroy one unit out of an entire army. Combine that with your supposed army some how firing through a wind wall and no-one else doing anything, AOO's are massively inefficient in War. Please remember the scope of the scenario. Wasting ressources? 1 fireball = one dead or dispersed unit. Thats not wasting. My army firing through the wind wall? Lol. You are really a military genius. The wizards are stationed well behind the other troops except for the archers who are stationed next to the wizards with some distance. Non of them are in any way hindered or protected by the wind wall. The wind wall is only for protecting the wizards, no one else. You should remember the scope of the scenario. Lots of low HP warriors in a small area. Thats a perfect setup for area spells. If you really think you can fire a Fireball through a fine to diminuitive hole in a by the rules no holes wall. You've already pointed out by your lack of willingness to respond that Wizards successfully targeting at the ranges you're talking about is minimal by their low spot skills. Then you've got to spot such an object with an inherent bonus on hide checks with a massive (-40) penalty at such ranges. Read my post. Or better show me a way by the rules to form a formation which is fully protected by tower shields from every side. It is impossible, but good luck trying You seriously think you can pinpoint a banner and the people holiding it without aid at 400ft? You seriously think people can't deny such tactics by not bothering to carry such things? Seriously - get a clue about battlefield combat. LOL. 400 ft. That is the size of a soccer field. So the people sitting on the cheap seats in a stadium are unable to see to which team players belong to accordign to their shirts? And they are unable to see a 5ft. or bigger banner which primary purpose it was to recognice the troop which carries it? As for the rest, War is nowhere near as simple as your making out. You have to handle everything with everything else. You might hold up a unit of peasants with a Wizard, but you only need one specialist unit to kill every last one of them. You only need an equal level Paladin to charge through and kill one, a Druid could do it easily, so could a Rogue - infact practically every single PC will be better at war than a Wizard. Ok, I give up. You have absolutly no clue about D&D. 5 wizards can kill a single equal level PC in no time, no matter what class. And to charge the wizards, the paladin or whoever has first to break through the battle line and the bodyguards of the wizards. No, you forgot that all this is happening at the same time. Calculate the statistics for one kingdom with 7 towns, 5 cities, 1 metropolis, 20 villages and 40 hamlets. Then count how many NPC's of particular classes you will have. Then multiply that by every other kingdom in a world, throw in the other races that will have warrior units. Throw in some tamed monsters and then add in support from each any every plane in existance. Tamed monsters. Because that is so easy... And every wizards sorcerer and whatever will be trained for combat and will be drafted and be put into this army. No sir, we don't need to keep some in reserve, spellcaster which craft potions or perform any other service than direct combat like spying etc... And all your supermonsters have better things to do than to hunt a group of 5th level wizards because when the war is so high powered, there are plenty of other things to worry about which can kill even faster than those wizards And for the record. The kingdom you post here is not a average kingdom, it is a continental superpower. Your wizard isn't that unique. It only takes one more powerful PC to hamper his effect in war and if it's a more durable PC it's going to kill a lot more wizards than you will. After you've wasted spells on diversion tactics and your imobility has hampered you and all you've got to defend yourself is a bunch of weak offensive spells - you'll wish you picked different options and actually tried something that would actually be effective. I just let this stand uncommented to let everyone see how cluless you really are. Wasted spells on diversion tactics... Just one thing. I am not trying to kill wizards. It takes too much effort whci is better spend elsewhere.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 09:39 AM	You seriously think you can pinpoint a banner and the people holiding it without aid at 400ft? You seriously think people can't deny such tactics by not bothering to carry such things? Seriously - get a clue about battlefield combat. Uhm. Probably you have no clue!? Exactly that was the purpose of banners! To be able to identify troops at greater distances. I can pinpoint any banner i know at 400ft. Thats why they are banners.
The_Prophet 07-06-05, 11:27 AM	D-E-A-T-H A-T-T-A-C-K-S H-A-V-E T-O B-E D-E-L-I-V-E-R-E-D B-Y M-E-L-E-E W-E-A-P-O-N-S!!!!! I hate to burst your bubble (which is unwise cuz its seems like your about to burst something) but their's a spell in the CADV called Sniper's Eye that allows ranged death attacks (Its an assassin spell)
Derren S. 07-06-05, 11:57 AM	The range is limited to 60 ft. When you can get 60 ft. close to the wizards, you can attack them in melee anyway.
Nyferto 07-06-05, 12:40 PM	When the enemy is approaching the loose formation is vulnerable. So either they get slaughtered by charging melee troops or blasted away by fireballs. Simply reforming int a formation takes time, which you don't have when the enemy is approching. When you do it before that the fireballs start flying. 1. Fireball has a 40 radius diamater. When crashing into a line that are 8 dead soldiers. And when there is only one long line it is easily broken and routed. 2. Learn geometry unless the line is very close to the wind wall, the wall protects them unless the line is several miles long. Also READ THE DAMM SPELL. Multiple times. Untill you understand that the Wind Wall can be shaped like a cylinder providing protection against all sides. Doesn't matter how you shape it - it will have a weak spot. Not only that but it won't protect you from everything - you try to fireball a troop infront, catapults hit you from above, you form a square - they snipe you from above or just kill you anyway. Whatever you do with Windwall - it will cripple your offensive ability and pin you within it - at which point you can't engage another unit miles off without moving there and casting it again. If you don't know to cast it because you've been ambushed - then you're dead anyway. Fireball has a 20ft radius spread, this means it can move 20ft from the centre of the explosion. A Widened Fireball has a 40ft spread but it's in a 6th level slot. FFFFCFFF TTTTTTF F = Fireball T = Tower Shield User C = Centre of Fireball If you hit directly, it will have to go around a wall of shields before it can try to creep in, no matter how you angle it - it will have difficulty creeping in, if it can do it at all with only a 20ft radius. If they're even mildy dispersed in formation (5ft away from the next guy), then you're going to kill less people when it hits. If they're not trying to block it, but move out of the way - you may hit only one at best. 20ft isn't that far to dodge for most people, it's even less if you aren't near the centre of the spread. Also, it gives you space to attack and handle opponents who enter the formation - to flank someone you have to enter someone elses threatened area, and it keep people clear to move around and engage as necessary - it's actually the best formation you can keep when moving in a block. Do you actually read my posts? Apparently not. A 5ft. x 5ft. big hole is not a "small little crack" and there will be holes no matter what you do with the tower shield. Case 1: Soldier protects a side with the shield. Wizards lets the fireball explode on one of the three other sides or above the soldiers head where the fireball spreads downward and kills the soldier behind his shield Case 2: Soldier protects against attacks from above. Wizard places a fireball directly in front of him, or any other side except over the soldiers head Actually I was responding to someone elses posts and insinuation (admidst your own) that there will always be gaps in a wall of tower shields. There isn't. Case 1: Wizard launches Fireballs - Soldiers react accordingly That's it. Wasting ressources? 1 fireball = one dead or dispersed unit. Thats not wasting. My army firing through the wind wall? Lol. You are really a military genius. The wizards are stationed well behind the other troops except for the archers who are stationed next to the wizards with some distance. Non of them are in any way hindered or protected by the wind wall. The wind wall is only for protecting the wizards, no one else. You should remember the scope of the scenario. Lots of low HP warriors in a small area. Thats a perfect setup for area spells. If the Wizard is stationed behind his troops - how's he seeing the enemy in a way that allows him to target with a Fireball that needs direct line of effect to it's centre. 1 unit isn't all you have to worry about, you have to worry about an entire war happening from all angles with all possibilities. Your wasting time and spells. One unit is never going to be killed by one fireball, it's more likely a pack of 10 fireballs with an idiotic enemy. There is no scenario except War - it's not just little people with low Hp's and no brains - if it were - why the hell are you there? Read my post. Or better show me a way by the rules to form a formation which is fully protected by tower shields from every side. It is impossible, but good luck trying You mean the one where you said you'd fire the fireball through gaps in the wall? Guess what - impossible. LOL. 400 ft. That is the size of a soccer field. So the people sitting on the cheap seats in a stadium are unable to see to which team players belong to accordign to their shirts? And they are unable to see a 5ft. or bigger banner which primary purpose it was to recognice the troop which carries it? From one end to the other - you can't see, if they can engage you with bows at 1500ft - you're in trouble - if they've got terrain cover - you're in trouble. Ok, I give up. You have absolutly no clue about D&D. 5 wizards can kill a single equal level PC in no time, no matter what class. And to charge the wizards, the paladin or whoever has first to break through the battle line and the bodyguards of the wizards. Who said 5 wizards? You're only reffering to one Wizard and some fictional troops to protect. It only takes one succesful attack to cause the Wizard some concearn, it only takes two units to kill him absoultely. Tamed monsters. Because that is so easy... And every wizards sorcerer and whatever will be trained for combat and will be drafted and be put into this army. No sir, we don't need to keep some in reserve, spellcaster which craft potions or perform any other service than direct combat like spying etc... It's called Handle animal, you can buy certain ones quite easily. And all your supermonsters have better things to do than to hunt a group of 5th level wizards because when the war is so high powered, there are plenty of other things to worry about which can kill even faster than those wizards You're on the battlefield - everything can try to kill you that's on it and not on your side. Most of them would rip you apart in no time. And for the record. The kingdom you post here is not a average kingdom, it is a continental superpower. [/quote] You mean an average country? I just let this stand uncommented to let everyone see how cluless you really are. Wasted spells on diversion tactics... Just one thing. I am not trying to kill wizards. It takes too much effort whci is better spend elsewhere. It takes no effort if all they've got is wind wall and invisibility. It takes a small phsyical force to turn the tide on your units themselves. It takes one cleric to keep a unit going for ages It takes one Bard to facinate you before you've even seen an enemy It takes one Paladin to ride in on a mount and blow you out of non-existance (and 4 others) It takes one Fighter/Barbarian to cleave through a unit on his own It takes one Sorc to dehibilitate your entire army with lower level spells It takes one Rogue to find out how to get to you and kill you in your sleep. It takes one Druid to have nature against you.
sfubear 07-06-05, 12:42 PM	I say that the best thing you can do is send in an invisible strike team, if the wizards are acting like artillery, then it is most likely that they will not have a spell cast on themselves to see invisibility, and any item that would grant such a power would must likely be replaced with something that would grant more protection or allow the use of a more offense spell or ability that would allow for maximum maneuverability, like a ring of flying or something similar. So an invisible strike team would most likely be able to move quickly to there target take it out, and then move along to the next one, even if they become visible the wizards are most likely going to be in the back so that the normal soldiers act as a wall of protection, or the strike team could flee after they have taken out the wizards and take cover, I don’t think that a lot of enemy soldiers would see the strike team as there attention would be focused in front of them and if you were scared about getting caught, then give them all a potion of invisibility so that after they had taken out the wizards they could again escape with out detection. And as far as wind wall goes, it doesn’t do any good if invisible archers are behind the wizards, as you don’t have to get close to the wizards to get behind them. That way if the wizards did have a true seeing spell of something and took out your strike team, the archers you send in could circle wide around the wizards while invisible as to not be seen, then let loose with a lot of arrows to the back. But really I think that if the one side was using wizards, you could solve it be picking a better battle field then a field, you could choose a forest, or a ruined city that has already been destroyed do to battle, that way area effect spells are less damaging. I know that in history armies fought in a big field and went head to head, but they also didn’t have magic that could blast half of the enemies away in less then a ten min. and if they did they wouldn’t have fought the way they did, or the way that is common in fantasy warfare. Look at the Lord of the Rings, that’s some great fantasy warfare, and there wasn’t any spell blasting wizards on the side lines and if there had been would it really have made since for them to line up and march on the enemy? Edit:It seems though that my logic is flawed because wind wall can be shaped to totally circle a wizard, but I bet it doesn’t deflect spell (I’m at work so don’t have the spell description near) send in rogues with wands of lightning bolt. Use magic device…BOOM…dead wizards.
Derren S. 07-06-05, 01:28 PM	Doesn't matter how you shape it - it will have a weak spot. Not only that but it won't protect you from everything - you try to fireball a troop infront, catapults hit you from above, you form a square - they snipe you from above or just kill you anyway. Whatever you do with Windwall - it will cripple your offensive ability and pin you within it - at which point you can't engage another unit miles off without moving there and casting it again. If you don't know to cast it because you've been ambushed - then you're dead anyway. Have I said that it is undefeatable? No, but in order to defeat it you need much more ressources than what the wizards use. Wind Wall cripple offensice capability? Try to read spell descriptions. And when enemy flyers can fly unmoldtered above your wizards you are doing somethign wrong anyway. Fireball has a 20ft radius spread, this means it can move 20ft from the centre of the explosion. A Widened Fireball has a 40ft spread but it's in a 6th level slot. FFFFCFFF TTTTTTF F = Fireball T = Tower Shield User C = Centre of Fireball If you hit directly, it will have to go around a wall of shields before it can try to creep in, no matter how you angle it - it will have difficulty creeping in, if it can do it at all with only a 20ft radius. If they're even mildy dispersed in formation (5ft away from the next guy), then you're going to kill less people when it hits. If they're not trying to block it, but move out of the way - you may hit only one at best. 20ft isn't that far to dodge for most people, it's even less if you aren't near the centre of the spread. I see. You are unable to think in 3 dimensions. When the they block like you showed on the picture the wizard simply shoots the fireball above the soldiers where they are not protected. When they are 5 ft. apart it is even better because he can let the detonate the fireball between them. Also you always use readied actions. That means that your troops can't move fast and can't fight. That means they are rather useless and will be killed easily by archers. Also, it gives you space to attack and handle opponents who enter the formation - to flank someone you have to enter someone elses threatened area, and it keep people clear to move around and engage as necessary - it's actually the best formation you can keep when moving in a block. Yes, when they get charged they will realy like the formation as the enemy can penetrate deep within it as they are spread out so much that they can't resist a charge anymore without the formation breaking completly. Actually I was responding to someone elses posts and insinuation (admidst your own) that there will always be gaps in a wall of tower shields. There isn't. Case 1: Wizard launches Fireballs - Soldiers react accordingly That's it. See above. When you constantly use ready actions your army is doomed. Round 1. Wizards cast fireball, Soldiers have used a readied action and block the fireball. Round 2. Wizards ignore soldiers and archers pick off the unprotected enemy who, instead of moving fast or protect them with the shields from the arrows, wait till the wizard casts a spell at them. Round 3. Either see round 2, or the enemy now protects himself with the shields from the archers. Wizard then fireballs them where they are not protected and everyone dies. If the Wizard is stationed behind his troops - how's he seeing the enemy in a way that allows him to target with a Fireball that needs direct line of effect to it's centre. He does this normally. Creatures don't block LoE he can shoot past them just fine. And when he is in a real bad spot, he simply levitates up (Or just stands on a Tensers Disk) 1 unit isn't all you have to worry about, you have to worry about an entire war happening from all angles with all possibilities. Your wasting time and spells. One unit is never going to be killed by one fireball, it's more likely a pack of 10 fireballs with an idiotic enemy. There is no scenario except War - it's not just little people with low Hp's and no brains - if it were - why the hell are you there? Depends how large your units are. A good placed fireball can kill 20 people easily. And because of logistic armies rarely have more than a couple of theousand man in total. And when those four wizards kill 100-200 in the whole combat it is very good. You mean the one where you said you'd fire the fireball through gaps in the wall? Guess what - impossible. I'm still waiting. Show me a formation where you are protected from all sides from a fireball. From one end to the other - you can't see, if they can engage you with bows at 1500ft - you're in trouble - if they've got terrain cover - you're in trouble. If they do this ignore them as they can't hit you through the wind wall and let them waste arrows and continue fireballing Who said 5 wizards? You're only reffering to one Wizard and some fictional troops to protect. It only takes one succesful attack to cause the Wizard some concearn, it only takes two units to kill him absoultely. I said 5 wizards after someone made the suggestion to protect whole troups of wizards through a single wall. If you would read my posts you would know this. And again, to attack the wizards you have to reach them first which is the hard part. Then the enemy has to face the bodyguard (Lets say 5-10 soldiers) After that they can attack the wizards if they can find them because as soon the enemy advanced and engaged their guard, they casted invisibility. It's called Handle animal, you can buy certain ones quite easily. You can buy uninetlligent mounts at extreme prices. That was it. You can't buy a monster who can attack effectivly only mounts. You're on the battlefield - everything can try to kill you that's on it and not on your side. Most of them would rip you apart in no time. And? Thats why the rest of the army is there for. And for the record. The kingdom you post here is not a average kingdom, it is a continental superpower. You mean an average country?[/quote] Nope. A metropolis isn't something you find in an average country. It takes no effort if all they've got is wind wall and invisibility. It takes a small phsyical force to turn the tide on your units themselves. It takes one cleric to keep a unit going for ages It takes one Bard to facinate you before you've even seen an enemy It takes one Paladin to ride in on a mount and blow you out of non-existance (and 4 others) It takes one Fighter/Barbarian to cleave through a unit on his own It takes one Sorc to dehibilitate your entire army with lower level spells It takes one Rogue to find out how to get to you and kill you in your sleep. It takes one Druid to have nature against you. 1. Post tactics to defeat Wind Wall and Invisibility. Your "Stand ten feet in front of the wall and fire a volley 80 degree up" is a rather stupid plan. 2. Post how. And don't leave out the part how you get past the frontline or the bodyguards. 3. When only one unit gets damaged at the time and the attacks don't kill the troops outright like a fireball would. 4. Read the spell. Fascinating doesn't work in combat. 5. Because the paladin is invincible and can simply ride past the frontline, the bodyguard and is also not harmed by the wizards who try to stop him with spells. And of course he can see invisible wizards too. :rolleyes: 6. Except when he meets a equal leveled babarian/fighter, is grappled, disarmed, tripped or just hacked into pieces by 6 soldiers or magic missiled to death. 7. If I would know what that word means I would respond. 8. Going past all the guard and traps, right. 9. You mean, to get attaked by some squirels, a wolf and have some small spells casted against you. Edit:It seems though that my logic is flawed because wind wall can be shaped to totally circle a wizard, but I bet it doesn’t deflect spell (I’m at work so don’t have the spell description near) send in rogues with wands of lightning bolt. Use magic device…BOOM…dead wizards. Finally someone who reads spell descriptions, or at least other peopls posts. Yes, the wall doesn't block spells. But consider which ressources you are currently using. A ring of invisibility and a wand of lightnign bolt/fireball are not cheap. And the rogue has to be rather high level to activate the wand. That are a lot of ressources to take out some lvl 5/6 wizards. And after the first shot the remaining wizards go invisible and the bodyguard attack. And when one of those wizards is as high level than the rogue, he has some trouble.
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 03:34 PM	Here is the problem that some are seeming to ignore. In reality, it is never about balance. When one country invades another, rarely is the invader equal to or inferior to those that they attack (I only say rarely even though I am aware of none, but I expect there to be some). What we have is just a few scenarios. A. Attacker is more powerful then defender (Scaled as high as you like) B. Attacker and defender are equal C. Attacker is less powerful then the defender (Scaled as low as you like) Clearly Darren is talking about situation #A. Most other people are talking about situation #B. To be honest, I believe there is no point in arguing situation A, because anyone can win that, Magic or no magic. If the Attacker has a Mage corp. that can clearly decimate the enemy, then obviously the situation is #A. If the Attacker has a Mage corp. that can be countered by the enemy, then obviously the situation is #B. I am assuming no one is talking about situation C, because those are few and far between. Yes Spell-casters are the Queens of the Battlefield, but if one side has them and the other does not, it hardly can be called an equal encounter, and not worthy of arguing over. Let’s compare Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges.
Aeolus91 07-06-05, 03:44 PM	In a D&D setting your average army is just a bunch of rabble with no real discipline, not capable of asymmetrical tactics to thawt mages. Ummmm... maybe in your campaign. In a bunch that I've played in, armies have been highly trained and disciplined, and every single soldier knew the tactics for dropping a mage... spread out, fall back, and take out your longbow.
Alienfreak 07-06-05, 03:55 PM	I hate to burst your bubble (which is unwise cuz its seems like your about to burst something) but their's a spell in the CADV called Sniper's Eye that allows ranged death attacks (Its an assassin spell) I already stated that. Probably if you would care to read my previous posts? I dont like to repeat myself.
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 03:58 PM	I dont like to repeat myself. I DO I DO I DO (Sorry, could not resist)
Derren S. 07-06-05, 05:16 PM	Clearly Darren is talking about situation #A. Most other people are talking about situation #B. To be honest, I believe there is no point in arguing situation A, because anyone can win that, Magic or no magic. 1. Its Derren 2. If you would read my post you would know that both armies would be equal. I expect the enemy to use the same tactic. it is just ineffective to risk your wizards in hunting the enemy wizards. By the time the wizards reach fighting distance the enemy already casted their fireballs. Also to engage the enemy wizards, your wizards have to be moved very close to the frontline which is very risky for them. In total, it is just not worth it.
tiercel 07-06-05, 05:23 PM	Hmm... I guess I posted too late about illusions and fog re: the original post, given that most of this thread now seems devoted to wind wall and testudos. I think wind wall is nearly a moot point, given that protection from arrows pretty much stops volley fire from an army -- only elite snipers are likely to be firing magic arrows/bow at you. (Most of them are unlikely to be able to see invisible wizards.) Yes, enough volley fire can ablate your PfA protection, but in the amount of time it takes massed archers to pull off that kind of damage you can be annihilating them. (Then, *gasp*, simply cast PfA again. It's only a 2nd level spell.) Testudos probably are hard to adjudicate because they break the rules of D&D -- that is, they aren't a fighting formation, and the soldiers are certainly packed closer than one soldier per 5' square. To form a proper testudo you'd need a feat akin to Formation Fighting that would let you put more than one soldier in 5' square... and this would allow you to protect more than one face of the 5' square (or, more accurately speaking, the 5' cube) at a time.
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 05:32 PM	1. Its Derren 2. If you would read my post you would know that both armies would be equal. I expect the enemy to use the same tactic. it is just ineffective to risk your wizards in hunting the enemy wizards. By the time the wizards reach fighting distance the enemy already casted their fireballs. Also to engage the enemy wizards, your wizards have to be moved very close to the frontline which is very risky for them. In total, it is just not worth it. 1. Just because you spell it wrong, don't blame me. :D 2. I have read your post, and in no way are you talking about equal armies. Only incompetent commanders (therefore not equal) would be unaware of hundreds, if not thousands of years of experience battling with and against spell casters. Almost invariable, you explain that what ever defense, what ever strategy they might use against a mage, it would be ineffective (once again, hardly equal). BTW, just because you say it is ineffective to use mages to hunt mages, does not make it so, not by a long shot. I am not going to pretend to know all the possible situation where that statement does not hold water but to start, it seems strange to me that in your scenario, the enemy mages is within fireball range of your front lines but somehow the friendly mages are not equally positioned (as in if the friendly mages are in equal positions they can counter spell) Again, I am not saying that they are not powerful, they said the same thing about almost every new tech that mankind had invented for warfare in the last hundred years if not hundreds of years. But in all cases, strategy and technology always catches up. I see no reason why a fantasy world would not follow the same rules of warfare
Derren S. 07-06-05, 05:40 PM	it seems strange to me that in your scenario, the enemy mages is within fireball range of your front lines but somehow the friendly mages are not equally positioned. Where have I said that. Of course both mages are in fireball range of the front line, how should they fireball them otherwise? But they are on different siedes of the front so one mage can not reach the enemy mage unless he stands directly n the frontline. Picture, top down. F F F M F M F F Both mage teams M can reach the frontline F with their long range spells and some area behind it (100 ft, maybe more depending on level) But the left mage team can't reach the right mage team with its spells. To do this they must advance untill they are standing nearly directly at the frontline which is a rather unhealthy position for spellcaster. When you have a usefull tactic against those mage teams post it. Usefull means also that the ressources spend on stopping the mages are not much higher than what the mages use, because if this is not the case it would be more feasible to use this ressources more effectivily.
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 05:58 PM	My Friend, I see where the confusion lies, rarely is the front line so perfectly drawn. The length and breath of a medieval combat line would be fluid beyond reason (all historical text on the subject says so). Also, keeping mages at long range would seriously decrease thier effectiveness, therefore it was unlikely to be done, unless in extreme situations. Fireballs would happen way before either side meets each other in combat (unless your troops were somehow immune or true Cannon Fodder). They would close with the front line and back off just before the front line broke down into a grand melee. Also, even the most offensive mage is going to at least consider protecting his own troops (the only thing between him and lots and lots of swords and arrows). I can see where you are coming from, with your idea of what a combat line would look like, but sadly they do not have any historical counterpart (even during the age of muskets).
Derren S. 07-06-05, 06:11 PM	Of course the front line is moving but I had no time to draw an animated gif or something to show that. But the frontline will not move that fast. Before any large movement there will be 5-10 rounds of battle and that is the time the wizards will blast, maybe 1-2 rounds after that. Then they will move according to the new frontline (the Wind Wall expired anyway). Also, wizards can use all their fireballs in under one minute. Only when they are equipped with a wand (magic missile) they can stay for a longer time in battle. Protecting troops sounds nice, but is impossible. Offense in D&D is stronger than defense, especially when you have to defend a large group of people. Even dispelling is hard because the wizard has to stand near the troop he wants to protect because the enemy wizard is casting from long range. When you know good ways how a wizard protects his troops post it please. And I don't see how long range reduces the effectivness of wizards. Fireball and acid arrow are long range so all common spell levels would be covered. Scorching Ray would be stronger, but in a war a wizard certainly should not be in close range to the enemy. Only Magic Missile would be a medium range spell
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 07:06 PM	But the frontline will not move that fast I am glad you thing so, does not make it so, but I am glad you think so. The frontline in a battle rarely starts out in a straight line much less stays that way. Two cinematic movies that show it well (keep in mind we are talking movies) would be Braveheart and Gladiator. Once the melee starts, ranged attacks are suppressed until their side is loosing (except when immune to the attack or with Cannon Fodder, then the ranged combat usually continues). At long range (keep in mind, when I am taking long range I am talking about the spell range category) the ability of the mage to discern friend from enemy is usually very limited (unless they are dramatically different body types) also limiting his ability to us mass damage spells. As I said before, following historical combats, mass damage spells would be used well before either side had engaged. Before any large movement there will be 5-10 rounds of battle and that is the time the wizards will blast, maybe 1-2 rounds after that That is assuming a lot considering most historical battles lasted hours, not minutes. I would suspect that any Mage worth his weight would not make such an assumption. Protecting troops sounds nice, but is impossible. Offense in D&D is stronger than defense, especially when you have to defend a large group of people. Once again, I am glad you let me know it was impossible. No, wait a minute, its not. If you were talking one on one over a large battlefield, then I would be inclined to agree with you, but my understanding was that was not the discussion. NOW, if you assume that ALL mages are going to stay as far away from combat as possible, then of course neither side would get a chance to protect their troops. Nevertheless, just because you believe that is the correct course of action (to stay as far away as possible) does not make it so. I have played in multiple campaign with different player who play a wide variety of mage types, to assume that ALL mages would stay at long range is stretching credibility to the extreme. If you are ok with that… And I don't see how long range reduces the effectivness of wizards I know you do not, but you can count the number of long range combat spells on one hand (I assume we are still not discussing 20th lvl spell casters). If you do not see how that reduces the effectiveness of a Mage in a Mass battle, then you should take another look. Ultimately, I see a few flaws in your logic. 1. “Battles will last Rounds, not hours”. Clearly History has taught us otherwise, even adding in the Fantastic element of D&D will clearly not change that more then a factor of ½ or ¼. 2. “ALL mages will stay at Long Range, because they loose no effectiveness by doing so.” That is assuming that all mages will be used as Artillery, which is an oversimplification to the extreme. It is much more likely that groups of mages would be working everything from Long Range Artillery to short ranged direct support and even bands intended just for counter spelling.
SdEoXgY 07-06-05, 07:53 PM	Let us change the focus a little. Let us look at the true force behind Warfare, economics. Hiring a wizard is going to decrease the manpower of a force. I think we can all agree on that. I hope we can stay away from free manpower for the moment (I know the high lord is a great spellcaster and he uses all his spells for free, but let’s stay a little focused for now). Spell casting service (page 129 in the PHB) list the cost of a spell as Caster Level x Spell Level x10 (half if 0 lvl). Keep in mind that if a mage can cast fireballs (5th lvl minimum) then you still have to pay the increase caster level even for 1st level spells. A 5th level Wizard for instance, with a 16 intelligence and specialized in Evocation would have 5,5,4,3. If that mage cast all those spells in one day, it would cost the Army over 6,000 gold (6,125). Lets say he give them a cut rate say 3000 gp a day. Now as most of you know, most war campaigns are not just one day, they are usually weeks and months long (if not years, but we will not go there). Lets say over a week, he cuts it down to 1500gp a day and over a month, he will cut it down to 1000gp per day. Now before you we start quibbling about gold, put yourself in the place of a mage traveling with an army, on call 24/7 to bring hells fire down on their enemies. If you don’t think a mage would ask for that kind of funds, then he is probably in the wrong place, anyway we are sticking with Joe average. Now, per the DMG page 105, Mercenaries are listed as 2sp. Now I would suspect that most conscripts would get far less then that, but for S&G’s lets say they will get 1sp a day. Now an Army usually forages for most of their supplies (one of the reasons why armies have a finite size) but lets assume that they need to spend 2sp per person per day in support fees (camp followers and food they could not forage for). So lets say on average, the army needs to spend 4sp per day per person. That would be an average, lets just kick it up to 5sp a day, agian just for S&G's. Half the troops most likely would be rabble (4sp), a quarter highly train (5sp) and the last quarter Mercenaries (5sp). Also the extra .5sp on average per person would go to pay for the Calvary (7sp) and Leaders (9sp) So, for the cost of a 5th lvl mage (greatly discounted mind you), an Army could field an army of about 2,000 men(that is above and beyond what he would already have with or without the Mage). p.s. You could also adjust the charge rate based on how much gold a crafting mage could make (about 500gp max) but that does not take into account spell level, but even so, that still leaves 1,000 men p.p.s I am specificly ignoring equipment cost, to be honest that is normally not a cost incured at the time troops are levied, they are made and maintained year around.
Temrek 07-06-05, 09:32 PM	The D&D wars I have played in both sides had troops specifacally trained to take out wizards. Light cavalry that could cover a wizards range in 2 rounds and rode in lose formation to minimize casulties. Spellcasters hiding in the middle of troops to suddenly pop flaming death at the enemy spellcasters etc... Artillery that kept spellcasters afraid due to constant bombardment and they are bound to get a natural 20 sometime... Also troops generally moved in lose formations until they got near an enemy in which case they moved into a tight one and they where usually trained to do this very quickly as well as they where trained to not run away just becouse their best friend was burned to a crisp. Also snipers with just a few magic arrows was not ultra rare either. They was laying in hiding just waiting for opperunity to kill a spellcaster.
Derren S. 07-07-05, 03:44 AM	I am glad you thing so, does not make it so, but I am glad you think so. The frontline in a battle rarely starts out in a straight line much less stays that way. Two cinematic movies that show it well (keep in mind we are talking movies) would be Braveheart and Gladiator. Once the melee starts, ranged attacks are suppressed until their side is loosing (except when immune to the attack or with Cannon Fodder, then the ranged combat usually continues). At long range (keep in mind, when I am taking long range I am talking about the spell range category) the ability of the mage to discern friend from enemy is usually very limited (unless they are dramatically different body types) also limiting his ability to us mass damage spells. As I said before, following historical combats, mass damage spells would be used well before either side had engaged. 1. I never said the frontline has to be a straight line. 2. Yes, fireball blasting will happen before the forces clash. Where have I said that it doesn't. 3. You know that there are other spells than fireball for close combat situations? And with uniforms, discerning friend and foe at long range is not a problem That is assuming a lot considering most historical battles lasted hours, not minutes. I would suspect that any Mage worth his weight would not make such an assumption. Ah, and because the battle lasts hours the frontline changes so rapidly that the mages can't find a position where they can bombard the enemy for 3-4 rounds.... Once again, I am glad you let me know it was impossible. No, wait a minute, its not. If you were talking one on one over a large battlefield, then I would be inclined to agree with you, but my understanding was that was not the discussion. NOW, if you assume that ALL mages are going to stay as far away from combat as possible, then of course neither side would get a chance to protect their troops. Nevertheless, just because you believe that is the correct course of action (to stay as far away as possible) does not make it so. I have played in multiple campaign with different player who play a wide variety of mage types, to assume that ALL mages would stay at long range is stretching credibility to the extreme. If you are ok with that… Post how. Its amazing that people always talk about mages protecting the troops but then fail to give examples how it is done. I know you do not, but you can count the number of long range combat spells on one hand (I assume we are still not discussing 20th lvl spell casters). If you do not see how that reduces the effectiveness of a Mage in a Mass battle, then you should take another look. Um, yes. 1st level:None 2nd level: Acid arrow, 3rd level: Fireball Oh what surprise. There are enough long range spells to be devastating. Ultimately, I see a few flaws in your logic. 1. “Battles will last Rounds, not hours”. Clearly History has taught us otherwise, even adding in the Fantastic element of D&D will clearly not change that more then a factor of ½ or ¼. 2. “ALL mages will stay at Long Range, because they loose no effectiveness by doing so.” That is assuming that all mages will be used as Artillery, which is an oversimplification to the extreme. It is much more likely that groups of mages would be working everything from Long Range Artillery to short ranged direct support and even bands intended just for counter spelling. 1. Where have I said that. Long battles = good for the wizards because they have more time to find a good position and to kill the enemy 2. Give examples why. 3. The thread is about area spells in battle. Discussing mages in support roles would be a bit off topic. Stop throwing general statements around. Either provide an example or don't post. I could also simply say "Mages kill everyone on the field" and the discussion would be over.
Vanigo 07-07-05, 03:52 AM	Fireball has a 20ft radius spread, this means it can move 20ft from the centre of the explosion. A Widened Fireball has a 40ft spread but it's in a 6th level slot. FFFFCFFF TTTTTTF F = Fireball T = Tower Shield User C = Centre of Fireball If you hit directly, it will have to go around a wall of shields before it can try to creep in, no matter how you angle it - it will have difficulty creeping in, if it can do it at all with only a 20ft radius.That would be true if your troops were using infinitely tall tower shields. Or even 20' tower shields. But it's safe to say that they are not. Let me draw a profile view for you. Here's your guy with a shield. There's another guy with a shield to his left and to his right. s 0 s--| s | s / \ s | | Now the fireball hits. At first, he's okay: FFs 0 FFFs--| FFCs | FFFs / \ FFs | | But then the fireball wraps around the top of his shield! FFFFF FFFFFF FFFsF 0 FFFs--| FFCs | FFFs / \ FFFs | | And then he gets engulfed. FFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFF FFFsFF0FFFFF FFFs--|FFFF FFCsFF|FFF FFFsF/F\F FFFsF| | It takes one Sorc to dehibilitate your entire army with lower level spellsOkay, this I have to hear. How exactly is this sorcerer going to debilitate an entire army? Keep in mind that basically every debuff in the game is restricted to affecting no more than one target per level.
Nyferto 07-07-05, 07:34 AM	Have I said that it is undefeatable? No, but in order to defeat it you need much more ressources than what the wizards use. Wind Wall cripple offensice capability? Try to read spell descriptions. And when enemy flyers can fly unmoldtered above your wizards you are doing somethign wrong anyway. It doesn't cripple it, it just pins you down. I see. You are unable to think in 3 dimensions. When the they block like you showed on the picture the wizard simply shoots the fireball above the soldiers where they are not protected. When they are 5 ft. apart it is even better because he can let the detonate the fireball between them. You shoot first - they block, not matter how you aim - you're going to miss, no matter how you set-it up - it's going to fail. If you aim in the front, only the ones at the front need to block, if you aim above - they all go above and no volley will hit anyway. Alternatively, you could've moved around invisbily and cast sleep/grease. To mess up the landscape or solid fog or any number of spells that would've automatically inhibited their ability to function. AoE spells are a poor choice. Also you always use readied actions. That means that your troops can't move fast and can't fight. That means they are rather useless and will be killed easily by archers. No, they're protected from Archers and your archers aren't protected by anything - so who cares anyway? Yes, when they get charged they will realy like the formation as the enemy can penetrate deep within it as they are spread out so much that they can't resist a charge anymore without the formation breaking completly. The charge will also do less damage because they can't target a large group, formations work against formations, once formations are loose or receptive to charges - formations just get you flanked inside the melee. See above. When you constantly use ready actions your army is doomed. It's not too hard to march in and avoid damage, which means they've lost less troops? Please clue up on the tactic. Round 1. Wizards cast fireball, Soldiers have used a readied action and block the fireball. Round 2. Wizards ignore soldiers and archers pick off the unprotected enemy who, instead of moving fast or protect them with the shields from the arrows, wait till the wizard casts a spell at them. Round 3. Either see round 2, or the enemy now protects himself with the shields from the archers. Wizard then fireballs them where they are not protected and everyone dies. Round1. You and your army get hit by everything else in the opposing army and die because you wasted your spells on one unit coming from one direction. Round2. Your army wishes you'd done something useful. He does this normally. Creatures don't block LoE he can shoot past them just fine. And when he is in a real bad spot, he simply levitates up (Or just stands on a Tensers Disk) Depends how large your units are. A good placed fireball can kill 20 people easily. And because of logistic armies rarely have more than a couple of theousand man in total. And when those four wizards kill 100-200 in the whole combat it is very good. Creatures do block fireballs though, if you want to fireball past people - you have to move the bead past them all - every single one including your own troops, in a direct line from you to the origin of the blast with nothing but a ranged touch attack and a bunch of people who don't know it's coming. Stand on a tensers disk and you've got no mobility, leviate and you're using more spells for one unit. It's not really a good option for low level casters. I'm still waiting. Show me a formation where you are protected from all sides from a fireball. You only have to protect one side from the spread, the Fireball can only effect two sides maximum if you aim at a corner, if you aim at a corner - your damage potential is minimal. Fireball has to expend it's 20ft of movement to get around total cover, that's 3 squares minimum out of 4. It won't always be perfect, but depending on your aim and where you target the spell, it's not that hard. Please remember, whilst your doing this the rest of the army is engaging, this is just one lot of stanard issue soldiers you're having trouble defeating. If they do this ignore them as they can't hit you through the wind wall and let them waste arrows and continue fireballing Who says they're wasting arrows? Who said they continued. What's your condition for casting windwall? Cause it's easy to feign from anyone with a target and a bow. In the mean time - you've pinned yourself down. I said 5 wizards after someone made the suggestion to protect whole troups of wizards through a single wall. If you would read my posts you would know this. And again, to attack the wizards you have to reach them first which is the hard part. Then the enemy has to face the bodyguard (Lets say 5-10 soldiers) After that they can attack the wizards if they can find them because as soon the enemy advanced and engaged their guard, they casted invisibility. Body guard? So now you're fireballing past them too? Now you've dimished your troops so you don't get killed by a hard hitting strike force? Now you need Bodyguards or you're toast? I'd hate to see these 5-10 body guards go down in a fireball. You can buy uninetlligent mounts at extreme prices. That was it. You can't buy a monster who can attack effectivly only mounts. And? Thats why the rest of the army is there for. I think you'll find Elephants and Hipogriffs attack you quite well, and they're quite cheap and free if you breed them. An Army doesn't have to buy them, it can just have them in stock - an army isn't adventurers buying stuff. As for the rest of the army - you are part of the army - if you're useless in that scenario - then I don't see why you're going on about how great they are. You don't control how the rest of the army plays out, and it only takes one to kick you in and leave the troops to their job. Nope. A metropolis isn't something you find in an average country. Kingdom, including allies, you only need one and it's people - in any standard fantasy world there will be tons of heroes and villians to take part and lend weight to an army, just because a majority of the world will be commoners, doesn't mean they will compose the main weight of an army. 1. Post tactics to defeat Wind Wall and Invisibility. Your "Stand ten feet in front of the wall and fire a volley 80 degree up" is a rather stupid plan. 2. Post how. And don't leave out the part how you get past the frontline or the bodyguards. 3. When only one unit gets damaged at the time and the attacks don't kill the troops outright like a fireball would. 4. Read the spell. Fascinating doesn't work in combat. 5. Because the paladin is invincible and can simply ride past the frontline, the bodyguard and is also not harmed by the wizards who try to stop him with spells. And of course he can see invisible wizards too. :rolleyes: 6. Except when he meets a equal leveled babarian/fighter, is grappled, disarmed, tripped or just hacked into pieces by 6 soldiers or magic missiled to death. 7. If I would know what that word means I would respond. 8. Going past all the guard and traps, right. 9. You mean, to get attaked by some squirels, a wolf and have some small spells casted against you. 1. You get fireballed yourself, mounts charge through and rip you to shreds, catapults hit you and crush you. Someone dispells the windwall and you get pincusioned, skirmishers take out their javalins and rip the area. You get picked off, you never got a chance to cast the spells in the first place, you got killed in your sleep, you get stomped on by an elephant, your spells expire after the enemy take a routed defensive position, you get overwhelemd by thousands of troops who had better magical tactics than you. 2. It's fairly easy, you kill them. 3. That's an assumption, and after/during the battle he can keep people healthy so they move on and kill you - you're not alone - but neither are they. 4. Then obviously the bard doesn't engage you with facinate in combat, he just facinates you before you know what's happening. 5. If you're fireballing - you're not invisible, if he helps out kill troops and heal - then he's supporting units. By 5th level he has a special mount with improved evasion and great saves, get a clue. 6. If he meets an equal level, stop assuming you have exactly the same forces and they're all using the same tactics. A Barbarian or Fighter is going to thin enemy ranks no matter what, and after that he can come right through and kill you. 7. It means to impair ability. The thing you should be doing, but he can do it better dispite an inability to cast the same extent of spells. 8. What guards? He's a rogue, he sneaks around, that much should be obvious, Rogues are typically quite good at stealth, and they can do a lot more besides, in combat they have plenty of oppotunities to use traps and sneak attack, and they've got evasion - which might just be your undoing. 9. Or Wildshape into a Cheetah, charge 500ft and kill you, turn into a flying mount, her animal companion can have evasion and serve as a mount in some situations, she has plenty of forms of attack, can summon a bunch of potent animals, cast sleet storm, call lightning (beats fireball for warfare easily), flamming spheare, obscuring mist and god knows what else with their anti-metal/stone spells. Finally someone who reads spell descriptions, or at least other peopls posts. Yes, the wall doesn't block spells. But consider which ressources you are currently using. A ring of invisibility and a wand of lightnign bolt/fireball are not cheap. And the rogue has to be rather high level to activate the wand. That are a lot of ressources to take out some lvl 5/6 wizards. And after the first shot the remaining wizards go invisible and the bodyguard attack. And when one of those wizards is as high level than the rogue, he has some trouble. That rogue will do far more than you will. Wizards burn out and die in the middle of combat unless they're stacked up on these items - even then they're limited by what they can achieve in a round and preperation based casting. You haven't even considered what you'd do when you run out of spells. There are far more deadly things than a Wizard with a few AOE spells in War.
Nyferto 07-07-05, 08:02 AM	Fireball doesn't work like that, it has to move around total cover and it has to do it with normal squares of movement, it only has 20ft which means it will spend a majority of it's movement trying to get round. It won't burst through unless it does enough damage to the shield in the first place, otherwise it and everything else will move around the shield. It will kill nowhere near as many people as you're making out, and that's at best - it still won't hamper anyone else who's an imeadiate threat. Okay, this I have to hear. How exactly is this sorcerer going to debilitate an entire army? Keep in mind that basically every debuff in the game is restricted to affecting no more than one target per level. When stratigically used, a caster can dehibilitate the movements of armies fairly easily. A Sorc does it better because he can sponateously cast and cast more times each day. There's the basic stuff, like Detect Magic/Poison and Dacning Lights/Light Grease can cause havoc with unsuspecting troops and it doesn't break invisiblity like fireball does. As can Sleep when used on minor troops and sparingly. None of these spells need much from caster level either. Illusion spells can cause distractions, disguise self can play havoc with a good bluff skill. Cause fear can do the same as sleep and Chill touch can be delivered through a familiar to choice targets - Ray of Enfeeblement can cripple a strong unit and doesn't need much to function. Enlarge person can make sudden threats out of people. Web can hamper units and can be cast without setting off invisibility. Fog Cloud can impare archers and soldiers and anything else, and again - doesn't kick off invisiblity. Flaming Sphere can do more overall than Fireball to a tight unit.Darkness is an obvious choice for blinding people. Ghoul touch is another familiar choice. Hypnotic Pattern can be used on unexpecting units (Hypnotism could be worse). Alter Self can cause any number of disruptions and benefits. Sleet Storm can hamper movements even more and lasts in an area, great for ambushes, it also lasts longer than fireball. Sticking Cloud can have a more lasting effect and has different saving throw needs. Deep Slumber will trump sleep. Tiny Hut is crazy and useful. Windwall can be quite useful, but personally i'd cast it around the archers themselves. Flame Arrow can equip an army with some enhanced firepower. Slow and Haste can work wonders on the right units (typically mounted ones). That's just the 0-3 level spells and the core ones. Personally i'd rather keep Resonating Bolt (CArc) around than fireball because it has more practical uses in War. DD AOE is only one inefficient tactic that commonly needs to be recast.
Nyferto 07-07-05, 08:14 AM	I give up. You are just too dumb to understand what I post. I have already adressed everything you came up with in your post, some things multiple times. Actually you addressed it with invalid opinion and constant scenario disregard and changes. Learn the rules (Especially the rules about tower shileds and readied actions), read the spell descriptions, lern how different long range (fireball, Acid Arrow) and medium range (dispell, call lightning) are, learn some basic tactics. It's fairly simple, you ready an action to set the sheild, it occurs before the even that triggers it (a fireball) and provides total cover. This assumes you can even get the fireball to it's destination in the first place -something you persistantly missed. The range is less meaningful when you can't identify a target - nore is it automatic that you will be able to engage at optimal range, nore is your position going to be where they engage you. You don't dictate the terms of war - you just handle it when it gets to you. You don't dicate what's going to get to you, it just happens. Basic tactics like dispersement (not running away as you seem to think) is very basic, it can be done by anyone. You have such a fuzzy scenario in your mind, it's impossible to say what will happen until it does - but anyway it does happen - it will be easy to handle because DD AOE are massively inefficient for a Wizard. Other classes do it better, but even then it's a tactical nightmare to try and spread your resources in a war setting. It's better to have spells that will have a deffinate effect or stick somewhere you can perform a dedicated role. There are far better things for a Wizard to be doing than trying to blow stuff up all the time. Warmages and Sorcs can do it with their range of offensive spells, but Wizards just run out of effective actions.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 08:19 AM	You shoot first - they block, not matter how you aim - you're going to miss, no matter how you set-it up - it's going to fail. If you aim in the front, only the ones at the front need to block, if you aim above - they all go above and no volley will hit anyway. Alternatively, you could've moved around invisbily and cast sleep/grease. To mess up the landscape or solid fog or any number of spells that would've automatically inhibited their ability to function. AoE spells are a poor choice. 1. You can ready only against actions. So you could ready against "if he casts an Fireball i will protect myself". So it would be your turn as he casts an Fireball and your soldiers actually recognize it as an Fireball. So they would need Spellcraft. But even if they would recognize it as an Fireball. Where does it detonate? They just dont know. So they cant prepare themselves against it. 2. What about detonating the Fireball 5 ft above and 5 ft in front of them. What direction will the protect themselves against? X MMMM X = Origin of the Spell M = Men No matter which direction they choose to protect themselves from - above or front. They will be fully affected by the Fireball. No, they're protected from Archers and your archers aren't protected by anything - so who cares anyway? Ok they ready against the mage. How the heck are they now protected from your Archers? They arent at all. And since they ready an action they advance at a speed of 20 ft per round (they have only a single move action left). So until they finally arrive at the frontline the archers will have shot every single soldier. It's not too hard to march in and avoid damage, which means they've lost less troops? Please clue up on the tactic. You lose less by the mage but even more by the archers. Fair trade. But helps nothing. So you tell us: A mage is overpowered in mass combat with his AoE spells. If you dont protect yourself against him youre doomed. If you protect against him your are so weak against everything else, that you will also lose. Body guard? So now you're fireballing past them too? Now you've dimished your troops so you don't get killed by a hard hitting strike force? Now you need Bodyguards or you're toast? I'd hate to see these 5-10 body guards go down in a fireball. I thought in your D&D rulebook you could actually perfectly defend yourself against Fireballs with Towershields. I think you'll find Elephants and Hipogriffs attack you quite well, and they're quite cheap and free if you breed them. An Army doesn't have to buy them, it can just have them in stock - an army isn't adventurers buying stuff. Yeah. Thats why Full Plates are for free. Because they make them by themselves. And yeah ... i guess ... everything is free for an army!!! So why doesnt every army in D&D consist only of highly deadly monsters. No 1st level commoners needed anymore. Kingdom, including allies, you only need one and it's people - in any standard fantasy world there will be tons of heroes and villians to take part and lend weight to an army, just because a majority of the world will be commoners, doesn't mean they will compose the main weight of an army. Oh right. Every Kingdom has allies that give them their army for free. And Heroes and Villains (especially the villains) will have something better to do than fight with an regular army against someone. Most Heroes actually dont even care about your fighting. The armies are mostly made from 1st level warriors.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 08:20 AM	The range is less meaningful when you can't identify a target - nore is it automatic that you will be able to engage at optimal range, nore is your position going to be where they engage you. You don't dictate the terms of war - you just handle it when it gets to you. You don't dicate what's going to get to you, it just happens. We have adressed this before. ITS AN ARMY!! WITH UNIFORMS AND BANNERS!!! Those were used in armies ONLY (Banners) to enable other peeps to identify them at great distances.
Derren S. 07-07-05, 08:31 AM	Grease: Range close, duration 1round/level Sleep: Medium range duration 1 min/level, a maximum of 4 soldiers affected which aren't killed Cause fear: range close, duration 1w4 rounds, single target spell Chill Touch: Two saves are required, familliar are put at a huge risk Ray of enfeeblement: close range, single targeted Web: Actually a good spell you posted. Fog cloud: hampers your own troops too Flaming Sphere: Reflex negates, medium range, caster have to concentrate, stops when creature is touched. Darkness: gives only 20% miss chance, hampers your own troops too. Ghoul Touch, fortitude negates, single targeted, touch, doesn't kill Hypnotic Pattern: Doesn't work in combat, will negates, victims can be awoken by allies. Hypnotism: close range, doesn't hinde rthe enemies, stop fighting in a big battle is no reasonable suggestion. Sleet Storm: Good spell Stinking cloud: medium range, only hinders targets for 1d4+1 rounds, then they are normal again Deep slumber, see sleep. Targets only temporary out of action, less area then a fireball Tiny Hut: 20 ft range, cannot be used as cover for your own archers as they can't shoot out Flame arrow: Same effect can be achieved by igniting specially prepared arrows Slow: close range, will negates, 1 round/level duration Haste: Close range, 1 round/level duration So, your paladins can easily break through the frontline and charge the wizards 400 ft. away, but your wizards are completly save to cast close range spells at enemies? And 1 round/level is not very long. And when you think a spell which might put up to 10 soldiers for some minutes to sleep (failed save) with a 10 ft burst radius (Deep Slumber) is better than a spell which kills all soldiers in a 20 ft radius spread even with a failed save then you really don't understand tactics. Casting wind wall in front of your own archers? Lol. How are they now shooting at enemies? Or is your wizards standing in medium range of the enemy archers (who are behind the enemies front line troops) and cast it at them with the effect that they have to spend one round moving to get away from the wall? [Edit] I see what is wrong. The tower shield was clarified in the FAQ. It doesn't provide total cover from all directions anymore. You have to set it into a specific direction and are only protected from that direction like in 3.0. When you ready an action you have to specify in which direction your block. And no matter in which direction you block, the other direction where the wizard or archers can aim at will be open. Also for as long as the readied action isn't triggered (You must specify the trigger) the soldiers have not yet set the shield and are unprotected from archers.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 09:10 AM	Yep. Thats the point. One direction wont help at all. See my earlier post.
SdEoXgY 07-07-05, 11:59 AM	To Derren S. (spelled it right this time) I am done with this comical farce (see how I refrain from calling anyone Dumb, I would recommend that if you want anyone to listen to your arguments, you do the same). You are clearly passionate about your views. I respect that, in the same way that I respect suicide bombers for their very passionate views. It is clear to me that your passion for your views clouds your judgment. If I thought for one sec you were willing to listen to reason and change your views (even one) I might be interested in continuing. Clearly, you are not. It was interesting, logically flawed on many levels, but very interesting.
Derren S. 07-07-05, 12:03 PM	To Derren S. (spelled it right this time) I am done with this comical farce (see how I refrain from calling anyone Dumb, I would recommend that if you want anyone to listen to your arguments, you do the same). You are clearly passionate about your views. I respect that, in the same way that I respect suicide bombers for their very passionate views. It is clear to me that your passion for your views clouds your judgment. If I thought for one sec you were willing to listen to reason and change your views (even one) I might be interested in continuing. Clearly, you are not. It was interesting, logically flawed on many levels, but very interesting. When you want to use this as an excuse that you can't back up your claims, fine. I am perfectly willing to listen as long as the things I listen to are more than generalized statements without any proof or backup. My arguments are logicall flawd? Post why. Wizards are better used to protect the own troops? Post how they should do this and why it is better. Long range fighting is ineffective for wizards? Post why. They have enough effective long range spells.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 12:03 PM	It is clear to me that your passion for your views clouds your judgment. If I thought for one sec you were willing to listen to reason and change your views (even one) I might be interested in continuing. Clearly, you are not. It was interesting, logically flawed on many levels, but very interesting. Haven't seen you doin' this here. Have even bothered to read my posts? I doubt it.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 12:05 PM	When you want to use this as an excuse that you can't back up your claims, fine. I am perfectly willing to listen as long as the things I listen to are more than generalized statements without any proof or backup. My arguments are logicall flawd? Post why. Wizards are better used to protect the own troops? Post how they should do this and why it is better. My speaking. You havent brought only 1 valid point that is actually supported by the rules. And you always tell us "If there is one thing the mage is useless", but you hesitate to tell us what the thing is you speak about.
Nyferto 07-07-05, 12:51 PM	There is no such limitation to readying against actions. You set the conditions for the readied action to take place and it occurs before the action that triggered it. This means - before the fireball explodes - you set your tower shield. Whatever the direction it came from - it will be seriously reduced in effectiveness. This is where the lack of scenario on your part lets you down. So far you've imposed practically everything that gives you the upper hand. So far we're all in the same easily identified uniform (luminous pink vs luminous blue), with large banners that are also easily identified and we always have them up (magically glow in the dark super banners that actually tell people what we are). We've lost initiative, the formations are decided, the terrain is flat, the supporting armies are all in one unit of 50 odd troops with archers behind them, etc. This is why people jump to conclusions, they take one pitiful example and think it's the basis for everything else in the universe. As for protection through Tower shields, it's simple if you have enough lines from the origin of the spell. It will have to wrap round it. No matter what tactic you use, you can reduce the effect of all AOE spells. It is nowhere near as devestating as you make out. Sure if you have optimal conditions it will kill many people, but then again - who's giving them too you? You can't shoot directly at people if your armies in the way, that means no body guards, no front line - it's Wizard on the front line. Another fallacy from refraining from having a defined scenario. You're shooting yourself down by ignoring other arguements you make youselves. An Army doesn't shoot directly and pick targets, it makes an area attack with a concentrated volley of arrows. These are fairly easy to negate as they must come from above. If your fireballs come from the same direction (then there's only one way you need to point your shields - up. At the same time, there's no account for what the rest of the army. You constantly miss the time constraints your putting yourself into whilst you focus on anything from a poxy unit to a bigger threat. I thought in your D&D rulebook you could actually perfectly defend yourself against Fireballs with Towershields. If he was, then it'd be hard to fireball past them, he'd have to angle his fireball above the party, and he'd have to position his bodyguards in such a way that he could reach them from an angle - this is only good for the people with the Towersheilds, who only have to aim upwards. Do you know what a War Scenario is? It's when the campaign setting is in a War Scenario. That means most people are somehow involved in a war. Even if you're just joining one - who the hell do you think is going to be joining them? By admiting you as a Wizard can exist in a war, you admit that everything else could be in a war. At which point you're screwed. In a low magic campaign - you might be right, then again you might be screwed yourself anyway. Armies produce their own equipment, of course it costs, but they don't have to think about buying it if things are diverted to their existance. If an Army has a hippogriff farm, they don't have to pay to get Hippogriffs - just the expense of raising them for war purposes. Grease: Range close, duration 1round/level Sleep: Medium range duration 1 min/level, a maximum of 4 soldiers affected which aren't killed Cause fear: range close, duration 1w4 rounds, single target spell Chill Touch: Two saves are required, familliar are put at a huge risk Ray of enfeeblement: close range, single targeted Web: Actually a good spell you posted. Fog cloud: hampers your own troops too Flaming Sphere: Reflex negates, medium range, caster have to concentrate, stops when creature is touched. Darkness: gives only 20% miss chance, hampers your own troops too. Ghoul Touch, fortitude negates, single targeted, touch, doesn't kill Hypnotic Pattern: Doesn't work in combat, will negates, victims can be awoken by allies. Hypnotism: close range, doesn't hinde rthe enemies, stop fighting in a big battle is no reasonable suggestion. Sleet Storm: Good spell Stinking cloud: medium range, only hinders targets for 1d4+1 rounds, then they are normal again Deep slumber, see sleep. Targets only temporary out of action, less area then a fireball Tiny Hut: 20 ft range, cannot be used as cover for your own archers as they can't shoot out Flame arrow: Same effect can be achieved by igniting specially prepared arrows Slow: close range, will negates, 1 round/level duration Haste: Close range, 1 round/level duration The only real chance a Wizard or anyone has in war is with a unit with plenty of other potential casualties, to stand alone makes you a target - no-one does this, not even the high powered Wizards. If you're with a group or part of an advanced unit (as a party in a war campaign might be), then you're advanced tactics can be applied in the middle of a battle or outside in mini-adventures. At which point you don't need to worry so much about range because you're already in the thick of things. By declaring an imobile defence as your best chance - you've already damned yourself to stand alone in one place - you can't move with a unit and support it as necessary. If you did protect yourself with protection from arrows or blink or invisbility or whatever, then you could easily support your own troops with more direct effects. Combine that with the ability to undermine enemy resources before a battle has even begun and you can wreck havoc. Not all Wars are one by people killing each other in large scale battles. Seriously, as for your other ideas, you need to clue up on what the spells really do, you don't cast AOE spells where they'll effect your troops, you cast them when they'll give the enemy a disadvantage you can use. Why are you even going on about saving throws when apparently they're all 1st level commoners vs at least a 5th level Wizard/Sorc. Temporarily disabled is quite significant in the middle of a raging battle, with 1st level commoners and seriously, who's going to change their focus onto the weasal familiar? It's not like they can tell he's about to paralyse and nausiate them/give them a killing chill touch. Duration spells that give effects with a duration are typically more useful when tactically used then a one shot AoE spell that might fall over and requires specific set-ups to use.
Alienfreak 07-07-05, 04:13 PM	There is no such limitation to readying against actions. You set the conditions for the readied action to take place and it occurs before the action that triggered it. This means - before the fireball explodes - you set your tower shield. Whatever the direction it came from - it will be seriously reduced in effectiveness. So they are still unprotected against arrows? Great :) You lose 5ft of spread. If you lose spread at all. There is no chance the Warriors can protect themselves. Even if your DM would allow you such an Readied Action. And you assume that the Wizard ist standing perfectly in front of them. If hes just a little noncentered, but left or right of them he can even plant an Fireball in the middle of them. The Problem with your readied action: A possible wording could be "If the fireball explodes i will turn my shield towards that direction" Helps great if the Wizard places his fireball in front of the troops. But steals only 5ft of spread. But also Note: this can only be the command for the Soldiers standing outside of it. The people in the center have to ready: "If the fireball explodes i will use my shield as an cover from above" So the protect themselves against it spreading just over the First Line of Defense. But if he places the Fireball like that (birds view) MMMMMM MMXMMM MMMMMM As the Fireball hits the Soldier in the middle all turn their shields towards their top and the Fireball just kills all from within. If you trigger it "As the Wizard casts his fireball i will use my shield for cover against that spell" You first need to realize he casts a fireball -> Spellcraft And second ... you just dont know where he will place it! You know he casts it , but you cant know where he will finally place it. If you have any suggestions how you could word a better readied action, feel free to inform me.
Vanigo 07-07-05, 06:26 PM	Fireball doesn't work like that, it has to move around total cover and it has to do it with normal squares of movement, it only has 20ft which means it will spend a majority of it's movement trying to get round. It won't burst through unless it does enough damage to the shield in the first place, otherwise it and everything else will move around the shield. It will kill nowhere near as many people as you're making out, and that's at best - it still won't hamper anyone else who's an imeadiate threat.So, your contention is that a fireball cannot wrap around a vertical obstacle, and may only wrap around sides? May I ask what's keeping it from doing so? Last time I checked, a spread spell spread out in all directions, and up and down are directions. To quote the PHB: A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns teh spell effect takes.
redraven 07-07-05, 06:46 PM	A few things here. 1. Wizards are rare on the battlefield. It says so right in the DMG, page 133. So, even in a high-magic setting, there won't be hundreds (or even a handful) of wizards running around blasting armies. 2. Wizards are not as cost-effective as you would think. If we go by the NPC Spellcasting guidelines, a 5th-level wizard is going to have to cast Wind Wall (100 gp) for protection, Levitate (100 gp) to get to a vantage point above his/her own troops to aim, and then cast a Fireball (150 gp). Assuming a 25-man squad of mercenaries with Tower Shields at the ready, this wizard can kill about 9 of them at best (assuming they all fail their saves) by targeting it here: PXXXX XAAAAA This is because you can include a 5-foot step in any readied action, thus allowing this 25-man squad to move 5 feet closer to the point of origin and then claim total cover from the top. It took 4 gp per day to field 9 mercenaries (assuming hazard pay), and cost 270 gp to give them Tower Shields. So, from a strictly economical sense, it's 350 gp versus 270 gp. In order to break even, the wizard will have to kill a total of 11 mercenaries and be sure that their Tower Shields are destroyed (which take no damage as attended objects, I'll remind you). Alternatively, as suggested in CW, the formations can simply ready an action to disperse. Indeed, it will get exceedingly difficult to kill a large number of even basic conscripts if they all ready a move action avoid where the Fireball will detonate. On their next turns, they can simply ready another action to disperse while they use their regular move action to regroup. 3. Towards the "well the archers will kill them," comment. Well, they are still carrying around Tower Shields which give a +4 Shield bonus and/or a +2 Reflex save bonus versus volleys (the CW volleys anyway) if used as cover assuming the arrows hit at all. Moreover, if the soldiers are doing the total cover from above thing, the only people vulnerable to the arrows are the front line, assuming the archers can fire at them past their own comrades. 4. All it takes is for the enemy wizard to walk forward 30 feet or so and Fireball the opposing wizard for this entire scenario to collapse. I am assuming an "equal" situation like this (profile-view): WBAA MMMMM . . . . . [~375 ft~] . . . . . MMMMM AABW Where W is wizard, B is bodyguards, and M are men. Seriously though, what wizard wouldn't make taking out the opposing wizard their #1 priority? After all, they have little to fear from anything else on the battlefield for the most part. 5. Someone mentioned Tower Shields having been clarified in an FAQ or errata. May I ask where? I have looked at both and neither contradicts the SRD ruling that simply state that Tower Shields grant total cover. Also, rules for how exactly a Fireball's spread goes around a Tower Shield (i.e. can it do so diagonally?) would also be helpful.
Rulebook 07-07-05, 07:23 PM	wow... nobody knows ANYTHING about big warfare. 1st: the wizards would be all but inneffective. why? no army can move without being seen. likely DAYS in advance, the opposeing army knows exactly how many, and of what knids of units your army is composed of. 2nd: a longbow shoots farther than a fireball. why am i going to charge an army I KNOW has a few decent level wizards, when i can just stand still and let the wizards come to MY range? 3rd: instead of wasting my time on a 7th level wizard, i pick up a bunch of 1st level elven wizards (easily acquired through leadership). the wind wall trick dosent work when YOU have to close the gap to get into fireball range. this means you're in perfect range for a mass ofTrue Striked Arrows, for multiple hits. 4th: while you're transporting your army, my assassins are going to be going after your wizards. a wizard in transport is a much easier target than one who's set up for a battle. true, you're doing this as well (if you're smart that is) but it still dosent change the fact that Wizards just arent as useful as you'd think. they dont get used as much as you'd think for these very reasons. they're easy targets, that have to be well within arrow range to do thier dirty work. your high level wizards are better served by making items for your lower level wizards to use. one 10th level wizard isnt nearly as useful as 20 1st level ones, especially when he gives them scrolls of fireball/lightning bolt/etc and maybe a wand of magic missle each. the only time you ever bring in a Big Wizard type is if you really -need- him. (to fight air support is the biggest reason i can think of)
tiercel 07-07-05, 08:05 PM	1st: the wizards would be all but inneffective. why? no army can move without being seen. likely DAYS in advance, the opposeing army knows exactly how many, and of what knids of units your army is composed of. This isn't exactly true. While getting a 17th level wizard to join up is going to be rare, if we are talking about mobilize-the-entire-kingdom warfare, it shouldn't be impossible to find one such wizard. You only need one. Teleportation circle lasts 10 min/level. It is a 5' radius circle. If you send a file of troops into it, 2 at a time, hustling (let's assume this means 40'/round, since at least some troops will be wearing medium/heavy armor), thats 16 troops per round, 1600 per 10 minutes. In an hour's time you can have an army of 9600 anywhere in the world you could greater teleport to. A screen spell at the far end (or, if you are paranoid, both ends) would make it nigh-impossible to find out exactly what is going on, during the transit process. Leaving aside this issue, though, while it shouldn't be hard to just find out that an enemy army is marching, or even a rough count of numbers, it shouldn't be that easy to get an exact bead on the composition. An army that is marching without outriders has no intelligence about the terrain or possible enemy forces -- much less have a way to stop enemy scouts. If you have casters capable of directly scrying on the enemy units, then presumably they have casters capable of detect scrying. You might be able to get some info, but you will exposing yourself to risk as well. 2nd: a longbow shoots farther than a fireball. why am i going to charge an army I KNOW has a few decent level wizards, when i can just stand still and let the wizards come to MY range? Because the incoming wizards are invisible. Most archers won't be able to see invisible, period. Even those scouts who can see invisible will have fun Spotting incoming single figures from a range of 1000'+ (that's -100 to your Spot check)! I don't know if it's an actual rule, or a common houserule, that firing vertically upwards halves (or at least reduces) range increments... but it's a way for the wizards to work their advantage as well. A wizard 600' straight up could be effectively 1200' away for arrows.... and 600' is the minimum distance for caster-level-5 Long-range spells. 3rd: instead of wasting my time on a 7th level wizard, i pick up a bunch of 1st level elven wizards (easily acquired through leadership). the wind wall trick dosent work when YOU have to close the gap to get into fireball range. this means you're in perfect range for a mass ofTrue Striked Arrows, for multiple hits. Assuming you see the wizards coming (see above). Those had better be magic arrows you're handing out to your troops too, or a protection from arrows will foil this ploy. 4th: while you're transporting your army, my assassins are going to be going after your wizards. a wizard in transport is a much easier target than one who's set up for a battle.Oddly enough, my war wizards wouldn't be marching/floating/flying along in long, flowing robes embroidered with glowing silver runes. If nothing else, they'll have hats of disguise and look pretty much like, oh, noncomissioned officers. (That or I'll just mix them into my quartermasters and support personnel, and dress them accordingly.) If I have resources, there will be at least rod of enemy detection (if not a few) somewhere in my army, because I fully expect there to be enemy agents (spies, saboteurs, assassins) attempting to infiltrate-- heck, I'll be doing the same thing.
Vanigo 07-07-05, 08:23 PM	1st: the wizards would be all but inneffective. why? no army can move without being seen. likely DAYS in advance, the opposeing army knows exactly how many, and of what knids of units your army is composed of.In addition to what tiercel said, this goes completely out the window if you've got one wizard who's high enough level to cast teleport. Wizards appear on the battlefield, no marching with the army required. 2nd: a longbow shoots farther than a fireball. why am i going to charge an army I KNOW has a few decent level wizards, when i can just stand still and let the wizards come to MY range?Because you're not going to win very many battles by sitting back and waiting? That might work if you're on the defensive, but you won't be able to attack effectively with a strategy like that. 3rd: instead of wasting my time on a 7th level wizard, i pick up a bunch of 1st level elven wizards (easily acquired through leadership). the wind wall trick dosent work when YOU have to close the gap to get into fireball range. this means you're in perfect range for a mass ofTrue Striked Arrows, for multiple hits.Of course, at extreme range the -20 range penalty nicely cancels out the +20 bonus from true strike. Since a first level wizard isn't going to have much more than +3 to attack, the threat is minimal. 4th: while you're transporting your army, my assassins are going to be going after your wizards. a wizard in transport is a much easier target than one who's set up for a battle.Well, gosh, if you've got unstoppable assasins, wouldn't you be better off going for the enemy general? Or maybe assasins aren't all that reliable? your high level wizards are better served by making items for your lower level wizards to use. one 10th level wizard isnt nearly as useful as 20 1st level ones, especially when he gives them scrolls of fireball/lightning bolt/etc and maybe a wand of magic missle each.Now, that I can agree with to a certain extent. Low-level wizards with well-selected wands make an excellent substitute for high-level wizards on the battlefield. They're not as good, but they're also much cheaper to pay, much easier to find, and way more expendable.
smrtgmp 07-07-05, 08:29 PM	3rd: instead of wasting my time on a 7th level wizard, i pick up a bunch of 1st level elven wizards (easily acquired through leadership). the wind wall trick dosent work when YOU have to close the gap to get into fireball range. this means you're in perfect range for a mass ofTrue Striked Arrows, for multiple hits.Truestike arrows wont be going through a wind wall any time soon. Wind Wall <snip> An invisible vertical curtain of wind appears. It is 2 feet thick and of considerable strength. It is a roaring blast sufficient to blow away any bird smaller than an eagle, or tear papers and similar materials from unsuspecting hands. (A Reflex save allows a creature to maintain its grasp on an object.) Tiny and Small flying creatures cannot pass through the barrier. Loose materials and cloth garments fly upward when caught in a wind wall. Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss, while any other normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance. (A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons are not affected.) Gases, most gaseous breath weapons, and creatures in gaseous form cannot pass through the wall (although it is no barrier to incorporeal creatures). While the wall must be vertical, you can shape it in any continuous path along the ground that you like. It is possible to create cylindrical or square wind walls to enclose specific points. Arcane Material Component: A tiny fan and a feather of exotic origin.Note the bolded text.
tiercel 07-07-05, 08:59 PM	Truestike arrows wont be going through a wind wall any time soon. To be fair, I think he was talking about launching true striked arrows at the wizard before the wizard got into fireball range, and thus had yet to set up the wind wall (which is a stationary effect). However, I've pointed out a number of potential problems with that tactic.
Saviorbob 07-07-05, 09:08 PM	You guys are forgetting Warlocks, a few of these nifty guys and some well placed feats you can make choped meat out of other mages, These guys can fly around Vitrolic Eldrictch Spearing through any mages Spell resistance they may have on them and don't forget their, The Dead Walk, Invocation making all the enimies and even allies killed into valuable Skeleton and Zombie Meat sheilds that rush forward no matter what making Wizards waste precious magic on them. Not to mention that a Warlock can use magic items like crazy (such as divine scrolls and wands and arcane scrolls and wands) so he could be doing fireballs of his own while healing Masses of his own men. These guys could just specialize in going about killing the wizards or holding up the front line by raising dead and using charm and darkness to take out some commaders is pretty usefull not to mention they can just Flee The Scene at will to get away quickly. A good feat to have for them is Dual wand wielder so they could fly around and use two fireballs at once or whatever combo that would work quite good.
Rulebook 07-08-05, 01:29 AM	okay, since we've escalated tactics into teleporting immedieately to the areas, high level wizards STILL are pointless. do you think only one side is gonna have em? so once teleporting comes into play, both sides teleport to the other and destroy each others army, OR one side teleports to the other to neutralize the high level mages and the commander. seriously here, it quickly becomes a Mutually Assured Distruction thing. once both sides have teleported and high level spell slain the wizards and commanders, all thats left are the low level grunts that were gonna duke it out in the first place. and nextly... you tell me that the likely one or two higher than 15th level wizards in your kingdom are in direct pay of the king and think they owe him something. a wizard of that high of a level would likely only come out of his research if his whole operation was at stake. What's more important to a wizard, having his king expand his territory by a few towns, or finding a no-exp cost version of Wish? most NPC wizards time will be consumed with things of a less trivial persuit than mortal war. low level wizards can more feasably be in the mix, but at about the same level groupings as the rest of the army (a lot of 1st levelers, fewer higher ones). this doesent apply to PC wizards, who gain power by leaps and bounds faster than anybody could ever hope to. and are unburdend by things like setting up contacts in the other planar courts, or researching brand new spells and such. (gaining 15 levels inside 3 years is completely possible and feasable to PC wizards, whereas it would likely take an NPC 30 or 40 years for the same) but im sure none of this matters to most of you, as high level wizards are tools to be used as needed, and can always and reliably be called upon.
Rulebook 07-08-05, 01:36 AM	oh, and hold on! (forgive the rant if you will) why even fight wars now? i mean its really the ARMY thats completely useless now. your neighbor king pisses you off, you call on your wizards. they teleport over, straight into his bedroom (either with or without accompony) kill him and leave his kingdom in chaos. in fact, lets have ALL the wizards do this at the SAME time! EVERYBODY WINS ALL THE WARS! are we starting to see why high level wizards dont get involved in wars? i mean, just a -little- glimpse?
Vanigo 07-08-05, 01:57 AM	okay, since we've escalated tactics into teleporting immedieately to the areas, high level wizards STILL are pointless. do you think only one side is gonna have em? so once teleporting comes into play, both sides teleport to the other and destroy each others army, OR one side teleports to the other to neutralize the high level mages and the commander. seriously here, it quickly becomes a Mutually Assured Distruction thing. once both sides have teleported and high level spell slain the wizards and commanders, all thats left are the low level grunts that were gonna duke it out in the first place. and nextly... you tell me that the likely one or two higher than 15th level wizards in your kingdom are in direct pay of the king and think they owe him something. a wizard of that high of a level would likely only come out of his research if his whole operation was at stake. What's more important to a wizard, having his king expand his territory by a few towns, or finding a no-exp cost version of Wish? most NPC wizards time will be consumed with things of a less trivial persuit than mortal war. low level wizards can more feasably be in the mix, but at about the same level groupings as the rest of the army (a lot of 1st levelers, fewer higher ones). this doesent apply to PC wizards, who gain power by leaps and bounds faster than anybody could ever hope to. and are unburdend by things like setting up contacts in the other planar courts, or researching brand new spells and such. (gaining 15 levels inside 3 years is completely possible and feasable to PC wizards, whereas it would likely take an NPC 30 or 40 years for the same) but im sure none of this matters to most of you, as high level wizards are tools to be used as needed, and can always and reliably be called upon. All right. First of all, I brought up teleport as a "not only that, but", not as a "well, that doesn't work because". You don't need teleport to make use of wizards, it just helps. Secondly, If I follow your argument right, it goes like this: Wizards are pointless in war. When you have wizards and your opponent has wizards, they'll kill each other and you'll be right back where you started. Therefore, you might as well not have wizards. ********. If battles with wizards went that way (and I'm not saying they necessarily do), it would be very, very important to not be the only guy without wizards. That's far from pointless. Plus, it'd be very uncommon for every wizard to be dead or fled at the end of the mageduel; you'd probably have one side with magical superiority, or at least one or two guys with a few spells left. How would they make use of this and how would the losing side respond? Thirdly, in a low-magic campaign you're not going to get any wizards on the battlefield. In a medium-magic campaign, though, it's not unreasonable for most nations to have a court mage or two who (in addition to his other duties) will fight with the army from time to time. Not often, but often enough that it's worth thinking about. In a high-magic campaign, it's not unlikely for armies to train spellcasters themselves, in which case you'll have spellcasters in every major battle and quite a few minor ones. Don't assume your campaign is representative of every game out there. Lastly, who said anything about 15+ wizards? We've been talking about wizards below tenth, for the most part. It only takes a 9th level wizard to cast teleport, you know.
Alienfreak 07-08-05, 06:36 AM	why even fight wars now? i mean its really the ARMY thats completely useless now. your neighbor king pisses you off, you call on your wizards. they teleport over, straight into his bedroom (either with or without accompony) kill him and leave his kingdom in chaos. in fact, lets have ALL the wizards do this at the SAME time! EVERYBODY WINS ALL THE WARS! Maybe ... but just maybe that is why the bedrooms of Kings are warded by forbiddance spells or by wards against extradimensional movement. Every Assassin could just dimension door inside and kill him.
Nyferto 07-08-05, 07:54 AM	snip There are any number of methods. "They ready their shields to protect against any attack from the direction it comes". This way - no matter what they do - protected from the first attack. As for spread. No I didn't ignore 3D. If they're ground troops with forward facing shields and a fireball explodes infront of them. The blast will have to go either upwards for the front line troops or left/right for corner troops (1 square). Then it will have to navigate to the sides or above (2nd square) and finally down for those facing forwards (3rd square) or along beside for corners and in again (3rd and 4th square) for corners. Depening on how wide the front line is and how large the unit is - you may not kill that many people. Not to mention it was one standard action against a single unit and you didn't even scratch the ones beside. Whilst the remaining people would be vulnerable to volleys of arrows, the defending troops would automatically get cover bonuses against such attacks, although with the above specifications their action wouldn't fire until the volley came through - and they would be spared completely. If you fireballed above, then all shields would go up. The fireball would have to reach a side and go down then into before it did any damage at all. An everyone would be automatically protected against a volley of arrows. Corners can be handled the same ways. A fireball cannot pass across cover, so no diagonals where total cover is concearned. You can't move diagonally across the edge of a building, and no different here. Alternatively, with a more mobile unit, like mounted calvery. They ready an action to move away from any incoming attack. This way, they can move and move again on the first attack, keeping loose formations but still standing together as a unit. The First section is most likely to charge on (most mounts can move more than 20ft in an action) leaving the others in a cross formation. In addition, if you're standing infront of your troops, you are the first target to fall. Your ability to aim is limited but freed up and you're blocking your own troops that you need to handle the oncoming ones. In addition, if you do need to move - no more windwall = dead wizard. The best choice for any PC in an army unit is suporting troops but staying away from too much conflict. This way they can use lesser resources to aid more imeadiately and turn their best defence (troops) into a good offence.
Nyferto 07-08-05, 07:57 AM	Maybe ... but just maybe that is why the bedrooms of Kings are warded by forbiddance spells or by wards against extradimensional movement. Every Assassin could just dimension door inside and kill him. You see, the world has to account for magic in everything it does. You can't just have massive loopholes and people who walk around like they're somehow better than everything else. Seriously, where do people think BBEG's come from? They exist before you do.
Alienfreak 07-08-05, 08:08 AM	"They ready their shields to protect against any attack from the direction it comes" Ok ... then all your Soldiers turn their shields towards the explosion. This steals 5ft of the spread. And if there is just one arrow from the front all will turn their shields toward that. The Wizard will be glad to let an firebally explode above their heads. Alternatively, with a more mobile unit, like mounted calvery. The strength of cavlery is that it moves fast. You just throw away its advantage. Great. Corners can be handled the same ways. A fireball cannot pass across cover, so no diagonals where total cover is concearned. You can't move diagonally across the edge of a building, and no different here. You have to set a specific action you will do as you ready. So you cant protect your corners. One side of it will be always open. 50/50 chance.
MFahriman 07-08-05, 08:42 AM	Off course every army in d&d would do well to have as many wizards as possible. However, being one of those wizards, would you really waste a precious fireball on common troops when there are opposing wizards to shoot at? I think war in d&d would come down to people fighting other people of the same power level.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 12:35 PM	Well, I just spent the last two hours reading this entire thread, and what I see is a general failure to really consider the implications on all aspects of war, including what happens outside the battlefield. Do you really think a ruler is going to be willing to lose significant parts of his population in a war? A lot of people maybe, but once you lose too many people, victory becomes the pyrrhic sort. The way I see it going is there would be something like a medieval Geneva Convention where in the use of mages would be restricted for MAD reasons. Now, while some nations would disregard these conventions, it’s very likely that other nations allied with the victim of this dishonorable tactic will join the war to maintain the status quo if nothing else. Also, while those who argue that the wizard is such a devastating force say they acknowledge that tactics will differ, I don’t see as they really do. They all still mention large groups of slow-moving meleers engaging equally massive groups of meleers on a large flat plain. Why would they, when for all the reasons mentioned, they would be slaughtered? More than likely, combat becomes exactly like modern warfare, very Vietnam-esque. Your blaster mage is a lot less effective when he has to go into the forest with the army and pick off individual snipers. In such a situation, your wizards adopt a role less like artillery and more like machine guns: you use them to rake huge areas with massive amounts of destruction, hoping to take out some of the enemy and keep their heads down as your other troops charge in. Huge battles on open plains just wouldn’t happen: they’d be a stupid idea when a high level wizard with levels of War Wizard can blast a 1000ft radius with a Sunburst. And yes, offense is a lot harder than defense because you have more things you need to do: not die and advance. All the defender has to do is not die. And a solution to Wind Wall: Wand of Scorching Ray. I’ve gotten my DM to dread my rogues because of that spell, or Ray of Frost. A 5th level wizard with 12 Con has an average of 19 hp. Scorching Ray does an average of 14 damage, and a 5th level rogue will add 10.5 damage to that, instantly taking out said wizard.
Nyferto 07-08-05, 12:45 PM	A mount can move forward to avoid a fireball placed at your current location to avoid it. Others can move diagonally or to the sides. On their next move they can reform into a breach formation, you won't be slowing them down by much at all. You won't even be slowing all of them down with one fireball. As I said, Tower Shields will cover 3 squares minimum no matter how you target it. You might not even kill anyone or certainly less people than you're making out. Volleys come in co-ordinated shots and are area attacks. There's no reason everyone will react to an arrow or fireball going nowhere near them. Don't try to deviate from the actual criteria just so it looks like you have a point.
Derren S. 07-08-05, 12:51 PM	And a solution to Wind Wall: Wand of Scorching Ray. I’ve gotten my DM to dread my rogues because of that spell, or Ray of Frost. A 5th level wizard with 12 Con has an average of 19 hp. Scorching Ray does an average of 14 damage, and a 5th level rogue will add 10.5 damage to that, instantly taking out said wizard. And scorching ray is a short range spell and rogues can only sneak attack within 30 ft. Both times you must be closer to the mages than what is healthy. @Nyferto. Post actual examples how you do this impossible things or shut up. And try to understand that your soldiers will get done nothing when all they do is readieng actions. They will still be killed and won't fight back. Off course every army in d&d would do well to have as many wizards as possible. However, being one of those wizards, would you really waste a precious fireball on common troops when there are opposing wizards to shoot at? I think war in d&d would come down to people fighting other people of the same power level. Exactly this will not be the case. You don't fight someone as strong as you unless you really have to. You always attack the ones weaker as possible. And unless you are teleporting, wizards can't easily reach other wizards to combat. To do this they must reach the enemies ranged troops behind the frontline where the wizards will be. And this is not an easy task especially for a weak wizard. So, instead of wasting ressources to do nothing usefull the wizards would start to kill troops.
tiercel 07-08-05, 12:54 PM	do you think only one side is gonna have em? so once teleporting comes into play, both sides teleport to the other and destroy each others army, OR one side teleports to the other to neutralize the high level mages and the commander. Certainly, it gets ugly, but what you have are a subgroup of "commando" mages teleporting in as close as they can against the full mage force of the opposing army, plus all of the associated grunts. Unless the attacking side is willing to commit all their mages to the attack, the attackers are going to be outgunned just by the defenders' mages, not to mention dealing with flak from the army itself. If the attackers are willing to roll the dice and commit their full force of mages, it's still a risky proposition -- the defenders' mages are still backed up by archers etc, and may even have some sort of defensive terrain advantage if you are attacking very pre-emptively. and nextly... you tell me that the likely one or two higher than 15th level wizards in your kingdom are in direct pay of the king and think they owe him something. a wizard of that high of a level would likely only come out of his research if his whole operation was at stake. What's more important to a wizard, having his king expand his territory by a few towns, or finding a no-exp cost version of Wish?My example with teleportation circle was the extreme case (and a direct reply to "it's impossible to move troops without it being known" -- it's not impossible, just hard)... but on the other hand, I also specified that it was applicable for a "total mobilization" war. We aren't talking about "King George wants to add a couple of hamlets to the kingdom" war, we are talking "The End of the World is Nigh" sort of war... the entire kingdom is facing invasion and/or annihilation. At that point, a single very high level mage can make a huge difference without even directly stepping onto the actual field of battle, just by moving large numbers of troops in a very short amount of time. If the entire kingdom is seriously threatened, it is reasonable that if there is even one mage of requisite level, that that mage will lend assistance (especially because using teleportation circle doesn't even personally endanger the mage - we aren't even presuming that the army commander sticks the mage behind the waves of grunts to launch meteor swarms upon the enemy). Additionally, in some high-magic worlds this is a viable option for any good-sized army. (For instance, I would expect this to happen all the time with a Forgotten Realms army of any significant size.) this doesent apply to PC wizards, who gain power by leaps and bounds faster than anybody could ever hope to.Well... to be fair, in my world, I replace "PC wizards" with "adventuring wizards"... after all, there are NPC adventuring parties too. (I presume in most campaign worlds, the PCs aren't the only adventuring party in the world. If they were, it would make it pretty tough to replace fallen PCs.) Since there are at least a small number of adventuring wizards, to the extent they can survive trying to get themselves killed, they will be among the most powerful of wizards quite quickly. Since they are, or have been, adventuring wizards they are almost by definition mercenary.... and so are probably willing to lend a hand for the right sort of rewards.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 01:06 PM	When a blastre mage has 400+ft spells, does distance really matter? Before going, the rogue would almost certainly cats or have have cast Greater Invisibility (even if the mage can see through it, the body guards can't) and Dimension Door in: it's only 4200 gp for a wand of Dimension Door with 10 charges; a worthy investment to take out the enemy machine guns, especially when they're a lot harder to replace than anything else. Once an mage is dead, he's dead and likely to stay tht way, and unless it's an uber-magic world, he isn't likely to have too many replacements around.
Derren S. 07-08-05, 01:10 PM	When a blastre mage has 400+ft spells, does distance really matter? Before going, the rogue would almost certainly cats or have have cast Greater Invisibility (even if the mage can see through it, the body guards can't) and Dimension Door in: it's only 4200 gp for a wand of Dimension Door with 10 charges; a worthy investment to take out the enemy machine guns, especially when they're a lot harder to replace than anything else. Once an mage is dead, he's dead and likely to stay tht way, and unless it's an uber-magic world, he isn't likely to have too many replacements around. Problem 1: Wands can't be created with less than 50 charges Problem 2: After Dimension Dooring you can't act, enough time to be killed/pinned by the enemies or for the wizards to react. Problem 3: Dimension Door has the same range as the fireball, so to get into a position to door from, the rogue must enter the battle. Problem 4: Unless the rogue is high level, activating the wand is not guranteed and might even be risky.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 01:14 PM	You're Dooring invisible, and if the mage is blasting away at the enemy, he isn't going to be looking behind him to catch the rogue in his see invisible spread. Besides, even if he did and blasted the rogue, it's most likely with an area effect spell, sice wasting a slot on anythnig else would make him less effective in the battle, so evasion takes care of that, since the rogue will likely make the save and then waste the wizard. This tatic can be done with scrolls as easily as wands as well, and doesn't have to work every time. In fact, it probably won't work most of the time; war is expensive and costs like that are to be expected. A level five rogue with have 8 ranks in UMD, Skill Focus UMD and Magical Affinity has +13 UMd and suceeds on a 7 or higher, only risking danger on a 2 or less. And enter the battle? Why? The rogue has time to move around the battle, even infiltrate the enemy force with Disguise.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 01:21 PM	With the Disguise idea, couldn't the rogue just knife the wizrd in his sleep too? Killing doesn't always have to happen during the battle. With a level of sorcerer, Detectmagice and a wand of dispel takes care of the inevitable alarm spell and the liberl use of Disguise, Hide and Move Silently stes up a nice quiet moment for a coup de grace with a pick.
Derren S. 07-08-05, 02:13 PM	You're Dooring invisible, and if the mage is blasting away at the enemy, he isn't going to be looking behind him to catch the rogue in his see invisible spread. Besides, even if he did and blasted the rogue, it's most likely with an area effect spell, sice wasting a slot on anythnig else would make him less effective in the battle, so evasion takes care of that, since the rogue will likely make the save and then waste the wizard. This tatic can be done with scrolls as easily as wands as well, and doesn't have to work every time. In fact, it probably won't work most of the time; war is expensive and costs like that are to be expected. A level five rogue with have 8 ranks in UMD, Skill Focus UMD and Magical Affinity has +13 UMd and suceeds on a 7 or higher, only risking danger on a 2 or less. And enter the battle? Why? The rogue has time to move around the battle, even infiltrate the enemy force with Disguise. So the rogue has a 35% failure chance which also uses up a charge. And see invisible is no cone and Acid Arrows are perfectly for filling the second level slots of a long range wizards (as there are no AOE spells at 2nd level)
redraven 07-08-05, 04:02 PM	I've already mentioned this, but the idea that a Fireball's spread cannot go diagonally reduces the casualty rate of troops with Tower Shields rather significantly. An illustration: PXXXX XAAAAA The above is a profile-view of a 25-man squad (5x5) with Tower Shields. P is the point of origin to the most damaging angle that a Fireball can take. Under my previous analysis, I said that 9 mercenaries would bite the dust on a failed save if they readied an action to take a 5-foot step towards the point of origin and claim total cover from the top: XPXXXX XAAAAA However, if the Fireball's spread cannot go diagonally, then the causality rate is only 4 people per Fireball. If we presume 1st-level mercenaries with at least 10 hp, and 5th-level wizards with INT 16, then roughly 25% of those affected will survive the Fireball with at least 1 HP on average. They may as well be dead once the melee begins, but the point is that they are not completely incapacitated at this point (able to be healed by nearby clerics). Thus, the most a normal Fireball can do is 3 kills and 1 wounded. As for the flawed archer comment that keeps getting brought up, remember that these soldiers are walking around with Tower Shields and claiming total cover from the top. If the archers fire first, the formation is getting a +4 shield bonus on top of their normal armor bonus - perhaps a total AC of 17, assuming leather armor and DEX 12 at least. This goes up to AC 20 if we grant Phalanx Fighting. What's a 1st-level archer getting to hit, +3? Perhaps +4? On average, the archers are not hitting anything, especially the 2nd row onward who are getting soft cover (+4 AC) bonuses. If the archers do volleys after the Fireball, they are dealing zero damage because the soldiers are still claiming total cover from the top. If the archers do volleys before the Fireball and the soldiers claim cover from that, then they are probably going to be blasted by a Fireball that can affect everyone. In this case, other lower-level wizards would do good simply casting Wind Wall to protect soldiers instead of just wizards, and then telling the soldiers to protect themselves against the Fireball (which is far more dangerous). Not exactly the end of the world in a war setting, especially when your own wizard and archers are doing the same thing to the enemy the next round. Of course, all of this ignores the fact that wizards will have to be making DC 40+ Spot checks just to be able to aim their Fireballs properly. Sure, seeing the ranks of soldiers probably isn't difficult, but aiming at particular squares and grid intersections certainly will be.
Derren S. 07-08-05, 05:14 PM	If the archers do volleys before the Fireball and the soldiers claim cover from that, then they are probably going to be blasted by a Fireball that can affect everyone. In this case, other lower-level wizards would do good simply casting Wind Wall to protect soldiers instead of just wizards, and then telling the soldiers to protect themselves against the Fireball (which is far more dangerous). Not exactly the end of the world in a war setting, especially when your own wizard and archers are doing the same thing to the enemy the next round. Of course, all of this ignores the fact that wizards will have to be making DC 40+ Spot checks just to be able to aim their Fireballs properly. Sure, seeing the ranks of soldiers probably isn't difficult, but aiming at particular squares and grid intersections certainly will be. That is nearly exactly what happens, except some errors on your side. 1. Aiming requires no spot check. Show me the rules which says this 2. When the soldiers use the shield to cover the top the archer kill them with targeted fire. 3. When the fireball explodes at ground level, protecting your top doesn't help. 4. Wind wall is short duration and stationary. To protect a troop effectivly you need a wizard devoting all his spells and some scrolls to keep up wind wall. Also the troop wouldn't be able to do much without leaving the wall except spellcasting. 5. That both sides use this tactic doesn't make it less devastating. So, either the soldiers protect themself from a fireball and get killed by arrow volleys, or the protect themself from arrows and get killed by a fireball. And because they constantly have to ready actions, they only move half as fast which means they are are exposed to arrow volley for double as long as normal (Or even more when you run into battle)
Alienfreak 07-08-05, 05:27 PM	You're Dooring invisible, and if the mage is blasting away at the enemy, he isn't going to be looking behind him to catch the rogue in his see invisible spread. Besides, even if he did and blasted the rogue, it's most likely with an area effect spell, sice wasting a slot on anythnig else would make him less effective in the battle, so evasion takes care of that, since the rogue will likely make the save and then waste the wizard. This tatic can be done with scrolls as easily as wands as well, and doesn't have to work every time. In fact, it probably won't work most of the time; war is expensive and costs like that are to be expected. 1. You have 360° Vision in D&D. And since he is dimension dooring in he cant hide himself so you dont even have to make a spot check. 2. You are flying above the ground. 50 ft. At least. Fly will have an duration longer of most fights (10 minutes for a 10th level mage). And you can sneak only in a 30ft radius around you. 3. Against rogues you will use the good old scorching ray. No reflex save. Works great against low HP rogues ;) 4. A rogue that cant even make sneak attacks because the wizard has seen him coming through his dimension door will kill my wizard in no time? Please explain how. Im really excited about this one. PXXXX XAAAAA The above is a profile-view of a 25-man squad (5x5) with Tower Shields. P is the point of origin to the most damaging angle that a Fireball can take. Under my previous analysis, I said that 9 mercenaries would bite the dust on a failed save if they readied an action to take a 5-foot step towards the point of origin and claim total cover from the top: XPXXXX XAAAAA However, if the Fireball's spread cannot go diagonally, then the causality rate is only 4 people per Fireball. If we presume 1st-level mercenaries with at least 10 hp, and 5th-level wizards with INT 16, then roughly 25% of those affected will survive the Fireball with at least 1 HP on average. They may as well be dead once the melee begins, but the point is that they are not completely incapacitated at this point (able to be healed by nearby clerics). Thus, the most a normal Fireball can do is 3 kills and 1 wounded. You ALL have a major flaw in your calculation how to avoid being killed by an fireball. Why? You assume that you know where the fireball will go off. You have to ready against a specific condition and set the action you will do prior. So you say "If x happens you do y" So this works great if the fireball goes off 5 ft in front of and 5 ft above the first one. What is if he just places it right in the center of all the peeps? They raise their shields as the fireball goes off, but hes going off between them, so the cover doesnt help at all. Or he just places it to their front on the ground so they are again fully affected. You can protect yourself only against 1 destination at a time. But there are more than 5 good destinations. And one more thing: Spot checks are for spotting hidden things. Like if you hide in a bush you do a spot check to see if you see it. Or to recognize minor details that are usually hidden. Not for spotting houses, troops or armies. Those are visible to everyone.
Vanigo 07-08-05, 05:57 PM	If they're ground troops with forward facing shields and a fireball explodes infront of them. The blast will have to go either upwards for the front line troops or left/right for corner troops (1 square). Then it will have to navigate to the sides or above (2nd square) and finally down for those facing forwards (3rd square) or along beside for corners and in again (3rd and 4th square) for corners. Depening on how wide the front line is and how large the unit is - you may not kill that many people. Not to mention it was one standard action against a single unit and you didn't even scratch the ones beside.So now tower shields don't completely negate area spells like you kept screaming about? Regardless, you're still wrong, because of one thing: Diagonal movement. The fireball can move up-and-in with its first 5' of spread, then straight down with its second to kill the guy in the first rank. From there, it has another 10' of spread to fry the second and third ranks. The tower shield will save the guy in the fourth rank, but that's still taking a pretty meaningful bite out of the formation. A total of... let's see here... 21 guys will get fried if you decide that up-and-left-and-in counts as a regular diagonal, but only 11 if you decide that it doesn't. (I don't see why you wouldn't, myself.) And that's only if your soldiers are constantly readying an action to defend against fireballs. As has been said before, if they're doing that, they're not doing much else. Corners can be handled the same ways. A fireball cannot pass across cover, so no diagonals where total cover is concearned. You can't move diagonally across the edge of a building, and no different here.The flaw with that is this: spreads don't move exactly like creatures do. Where they can move is determined not by whether a creature could move like that, but by whether there's line of effect from one square to another. And line of effect does reach around corners like that. In this diagram, the C square is the square the fireball is centered in, and the # square is the square in question. (They're not exactly square here, but so what.) ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### CCCCC| 0 CCCCC|-| CCCCC| | CCCCC|/ \ CCCCC|| |For there to be line of effect from one square to another, there must be a line from one corner of one square to one corner of the other square that does not touch any obstacles. It doesn't matter how many such paths there are as long as there's at least one. In this case, it's easy to draw line of effect: X#### /##### / ##### / ##### / ##### XCCCC| 0 CCCCC|-| CCCCC| | CCCCC|/ \ CCCCC|| |Therefore, a fireball can spread diagonally around a tower shield just fine. Alternatively, with a more mobile unit, like mounted calvery. They ready an action to move away from any incoming attack.That leaves them no faster than most infantry. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it's not a panacea, especially since it's restricted to mounted units in good terrain. In addition, if you're standing infront of your troops, you are the first target to fall. Your ability to aim is limited but freed up and you're blocking your own troops that you need to handle the oncoming ones. In addition, if you do need to move - no more windwall = dead wizard.It's called a hill. You stand on it. You see over people's heads. The same principle has been used for ranged units throughout history. If there are no hills around, you can pull a wagon or something in and stand on that. Well, I just spent the last two hours reading this entire thread, and what I see is a general failure to really consider the implications on all aspects of war, including what happens outside the battlefield. Do you really think a ruler is going to be willing to lose significant parts of his population in a war? A lot of people maybe, but once you lose too many people, victory becomes the pyrrhic sort. The way I see it going is there would be something like a medieval Geneva Convention where in the use of mages would be restricted for MAD reasons. Now, while some nations would disregard these conventions, it’s very likely that other nations allied with the victim of this dishonorable tactic will join the war to maintain the status quo if nothing else.Kinda like how the US and USSR got together and decided to throw away all their nukes? Sure, there was talk about it, but there were still enough bombs to destroy the world twice over on each side. Mages might act as a deterrent to war, or to escalating warfare, but they won't simply be banned from the battlefield. Also, while those who argue that the wizard is such a devastating force say they acknowledge that tactics will differ, I don’t see as they really do. They all still mention large groups of slow-moving meleers engaging equally massive groups of meleers on a large flat plain. Why would they, when for all the reasons mentioned, they would be slaughtered? More than likely, combat becomes exactly like modern warfare, very Vietnam-esque. Your blaster mage is a lot less effective when he has to go into the forest with the army and pick off individual snipers. In such a situation, your wizards adopt a role less like artillery and more like machine guns: you use them to rake huge areas with massive amounts of destruction, hoping to take out some of the enemy and keep their heads down as your other troops charge in. Huge battles on open plains just wouldn’t happen: they’d be a stupid idea when a high level wizard with levels of War Wizard can blast a 1000ft radius with a Sunburst.You misunderstand me. My argument is that exactly that would happen. I use the example of mages versus massive groups of meleers on a large flat plain not because I think that's how warfare would work with wizards in the mix, but to illustrate exactly why these new tactics would be required.
Emir 07-08-05, 06:35 PM	Yeah, blasting troops, whatever... But image that Fighter great cleaving through troops... mega cool :D
Vanigo 07-08-05, 07:51 PM	Yeah, blasting troops, whatever... But image that Fighter great cleaving through troops... mega cool :D Not that this has any particular relevance to the topic, but... It's not all that effective, really. The killer is, he can only be in one place at a time. He'll go through formations like a hot knife through butter, but he can't really smash a formation without spending a long time on it, and probably taking quite a bit of damage, from the occasional natural 20 if nothing else - he's taking AoOs up the wazoo just from moving around, and he's constantly flanked by guys who are quite likely using aid another. He can plow through an enemy line and get to the rear, but what's he going to do there? The important officers will be guarded by elite bodyguards who'll pose something of a problem, as will the wizards. He can't flank an entire unit by himself. Placed in a normal unit, of course, he'll easily double its effectiveness, which is worth quite a bit, but unless there's a very small chokepoint that needs guarding, that's about the best thing you can do with him.
redraven 07-08-05, 08:29 PM	That is nearly exactly what happens, except some errors on your side. 1. Aiming requires no spot check. Show me the rules which says this 2. When the soldiers use the shield to cover the top the archer kill them with targeted fire. 3. When the fireball explodes at ground level, protecting your top doesn't help. 4. Wind wall is short duration and stationary. To protect a troop effectivly you need a wizard devoting all his spells and some scrolls to keep up wind wall. Also the troop wouldn't be able to do much without leaving the wall except spellcasting. 5. That both sides use this tactic doesn't make it less devastating. So, either the soldiers protect themself from a fireball and get killed by arrow volleys, or the protect themself from arrows and get killed by a fireball. And because they constantly have to ready actions, they only move half as fast which means they are are exposed to arrow volley for double as long as normal (Or even more when you run into battle) 1. That comment was mainly in reference to the "fire the between the holes in the tower shield formation" line. But if the wizard can perfectly aim at the correct grid intersections from 400+ feet away, then it is perfectly fine to allow the spotter on the other side follow the bead to its destination and thus warn the soldiers accordingly. 2. You have yet to validate this claim in any fashion whatsoever. The archers have to fire past their own troops, and since there are no rules for arching shots beyond volleys, the opposing soldiers get a +4 soft cover bonus. Even if you rule that the archers can arch the shots or are otherwise on elevated ground, the opposing soldiers will have the equivalent of AC 21 at a range of 400 feet versus targeted fire (AC 13 + 8 from range increment penalty). Plus, they will be completely immune to volleys since they are already claiming total cover from above. Your 1st-level archers will maybe have a +4 to hit, meaning they will hit absolutely nothing with targeted shots on average until the enemy soldiers get within 100 feet. If you want to work percentages, each archer with a clear shot at 400+ feet will have a 20% chance to hit one soldier. Five archers to one soldier for one hit, on average, for a wound the soldier is probably going to survive. Meanwhile, your 5th-level wizard just wasted a precious Fireball to give your archers a 20% chance to hit. And if a 3rd-level cleric with the air domain is casting Wind Wall, the tactic itself is meaningless. Indeed, said cleric can cast the Wind Wall from a Medium range, moving up as needed to keep the soldiers protected from arrows. If I was the commander of this mission, I'd be using my archers and wizards to take out the opposing archers and ignore the soldiers altogether until later - that's where a Fireball will decimate troop formations. 3. That's why you have a spotter for this sort of thing. They'll ready their shields for a ground level blast. 4. Not really. Clerics with the Air domain can cast Wind Wall at 3rd-level, or use scrolls/wands thereof, and the Wind Wall itself is only necessary for one round - the one in which the soldiers have already moved and are now readying actions. Indeed, if the clerics get close enough to the action (or invisible saboteurs), they can cast Wind Wall in front of the enemy archer formation for some timely disruption. 5. Actually, "devastating" is all relative. Personally, I do not see it as causing more deaths than would normally occur, since the troops killed by Fireballs would normally have engaged in melee with their counterparts who would have died by enemy Fireballs. That, of course, depends on a lot of variables left undefined here such as whether one side or the other is routed before real combat begins, and so on. Regardless, I see a lot more damage and/or disruption coming from less flashy spells and effects, particularly from druids. Take, for example, a 1st-level druid casting Entangle on a troop formation of either soldiers or archers. The spread is larger, the penalty is severe, and if it nails the wizard then he/she probably isn't going to be casting any spells for the extremely long duration. The entangled enemy isn't going anywhere and they're easier to hit with arrow volleys and such. Or, use Plant Growth to stop a formation in its tracks at long range and in a 100-foot radius (!). Sleet Storm doesn't deal any damage, but it has a long range, 40-foot radius, and will block out a formation of archers and/or the wizard to buy some time. Spike Growth is just as dangerous as anything else, and can limit troop movement and lasts for hours (can cast before battle even begins). What you would be correct in saying is that a wizard on the battlefield necessitates a change in battle tactics and/or devising specific counters. But this is true of everything. In addition to everything mentioned, lower level spellcasters could set up Fog Cloud screens in which troops get the 50% total concealment miss chance and would cause higher level enemy wizards to occasionally miss with their Fireballs. Hell, you could simply cast Darkness on the helmet of a random soldier in the formation to give the entire formation a 20% miss chance versus arrows. If the enemy wizard persists in his attacks, your own wizard could hang out within the 600 foot range of the enemy wizard and simply ready actions to counterspell either Fireballs or Acid Arrows. No 1st-level archer will be hitting anything from that distance, and the wizard is protected from volleys via Protection from Arrows. Therefore, a fireball can spread diagonally around a tower shield just fine. That's fine, the causality number goes back up to my original number of 9 mercenaries (certainly not 21). For the explanation, see my earlier post - it involves the formation making a 5-foot step towards the point of origin so as to reduce the Fireball's spread. Also, keep in mind that while a Fireball's spread probably can cross corners, when it does so the creatures can still claim a +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves, unless they are fully engulfed. This increases the survivability rate to 35%. As another aside, most of our analysis is slightly off since spells target grid intersections instead of actual squares.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 08:48 PM	Why would the rogue have to door in so close to the wizard? Assuming that he's invisble, he could come in anywhere somewhat close to the wizard; the only reason he's dooring is to get through the melee quickly and easily. After that he can use Hide; wizards aren't so hot with the Spot skilz, so he isn't likely to be seen. That same 5th level rogue should have the 8 ranks in Hide, the Stealthy feat and an elixir of hiding for a total of +20 to hide, with another +20 for being invisible (see invisible says nothing about negating that bonus). Make that a halfling and you have +24 or 44, depending on how you rule that. Snipe from 30 feet away and the wizard who would have maybe a +5 to spot will need to make a 17 at +24 (+5 modifier -5 for distracted and -3 for distance against an average of 34). The scorching ray in retaliation? Hopefully there won't be one, but if there is, a Resist Elements and False Life should be enough to keep the rogue up until he can Door out again. At the very least, you wasted a spell or two of the wizard's, and probably wounded the crap out of him. Failing that, sleeper agents hidden in the enemy army could do wonders to take down wizards. Much less need to worry about getting close enough while the wizard is awake if you can take him out in his sleep, or squatting over a cat hole. And I noticed a comment about Caesar up there somewhere. The dude was stabbed like 17 times if you read the Shakespeare, and by some pretty beefy dudes. That's 17d4+17 or 59.5 damage.
Alienfreak 07-08-05, 09:18 PM	Why would the rogue have to door in so close to the wizard? Assuming that he's invisble, he could come in anywhere somewhat close to the wizard; the only reason he's dooring is to get through the melee quickly and easily. After that he can use Hide; wizards aren't so hot with the Spot skilz, so he isn't likely to be seen. That same 5th level rogue should have the 8 ranks in Hide, the Stealthy feat and an elixir of hiding for a total of +20 to hide, with another +20 for being invisible (see invisible says nothing about negating that bonus). Make that a halfling and you have +24 or 44, depending on how you rule that. Snipe from 30 feet away and the wizard who would have maybe a +5 to spot will need to make a 17 at +24 (+5 modifier -5 for distracted and -3 for distance against an average of 34). The scorching ray in retaliation? Hopefully there won't be one, but if there is, a Resist Elements and False Life should be enough to keep the rogue up until he can Door out again. At the very least, you wasted a spell or two of the wizard's, and probably wounded the crap out of him. 1. Ok. You have 360° sight. With see invisibility which also has a 360° spread with infinite range. You see someone coming out of an dimension door pretty near you (at least behind your own lines). He is not hidden so you automatically see him. Nothing somebody should worry about, huh? 2. Now hiding: you need something to hide behind. You cant really move in somewhere while being hided. Except in very very VERY good terrain. 3. Bonus on hiding while invisible: Have you noticed that there is stated if you are invisible you get that bonus? It is not stated that you get that bonus if you are under the effect of an invisibility spell but if you are invisible. So lets see what the Invisibility spell tells us: You turn invisible. You can see all creatures within your vision just as if they were not invisible. So you gain the invisible status from the invisibility spell. But against the see invisible mage you are not invisible and thus you do not get the bonus. Even by RAW. 4. So your Rogue also has an Protection from Elements? Again: Whats up with my Nightmare mounted White Ethergaunt!? Thats exactly why i always use an Energy Substitution. You jsut cant prepare ahead against it. And False Life gives 1d10+10 HP. Wow the thing that will really keep him up. 5. Now how you beat the crap out of a flying wizard? Would you mind to tell me?
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 09:31 PM	A wizard should still have to make a spot check to see a rogue coming in in the middle of a battle, assuming there is one and at 100 feet, that's a -10 to spot -5 more for being distracted still. It's hardly likely that you'd notice one more person skipping into a huge melee. Furthermore, that rogue would have cover from any of the wizard's spells because he'd be in a crowd of other soldiers. It doesn't look too good whe the wizard nukes his own men. If it's forest combat, the rogue doesn't even need to door and can sneak the whole way, and then the wizard just isn't going to see him coming that's +24 to hide, a net -5 for the wizard to see(forest, I think, gives -2 to spot). And white ethergaunts? Ethergaunts hate everything on the material plane and wouldn't help fight a war for anything less than an absolutely astronomical fee. As to the flying wizard: enlarged dispel magic or scroll thereof. or my own white ethergaunt :D . And a really strict reading of the spell doesn't metion sling bullets being deflected except for the %30 miss chance. 50 or so men with Far Shot and slings should beat the wizrd down pretty fast. ASnd before you say anything, they aren't all standing in a big "Kill Me" group. It's worth the huge commitment in gold of any kingdom to destroy the enemy mages because they have so much power and can't be replaced easily. In that respect, they are like nukes: you can have a few, and they're deadly as hell, but one, you use them and everyone else does, and second, unless you're the equivalent of America, you only have a few.
Alienfreak 07-08-05, 09:45 PM	A wizard should still have to make a spot check to see a rogue coming in in the middle of a battle, assuming there is one and at 100 feet, that's a -10 to spot -5 more for being distracted still. PHB says Spot is for spotting hiden creatures. Nothing more. To see someone whos not hiding requires no spot check. Furthermore, that rogue would have cover from any of the wizard's spells because he'd be in a crowd of other soldiers. Yeah ... an rogue just dimension doors into a crow of soldiers -> dead rogue -> no need to worry :) and can sneak the whole way, and then the wizard just isn't going to see him coming that's +24 to hide, a net -5 for the wizard to see(forest, I think, gives -2 to spot). You still need concealment. Dont tell me you can hide 500ft with concealment all the time. On a battlefield. As to the flying wizard: enlarged dispel magic or scroll thereof. It still has only the half range of an fireball. And a really strict reading of the spell doesn't metion sling bullets being deflected except for the %30 miss chance. Because it only gives them a 30% miss chance? :D 50 or so men with Far Shot and slings should beat the wizrd down pretty fast. This is the best suggestion made yet. This would actually help against the wind wall while still being able to be 600 ft away.
CryoSilver 07-08-05, 09:59 PM	If you stop thinking in game terms, would you instantly notice if one more guy dressed like your own men suddenly appeared 100 feet away from you in a chaotic mix? The other guys wouldn't see him; he's invisible. I like the idea of using disguise better anyways, and having an item with a single quickened Dimension Door in it. You get close to the wizard (easy enough to do, he won't make his Spot to notice you aren't one of his own), or even just Hide like before, if your Disguise is only enough to fool the grunts you associate with until you can get a moment free to use your magic items. and then Nuke him with a level 7 scorching ray: 14d6 fire damage and a quick escape. And I'm surprised that in 6 pages no one thought of slings. Or javelins. Or spears. Or Launch Item from Magic of Faerun and acid or whatever. And you can figure that even if the slingers need a nat 20 to hit, that'll still be two guys a round and one will be deflected. Plink, wizard just probably lost a spell and is now hurting, down %15 of his hp. Give those slingers True Strike and it's over for that wizard; he might as well put a "Kill Me" sign on his own head. Don't ask me any more questions that you want answered soon; it's late where I am and I'm going to bed. It's been fun though, hasn't it?
Vanigo 07-09-05, 12:05 AM	That's fine, the causality number goes back up to my original number of 9 mercenaries (certainly not 21). For the explanation, see my earlier post - it involves the formation making a 5-foot step towards the point of origin so as to reduce the Fireball's spread. Also, keep in mind that while a Fireball's spread probably can cross corners, when it does so the creatures can still claim a +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves, unless they are fully engulfed. This increases the survivability rate to 35%.Actually, the rules on cover specifically state that spread spells ignore cover bonuses. The way I see it, it goes like this, with the fireball hitting the shield of a guy on the front dead-on:SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS Cwhere S indicates a safe soldier, X indicates a dead soldier, and C is the center of the fireball. The guys in the corners can be reached by going up and north and to the side with the first 5 feet, down and north and to the side with the next 10 feet (since it's an even-numbered diagonal), and north and to the side with the last five. Moving towards a fireball fired at chest-level won't do any good, since a fireball explodes prematurely if it hits an obstacle, anyway. Planting it above the target still nails 17 guys: *** SXXXCXXXS SXXXXXXXS SSSXXXSSSNote that all the squares marked with asteriskes can be reached (at ground level) with the first 5 feet of spread. Besides, you can only make a 5-foot step as part of a readied action if you haven't moved that round. As another aside, most of our analysis is slightly off since spells target grid intersections instead of actual squares.All right. Let's analyze that, then. Striking head on: CC SSXXCCXXSS SSXXXXXXSS SSSXXXXSSS 16. Not too shabby. From above:SSXXCCXXSS SSSSCCSSSS SSSSSSSSSSOnly six. But, what if instead of centering the fireballabove and directly in front of the front ranks, our wizard centers it five feet away? If the soldiers move up, it goes like this: CC SXXXCCXXXS SSXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXSS SSSSXXSSSSFor a whopping 22 - with enough depth to break entirely through some line formations to boot! If they don't move up: CC CC SSXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXSS SSSSXXSSSSfor 14.
Derren S. 07-09-05, 04:02 AM	If you stop thinking in game terms, would you instantly notice if one more guy dressed like your own men suddenly appeared 100 feet away from you in a chaotic mix? The other guys wouldn't see him; he's invisible. No. You should start using game terms. We are in a D&D forum talking about D&D spells in a D&D setting.
CryoSilver 07-09-05, 10:30 AM	In a dense enough crowd, such as a melee, I would say that someone teleporting or dimension dooring in would have concealment, especially if they came in prone or crouching. And as I said though, the rogue isn't dooring to get close to the wizard: he's dooring so he doesn't have to waste time walking around the melee. The distance he can come in from the wizard is arbitrary, as long as he doesn't need to wade through most of the battle proper. With that in mind, he could door into a tent or behind a hill hundreds of feet behind enemy lines, again, granting concealment. After that, it's a simple matter of staying hidden until he can get close enough to the wizard. But to address the point that the OP forwards, AoE spells are only super-killers in large wars if you fail to take a realistic view and adjust the evolution of warfare to suit and simply insert mages into a a medieval battlefield. It's more than just spacing troops more and still having the same kinds of battles: that's what they did in WWI and they learned pretty fast that that was a bad idea. When you have wizards, think Vietnam or Korea as modern analogues. And think snipers. A wizard's fireball has a 600ft range at level 5. A 1/4 sorcerer/fighter with far shot and a distance composite greatbow (with weapon focus and specialization of course) can attack at 3000 feet at +8 for 1d10+3+STR, assuming he's using true strike. And the wizard won't have a wind wall this time; he'll be marching just like all the other soldiers and will have probably just a 14 AC from his Mage Armor.
Derren S. 07-09-05, 10:45 AM	In a dense enough crowd, such as a melee, I would say that someone teleporting or dimension dooring in would have concealment, especially if they came in prone or crouching. Your house rule And as I said though, the rogue isn't dooring to get close to the wizard: he's dooring so he doesn't have to waste time walking around the melee. The distance he can come in from the wizard is arbitrary, as long as he doesn't need to wade through most of the battle proper. With that in mind, he could door into a tent or behind a hill hundreds of feet behind enemy lines, again, granting concealment. After that, it's a simple matter of staying hidden until he can get close enough to the wizard. To kill the wizard the rogue must be within 30 ft. so he has to wade through some battle no matter from where he comes or dimension door close to the wiazrd and be anihilated. Also I suggest you read the range of Dimension Door. And think snipers. A wizard's fireball has a 600ft range at level 5. A 1/4 sorcerer/fighter with far shot and a distance composite greatbow (with weapon focus and specialization of course) can attack at 3000 feet at +8 for 1d10+3+STR, assuming he's using true strike. And the wizard won't have a wind wall this time; he'll be marching just like all the other soldiers and will have probably just a 14 AC from his Mage Armor. And the wizard will easily survive that. All this resources spend for a bit of damage.
CryoSilver 07-09-05, 10:53 AM	All of what resources? It isn't like the fighter disappears after 1 shot (or two, with Rapid Shot). That wizard has 19 hp. If given +1 Mage Bane arrows each hit will deal 1d10+2d6+3+STR, which we'll give a value of 14, averaging 17.5 Damage, with two hits almost certainly taking out the wizard. I'm quite aware of the range of Dimension Door: Long. And unless your wizard is in the missle of the melee, the rogue will only have to maneuver through mostly static troops not enaged in actual combat in order to reach said wizard. Assuming its a battle field (as seems to be the assumption) the rogue could easily move himself into a prime position well before combat begins so as to be able to make that jump and move in for the kill. House rule for dooring into a crowd? Yes. Behind a hill or into a tent? No.
Derren S. 07-09-05, 10:59 AM	Cost for creating the bow, cost for training the fighter. This all requires a massive ammount of ressources which could be spend otherwise and the result is damaging a wizard, not even killing him. So, the rogue know exactly where the wizards will position himself for battle and won't be discovered when the army positions itself and won't be stopped by the bodyguard...
Shatteredtower 07-09-05, 11:43 AM	Flying wizards should not underestimate the ability of flying monks or rogues hiding in a sphere of deeper darkness. Few wizards could target them for line of sight (even while said rogue was taking a double move -- that -20 on the Hide check doesn't mean much when there's a -20 on the Spot check) and evasion takes care of most spells that only need line effect. You can't perform a targetted dispel magic, which means the most you can get is the deeper darkness effect -- and with a duration measured in days, there's no reason the rogue couldn't be carrying two (or more) such effects around. Sure, it's a visible target for the archery units below, but so what? It's guesswork to determine which square the hidden (not invisible) rogue is in -- even if you allow the archers to be able to determine where the center of the effect is, it exists at the intersection of a grid, meaning that three out of every four archers is picking the wrong square and one out of every two after that misses outright, with the rest needing that attack roll. Statistically speaking, 125 out of every 1000 archers has a chance to injure this rogue -- and of those 125, odds are good that only 5-10 of them will hit. Those are good enough odds in a major battle to encourage said rogue to pack a potion of protection from arrows (and decoy featherweight objects with deeper darkness cast on them, to be dropped at intervals). Now this monk or rogue might be in trouble against two mages with dispel magic prepared, but that assumes a) only one monk or rogue, and b) the rogue doesn't have at least two deeper darkness effects on display. Does deeper darkness nerf the rogue? In most cases, up to a point -- the rogue with true seeing active would be quite dangerous, but that's going to be even more rare than a flying rogue (which need not be so rare once armies can support squads of fireball-happy wizards). But said rogue can grapple and drop deeper darkness affected gear, then commence a combination of feinting and sneak attacks (while a monk would happily keep the deeper darkness and just bust the mage up). Sure, the units below can open fire on said rogue more readily now, but they've got a 50% chance of targetting the wizard (even if they can't see the wizard). Or the rogue could be content to do without sneak attack and slowly carve the wizard up in the dark, dragging the prize back toward enemy lines. It's not a foolproof technique by any means. In the time it takes for such rogues to get to the wizards (though the wizards also need time to get into position and prepare that wind wall), the wizards will have had several rounds to pepper their enemies with fireball. However, efforts to counter it take attention away from the ground troops. That interval is shorter when there are options for a rogue to appear suddenly behind enemy lines invisibly in their own uniform -- such a figure does count as hidden to the (distracted) wizard above (who will not know that the rogue is invisible even if see invisibility is active). So magic continues to play a major role in such battles, but one should not be too eager to deploy one's spellcasters too readily in an offensive, airborne assault. Sacrificing mages on games of whack-a-mole against squads of commoners tends to be a losing proposition in the long run. Also, if we're truly thinking in terms of three dimensions, wizard vs. wizard is indeed very feasible. A wizard flying 20 feet above and a hundred feet back from their own lines is 20 feet closer to an enemy wizard hovering directly above at 820 feet above the lines. Once again, the issue of things like true seeing, deeper darkness, protection from arrows, and stone skin has to be considered -- three of the four of them lasting significantly longer than fly. At least wind wall can't be cast on a horizontal plane, but there are ways to decoy archery from an elevated position (deeper darkness "bombing," for example). Again, you can certainly find ways to counter such tactics, but they do indicate that combat is not as straightforward as getting invisible wizards into the air, erecting a wind wall, and playing fireball whack-a-mole.
Derren S. 07-09-05, 12:08 PM	You know that Deeper Darkness just gives off shadowy illumination (= 20%miss chance). And as the rogue must be holding this object its rather easy to locate him. Just look for the source of the darkness. And good luck for the rogue to get a 5th level divine spell casted on him. Such clerics are not normally part of an army. And you also know that Deeper Darkness is of the same level as fireball. How many caster are pumping all of their spells to equip this single rogue?
Shatteredtower 07-09-05, 01:18 PM	You know that Deeper Darkness just gives off shadowy illumination (= 20%miss chance).And you know that shadowy illumination provides concealment, which means the rogue can Hide in it. A hidden rogue has total concealment.And as the rogue must be holding this object its rather easy to locate him. Just look for the source of the darkness.It doesn't work that way. Since the source of the darkness is hidden, all you can see is the darkness.And good luck for the rogue to get a 5th level divine spell casted on him. Such clerics are not normally part of an army.Whoa! Now there's a presumptuous statement if ever I saw one! "Yes, we've got wizards galore, but we'd never expect a cleric to serve the war effort, not even those clerics of Olidammara [or Tempus]." How hard is it to find a non-good cleric in a core game? Shouldn't be hard at all in an evil army, but it's not like an evil cleric is required anyway. Edit: Sorry, had a 1st Ed. moment there. Actually, there's nothing prohibiting any cleric, good or otherwise, from casting deeper darkness in 3rd Ed. Better yet, the cleric who cast it two days ago and a long way from the battle isn't charging hazard pay. ;) So now I'm a bit confused: what sort of clerics aren't generally part of an army (or willing to support it) if any cleric of sufficient level can cast deeper darkness?And you also know that Deeper Darkness is of the same level as fireball. How many caster are pumping all of their spells to equip this single rogue?Hey, if you can tell me how many wizards can use a fireball cast five days ago in a battle today, maybe you'd have a point. But in the meantime, said rogue can be equipped quite nicely from a church that's five days from the front lines -- and we all know how far you can get in five days when teleport is an option. Somehow, I think you'll find more spellcasters willing to support the troops from a safe spot than would be willing to sign up to join the battle itself. But let's make it clearer now. With liberal use of deeper darkness and a lot of canvass, my army can easily hide from a wizard flying 400 feet away. Even darkness will suffice for troop movements, when you're using a 2nd level spell to make it inconvenient for the enemy for half an hour or so. I suppose you can widen the spells if you'd like -- why make things easier for the enemy? Moving under such conditions of darkness will slow down my troops to be sure, since they'll be moving slowly enough to remain hidden from a wizard with -40 (or more) on Spot checks -- at that point, either the -5 penalty for moving more than half speed or the armor check penalty for full plate are rather insignficant. The fun of it is that such forms of concealment can also hide the troops behind the darkness effect. Naturally, you won't be using this sort of tactic for all of your forces, but it should suffice for certain units -- whether genuine threats or decoys. Best of all, the wizard isn't likely to see anything and could be as likely hurling spells at a lone rogue as a handful of mounted knights. I never said it was flawless. It's certainly better than the initial, wholely inadequate, attempts to refute it would indicate however.
Derren S. 07-09-05, 03:27 PM	And you know that shadowy illumination provides concealment, which means the rogue can Hide in it. A hidden rogue has total concealment. Have you seen Monty Pythons "How not to be seen"? Hiding when everyone knows where you are hiding (center of the darkness) isn't very effective. "Yes, we've got wizards galore, but we'd never expect a cleric to serve the war effort, not even those clerics of Olidammara [or Tempus]." A bunch of 5th level wizards are a bit different than a 9th level cleric. You know, the one who casts the true seeing. But let's make it clearer now. With liberal use of deeper darkness and a lot of canvass, my army can easily hide from a wizard flying 400 feet away. Even darkness will suffice for troop movements, when you're using a 2nd level spell to make it inconvenient for the enemy for half an hour or so. I suppose you can widen the spells if you'd like -- why make things easier for the enemy? Darkness doesn't hide an army (except your army has a extremly good hide skill). And the nice thing about area spells is that you don't need to know where the enemy is exactly. Moving under such conditions of darkness will slow down my troops to be sure, since they'll be moving slowly enough to remain hidden from a wizard with -40 (or more) on Spot checks -- at that point, either the -5 penalty for moving more than half speed or the armor check penalty for full plate are rather insignficant. The fun of it is that such forms of concealment can also hide the troops behind the darkness effect. Unless the troops are hiding they are perfectly visible. And when they do they would be really slow. And they have to be inside the darkness, not behind it. Naturally, you won't be using this sort of tactic for all of your forces, but it should suffice for certain units -- whether genuine threats or decoys. Best of all, the wizard isn't likely to see anything and could be as likely hurling spells at a lone rogue as a handful of mounted knights. So your army also has a good move silently modifier? Including the horses of course. And god forbid that scouts or the frontline troops tell the wizards where the troops are and who are the decoys with some sort of signal. For example throwing a continual light spear at the real troops they see as they don't have the -40 to spot the wizard has. Or even mundane spears are enough to tell the wizards where they have seen troops. I never said it was flawless. It's certainly better than the initial, wholely inadequate, attempts to refute it would indicate however. It is a good tactic to create a bit confision before the wizard starts fireballing the troops, but it only delays it. Also it has some drawbacks like that your whole army is now very slow and your soldiers now have a 20% miss chance. Imo, using Silent Image to create fake troops and even mix real and illusionary troops would be better than spreading the field with darkness. And one thing, the rogue must somehow get rid of the darkness item when he wants to sneak attack, which means to sneak attacking the wizard is a bit complicated.
Shatteredtower 07-09-05, 04:32 PM	Have you seen Monty Pythons "How not to be seen"? Hiding when everyone knows where you are hiding (center of the darkness) isn't very effective.Game mechanics say otherwise. Monty Python's characters didn't have evasion as a class skill.A bunch of 5th level wizards are a bit different than a 9th level cleric. You know, the one who casts the true seeing.I did write that it was an option that would make things easier, not one that was required.Darkness doesn't hide an army (except your army has a extremly good hide skill). And the nice thing about area spells is that you don't need to know where the enemy is exactly.Please pay attention. Yes, the nice thing about area spells is that close enough counts, but close enough to what exactly? Close enough to a standard bearer with resist energy active? How can you tell? All they need is one round with any form of total concealment (an illusion works great, but the canvass works too) and they're hidden from your wizard. If you assume they're taking 10 on the Hide checks, that's still a DC 50 spot check for your wizard to determine who is where in a 60' radius area -- much bigger than your fireball. And it's not necessarily just within that 60' radius area. It can be directly behind that 60' radius area as well. Start employer a few darkened, hidden flyers and suddenly the wizard is playing whack-a-mole with dynamite and a blindfold. Yay. Unless the troops are hiding they are perfectly visible. And when they do they would be really slow. And they have to be inside the darkness, not behind it.Not by the rules they don't, no. If you can see over the darkened area, sure, but otherwise, your line of sight passes through a square or border that provides concealment -- and thus the target is granted concealment against your attacks. Keep in mind that a 60' radius extends pretty high. I guess you'll want to be flying a bit further up than 20' just to be sure.So your army also has a good move silently modifier? Including the horses of course.Of course -- and yes. Let's see, that's DC 5 on the Listen check, but... oh, what's this? How far away was that wizard again? Wasn't it 400' with a wind wall in the way. Wow. That's, what, a DC 40 Listen check -- or DC 35 to someone incapable of realizing that a wind wall is going to be distracting for this purpose.And god forbid that scouts or the frontline troops tell the wizards where the troops are and who are the decoys with some sort of signal.Wow. Yeah, like the frontline troops are going to be making Spot checks without a distraction modifier and can be 100% certain which group/person is a decoy and which ones take priority.For example throwing a continual light spear at the real troops they see as they don't have the -40 to spot the wizard has. Not that the spear brightens the area any, of course. And by the time their Spot checks are sufficiently better than the wizard's, the wizard should not be hurling fireballs at the lines.Or even mundane spears are enough to tell the wizards where they have seen troops."Oh, look! My soldiers are throwing spears! I'd best follow them up with a fireball because I know exactly why they're doing that!" The claim is dubious at best. It will help to have the wizards in communication with commanders via message, but how many lines is each wizard keeping open and how do they prevent them from getting crossed? The trick can work, but it's not foolproof by any stretch either.It is a good tactic to create a bit confision before the wizard starts fireballing the troops, but it only delays it.You didn't dismiss the value of a delay when it was casting wind wall. "Only" has nothing to do with it. "Delay" is all that matters.Also it has some drawbacks like that your whole army is now very slow...No. Just slower than it might otherwise be, at least up until the point it's within charging range. That can be a fatally long time for a wizard to have to wait for a few good shots. This is adequate compensation for the small concession....and your soldiers now have a 20% miss chance.Which is only relevant when they're attacking. Or are you now suggesting that the wizard should keep fireballing once the lines are in contact with each other? Besides, a 20% miss chance against other ground troops is acceptable in exchange for the chance to close with the enemy, who also has a 20% miss chance.Imo, using Silent Image to create fake troops and even mix real and illusionary troops would be better than spreading the field with darkness.Hard to believe you'd assume someone wouldn't employ a combination of the two tactics -- along with a number of others.And one thing, the rogue must somehow get rid of the darkness item when he wants to sneak attack, which means to sneak attacking the wizard is a bit complicated.Not for the first shot it's not. Move up to the wizard, drop the item, make the attack. But this assumes the rogue feels the need to perform a sneak attack. Would you bet your wizard against a rogue with a 20% miss chance on a grapple attempt? Even if the wizard can handle it, it would involve a pretty healthy delay. It's even worse if a monk is making the airborne assault.
Vanigo 07-09-05, 05:35 PM	Now we're getting somewhere. Moving armies in clouds of deeper darkness is a pretty reasonable tactic for getting around wizards. Keep in mind, though, that they each make a separate Hide and Move Silently check, and the unit is only as stealthy as its clumsiest member. With armor check penalties, this means the base spot and listen checks to locate the unit will probably be around -5, or -10 if they move more than half speed. At best. Of course, when you're 400 feet away, that's still a formidable challenge, but it's dead easy for scouts. Now, if you're going to be using that much magic to hide your troops (and it'll be dozens of third level spells, at least), I think it's reasonable to assign some more magic to the wizard's side, too. Crossbow bolts with daylight cast on them will negate the deeper darkness easily (it's got twice the total radius, after all), and it's not unreasonable for a wizard to have a crossbow and some daylight scrolls - the combination is also great for night fighting and signalling. In the nonmagical category, the game effects of a spyglass are never quantified, but I think it's reasonable to say you can use it to halve range penalties to Spot checks. With only -20 to his check, it's not too hard for the wizard to locate the soldiers. Meanwhile, if you're hiding your troops in deeper darkness you might as well be putting up a neon sign for any scouts and spotters. Still, this is by far the best suggestion so far for defending against wizards, unless you count the tremendously vague "fight like in Vietnam" suggestions.
Alienfreak 07-09-05, 08:24 PM	Game mechanics say otherwise. Monty Python's characters didn't have evasion as a class skill. Yeah. And my PHB tells me that you cant hide if you are being watched. I guess traveling in a globe of darkness is pretty sight catching. Please pay attention. Yes, the nice thing about area spells is that close enough counts, but close enough to what exactly? Close enough to a standard bearer with resist energy active? How can you tell? All they need is one round with any form of total concealment (an illusion works great, but the canvass works too) and they're hidden from your wizard. If you assume they're taking 10 on the Hide checks, that's still a DC 50 spot check for your wizard to determine who is where in a 60' radius area -- much bigger than your fireball. And it's not necessarily just within that 60' radius area. It can be directly behind that 60' radius area as well. Start employer a few darkened, hidden flyers and suddenly the wizard is playing whack-a-mole with dynamite and a blindfold. Yay. Deeper Darkness also gives only 20% concealment. So you can still perfectly see the enemy. And so still perfectly aim. Just a big waste of money. Not by the rules they don't, no. If you can see over the darkened area, sure, but otherwise, your line of sight passes through a square or border that provides concealment -- and thus the target is granted concealment against your attacks. Page? Hard to believe you'd assume someone wouldn't employ a combination of the two tactics -- along with a number of others. You acutally read the discription of the spell? You can move them only within the cubes that are the spells size of effect. Wow. Great. Will work great as your army advances ^^. Now we're getting somewhere. Moving armies in clouds of deeper darkness is a pretty reasonable tactic for getting around wizards. Keep in mind, though, that they each make a separate Hide and Move Silently check, and the unit is only as stealthy as its clumsiest member. With armor check penalties, this means the base spot and listen checks to locate the unit will probably be around -5, or -10 if they move more than half speed. At best. Of course, when you're 400 feet away, that's still a formidable challenge, but it's dead easy for scouts. Now, if you're going to be using that much magic to hide your troops (and it'll be dozens of third level spells, at least), I think it's reasonable to assign some more magic to the wizard's side, too. Crossbow bolts with daylight cast on them will negate the deeper darkness easily (it's got twice the total radius, after all), and it's not unreasonable for a wizard to have a crossbow and some daylight scrolls - the combination is also great for night fighting and signalling. In the nonmagical category, the game effects of a spyglass are never quantified, but I think it's reasonable to say you can use it to halve range penalties to Spot checks. With only -20 to his check, it's not too hard for the wizard to locate the soldiers. Meanwhile, if you're hiding your troops in deeper darkness you might as well be putting up a neon sign for any scouts and spotters. Still, this is by far the best suggestion so far for defending against wizards, unless you count the tremendously vague "fight like in Vietnam" suggestions. Since it is cost intensive and is easily negated by lower cost things ... and doesnt hinder the mage ... well ... no ... its not good. Not by any means ;) But it was worth a try.
Always-Late 07-09-05, 09:40 PM	Face it. Formation Marching = Dead Soldiers. You fight like you're in the Vietnam war. The age of the massed army that wasn't backed up by tons of magic became ineffective long ago. That large army of 5000~50000 soldiers was long replaced by 500-5000 squads of ten, who all recieve hide and move silently training. Oh, plus, nighttime is a time to move. I'm assuming that the bulk of this army is human, but having elves leading a couple squads will be invaluable. (Even though there's more likely than not elves on guard...) Forget deeper darkness. Try good old fashioned regular darkness, night. In any case, there are rules for ballistas and catapults, which go through wind walls. With the natural 20 rules, a wizard is going down. A assassin + wizard or horizon walker + wizard combo results in an invisible assassin teleporting and stabbing people from behind before they realize what the hell just happened. We haven't even gotten into another revolutionizing spell, Wall of Force. How much are you going to like it when that fireball of yours detonates five feet in front of your face? A globe of invulnerability is also a valuable tool, if you can get your hands on one. There's plenty of negation to be found. Wizards change the face of the battlefield drastically, but they don't own it.
RadicalTaoist 07-09-05, 10:15 PM	Ummm...I must admit I haven't followed all of this thread, and am most likely interjecting with something that's been mentioned before, but: For heaven's sake, why would any intelligent commander waste a Wizard's ability on AoE damage spells? They're a poor option when the Wizard adventures and they're still not the best option when he's at war. First off: there are counters. Endure/Resist Elements, War Weavers with a load of buffs like Heroism, Aid, Bless, etc. etc. Darkness and Fog spells for cover. Otiluke's Dispelling Screen. The list goes on. I haven't even gotten to Illusions, but that'll be covered later. Second: The wizard is the worst class for arcane blasters. Sorcerors or better yet, Warmages. They can wear armor, have better hp, and can blast for far longer. Until the high levels, a wizard will simply run out of slots before he can decimate any armies through blasting, and even the high level wizards won't decimate any armies if they're bothering with stuff like chain lightning and meteor swarm. Inefficient overkill. Hell, druids are in the same class as warmages. Blast with Fire Storm, hinder with Entangle, summon crazy melee beasts with Summon Nature's Ally, and do it all while wild shaped into a footman's worst nightmare. I'll take a Druid or a Warmagefor offense before a Wizard, thanks. Which leads us to Third: Let's look at a Wizard's real battlefield advantages. Illusions: Better than blasting 10 times out of 10. Nothing like having the enemy catapults or enemy wizards chuck a giant boulder/Fireball at one of your units only to find that they've been duped by a Silent Image/Ghost Sound combo. Illusions can send enemy battalions (sp?) running in fear, hide traps or vulnerable parts of your army, mislead enemy intelligence, allow for great espionage, confound the enemy's archers and artillery, foil assassination attempts against officers and sabotage attempts against important positions, and even simulate other spell effects when you get to Shadow Conjuration and Evocation. Give me the wizard who brings a battalion to its knees with blasting and I'll show you the wizard who brings a kingdom to its knees with illusions. Summoning: Why wait for reinforcements when you can conjure some up? The wizard summons list isn't as melee juicy as the Druid's, but is far more versatile. Especially when we get into planar binding. Flying monsters with blindsight/see invisibility to grapple those enemy mages, succubi to kidnap enemy commanders, celestial bisons to serve as instant cavalry, the list goes on and on. This gets better with every splatbook you can think of: Dragon Ally, anyone? Fogs and Concealments: These guys are similar in function to Illusions, and have similar combat effectiveness for similar reasons. Darkness, Deeper Darkness (note: don't hide behind these last two, cast them on the other guy's archers), and the Fog spells are absolutely wonderful for controlling the range of engagement; only more so in tight quarters where guerilla warfare becomes viable. Acid Fog? Cloudkill? More bang for your spell buck than simple blasting on any battlefield. Terrain Control: Doom infantry with Evard's Black Tentacles. Humiliate cavalry with Transmute Rock to Mud. Divide enemy charges with Wall of Iron. And yes, Wind Wall goes here. Web, Wall of Fire, etc. etc. Communication and Reconnaisance: Scry, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Prying Eyes, Sending, Rary's Telepathic Bond, and more are so insanely useful to a medieval commander you'd have to prepare a few. Necromancy: Animate Dead is obvious. Especially if you can get an invisible Wizard into the enemy camp when they're preparing to bury their dead and have a little recruiting session. :smirk: Circle of Death is wonderful for crowd clearance (take that blasting spells). And Contagion is wicked for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with military history. Every Remove Disease spell the enemy clerics must cast is a Cure they can't. Look to Libris Mortis for even more options - Fell Animating Cloudkills are splendid. Siege Engineering: One thing that Wizards have in common with real-world artillery is their effectiveness against large buildings. Soften Earth and Stone, Disentigrate, Shatter, or even using Fireballs to set stuff alight. Hell, summon some Fire Elementals and get your sabotage on. Antimagic: With magic as strong as it is, you can bet smart armies will have squads of Abjurers with Dispel Magics ready to drop your wind wall just before the volley of arrows comes through. Otiluke's Dispelling Screen, Globes of Invulnerability, etc. etc. Polymorph: Situationally useful, but in a wand it's a great investment for armies. Nothing like turning every lieutenant into a troll, or something nastier. In short: AoE dd spells are laughable compared to what a general should really be using his Wizards for.
Always-Late 07-09-05, 10:54 PM	In short: AoE dd spells are laughable compared to what a general should really be using his Wizards for.If you've got some non-wizard spellcasters, direct damage becomes a lot more fun. Storm of vengeance, anyone? Take out an army with the acid and then shock the hell out of anything with more health. And I think cloud spells count as AoE spells. What sucks, just slightly, about illusions is that one ballista bolt going right through it sort of ruins the effect. A ballista bolt is cheap. Anyway... What I really want to see is everybody in this thread getting together and writing The Dungeons and Dragons Guide to Total Warfare.
VirgilCaine 07-09-05, 11:16 PM	What sucks, just slightly, about illusions is that one ballista bolt going right through it sort of ruins the effect. A ballista bolt is cheap. Making the illusion that the bolt hits, but doesn't really hurt the monster/formation or that it is blocked by a spell affecting the monster is even cheaper.
Vanigo 07-10-05, 03:28 AM	Ummm...I must admit I haven't followed all of this thread, and am most likely interjecting with something that's been mentioned before, but: For heaven's sake, why would any intelligent commander waste a Wizard's ability on AoE damage spells? They're a poor option when the Wizard adventures and they're still not the best option when he's at war. First off: there are counters. Endure/Resist Elements, War Weavers with a load of buffs like Heroism, Aid, Bless, etc. etc. Darkness and Fog spells for cover. Otiluke's Dispelling Screen. The list goes on. I haven't even gotten to Illusions, but that'll be covered later.And if you can force your enemy to expend those kinds of resources with just the threat of AoE blasting spells, you're way way way way way ahead of the game. Second: The wizard is the worst class for arcane blasters. Sorcerors or better yet, Warmages. They can wear armor, have better hp, and can blast for far longer. Until the high levels, a wizard will simply run out of slots before he can decimate any armies through blasting, and even the high level wizards won't decimate any armies if they're bothering with stuff like chain lightning and meteor swarm. Inefficient overkill. Hell, druids are in the same class as warmages. Blast with Fire Storm, hinder with Entangle, summon crazy melee beasts with Summon Nature's Ally, and do it all while wild shaped into a footman's worst nightmare. I'll take a Druid or a Warmagefor offense before a Wizard, thanks.Well, warmage is built from the ground up for blasting (and nothing else), so they're obviously going to be the best at it - but only if the campaign setting includes them. Druids, though - with the exception of entangle, all that takes a reasonably high level druid to pull off. A wizard (or sorcerer) can be fireballing chunks out of enemy armies as early as fifth or sixth level. Unless you're in a campaign with an even higher magic level than Forgotten Realms, that's a major consideration. Which leads us to Third: Let's look at a Wizard's real battlefield advantages. Illusions: Better than blasting 10 times out of 10. Nothing like having the enemy catapults or enemy wizards chuck a giant boulder/Fireball at one of your units only to find that they've been duped by a Silent Image/Ghost Sound combo. Illusions can send enemy battalions (sp?) running in fear, hide traps or vulnerable parts of your army, mislead enemy intelligence, allow for great espionage, confound the enemy's archers and artillery, foil assassination attempts against officers and sabotage attempts against important positions, and even simulate other spell effects when you get to Shadow Conjuration and Evocation. Give me the wizard who brings a battalion to its knees with blasting and I'll show you the wizard who brings a kingdom to its knees with illusions.Agreed, these are great for warfare. Only problem is that you can spend a round or so studying an illusion, and it counts as interaction, so you get a save. It's never specified exactly how long this takes, but my feeling is that it's a standard action. Summoning: Why wait for reinforcements when you can conjure some up? The wizard summons list isn't as melee juicy as the Druid's, but is far more versatile. Especially when we get into planar binding. Flying monsters with blindsight/see invisibility to grapple those enemy mages, succubi to kidnap enemy commanders, celestial bisons to serve as instant cavalry, the list goes on and on. This gets better with every splatbook you can think of: Dragon Ally, anyone?This is great if you've got planar binding, but summoning a creature for five or six rounds isn't going to do much in a battle that lasts hours. Fogs and Concealments: These guys are similar in function to Illusions, and have similar combat effectiveness for similar reasons. Darkness, Deeper Darkness (note: don't hide behind these last two, cast them on the other guy's archers), and the Fog spells are absolutely wonderful for controlling the range of engagement; only more so in tight quarters where guerilla warfare becomes viable. Acid Fog? Cloudkill? More bang for your spell buck than simple blasting on any battlefield.Agreed. Acid fog kinda counts as an AoE blasting spell in my book, though. Terrain Control: Doom infantry with Evard's Black Tentacles. Humiliate cavalry with Transmute Rock to Mud. Divide enemy charges with Wall of Iron. And yes, Wind Wall goes here. Web, Wall of Fire, etc. etc.Terrain control is awesome = very yes. Communication and Reconnaisance: Scry, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Prying Eyes, Sending, Rary's Telepathic Bond, and more are so insanely useful to a medieval commander you'd have to prepare a few.Yup yup - and so are spells to block divination. Necromancy: Animate Dead is obvious. Especially if you can get an invisible Wizard into the enemy camp when they're preparing to bury their dead and have a little recruiting session. :smirk: Circle of Death is wonderful for crowd clearance (take that blasting spells). And Contagion is wicked for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with military history. Every Remove Disease spell the enemy clerics must cast is a Cure they can't. Look to Libris Mortis for even more options - Fell Animating Cloudkills are splendid.Circle of death is great if you can pull it off, but it only has medium range, it's sixth level, and it's a burst, so tower shields can be effective against it. Siege Engineering: One thing that Wizards have in common with real-world artillery is their effectiveness against large buildings. Soften Earth and Stone, Disentigrate, Shatter, or even using Fireballs to set stuff alight. Hell, summon some Fire Elementals and get your sabotage on.Well, shatter is hard to pull off given the weight limit, but otherwise this is a good thing to do. Antimagic: With magic as strong as it is, you can bet smart armies will have squads of Abjurers with Dispel Magics ready to drop your wind wall just before the volley of arrows comes through. Otiluke's Dispelling Screen, Globes of Invulnerability, etc. etc.Unfortunately, dispel magic only has medium range; the abjurers are going to be in very exposed positions if they're dispelling the enemy mages' spells. Otiluke's dispelling screen is good, but pretty small. Polymorph: Situationally useful, but in a wand it's a great investment for armies. Nothing like turning every lieutenant into a troll, or something nastier.Yeah, that can be effective; polymorph makes a great combat buff. Of course, you're also making your lieutenants gigantic targets. In short: AoE dd spells are laughable compared to what a general should really be using his Wizards for.If they're high enough level to pull off the really fun tricks, yeah. But most spellcasters aren't.
Ryll 07-10-05, 11:39 PM	When you look at the most powerful wizards in the game (even most epics) the damage they can do with AoE spells are trivial compared to what in RL a howitzer can do in one day, let alone the bigger, immovable guns/missile racks/etc. of modern day warfare. They do not decide all of the battles, and numbers do matter when there are enough of them. If one side has high level wizard's and the other side does not, of course that makes a HUGE advantage. Just as having your best warriors being 10 levels higher then the enemies, or having healing, and the enemy do not. No AoE spells to NOT become to powerful in wars...they just become very useful tools.
Shatteredtower 07-11-05, 01:44 AM	Yeah. And my PHB tells me that you cant hide if you are being watched.It doesn't in fact.. Read the section on Bluff again.I guess traveling in a globe of darkness is pretty sight catching.Most certainly, but what you're seeing is the darkness, not the one hidden within it. You'd have a good reason to believe that someone was there, but you couldn't confirm who and where.Deeper Darkness also gives only 20% concealment. So you can still perfectly see the enemy.Not if the enemy had any way of hiding and you (almost certainly) failed the Spot check. All they need is one round out of your sight and then you're left with guesswork. To be clear, no, someone does not suddenly disappear from sight just because deeper darkness was produced. However, if they arrive on site thus cloaked (and it's a reasonable precaution, since the spell lasts for days and can offer some protection against targetted spells) or set the cloak up under some condition of stronger concealment (a fog cloud, a barrage of smokesticks, or even the tarpaulin line), hiding is suddenly an option. It's not without risk, but it's hardly as ineffective as you're making it out to be.Page?PHB, pg 152, the rules for concealment.You acutally read the discription of the spell? You can move them only within the cubes that are the spells size of effect. Wow. Great. Will work great as your army advances ^^.Considering the range you can cast them at, this is hardly a limiting factor. You are talking about an image that can be shaped as it moves within that range (at least 440') to fill a 10' by 50' line or a 20' x 30' squad at 1st level. Even if all you do is produce false fog that advances before the line, you're not doing too badly. I admit that one could read the rules to state that the figment is static within the area of the effect, but I'm unable to find anything to confirm or refute that particular interpretation of the rules -- or the interpretation that the illusion can move within range as long as the effect does not spread beyond the listed limits.Since it is cost intensive and is easily negated by lower cost things ... and doesnt hinder the mage ... well ... no ... its not good. Not by any means ;)Cost intensive? Not compared to fireball, especially since the latter must be cast at hazard pay rates. Negated by lower cost things? I haven't seen any examples. Doesn't hinder the mage? If the mage does not know what he's firing at, and can't use targetted spells against what it hides, the mage is obviously hindered. Vanigo (and Derren S. before him) is correct in asserting that a good scout will be able to detect the most common troops travelling under such protection from a reasonable distance. There are means by which to make excellent use of such information. However, that is an acceptable risk, since scouts must also avoid being detected and eliminated (by enemy units, scouts, or spellcasters) before they can get word back. If they're travelling in the front line, it's not so bad for them, but their usefulness to the army is lessened to a degree. Like I said, there's give and take here. The use of deeper darkness offers certain concessions in return for compensation elsewhere. Sometimes it will work well and sometimes it can even prove to be a liability. It is a resource worth considering, however and, in general, worth utilizing.
redraven 07-11-05, 01:47 AM	Actually, the rules on cover specifically state that spread spells ignore cover bonuses. Correct, when the spread's radius happens to go around the total cover. Keep in mind, however, that the Fireball's spread will get reduced when it is forced to go around the Tower Shields. It says as much in the Spread description: "Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes." Anyway, in your first example: SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS C ...there are a few errors. I suppose the first is that I was using a 5x5 formation instead of the 11x3. Your formation increases the amount of deaths, whereas mine decreases it. I believe it is logical that army commanders would choose the ones which decrease causalities. The second is that it fails to take into account the Fireball's necessity in move around the tower shields. You say chest-level detonation? Here you go (profile): X1234 PAAAAA All the soldiers are claiming total cover from the front. This means only the first three soldiers are getting burned - the fourth cannot be reached by the spread. This results in the total of 7 deaths and 2 wounded, on average (again, assuming 1st-level warriors). Next, you indicate planting the Fireball above the head of the first guy: *** SXXXCXXXS SXXXXXXXS SSSXXXSSS In a side view, it looks like this: WP1234 XAAAAA The "W" is just to preserve spacing. Now, the soldiers will claim total cover from the top. The same number of dead and wounded apply in this case as the other - 7 dead, 2 wounded. As I mentioned before, the deadly location would be here: PXXXX XAAAAA This is because there is really no way to defend again diagonals in D&D, due to the inability for multiple characters to share the same square in any meaningful sense. If two guys with tower shields were able to share a square, with one granting both total cover from the front and the other total cover from the top, then we would have ourselves a useful strategy against Fireballs. Alas, it was not meant to be. The above attack reaches four rows back no matter what the soldiers do, killing 12 and wounding 4. Besides, you can only make a 5-foot step as part of a readied action if you haven't moved that round. Good point. I hadn't taken the time to look into it, because I assumed readying was a useful tactic against spellcasters. As it stands, the tactic is completely useless since the spellcaster can simply take 5-foot steps each round to force the fighters to move. In any event, actually targeting grid intersections works the numbers differently, but abusing diagonals still results in the largest amount of deaths and casualties. You did bring up an interesting tactic though: intercepting the Fireball bead. A monk of any level with resist elements (or a good Reflex save to take advantage of Evasion) could stand in front of a critical formation and ready a move action to intercept the bead and hopefully spare most of the soldiers. Even low-level monks would probably have a higher AC than most everyone else, and certainly higher than a bunch of 1st-level archers from 400+ feet away.
Alienfreak 07-11-05, 05:07 AM	Considering the range you can cast them at, this is hardly a limiting factor. You are talking about an image that can be shaped as it moves within that range (at least 440') to fill a 10' by 50' line or a 20' x 30' squad at 1st level. Even if all you do is produce false fog that advances before the line, you're not doing too badly. I admit that one could read the rules to state that the figment is static within the area of the effect, but I'm unable to find anything to confirm or refute that particular interpretation of the rules -- or the interpretation that the illusion can move within range as long as the effect does not spread beyond the listed limits. Silent Image Illusion (Figment) Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Effect: Visual figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S) Duration: Concentration Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with) Spell Resistance: No This spell creates the visual illusion of an object, creature, or force, as visualized by you. The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature. You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect. Focus: A bit of fleece. You can move the troops within the size of the effect. A 10th level mage would have 14 10ft cubes. Wow. Not if the enemy had any way of hiding and you (almost certainly) failed the Spot check. All they need is one round out of your sight and then you're left with guesswork. Ok. Lets say they are squads of 20 men. 100 of them making 2000 soldiers. So they probably have an formation of 4(b)x5(d). To be able to hide them under a deeper darkness spell you will need at least 17 deeper darkness spells. If the are marching one next to the other. Since you would like to spread in order to reduce the effectiveness of arrows, siege weapons and so one you will most certainly need 50-100 deeper darkness spells. For that the other army can buy 50-100 fireballs .... Lets say they march hidden. They have 4 ranks in hiding (which is ******** for 1st level warriors who will most certainly have other skills, 2). They wear an armor that has about -4 Armor Check Penalty and since they have an tower shield they get another -10. They probably have an +1 dex modifier so that leaves them with an -9 on hiding checks. On 400 ft that is an minus of 31 on your spot check. While moving hidden it reduces their speed to one half. Since you ready an action to be prepared of an fireball attack they have one move action left. They have an speed of only 20 ft so it leaves them with 10ft of movement per round. Until you will be closing in to the enemy he will reduced your numbers with bows and siege weapons that much that it wont even matter that you havent fireballed em :) An also notice: on closer distances (like 100 ft) you can deploy snipers that have an daylight arrow. With an scroll of true strike those will surely hit the enemy deeper darkness carrier and most certainly kill him. So the deeper darkness effect is supressed and all can see the troops now. Doesn't hinder the mage? If the mage does not know what he's firing at, and can't use targetted spells against what it hides, the mage is obviously hindered. You can target the square in which the deeper darkness carrier is located in. 50% miss chance since you cant see him. And if you want it ultra cheesy, first cast an true strike. Concealment miss chances no longer apply. So you take out that carrier with an 1st and 2nd level spell (true strike + melfs acid arrow). Additionaly you could also fireball the area afterwards, because fireballs destroy unattended objects. Deeper Darkness should be gone now.
Earthcrosser599 07-11-05, 05:25 AM	When we ran a war campaign the highest wizard or sorceror you'd see in anything conflict other than the Battle of Endor was 2nd level, possibly 3rd. The BIG battles had people up to 5th but they were legendary. It simplified things alot.
Ambian Eagleheart 07-11-05, 05:50 AM	I've just had a great hour reading all 7 pages and its the best read I've ever had. I thought I'd say something too. I beleive that Wizards are too powerful period. Try to imagine yourself as a wizard. You would start your apprenticeship at around 13. You'd spend 7 years as an apprentice to a Master Wizard and another 7 years as a journeyman before being able to sit the test to become a Master (I'm going off a Guild's time requirements for more normal trades so a Wizard would probably be longer). So you are free to work for yourself at nearly 30 years off age. I know that the medievil life expectancy averaged 40 years but think, this is D and D so you'd be able to adventure until your 50's (the King of the Holy Roman Empire [Germany], Frederick Barbarossa died trying to swim a river in Turkey on his way to the crusades and he was in his 60's....I think). You would have to pay a Master Magician a LOT of money to risk going anywhere near a battlefield. Apprentices would be there to represent their masters and Journeyman could be attracted to a battlefield as a quick way of establishing fame (or even notoriety) for themselves. So the majority of Spell casters running around the Battlefield would be fairly low level (1 - 5). Masters would be of better service to their cause if they stayed well back from the frontline and used their energies to make Items for the troops to wear / use (An apprentice can be on the Battlefield armed with various wands / items that were made or them by their masters). Now to the battle itself: I loved all this talk about tactic and counter-tactic. The idea was whether AoE spells are too powerful and I think they are. The preceeding paragraphs are to show just how off the mark most people are when it comes to their ideas on Wizards (The reason I included the Guild info is because during the Middle ages, everything was in a Guild). All these Fireballs shooting back and forth and almost nobody could come up with something different. Using illusions to waste opponents spells is great, but I'm surprised nobody mentioned Cloudkill. Downright fatal to anything under 4HD (that is most of your troops), Cloudkill has become a lot less popular since 3rd Ed (just like good ol' sleep). The idea of using low level spells against what would normaly be low level opponents is great (This talk of 4th level fighters on Horseback is Bl@*dy rubbish, they would be a command group or a crack bodygaurd). Thank goodness Spellcasting is fairly rare on battlefields (unless you are in Faerun) because this would mean that Armies would just end up being meat shields to protect your spellcasters. Either you have spellcasters or you don't. If you do then read the last line in the last paragraph and don't bother equiping your troops (they'll just be killed anyway-the money wasted on stupidities such as Armor or Weapons could be better spent on.....MORE SPELLCASTERS). This would mean that war would just be an arms race to see who could aquire the most Spellcasters. But if you don't have enough Spellcasters then simply.......Quit the field to fight another day. That's right, retreat. This way you can catch them on the march, like the Indians did to the English in 'Last of the Mohicans' (Or the Wabash River campaign if you prefer reality to movies). Wear the enemy spellcasters down by night raids to deny them their nights rest (No decent nights rest.....No new spells learnt tomorrow.....IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT). Then when their spellcasters are down or weakened....ATTACK. They will be so used to winnning with their Spells that they won't know how to win without them. HA! HA! HA! AoE spells are just too powerful in War settings. So what, if you keep your wits as I've shown above, Powerful Spellcasters are no problem. _______________________ Thought for the day: "As long as you judge your enemy by his appearance, their victory is always assured"
Nyferto 07-11-05, 07:50 AM	I was going to mention Cloudkill, but we stuck to something like 5th level wizards and sorcs. It's a DOT AOE spell, DOT spells are typically better against mass weaker foes because they kill more, they commonly have the weakness of being imobile - they need precise targeting and a foe that cannot avoid it. As for Wizards, the reason they're not used excessivly (even if they could be used) is numbers alone. You can't occupy a town with a bunch of low level wizards, you can't seize control of an enemy installation with some panzy with a fireball spell. Darkness. You do know you can just cast it on an object and distribute it around? That way your darkness infused Rogue or Bard can just throw the stuff around and move amidst it. Then kill off the mage, whilst leaving the surrounding troops in darkness. You could even double it all up with Silence and cripple attempts to cast completely. Oh and people do grant cover, that's an absolute fact. Also, don't bother going on about costs, armies generate their own needs, they don't go into a weapons supermarket and buy it in large bulkds. Except for some specific gear they're most likely only pay for material costs, the rest would be handled by themselves. There's a reason for Army Surplus stores. Still no explanation of what the Wizard really does after he's run out of spells. Also, I've seen nothing that says Spreads (or anything) can move diagonally across total cover.
Alienfreak 07-11-05, 08:09 AM	Nobody ever said that persons dont give cover. It just doesnt help if you dimension door in. You still get seen.
Derren S. 07-11-05, 10:49 AM	Also, don't bother going on about costs, armies generate their own needs, they don't go into a weapons supermarket and buy it in large bulkds. Except for some specific gear they're most likely only pay for material costs, the rest would be handled by themselves. There's a reason for Army Surplus stores. So every soldier carries a +5 vorpal weapon and +5 heavy fortification armor... But hey, why not give them epic weapons as money is not an issue.
RadicalTaoist 07-11-05, 11:00 AM	Good call on guerilla warfare Ambian. 'When the enemy attacks, we retreat. When the enemy stops, we harass. When the enemy tires, we attack. When the enemy retreats, we pursue.' -Mao Tse Tung (May be off on a line or two, there are different translations)
Nyferto 07-11-05, 12:50 PM	I didn't say that armies didn't pay, I'm saying they don't pay standard costs. They don't have to worry so much about buying armour for people if they've got some smiths in their service and a source of ore. They do not pay the same prices as People. Gearing people up with the basics isn't that much of a problem for an army with crafters, especially if they stock pile gear before hand, i.e. they don't have to build everything one day before war kicks off. For all you know an army might commision some magical items - but they'd probably keep them in stock and only give them to the right people who need to do key jobs, like assassinating Wizards for example. Don't bother taking the words out of context in future. Also, if an invisible person dimension doors into a crowd and that crowd is in the way of the only person who can see invisible - no he isn't seen.
Derren S. 07-11-05, 12:54 PM	What is are "the basics"? Even a normal full plate takes moths to craft not to mention a masterwork one. Its impossible to equip a army with it except you have decades to prepare. And magical items also need XP, something which is not easily earned.
Alienfreak 07-11-05, 01:28 PM	I didn't say that armies didn't pay, I'm saying they don't pay standard costs. They don't have to worry so much about buying armour for people if they've got some smiths in their service and a source of ore. They do not pay the same prices as People. Gearing people up with the basics isn't that much of a problem for an army with crafters, especially if they stock pile gear before hand, i.e. they don't have to build everything one day before war kicks off. Armies pay exactly the same price as other peoples period.
Vanigo 07-11-05, 05:25 PM	I was going to mention Cloudkill, but we stuck to something like 5th level wizards and sorcs. It's a DOT AOE spell, DOT spells are typically better against mass weaker foes because they kill more, they commonly have the weakness of being imobile - they need precise targeting and a foe that cannot avoid it.Actually, against your typical grunt, it's even better than a DoT; it's an instant kill with no save if you've got 3 HD or fewer, and a save-or-die (and take con damage even if you make the save) against anything with 4 to 6. Problem is, it's a fifth level spell and it's only got medium range. As for Wizards, the reason they're not used excessivly (even if they could be used) is numbers alone. You can't occupy a town with a bunch of low level wizards, you can't seize control of an enemy installation with some panzy with a fireball spell.Correct; wizards work best in adjunct with more combative types. Darkness. You do know you can just cast it on an object and distribute it around? That way your darkness infused Rogue or Bard can just throw the stuff around and move amidst it. Then kill off the mage, whilst leaving the surrounding troops in darkness. You could even double it all up with Silence and cripple attempts to cast completely.Yeah, because the bodyguards won't notice a big blob of darkness moving towards them. Why to you continue to assume that the wizards will be standing alone and unsupported? Oh and people do grant cover, that's an absolute fact.People grant soft cover against melee attacks only. That's +4 AC versus melee attacks, no bonus to reflex saves, and it doesn't let you hide. See page 151. Also, don't bother going on about costs, armies generate their own needs, they don't go into a weapons supermarket and buy it in large bulkds. Except for some specific gear they're most likely only pay for material costs, the rest would be handled by themselves. There's a reason for Army Surplus stores. Still no explanation of what the Wizard really does after he's run out of spells.Well, since armies can get supplies on the cheap, they can keep blasting away with wands. Also, I've seen nothing that says Spreads (or anything) can move diagonally across total cover.Then you haven't been looking. I went into some detail on this exact subject, complete with diagrams, a couple days ago. Now, if you would like to take issue with my arguments, that's fine - this is a debate of sorts, after all - but I'm going to have to ask you to explain exactly where the error in my reasoning is. Armies pay exactly the same price as other peoples period. That makes about as much sense as "Weaponsmiths pay exactly the same price for longswords as other peoples period." Or maybe "The Toyota corporation pays exactly the same price for cars as other peoples period," since they do still have to pay the workers. It's pretty reasonable for a standing army to have its own smiths on hand. Now, they are paying for their items, just not as much as your typical adventurer. As for modern army surplus stores, though, I think that's because they have huge contracts that get them sizable bulk discounts from supplier corporations; I don't think the Army has a manufacturing branch. Either you have spellcasters or you don't. If you do then read the last line in the last paragraph and don't bother equiping your troops (they'll just be killed anyway-the money wasted on stupidities such as Armor or Weapons could be better spent on.....MORE SPELLCASTERS). This would mean that war would just be an arms race to see who could aquire the most Spellcasters. But if you don't have enough Spellcasters then simply.......Quit the field to fight another day. That's right, retreat. This way you can catch them on the march, like the Indians did to the English in 'Last of the Mohicans' (Or the Wabash River campaign if you prefer reality to movies). Wear the enemy spellcasters down by night raids to deny them their nights rest (No decent nights rest.....No new spells learnt tomorrow.....IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT). Then when their spellcasters are down or weakened....ATTACK. They will be so used to winnning with their Spells that they won't know how to win without them. HA! HA! HA! AoE spells are just too powerful in War settings. So what, if you keep your wits as I've shown above, Powerful Spellcasters are no problem.That's a valid tactic, but not infalliable. First of all, if you're retreating, it's awfully hard to also attack. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive per se; it's a matter of logistics. To stay away from your enemy, you have to move at least as fast as they do. To stay away from your enemy most of the time, but come in to attack periodically, you have to move quite a bit faster. Secondly, you have to attack with enough force that the regular army can't take care of it quickly enough for the wizards to keep sleeping. That makes it even harder - you could attack with some mounted raiders without too much trouble, but they won't be able to stick around long. After all, night raids are part of warfare even without wizards, so there will be defenses in place against them. The only way a small raid could be expected to wake up the wizards would be if they got some flaming arrows in the wizards' tents, but you can bet will be in the center of camp, highly protected, if not in a rope trick. Thirdly, to really get a benefit from these tactics, you have to attack every night. The difficulty of pulling this off on consecutive night goes up exponentially, since your enemy will be warier and your troops will be more tired. Specially trained guerrillas could get around these problems, perhaps, but if your army is trained for more conventional warfare, they probably won't be able to.
redraven 07-11-05, 07:10 PM	Ok. Lets say they are squads of 20 men. 100 of them making 2000 soldiers. So they probably have an formation of 4(b)x5(d). To be able to hide them under a deeper darkness spell you will need at least 17 deeper darkness spells. If the are marching one next to the other. Since you would like to spread in order to reduce the effectiveness of arrows, siege weapons and so one you will most certainly need 50-100 deeper darkness spells. For that the other army can buy 50-100 fireballs .... Who said anything about casting Deeper Darkness on everybody? The entire army is not going to be outfitted with 30 gp Tower Shields as that isn't cost-effective. If the wizard wants to blast the conscripts who pretend to be dead after one wound anyway, I say let them. The wizard has to cast See Invisibility (100 gp), Fly (150 gp), False Life (100 gp) and Wind Wall (150 gp) before he even gets to cast Fireball at 150 gp at pop. Conscripts cost, what? Certainly less than 950 gp for 5d6 damage. Moreover, I already dealt with the archer question. The short version: archers cannot hit anything at that range, much less with a 50% miss chance and/or the soldiers actually getting their Tower Shield bonus to AC (when they haven't claimed total cover). Even worse, when the soldiers actually claim total cover, the archers cannot damage them at all with either volleys or targeted attacks depending on whether they claim it from the top or front. And siege weapons? Seriously? This is supposedly an empty field which both armies arrived at about the same time, since things are "equal." Even if they did have siege engines though, those cost a minimum of 500 gp, and suffer the same sort of set-backs as archers and wizards in terms of cost-effectiveness. Lets say they march hidden. They have 4 ranks in hiding (which is ******** for 1st level warriors who will most certainly have other skills, 2). They wear an armor that has about -4 Armor Check Penalty and since they have an tower shield they get another -10. They probably have an +1 dex modifier so that leaves them with an -9 on hiding checks. On 400 ft that is an minus of 31 on your spot check. While moving hidden it reduces their speed to one half. Since you ready an action to be prepared of an fireball attack they have one move action left. They have an speed of only 20 ft so it leaves them with 10ft of movement per round. Until you will be closing in to the enemy he will reduced your numbers with bows and siege weapons that much that it wont even matter that you havent fireballed em :) Actually, let's just say that the soldiers have no ranks in Hide, and are running while in Leather armor an carrying Tower Shields from at least 400 feet away. The Spot DC is still DC 10, and they just covered 120 feet of the battlefield. But, of course, they're not running. The half-speed thing is only necessary to not take any penalties, since you can move 25 feet per round with only a -5. So, the Spot DC is roughly 25, probably out of the range of even a roll of 20 for 1st-level archers. But this is all beside the point, considering that the archers would have almost zero chance of hitting anything from that range, concealment notwithstanding. An also notice: on closer distances (like 100 ft) you can deploy snipers that have an daylight arrow. With an scroll of true strike those will surely hit the enemy deeper darkness carrier and most certainly kill him. So the deeper darkness effect is supressed and all can see the troops now. What, 100 feet from the front lines? At that range, you'll have your own snipers and/or wizard and/or archers to shoot at them. Shouldn't be that hard to locate, considering he'll be glowing quite brightly. Moreover, if the bolt hits its target, the Daylight goes away since the object is destroyed. Even on a miss, it gets destroyed 50% of the time. You can target the square in which the deeper darkness carrier is located in. 50% miss chance since you cant see him. And if you want it ultra cheesy, first cast an true strike. Concealment miss chances no longer apply. So you take out that carrier with an 1st and 2nd level spell (true strike + melfs acid arrow). Additionaly you could also fireball the area afterwards, because fireballs destroy unattended objects. Deeper Darkness should be gone now. Unless, of course, Deeper Darkness is cast on a dagger that is being dragged 10 feet behind the guy using some rope or steel wire. Besides, even a Fireball will deal, on average, 8.75 fire damage to objects before factoring in Hardness. On average, even a dagger will never be damaged by a 5d6 Fireball, attended or not. As for True Strike, that's an interesting rules question considering the archer or wizard really cannot see the effectively invisible character. I would rule that the 50% miss chance still applies, since they have to guess which square the soldier dragging the dagger is.
Ambian Eagleheart 07-11-05, 09:53 PM	I was going to mention Cloudkill, but we stuck to something like 5th level wizards and sorcs. Sorry about the mix up. I agree that most people agreed that only low level Wizards and Sorcs should be on the battlefield, but in some parts of the thread people were talking about 10th Level casters. I just got sick of everybody always mentioning Fireball (Fireball and Magic Missile i think aer the two most overused spells in D and D). Cloudkill would probably be complete overkill against a typical army (0 - 1st level Commoners / Warriors anyway. Sorry about harping on about Wizards (I got stuck in my campaign world), the call about the Wizards at the end was just a little bit of fun to show just how off the topic people were getting. Also, don't bother going on about costs, armies generate their own needs, they don't go into a weapons supermarket and buy it in large bulkds. Except for some specific gear they're most likely only pay for material costs, the rest would be handled by themselves. There's a reason for Army Surplus stores. There was no such thing as an army surplus store...."Yeah, I am here for my Government Issue (G.I.) +2 Plate Mail and +5 Vorpal Greatsword". Sorry mate, but I think you might be on the wrong Forum....Try D20 Modern. You should read a couple of books on the crusades. Knights had to pay their own way, buying their own equipment. This was an expensive bussiness as Knights often had to mortgage their estates to finance their quests. Keep in mind that you would be away for nearly 4 years and had to have the money up front. The phrase "dog robber' was invented to describe Squires that would literally have rob dogs to feed their masters (Knights or Nobles). If you like reading I'd seriously recommend Sun Tsu's 'The Art of War'. You will learn very quickly just how important Logistics (Your lines of supply) really is. Don't think I disagree with you though. I thought that using Darkness was a GREAT idea. I just think you and I have different ideas about D and D. It is afterall a MEDIEVIL, FANTASY RPG. So please don't go thinking of it in modern terms.....Look at the mix up caused on this thread by comparing Spellcasters to Modern Artilllery.
Vanigo 07-12-05, 12:00 AM	Forgot to reply to this one earlier. Correct, when the spread's radius happens to go around the total cover. Keep in mind, however, that the Fireball's spread will get reduced when it is forced to go around the Tower Shields. It says as much in the Spread description: "Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes." Anyway, in your first example: SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS SSXXXXXXXSS C ...there are a few errors. I suppose the first is that I was using a 5x5 formation instead of the 11x3. Your formation increases the amount of deaths, whereas mine decreases it. I believe it is logical that army commanders would choose the ones which decrease causalities. The second is that it fails to take into account the Fireball's necessity in move around the tower shields. You say chest-level detonation? Here you go (profile): X1234 PAAAAA All the soldiers are claiming total cover from the front. This means only the first three soldiers are getting burned - the fourth cannot be reached by the spread. This results in the total of 7 deaths and 2 wounded, on average (again, assuming 1st-level warriors). Your profile view is correct, but there's still a flaw in your reasoning. If I understand you right, your reasoning goes like this: 1: The fireball strikes an area of soldiers 3 squares deep. (This is correct.) 2: Therefore, it strikes an area of soldiers 3 squares wide. (This is not correct; see below.) 3: Nine soldiers are hit, and two are likely to survive. The problem is, the area of soldiers struck is not three squares wide. The fireball can roast guys 15 feet in, 15 feet to the left, and 15 feet to the right. With the 5-foot "dead on" area, that's 15 feet deep and 35 feet wide, for a total of 21 unhappy campers. (Surprisingly enough, the corners are affected.) Next, you indicate planting the Fireball above the head of the first guy: *** SXXXCXXXS SXXXXXXXS SSSXXXSSS In a side view, it looks like this: WP1234 XAAAAA The "W" is just to preserve spacing. Now, the soldiers will claim total cover from the top. The same number of dead and wounded apply in this case as the other - 7 dead, 2 wounded.Same problem here. 15 feet deep does not mean 15 feet across. However, some of the corner guys are safe, so the total casualty figure is lower. As I mentioned before, the deadly location would be here: PXXXX XAAAAA This is because there is really no way to defend again diagonals in D&D, due to the inability for multiple characters to share the same square in any meaningful sense. If two guys with tower shields were able to share a square, with one granting both total cover from the front and the other total cover from the top, then we would have ourselves a useful strategy against Fireballs. Alas, it was not meant to be. The above attack reaches four rows back no matter what the soldiers do, killing 12 and wounding 4.And again. It's 20 feet deep, but a full 45 feet across. Again, some of the guys in the corners are unaffected. You did bring up an interesting tactic though: intercepting the Fireball bead. A monk of any level with resist elements (or a good Reflex save to take advantage of Evasion) could stand in front of a critical formation and ready a move action to intercept the bead and hopefully spare most of the soldiers. Even low-level monks would probably have a higher AC than most everyone else, and certainly higher than a bunch of 1st-level archers from 400+ feet away.This image fills me with glee. I'm not too sure about the feasibility, though. A monk could certainly move between the wizard and his target, but since he only grants soft cover, the fireball bead, not being a melee attack, can ignore him. I suppose a DM could rule that it could be treated as a use of Deflect Arrows or something, though.
redraven 07-12-05, 03:49 AM	Forgot to reply to this one earlier. Your profile view is correct, but there's still a flaw in your reasoning. If I understand you right, your reasoning goes like this: 1: The fireball strikes an area of soldiers 3 squares deep. (This is correct.) 2: Therefore, it strikes an area of soldiers 3 squares wide. (This is not correct; see below.) 3: Nine soldiers are hit, and two are likely to survive. The problem is, the area of soldiers struck is not three squares wide. The fireball can roast guys 15 feet in, 15 feet to the left, and 15 feet to the right. With the 5-foot "dead on" area, that's 15 feet deep and 35 feet wide, for a total of 21 unhappy campers. (Surprisingly enough, the corners are affected.) My apologies, I should have made it more clear that in the profile shots I was actually using my 5x5 formation, instead of yours. Thus, they look like this: AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA ....P This was what I was talking about in reference to decreasing causalities by changing the formation. I did make some errors though, as I was working the angles. It appears the entire second line and the third line get roasted, adding four more deaths and another two causalities. The affected people would be: AAAAA AAAAA DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD ....P In a chest-level explosion. Total affected is 15. What I neglected to consider is that the Fireball can take three diagonals for its radius and, of course, there is no defense against corners. In all fairness though, the bolded D units should be given the +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves considering the last diagonals are partially blocked. The cover section does say spreads can negate this bonus by going around corners, but it cannot go around the corner all the way for the bolded guys. As I said though, the Fireball exploding at a grid intersection changes the numbers. More specifically, by making them worse. AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAAAA ...;..... At this grid intersection, the Fireball explodes at the corner closest to the center guy (either side works fine) and abuses diagonals all the way back to the fourth row. .XXXX XAAAAA and: AAAAA ADDAA DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD ...;..... Nails a total of 17 guys, with thirteen deaths and four wounded. Remember, the formation is only 5x5, so quite a bit of the Fireball's spread is wasted out to the sides. The only good the Tower Shields really do is limit the wizard to only to one possible grid intersection to deal the most amount of damage. This knowledge will come in handy in positioning the monk to interscept the Fireball bead. I'm not quite sure why you'd say it wouldn't work. We are talking about the use of readied actions here - when the conditions have been met (Fireball bead comes close), the monk has anywhere between 30-50 feet of movement availible to purposely slam into it. Even if the wizard is flying, a monk can jump rather high, especially if aided with the Jump spell and/or low-level magic items. This isn't about the wizard making any attack rolls (he already did, at the grid intersection, and it succeeded). It's about throwing yourself in front of an attack. I'll admit that there are few, if any, rules that govern this sort of thing, but I'm inclined to say that it should be rather easy since the monk is using his whole body. After all, AC presumes that the other creature is not trying to intentionally get hit.
WaterRabbit 07-12-05, 09:04 AM	Oh, please. This is got to be the dumbest use of a 5th level wizard, period. At 5th level your wizard has two (count them one, two) 3rd level spells IF he has a 16 intelligence. Windwall, a 3rd level spell is one of them. You are correct, without this spell the wizard is DEAD after he throws his fireball. With his one fireball he kills one squad of my soliders. Maybe. If they make their saves they have taken 7 points of damage and are stil standing. BFD. So, how many 5th level wizards are you going to embed in your army? 1 per 100? 1 per 1000? For the cost of that one wizard, I can purchase 10 or more squads of mooks -- preferably archers which are going to kill way more people. Or I could just get a 5th level fighter and kill 2-3 times more squads than that one wizard. Also, if that wizard is at 400 yards shooting his one fireball, he better make sure he has some height advantage to see over his own troops to gain line of effect. As the opposing commander facing such a 'threat' I wouldn't even bother considering it in my plans. My solidiers are hardly going to notice the one squad your wizard has killed compared to the 5 or so squads my archers kill on your side at the sametime. Then on the next round the next 5 and so on. After you wizard has spent his 4 rounds on the battlefield (his windwall expires in 5 so he better leave some time to disengage) he is back in the tent sipping tea and munching crumpets while the real fighting takes place. Remember, your 5th level wizard has two 3rd level spells. Use them wisely. Now before you give me the I have a bunch of scrolls and wands routine, remember that you only have 4,300 gp to purchase on equipment. So no wands of fireball, no wands of acid arrow. The best you can by is a Magic Missile wand 5th level for 3,750 gp. Three missiles for 3.5 points of damage will kill one mook. Again so what? You might do better with scrolls of fireball at 375 each. You can buy 10. That means you will get to use 4, because after the windwall drops, the wizard is dead. He better concentrate on killing the archers. Oops they are out of range. This use of a wizard is lame. Come back when you have some game.
bomaz 07-12-05, 09:10 AM	so how did the wiz handle himself against perhaps a few imps or elementals or displacer beasts or blinkdogs or similar? somethin that most armies are likely to summon to use against him.
Vanigo 07-12-05, 01:22 PM	I'm not quite sure why you'd say it wouldn't work. We are talking about the use of readied actions here - when the conditions have been met (Fireball bead comes close), the monk has anywhere between 30-50 feet of movement availible to purposely slam into it. Even if the wizard is flying, a monk can jump rather high, especially if aided with the Jump spell and/or low-level magic items. This isn't about the wizard making any attack rolls (he already did, at the grid intersection, and it succeeded). It's about throwing yourself in front of an attack. I'll admit that there are few, if any, rules that govern this sort of thing, but I'm inclined to say that it should be rather easy since the monk is using his whole body. After all, AC presumes that the other creature is not trying to intentionally get hit.Well, the monk can definetly move to a square that the fireball is going to pass through. But what then? By the RAW, a fireball can shoot right through a square containing a monk unless the monk has a tower shield positioned to provide cover - in which case he loses most of his AC and is easy pickings for any archers. This isn't a matter of me saying "there's nothing saying a monk blocks a fireball, so a monk doesn't block a fireball," this is a matter of the book specifically saying that the soft cover provided by an interposing creature only affects melee attacks. I suppose you could houserule that you could throw yourself in front of another creature to provide real cover or something, but that'd probably be another action and the monk only has one. As for 5x5 formations, they're better against fireballs, but they're really easy to flank, and they're no good at holding the front line in place. The 4x11 formation I used in my diagrams was meant to represent a small part of a formation that was more like 5x20 in total. Oh, and the tower shields do serve a very important purpose in a 5x5 formation like that: if you don't have them, the enemy wizard can plant a fireball directly above the formation to toast the entire thing. Tower shields held straight up prevent this. Oh, please. This is got to be the dumbest use of a 5th level wizard, period. At 5th level your wizard has two (count them one, two) 3rd level spells IF he has a 16 intelligence. Windwall, a 3rd level spell is one of them. You are correct, without this spell the wizard is DEAD after he throws his fireball. With his one fireball he kills one squad of my soliders. Maybe. If they make their saves they have taken 7 points of damage and are stil standing. BFD.Actually, only PCs get the max HP at first level, so only about a eighth of your soldiers survive a fireball even on a successful save. And that's the actual warriors, not the commoners pressed into service. Even some second level warriors (and almost every second level commoner) can be brought down by a fireball on a successful save. As for needing wind wall consider this alternative: Put a wooden platform above the wizard. This grants him total cover from the top, protecting him from indirect fire. The long range means that direct fire is a fairly negligible threat; with some trivial defenses like mage armor and a 3-foot plank in front of you for low cover, only a natural 20 will hit you. The enemy might have enough archers available to make that a meaningful danger, but second level spells like protection from arrows and mirror image can pick up the slack easily. This'll give you protection that's nearly as effective, but longer-lasting, without using any of your valuable third-level slots. So, how many 5th level wizards are you going to embed in your army? 1 per 100? 1 per 1000? For the cost of that one wizard, I can purchase 10 or more squads of mooks -- preferably archers which are going to kill way more people.This is the only decent point in your post. Could money spent on a wizard be more effectively spent on archers? On the one hand, it's entirely possible that they'd kill more people, although I don't feel like working out the numbers. On the other hand, consider how effective a morale weapon having a couple wizards would be. Instead of getting shot up with arrows - a death you understand and know what to do about - you blow up. With fire and brimstone and everything. Plus, a wizard is orders of magnitude easier to manuver and supply. Or I could just get a 5th level fighter and kill 2-3 times more squads than that one wizard.Um, right. You know, a fifth level fighter is pretty easy to overwhelm with large numbers of weak guys. He's got maybe 20-22 AC, tops, and in the neighborhood of 35-40 hit points. He'll last six rounds against a squad of troops, and that's long enough for him to kill five soldiers if he's lucky. Remember, soldiers have armor, too; the fighter won't hit more than maybe - maybe 75% of the time. Also, if that wizard is at 400 yards shooting his one fireball, he better make sure he has some height advantage to see over his own troops to gain line of effect.And this is hard because? As the opposing commander facing such a 'threat' I wouldn't even bother considering it in my plans. My solidiers are hardly going to notice the one squad your wizard has killed compared to the 5 or so squads my archers kill on your side at the sametime. Then on the next round the next 5 and so on. After you wizard has spent his 4 rounds on the battlefield (his windwall expires in 5 so he better leave some time to disengage) he is back in the tent sipping tea and munching crumpets while the real fighting takes place.How many archers do you have again? And how many arrows do they have? Remember, your 5th level wizard has two 3rd level spells. Use them wisely. Now before you give me the I have a bunch of scrolls and wands routine, remember that you only have 4,300 gp to purchase on equipment. So no wands of fireball, no wands of acid arrow. The best you can by is a Magic Missile wand 5th level for 3,750 gp. Three missiles for 3.5 points of damage will kill one mook. Again so what? You might do better with scrolls of fireball at 375 each. You can buy 10. That means you will get to use 4, because after the windwall drops, the wizard is dead. He better concentrate on killing the archers. Oops they are out of range.Yeah, because you just know that armies never simply supply equipment to the people working for them. It's simply preposterous for an army to have a half-dozen wands of fireball with varying numbers of charges remaining in a vault somewhere that they can give to wizards they hire on the condition that they give them back afterwards if there are any charges left. This use of a wizard is lame. Come back when you have some game.See, this amuses and irritates me at the same time. On the one hand, I'm insulted that you seem to think you're smarter than me. On the other hand, it's also really, really funny that you seem to think you're smarter than me. so how did the wiz handle himself against perhaps a few imps or elementals or displacer beasts or blinkdogs or similar? somethin that most armies are likely to summon to use against him.He ignores them, because summoning spells have a 1 round/level duration, and they can't cross the battlefield in that time. Well, okay, the blink dog can dimention door over, but he'll be torn apart by the wizard's bodyguards.
WaterRabbit 07-12-05, 03:21 PM	Actually, only PCs get the max HP at first level, so only about a eighth of your soldiers survive a fireball even on a successful save. And that's the actual warriors, not the commoners pressed into service. Even some second level warriors (and almost every second level commoner) can be brought down by a fireball on a successful save. It is about equivalent to all of the other silly assumptions made for the wizard. (see below) Again, so what? You take out a squad of mooks. You are greatly exaggerating the effect on morale. If you kill the whole squad there is no morale check. You have to kill half the army for them to even be worried about one fireball. As for needing wind wall consider this alternative: Put a wooden platform above the wizard. This grants him total cover from the top, protecting him from indirect fire. The long range means that direct fire is a fairly negligible threat; with some trivial defenses like mage armor and a 3-foot plank in front of you for low cover, only a natural 20 will hit you. The enemy might have enough archers available to make that a meaningful danger, but second level spells like protection from arrows and mirror image can pick up the slack easily. This'll give you protection that's nearly as effective, but longer-lasting, without using any of your valuable third-level slots. Man you are spending a lot of resources just to get a mage into position to cast a fireball or two. This just shows how ineffectual this really is. Also you are assuming that you have the luxury of time to put this up in the first place. This also is telling the opposing army exactly where your wizards are. This is the only decent point in your post. Could money spent on a wizard be more effectively spent on archers? On the one hand, it's entirely possible that they'd kill more people, although I don't feel like working out the numbers. On the other hand, consider how effective a morale weapon having a couple wizards would be. Instead of getting shot up with arrows - a death you understand and know what to do about - you blow up. With fire and brimstone and everything. Plus, a wizard is orders of magnitude easier to manuver and supply. They would kill a lot more people not even a question. I have played quite a few mass D&D mass battles and archers are very effective. This is why Protection for Arrows is so feeble. I have killed wizards in a single round completely overwhelming their protection. It is not even a close contest. Again a single fireball is not an effect morale weapon compared to how much damage archers can do. Real world armies did not have that much difficulty supplying their soldiers with arrows, so this is not much of a point. Yep, it is a lot easier to maneuver twenty guys than a whole army, because that is what you are getting on a cost basis. Um, right. You know, a fifth level fighter is pretty easy to overwhelm with large numbers of weak guys. He's got maybe 20-22 AC, tops, and in the neighborhood of 35-40 hit points. He'll last six rounds against a squad of troops, and that's long enough for him to kill five soldiers if he's lucky. Remember, soldiers have armor, too; the fighter won't hit more than maybe - maybe 75% of the time. You probably need to look at this a little closer. He is part of a squad of mooks. He will punch a whole through the enemy lines faster than a single fireball and remember he has money left to buy a few healing potions. It is unlikely that he will get surrounded and flanked since he is integrated into a squad. And this is hard because? How many archers do you have again? And how many arrows do they have? For every wizard you deploy, I can afford 5-10 squads of archers (maybe a whole lot more, depends on the system used). Each of these archers can fire twice per round (Rapid Shot) assuming they are human. So I have a lot of arrows. Again, the English never ran out of arrows facing the French during the Hundred Years war. The wizard is going to run out of spells in less than 15 minutes. The archers are going to be shooting arrows for several more hours. Yeah, because you just know that armies never simply supply equipment to the people working for them. It's simply preposterous for an army to have a half-dozen wands of fireball with varying numbers of charges remaining in a vault somewhere that they can give to wizards they hire on the condition that they give them back afterwards if there are any charges left. Either go by the RAW or state all of your conditions. I'll tell you what take 100,000 gp and create an army. Buy a bunch of 5th level wizards and then see how many you can outfit with 5th level wands of fireball at 11,250 each. At most 8 wands assuming you buy no troops. Arrows are 1 gold for twenty. That is a lot of arrows. See, this amuses and irritates me at the same time. On the one hand, I'm insulted that you seem to think you're smarter than me. On the other hand, it's also really, really funny that you seem to think you're smarter than me. Frankly, I could care less whether you are amused or irritated. I am posting to the validity of the idea and not the person making the post. This scenario is untenable. Wizards are wasted taking out mooks. Archers are much more effective in that role. Wizards should be working to take out important characters that can really have an effect on the battlefield. The short duration, their limited number of spells, and the extraordinary measures that are required to put this tactic to work make it lame idea. However, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Create an army using 100,000 gp and incorporating your ideas about wizards. We can limit it to core books, if you like, or add in some splats like CW and Heroes of Battle (which has really good terrain rules, if nothing else, plus has War Weaver PrC which also totally nerfs this idea of yours). Put your build up and we will tell you how effective it is against an army comprised of warriors, fighters, and clerics. Please show us how much smarter you are than the rest of us.
redraven 07-12-05, 03:38 PM	Well, the monk can definetly move to a square that the fireball is going to pass through. But what then? By the RAW, a fireball can shoot right through a square containing a monk unless the monk has a tower shield positioned to provide cover - in which case he loses most of his AC and is easy pickings for any archers. This isn't a matter of me saying "there's nothing saying a monk blocks a fireball, so a monk doesn't block a fireball," this is a matter of the book specifically saying that the soft cover provided by an interposing creature only affects melee attacks. I suppose you could houserule that you could throw yourself in front of another creature to provide real cover or something, but that'd probably be another action and the monk only has one. I would agree if Fireball didn't specifically say: A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) Besides, soft cover affects all attacks, even ranged ones. Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. This does not really matter however, as with soft cover and such the assumption is that the creature providing it is not specifically trying to intercept the attack, as a readied action no less. Again, I'll admit there are little to no official rules regarding such a tactic. As for 5x5 formations, they're better against fireballs, but they're really easy to flank, and they're no good at holding the front line in place. The 4x11 formation I used in my diagrams was meant to represent a small part of a formation that was more like 5x20 in total. It doesn't really matter, considering that the enemy will be forced to match this formation or suffer more casualities from the other wizards. Remember, this scenario calls for a completely equal force (except, strangely enough, only one side is advancing). On the other hand, consider how effective a morale weapon having a couple wizards would be. Instead of getting shot up with arrows - a death you understand and know what to do about - you blow up. With fire and brimstone and everything. Plus, a wizard is orders of magnitude easier to manuver and supply. Although I don't have the book, apparently Heroes of Battle has the game-specific effects of morale, and it's a bit more complicated than simply seeing a Fireball go off. And really, we are talking about a high-magic world in which wizards are often seen on the battlefield. I've mentioned earlier that the DMG directly contradicts this sentiment, but it appears this is what we're working with. Thus, Fireballs should be no more uncommon than arrow volleys (which Complete Warrior introduced, as far as I know). Um, right. You know, a fifth level fighter is pretty easy to overwhelm with large numbers of weak guys. He's got maybe 20-22 AC, tops, and in the neighborhood of 35-40 hit points. He'll last six rounds against a squad of troops, and that's long enough for him to kill five soldiers if he's lucky. Remember, soldiers have armor, too; the fighter won't hit more than maybe - maybe 75% of the time. Typical conscripts are defined in the DMG as 1st-level commoners in padded armor, carrying a wooden shield and a shortspear. This means about AC 12 with an attack bonus of -1 dealing 1d6 damage on a successful hit (assuming stats of 10). They have 4 HP, and technically are not even proficient with their armor and shield (which is why they have a negative hit modifier). It is doubtful that the commoner's one simple weapon proficiency would be with the shortspear, but for the sake of argument, let's say this is the case. Typical soldiers are defined in the DMG as 1st-level warriors in studded leather, carrying a wooden shield and a longsword. This means about AC 15 with an attack bonus of +2 dealing 1d8+1 damage on a successful hit (assuming STR/DEX/CON of 12). They have 9 HP. Now, the sample 5th-level fighter in the DMG is a hobgoblin with HP 47, AC 21, and an Attack of +10 dealing 1d10+5 (19-20/x2). Against the conscripts, this fighter has a 90% chance of hitting, whereas he has a 75% chance of hitting the warriors. They have a 5% and 10% chance, respectfully. On average, this fighter can take 14 hits by conscripts, or 9 hits by warriors. The one critical flaw in this fighter analysis however, is whether the character was built for war-like combat. The hobgoblin is nice and generic, but what would happen if it were a human who dropped the bastard sword and took Cleave and Great Cleave instead? He would absolutely mow through conscripts with relative impunity, and still take down more than a fair number of warriors (who would still die in one hit on average). While it is very true that the fighter would eventually die if he were simply swamped with no back-up, the same could be said about the wizard - who himself dies in a single Fireball from the opposing wizard more than half the time. Either way, I'd still take the 5th-level Druid over anything. The other classes simply cannot top even the Druid's 1st-level spells (Entangle) in a mass-combat setting.
Vanigo 07-12-05, 04:50 PM	Again, so what? You take out a squad of mooks. You are greatly exaggerating the effect on morale. If you kill the whole squad there is no morale check. You have to kill half the army for them to even be worried about one fireball.When you've got one fireball, timing is everything. Taking out one squad, if it's the right squad at the right time, can easily win a battle. Man you are spending a lot of resources just to get a mage into position to cast a fireball or two. This just shows how ineffectual this really is. Also you are assuming that you have the luxury of time to put this up in the first place. This also is telling the opposing army exactly where your wizards are.Admittedly, once the fireballs start flying, it's not that hard to tell anyway. Also, it's not really that much resources or time. It's a couple big pieces of wood, one of which has legs, which can be carried into place by the bodyguards and set down in a single combat round. Actually, maybe we'd better make them iron; wood only has 5 hardness, so arrows could eventually break through it. Still not very expensive compared to feeding a couple hundred archers. They would kill a lot more people not even a question. I have played quite a few mass D&D mass battles and archers are very effective. This is why Protection for Arrows is so feeble. I have killed wizards in a single round completely overwhelming their protection. It is not even a close contest. Again a single fireball is not an effect morale weapon compared to how much damage archers can do.Well, there aren't really many real-world references on that. I could point out, though, that (IIRC) losing even a single ally to a magic spell called for a morale check in second ed. Now, you can of course claim that 3e assumes a higher level of magic and whatnot, but it's something to think about. Real world armies did not have that much difficulty supplying their soldiers with arrows, so this is not much of a point. Yep, it is a lot easier to maneuver twenty guys than a whole army, because that is what you are getting on a cost basis.I'm not talking so much about arrows. I'm talking about food and water and tents and clothing and bandages and beer and all that other stuff that doesn't come directly into play in battle. I'm sure you've heard the saying that an army marches on its stomach, and the more stomachs it has, the harder that gets. And I'm not talking about the monetary costs, either. I'm talking about the logistics and the availability of food. Where are you going to buy the food? There's not all that much to spare at home, especially if you're pulling a couple thousand people out of the fields. Which is another hidden cost of large numbers of soldiers: economic damage from lost work. It's not an issue if you hire mercenaries, but they're notoriously more interested in living through the battle than winning it. You probably need to look at this a little closer. He is part of a squad of mooks. He will punch a whole through the enemy lines faster than a single fireball and remember he has money left to buy a few healing potions. It is unlikely that he will get surrounded and flanked since he is integrated into a squad.Well, then it's not really him taking out several squads, is it? It's him and his thirty friends. I agree that having a fifth level guy in a squad is a big help, but unless he's equipped just like everyone else in the squad, he's also a big target. For every wizard you deploy, I can afford 5-10 squads of archers (maybe a whole lot more, depends on the system used). Each of these archers can fire twice per round (Rapid Shot) assuming they are human. So I have a lot of arrows. Again, the English never ran out of arrows facing the French during the Hundred Years war. The wizard is going to run out of spells in less than 15 minutes. The archers are going to be shooting arrows for several more hours.There are other costs associated with large armies; see above. Also, I don't think 5-10 squads of archers are going to take down multiple squads every round. Every ten minutes, maybe. Either go by the RAW or state all of your conditions. I'll tell you what take 100,000 gp and create an army. Buy a bunch of 5th level wizards and then see how many you can outfit with 5th level wands of fireball at 11,250 each. At most 8 wands assuming you buy no troops. Arrows are 1 gold for twenty. That is a lot of arrows.And the reason you can't have a half- or quarter-charged wand lying around from some previous battle is? Frankly, I could care less whether you are amused or irritated. I am posting to the validity of the idea and not the person making the post. This scenario is untenable. Wizards are wasted taking out mooks. Archers are much more effective in that role. Wizards should be working to take out important characters that can really have an effect on the battlefield. The short duration, their limited number of spells, and the extraordinary measures that are required to put this tactic to work make it lame idea.That is another thing wizards are good for. However, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. Create an army using 100,000 gp and incorporating your ideas about wizards. We can limit it to core books, if you like, or add in some splats like CW and Heroes of Battle (which has really good terrain rules, if nothing else, plus has War Weaver PrC which also totally nerfs this idea of yours). Put your build up and we will tell you how effective it is against an army comprised of warriors, fighters, and clerics. Please show us how much smarter you are than the rest of us.If I wanted to be a smartass, I'd simply hire a 15th level cleric with the Air domain and shred an area 1200 feet across (or 1520 with a bead of karma) with control winds as often as necessary, having planar ally'd air elementals CdG the unconscious soldiers. But I won't. Don't have CW or Heroes of Battle myself, so I'd be at quite a disadvantage, there. Besides, how would we test? I don't feel like rolling a few thousand attack rolls. Do you? I don't know if there are mass combat rules in Heroes of Battle, but I'm not about to challenge you using them without knowing what they are. Are you just saying we'd ask the board to judge? That wouldn't solve anything. You'd say your army crushes mine, I'd say my army crushes yours, and most everybody else would say something in between; about where we are now. Not to mention we'd have to agree on how much it costs to hire people of what level, how much it costs to supply them, how much it costs to bring the supplies to them, what kind of terrain we're using, where it is relative to our supply centers, and a whole lot of other crap that, frankly, I just plain don't feel like doing. If you'd like to interpret this as me backing down, good for you. Go throw yourself a party. I certainly don't know anything about the War Weaver. I'm willing to take your word on it nerfing AoE nukes in mass combat; in fact, I have a gut feeling that it was designed for that very purpose. Which (if I'm right about that) kinda proves my point. Besides, soft cover affects all attacks, even ranged ones.That's odd. My PHB says: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against melee attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to ACI guess this was an eratta? This does not really matter however, as with soft cover and such the assumption is that the creature providing it is not specifically trying to intercept the attack, as a readied action no less. Again, I'll admit there are little to no official rules regarding such a tactic.Yeah, and that's the real sticker. I still say moving and intentionally intercepting the attack would probably be two separate actions, but I can see ruling otherwise. It doesn't really matter, considering that the enemy will be forced to match this formation or suffer more casualities from the other wizards. Remember, this scenario calls for a completely equal force (except, strangely enough, only one side is advancing).But a perforated battle line like that is just asking to be shredded by mounted skirmishers. Mounted skirmishers are going to be affected even less by fireballs, too. Although I don't have the book, apparently Heroes of Battle has the game-specific effects of morale, and it's a bit more complicated than simply seeing a Fireball go off. And really, we are talking about a high-magic world in which wizards are often seen on the battlefield. I've mentioned earlier that the DMG directly contradicts this sentiment, but it appears this is what we're working with. Thus, Fireballs should be no more uncommon than arrow volleys (which Complete Warrior introduced, as far as I know).Again, this depends on the campaign. The rarer mages are, the more effective each one is for morale purposes, and vice versa. In a high magic campaign where everyone's seen a fireball or two, you're not looking at fireballs, you're looking at volleys of fireballs Typical conscripts are defined in the DMG as 1st-level commoners in padded armor, carrying a wooden shield and a shortspear. This means about AC 12 with an attack bonus of -1 dealing 1d6 damage on a successful hit (assuming stats of 10). They have 4 HP, and technically are not even proficient with their armor and shield (which is why they have a negative hit modifier). It is doubtful that the commoner's one simple weapon proficiency would be with the shortspear, but for the sake of argument, let's say this is the case. Typical soldiers are defined in the DMG as 1st-level warriors in studded leather, carrying a wooden shield and a longsword. This means about AC 15 with an attack bonus of +2 dealing 1d8+1 damage on a successful hit (assuming STR/DEX/CON of 12). They have 9 HP. Now, the sample 5th-level fighter in the DMG is a hobgoblin with HP 47, AC 21, and an Attack of +10 dealing 1d10+5 (19-20/x2). Against the conscripts, this fighter has a 90% chance of hitting, whereas he has a 75% chance of hitting the warriors. They have a 5% and 10% chance, respectfully. On average, this fighter can take 14 hits by conscripts, or 9 hits by warriors.Don't forget flanking and aid another. He's so heavily outnumbered, he can probably count on both coming into play on every attack made against him. The one critical flaw in this fighter analysis however, is whether the character was built for war-like combat. The hobgoblin is nice and generic, but what would happen if it were a human who dropped the bastard sword and took Cleave and Great Cleave instead? He would absolutely mow through conscripts with relative impunity, and still take down more than a fair number of warriors (who would still die in one hit on average). While it is very true that the fighter would eventually die if he were simply swamped with no back-up, the same could be said about the wizard - who himself dies in a single Fireball from the opposing wizard more than half the time.Yeah, Cleave and Great Cleave help, but not so much against guys with reach weapons, which are pretty common. A human Cleave/Great cleave fighter isn't going to have as many hit points or as high an attack bonus, either. Either way, I'd still take the 5th-level Druid over anything. The other classes simply cannot top even the Druid's 1st-level spells (Entangle) in a mass-combat setting.Agreed.
solbergb 07-12-05, 05:15 PM	Not always. A mage killer has to be high level to gain much out of his build and pitted against a high level wizard in a war setting where the wizard is behind the frontlines he would be easily disposed. You have to consider the ressources needed to even be able to attack the wizard. The wizard can use 3 of his own spells, fly, invisibility and wind wall to become nearly immun to conventional attacks. To bypass those defenses the magekiller either also has to be a wizard or needs to make extensive use of magical items to even get to the wizard. Slaying him will even be more difficul and will require even more ressources. Wind wall is round/level and is vertical (and thus not especially compatable with Fly) fly is minute/level Invisibility goes away when you attack, or is round/level if you use the L4 version. Me, rather than waste 3 spells on those, I'd prefer a hole dug in the ground that I can drop into for full cover between shots. Pop up, cast, drop prone. That restricts counterfire to readied actions. You're assuming though that the wizard gets to dictate the battle and gets to decide when to buff, and the enemy can't do anything about it. A wizard also just runs out of boom really fast on battlefield scales. He's got maybe a dozen shots, maybe two dozen and he's done. What happens then? If he's capable of teleporting onto the battlefield buffed, unloading and teleporting away then he's something of a problem, but what you do is you scatter your troops while he's around, and wait for a couple minutes and he leaves. Such a wizard is a fairly rare resource (a big city might have ONE wizard capable of such power...and most will have better things to do with their time unless that city is the one under assault). If he's part of the army though....send in strike teams to take him out after he's fired all his boom. One guy with a wand of silence can pretty much counterspell a wizard who didn't rack 100% silent spells (a sorcerer with silent spell can adapt, but he has other problems. Rods of metamagic lower the wizard's boom and up his expense further). On the scale of armies, I find that swarms of low level arcanists are a better investment than one big one. They can have scrolls manufactured for them, they can use truestrike to outrange anything and they can also have sufficient numbers to use single target attacks and still wipe out enemy units (use area when they concentrate, single target when they scatter) or to concentrate on enemy leaders. To use the windwall/fly/invisible example, a dozen level 3 casters can have see invisible and acid arrow racked and do sufficient damage to disrupt a spell for 2 rounds (avg 30 dmg/rnd) if the enemy arcanist didn't rack resist energy acid. I've done a couple battle interactives with casters and one did a pretty good job of abstracting 10 man squads (they did steady damage based on their chance to hit and their weapons, and they absorbed damage based on the individual vs area, as the squad vs point attacks). In a mixed combat with about 300 people per side, each side having a few casters and a few fighter-type leaders, the key spells weren't the damage spells (you could only get one squad at a time normally, troops fought dispersed until the final charge to melee range) but the larger scale spells that disrupted visibility and mobility. When one side had no casters, it was fairly easy to disrupt its formations with things like sleet storm or pyrotechnics (huge blinding radius), making them easy meat for the undisturbed formations on the caster side (numbers unchanged, but one side can concentrate force better and roll up the enemy troops in pieces). When both sides had casters and one had to charge a fortification, the attackers used a mix of wind wall and visibility spells (fog, sleet storm) to suppress enemy fire on the approach...for 2/3 of the line. Lacking sufficient resources to shut down the whole line, the section with the most tower shields and monks (missile deflection troops) charged unsupported, and got the bulk of the area spells. They got chewed up, but in the process the enemy casters got their covering troops stripped away by snipers and got swept away in the final charge. Meanwhile the other 2/3 of the army advanced unmolested, except for a few random blindly aimed spells. All of the 20' radius style spells got one and only one squad. Didn't matter if it was cloudkill, ice storm, fireball....they just aren't big enough to get all that much. If not aimed, they don't even get that. These were casters in the level range of 5-9, mostly 7-8. "Fighter" style leaders were useful in the close fighting (you have to mitigate enemy guys with great cleave and other nasty "kill the minions" feats, doing some single combat similar to Trojan War or Knights of the Round Table style stuff) and to do sniper duty on enemy casters. In the final battle, a dimension door strike team went straight at the enemy casters (who chose to be well back from their main troops), dropping essentially a whole PC party on the most dangerous caster and pinning down the others with a mix of doomtide and silence. Wall and illusion spells kept the minions from interfering until it was too late.
solbergb 07-12-05, 05:30 PM	Eh..and in the OTHER battle, the people in the fortification were unlucky enough to be battling during a strong wind when the other side had a druid and somebody who could transport and protect him while he cast control winds right next to the fortification. They were prepared for someone invisible to sneak up. They got off one massive salvo. Then the hurricane force winds stripped the walls of defenders, including most of their lower level casters. Some air elementals they had in reserve got some licks in but that's about it. This was sufficient distraction for the rest of the assault force to slog up the hill. When they got to the top, the druid stopped the winds and the battle finished inside the fortification, mopping up the elements that weren't part of the original perimeter defense. Spellcasters are just artillery with a very short ammo supply. They are terrific if only one side has them. If both sides have them, a whole lot depends on who uses them better, when they are used and whether or not countermeasures work. The best parallel I can refer to in modern terms is fighter-bombers....air force. The side with air superiority can make the other side miserable. But at some point you need a 18 year old with a rifle to hold the ground, and it is not at all cheap to maintain an air force. Furthermore if you ever battle someone with a BETTER air force, yours will be destroyed very quickly, making you wonder if you wouldn't have done better to have no airforce but twice the ground troops. Or perhaps to stay away from the battlefield entirely and use your "heros" in guerilla and terror operations.
bomaz 07-12-05, 05:38 PM	lets see the 100000 gp army consists of 1 archmage. battle begins, he teleports away and spends a few days casting greater planar binding. assume 3 succubus goes in to warm up the generals. they are then out of the question. Now three pit fiends can be rather devastating on the army. Tactic for 3 pit fiends: fireballs at will. also 3 quickened each should a suitable opportunity arrive. only every 20th arrow hits and their damage is absorbed. they can fly over the army scattering the troops with fear aura, basicaly only every 20th soldier resists it the corses can be animated with create undead to create mohrgs, also should the battle go porly (no chance of that) they can walk away invisible. only to return in a few rounds fully healed and having spent a few minutes creating mohrgs in the outscirts of the battlefield. As a matter of fact I think 1 summoned balor should be enought to take out most of an army assuming they dont have loads of good aligned arrows and high lvl archers to use them. Aslo equiped with something to see invisibility and to evade meteor swarm, power word stun and a pit fiend teleporting away and returning in a little while fully healed. Oh and by the way a couple of mohrgs are rather likely to bring down quite a few soldiers by themselves. now all they kill rise as zombies after 1d4 days. this means should a retreat be neccesary 10 mohrgs kan quickly dispatch say 200 1st lvl warriors or commoners. a group of zomies raising at random intervals for days afterwards might prove a bit distracting for the army.
WaterRabbit 07-12-05, 07:33 PM	lets see the 100000 gp army consists of 1 archmage. battle begins, he teleports away and spends a few days casting greater planar binding. When he returns the battle is over and his side has lost. His country has been overrun, the earth has been salted, and all of the people in his country are either dead or undead. You have left an enemy army run unopposed through your country for a few days. Meanwhile, the PC opposition will be hunting for this joker, kill him, and feed his soul to the pit fiends. Any, for a mere 100K I doubt that you are going to 'purchase' an archmage which is WAY beyond the scope of this disscussion which is centered on AoE attacks. We are looking at characters from 1st to about 9th tossing fireballs and lightning bolts :rolleyes:
solbergb 07-12-05, 08:01 PM	Greater planar binding ain't free. And succubi can be defeated by mid-level leadership that is typical in a D&D army. They can't charm everybody, detect evil gives them away (among quite a few other things) and given magic exists, radical behavior changes in the generals will likely result in some basic divination magic (starting with detect magic, which will reveal he's under enchantement....) Pit fiends...make lousy troops. They can't hold ground, they can't stop the army from ravaging the countryside, and they'd be inclined to join in, and they're hard to get rid of when your'e done with them They are kinda similar to nukes actually. Owning an MX missile won't win you a civil war in south-america. You can destroy a city with it, but you can't win a war. Having an archmage on the payroll and no army is fine if you want to hold a mountain peak or a small island safe, but it is no substitute for an army. Even my experiments with "high K" armies similar to the USA model (take teenagers before they have a commoner class level, train them in divine or arcane magic, depending on their best mental attribute, form them up in platoon sized units and use low level firepower and a small number of consumables crafted by the usual guild-mages/temples to devastate much larger "conventional" armies) assumed that to hold ground you needed either typical conscripts or at least zombies and skeletons as "tripwires" once the average troop level was 6+ and while they could destroy a large army with a company-sized unit, they couldn't watch a border without assuming that an invader could penetrate for a while while they responded. If troop level gets to 10+, you can use a mix of teleport and sending spells to gather your troops fast, but you still need pickets, and you can't use that kind of army to invade someone unless their people are sympathetic (you win every battle, but you can't hold the ground). My "high K" D&D armies pretty much assumed they re-equipped their cash burn from the bodies of the armies they defeated, having enough of an economic infrastructure behind them to convert conventional arms, armor, horses, etc into cash that could then be fed back into their magic item crafting and consumable needs. (they crafted all their own gear). It also assumed sufficient numbers of enemies to earn them xp. The original thought experiment was based on the original Greyhawk articles by EGG, where the Ahlissa Province of the Great Kingdom was fighting a four-front war in one year, and was using the "high k" army as an emergency measure to try to hold off the biggest threats, destroy the "dug in" threats and such while their conventional army concentrated on stuff where it was superior. In that war, there was about enough xp/gold to support "leveling" of a couple thousand spellcasters into the 7-8th level range. (typical army size for a "front" was 20k to 100k), and it required careful handling (pitting them against much smaller but well-dug-in troops that lacked as much magic in the more vulnerable low level days). If you somehow got them to level 10 (in that world, perhaps by rebelling against the Overking and using them as shock troops...only their own kingdom could mount a big enough and powerful enough army in the field to meet the shock troops on anything like equal terms) then their mobility and communication possibilities make them almost viable as a standing army. They work a lot better though, if supported by cheap auxiliaries to monitor enemy positions and possibly hold ground until they mobilize. What you ended up with was a hell of a shock troop, but you had a hard time finding challenges to advance them further. You could pacify the heck out of any "wild" region, obliterating everything in their path. But faced with a 100k army that broke up into 50 2k troops scattered across the frontier instead of conveniently massing for destruction, they'd have a hard time preventing massive damage to infrastructure and civilians and economy. See USA in Iraq or Vietnam for the problem with High-K tactics. Great for kill ratios and pretty good for defending friendly terrain. Lousy if the people don't want you there. Expensive to maintain long term. Some observer (either a military historian or military sci-fi author, can't remember) commented that "it isn't yours until you have a 16 year-old with a gun on each street corner" is pretty accurate. That's about the level you need to hold down a hostile population.
Alienfreak 07-12-05, 09:23 PM	One big failure many people make here is that they price each casting. This is true if you hire a mage on a per spell basis. But not if the mage is part of the army. Or does the Warrior want money for each blow? A mage that is actually employed by the army casts his spells for free. He just gets his monthly wage. Probably with an battle bonus. You guys keep telling that an army doesnt have to pay for everything but you calculate the prices for his spells, but not for the deeper darkness spells for example. I doubt that the cormyrian war mages want money for every spell cast. And i bet neither do the spellguards of silverymoon. Or the many wizards of the Elves. Greater planar binding ain't free. See above ... Greater planar binding is free. Pit fiends...make lousy troops. They can't hold ground, they can't stop the army from ravaging the countryside, and they'd be inclined to join in, and they're hard to get rid of when your'e done with them They are kinda similar to nukes actually. With quickened fireballs and those spell likes!? I guess they can hold ground :) And every round a fireball should own many enemy troops before they can take him down (seen his DR!?) And when they fullfilled their part of the agreement they just get ported back from where they came. And the best thing is: Outsiders cant enter the Prime on their own. Spellcasters are just artillery with a very short ammo supply. They are terrific if only one side has them. If both sides have them, a whole lot depends on who uses them better, This is exactly what the thread was about and what many people misunderstand. Spellcasters are devistating in battle. But both sides have it. So it is balanced. But it doesnt change the power potential a mage has in mass battles.
WaterRabbit 07-12-05, 11:09 PM	When you've got one fireball, timing is everything. Taking out one squad, if it's the right squad at the right time, can easily win a battle. Taking out a squad of mooks will never easily win a battle. Killing the General is a better strategy if you are looking for the easy win. I would like to add that 'Heroes of Battle' has some of the best morale rules I have encountered in my 26 years of playing the game. They are well thought out and not an all or nothing proposition. There are 6 Morale conditions ranging from Heartened, Normal, Shaken, Frightened, Panicked, and Crazed. Each time a unit fails it drops one level. There are some interesting variations on this, but basically a maneuver unit doesn't check until it has lost 50% of its members. Individuals only check when they have lost 50% of their hit points. Admittedly, once the fireballs start flying, it's not that hard to tell anyway. Also, it's not really that much resources or time. It's a couple big pieces of wood, one of which has legs, which can be carried into place by the bodyguards and set down in a single combat round. Actually, maybe we'd better make them iron; wood only has 5 hardness, so arrows could eventually break through it. Still not very expensive compared to feeding a couple hundred archers. How many wizards do you have? At this point I still see only one fireball per wizard based upon all of the tactics discussed so far. Ten wizards tossing 10 fireballs and killing 10 squads is not noteworthy achievement against a 1,000 squad army. Sure the platform could be hauled around, but then aren't you just asking for the bearers to be whacked? You are still advertising where your wizards are going to be located and thus telegraphing to the opposing army your 'Kill Zone'. You would be better off concentrating all of your mages in one area so that one Wind Wall could cover them. Of course this is putting all of your eggs in one basket and makes it easier to hunt them down. Remember, while your wizards are targeting mooks, the opposing wizards are targeting your wizards. Me, rather than waste 3 spells on those, I'd prefer a hole dug in the ground that I can drop into for full cover between shots. Pop up, cast, drop prone. That restricts counterfire to readied actions. The problem here is that unless the wizard is on the crest of a hill, then he will never have line of sight to the opposition, much less line of effect. He needs some elevation advantage to see over his own troops. Well, there aren't really many real-world references on that. I could point out, though, that (IIRC) losing even a single ally to a magic spell called for a morale check in second ed. Now, you can of course claim that 3e assumes a higher level of magic and whatnot, but it's something to think about. WWII makes are perfect real world reference. Artillery was common on the field of battle and WAY more effective than fireball will ever dream of being. They still fought on even when losing platoons of men, much less squads. I'm not talking so much about arrows. I'm talking about food and water and tents and clothing and bandages and beer and all that other stuff that doesn't come directly into play in battle. I'm sure you've heard the saying that an army marches on its stomach, and the more stomachs it has, the harder that gets. And I'm not talking about the monetary costs, either. I'm talking about the logistics and the availability of food. Where are you going to buy the food? There's not all that much to spare at home, especially if you're pulling a couple thousand people out of the fields. Which is another hidden cost of large numbers of soldiers: economic damage from lost work. It's not an issue if you hire mercenaries, but they're notoriously more interested in living through the battle than winning it. These are all assumptions that have nothing to do with the premise of how effective AoE attacks are on the battlefield. The cost and logistics is minimal for adding a couple of hundred extra guys to an army. Well, then it's not really him taking out several squads, is it? It's him and his thirty friends. I agree that having a fifth level guy in a squad is a big help, but unless he's equipped just like everyone else in the squad, he's also a big target. No it is him, with 9 other guys keeping him from getting flanked. Greater Cleave is easily acquired by 4th level. Redraven covered this fairly well above. There are other costs associated with large armies; see above. Also, I don't think 5-10 squads of archers are going to take down multiple squads every round. Every ten minutes, maybe. If you use the volley rules, the commander makes an attack roll against a DC 15 plus his BAB (+3), Int Mod (+1), and RI penalty (about a -12 penalty for the longbow at 601 feet, out of fireball range), for a total of -8. The unit only gets a single shot and needs a 23 to hit exactly. However, if they miss the volley pattern will scatter. All of the creatures in the area then make a Reflex saving throw to avoid taking damage. In this case, the DC would be 15 -12 = 3. Notice that the AC of the target does not affect this, so depending upon the AC of the target and whether the archers have line of fire to the target, an indirect volley may or may not be better than a direct fire volley. The indirect fire volley can ignore intervening cover if it can clear it. Also notice that the volley will likely land somewhere useful. At this range, to shoot at the wizard, we are at the 20/1 split (a twenty to hit and a 1 to fail on the save). However, the range to the intervening army is less so the chance to hit increases and the damage increases. There are other modifiers that come into play for weapons, etc. Concentrated volleys are similar, except that the archers get their full rate of fire; all attack the same 5' square and need a 20 to hit (with a some modifiers). Damage is 1/5 of the number of arrows and reflex save is for half. So, individually not too effective until the range closes, but large numbers make even these pot shots worthwhile. And the reason you can't have a half- or quarter-charged wand lying around from some previous battle is? You still had to buy that wand at 50 charges at some point. And if you are going to hand wave free charges, then I will hand wave Masterwork magic strength bows and arrows to give to my archers for free. I can buy a lot of them. For 400 gold per archer I get a +1 to hit and damage. That gives me 28 bows. If I wanted to be a smartass, I'd simply hire a 15th level cleric with the Air domain and shred an area 1200 feet across (or 1520 with a bead of karma) with control winds as often as necessary, having planar ally'd air elementals CdG the unconscious soldiers. You could but then you are admitting that the 5th level wizard fireball idea is lame. Don't have CW or Heroes of Battle myself, so I'd be at quite a disadvantage, there. Not really. “Heroes of Battle” is focused upon making the battlefield a place to adventure on. It is more focused on what the character's contribution to the battle is and what kind of encounters and missions they face using the battle as a backdrop. It does not have a mass combat system or army purchase system. The mass combat system I used in the past was Battle System. However, I have seen some really elegant simple systems that use only the core rules. The most elegant is only two pages of rules. Besides, how would we test? I don't feel like rolling a few thousand attack rolls. Do you? I don't know if there are mass combat rules in Heroes of Battle, but I'm not about to challenge you using them without knowing what they are. Are you just saying we'd ask the board to judge? That wouldn't solve anything. You'd say your army crushes mine, I'd say my army crushes yours, and most everybody else would say something in between; about where we are now. No, this is not really necessary. What it does is force you to build an army with these assumptions in mind including detailing out which spells the wizards prepare. It forces you to really look at the mechanics of this tactic. For each squad of 10 guys it costs 9 sp / day plus 6 for their leader, or 15 sp / day. Support staff is paid at 1 sp per day. However, support staff is outside of this argument, because all armies need them and it is more difficult to assess on general assumptions. Equipment is 120gp per archer (leather, battleaxe, yew bow) plus 1 gp per 20 arrows or basically 1 gp every round the archers fire per squad. For arguments sake, let’s say we get 20 rounds out of each archer or 40 shots per archer. Fixed one time cost 1200 gp per unit for equipment. Daily cost is 21.5 gp per unit. One big failure many people make here is that they price each casting. This is true if you hire a mage on a per spell basis. But not if the mage is part of the army. Or does the Warrior want money for each blow? A mage that is actually employed by the army casts his spells for free. He just gets his monthly wage. Probably with an battle bonus. I agree cost for a wizard is harder to assess, but a mage most certainly doesn't come for free. If you pay a 5th level wizard based upon the number of spells he can cast per day that is 180 gp at a minimum or 360 gp probably for combat pay. This seems to me to be a little too expensive. The Arms and Equipment Guide is not too much help here for spell casters. So for arguments sake, let’s assume that an NPC wizard accumulates 1 XP per day. That means he can generate an income of 25 gp per day just crafting magic items. According the AE&G, a character earns this value for every level above 1st, so that gives us 125 gp per day for a 5th level wizard just to sit around an make magic items for you. Double that for combat pay and we get 250 gp per day per wizard. While that may seem expensive, remember that wizards more than any other class are gold driven. To make items they need gold. To purchase spells they need gold. Spellbooks? Again, gold. The other classes don’t have a method of making the same kind of money by staying at home, so fighters and rogues are going to be much cheaper. For a 30 day campaign that gives us: 7500 gp per 5th level wizard 1845 gp per 10 man archer squad. For 7500 gp I can support 4 squads plus have 120 gp leftover to feed them. A single 5th wizard is not going to take out more than two of these squads, so the advantage is to the archery unit. Note this assumes that the rest of the compositions of the armies are identical. We are only adding wizards and 4 squads of archers to each army in equal proportion. We are also assuming a relatively open battlefield (i.e. not a marsh or forest). Take a look at the description of ‘Plains Terrain’ in the DMG for cover and concealment possibilities. I would consider this to be the default battlefield. If you'd like to interpret this as me backing down, good for you. Go throw yourself a party. I just interpret it as you being lazy and not willing to back up your assertions. Just to add some other thoughts, potions of Resist Fire cost 300 gp and last for 30 minutes. So for the cost of the 5th level Fireball wand, I can protect 37 men from a single fireball on average. There is an economics to all of this. Just stating that you have a wizard that can toss a fireball for devastating effect is just not true. A 5th level wizard is a single shot AoE weapon. Fire is an energy type that is the easiest to defend against in D&D terms. A sonic or acid ball would be a slightly more effective. However, we are only taking about killing 9 guys, plus wounding their leader. Outside the battlefield this is impressive. On the battlefield, this is not. If 5d6 fireballs can be tossed around essentially at will, then the battlefield tactics must and will change. For comparison, d20 Modern lists a 40 mm fragmentation grenade as a 3d6 slashing weapon (IMHO, it should also do at least a d6 of sonic damage). Armies will adopt small unit infiltration tactics, like we use today. They will also have to develop an effective ranged weapon, like we have today. Again this is an ineffectual tactic to begin with. To make it effective, magic must become really inexpensive. If magic becomes inexpensive the defenses become inexpensive and the tactic is negated anyway.
Muddball 07-12-05, 11:14 PM	i'm going to try my hand at seeing how this could all really play out. now, i'm going to work with 5 arcane spell casters, none of them "legendary" and could be called something close to full time casters for an army, so a reasonable amount of items/wands/scrolls/and spells. they are NOT adventures, and all of them in there thirdies to fifties as far as age goes. we have the 9th level Captain Terrific Wizard. He (16 int) can cast 6/5/5/4/3/1 spells per day. He's the captain, so he's getting a wand of fireballs, a wand of invisibility, a wand of magic missles, a broom of flying and ONE rod of some kind of metamagic. all of it 9th level and fully charged. sence he has to prepair spells for basicly anything the other side throws at him. (because alot of posts were valid, and so were the counter arguments for many of them) 5th- Teleport? Telekinesis? Cloudkill? he only gets one, so i guess teleport makes the most sence 4th-Fear, Explosive Cascade, and Greater Invisibility Fear becasue it would work well with the mob mentality, big invisibility spell 3rd- Fireball, Fireball, Wind Wall, Wind Wall I assumed that he would half to move at least once after his Wind wall attracted attation. (a wall of blowing wind attracts someone, don't argue) 2on- Rope Trick, See invisiblity, See invisiblity, Protection from arrows, 1st- Shield, MM x 4 My estimate is that if he is not killed the first day, his battlefield lifespan usefullness was 4 hours. His flight was cut short when his greater invisibility ran out, however with its duration in mind, he casted all his offenive spells, aside from magic missles, and created much mayham. I don't need to figure out the levels NOR the spells the other four have, as they are apprently churning out one scroll each for use of the captain. 4 fireballs a day, more or less. 60 men with 4 mages makeing fireballs and the captain useing them respectly. my estimate on enemys killed would be 15ish men per fireball, because squads would be made up of 14 1st level commoners and 1 first level warrior (or three ranks 5 across), and if he got lucky, routed a nice big fat section, giveing quite the opening. I really don't see him as overpowered, personaly. i see him as a force to be reconed with, sure, and DEFENTLY way above power then a single 9th level fighter, but... meh. i guess i fail to see how he's an army STOPPER. Sure he tips the scales if the two armys are perfectly ballanced on number of troops and number of mages, but if one side or the other has more, they win as far as i see. Its been proven time and time again in small scale dungons that if faced with mutipul situations, the mage becomes less effective with each encounter. you throw waves of 100+ rank and file at JUST his position, easly marked with this wonder spell Wind wall, and i honestly don't see how great this one weave user is.
Muddball 07-12-05, 11:19 PM	oh, oops. i didn't even factor in the use of spells for negating the ability of other wizards useing scrying to find out the exact location of said wizard. and while the first scout/assasin/rouge/ranger/archer band might not get him, i do belive that a pined down wizard (hideing behind his wind wall) is vurnable to a couple of sneaking rangers useing bows far enough away from his bodyguards to hit him from the other side. the wall is circling him? again, send in the WAVES of 1st level commoners. when he teleports out the first time, now he's lost his bodyguards, or at least some of them. AND not to mention the fact that he's used up rescorces just to flee (also, all of this is assuming a battle with no necromancy, and its all on a flat featureless plain)
WaterRabbit 07-12-05, 11:46 PM	we have the 9th level Captain Terrific Wizard. He (16 int) can cast 6/5/5/4/3/1 spells per day. He's the captain, so he's getting a wand of fireballs, a wand of invisibility, a wand of magic missles, a broom of flying and ONE rod of some kind of metamagic. all of it 9th level and fully charged. sence he has to prepair spells for basicly anything the other side throws at him. (because alot of posts were valid, and so were the counter arguments for many of them) 5th- Teleport? Telekinesis? Cloudkill? he only gets one, so i guess teleport makes the most sence 4th-Fear, Explosive Cascade, and Greater Invisibility Fear becasue it would work well with the mob mentality, big invisibility spell 3rd- Fireball, Fireball, Wind Wall, Wind Wall I assumed that he would half to move at least once after his Wind wall attracted attation. (a wall of blowing wind attracts someone, don't argue) 2on- Rope Trick, See invisiblity, See invisiblity, Protection from arrows, 1st- Shield, MM x 4 Ok we have a 9th level wizard with 51,500 gp of gear minimum. Compare this to a Expected Weath Gain for a 9th level PC of 13,000. So just about 4 times greater. In addition, he is backed up by another 4 wizards just making spells for him. Come back to reality my friend.
Vanigo 07-13-05, 03:45 AM	Taking out a squad of mooks will never easily win a battle. Killing the General is a better strategy if you are looking for the easy win. I would like to add that 'Heroes of Battle' has some of the best morale rules I have encountered in my 26 years of playing the game. They are well thought out and not an all or nothing proposition. There are 6 Morale conditions ranging from Heartened, Normal, Shaken, Frightened, Panicked, and Crazed. Each time a unit fails it drops one level. There are some interesting variations on this, but basically a maneuver unit doesn't check until it has lost 50% of its members. Individuals only check when they have lost 50% of their hit points.Not by itself, but if it causes the line of battle to fall... That one squad represents losing something like 1% of your troops, right? I'm pretty sure battles have been won and lost by less. Not often, granted. At the right time, an entire battle can hinge on one tiny piece of it. How many wizards do you have? At this point I still see only one fireball per wizard based upon all of the tactics discussed so far. Ten wizards tossing 10 fireballs and killing 10 squads is not noteworthy achievement against a 1,000 squad army.10% casualties? I beg to differ. It's no good if that's all the damage you do in that battle, but it's a great way to soften up the enemy. Sure the platform could be hauled around, but then aren't you just asking for the bearers to be whacked? You are still advertising where your wizards are going to be located and thus telegraphing to the opposing army your 'Kill Zone'. You would be better off concentrating all of your mages in one area so that one Wind Wall could cover them. Of course this is putting all of your eggs in one basket and makes it easier to hunt them down. Remember, while your wizards are targeting mooks, the opposing wizards are targeting your wizards.That's what decoys are for. What do you do when there are six or seven decoy platforms for every one that will shelter a wizard? And what are the enemy wizards going to go after your wizards with? They're probably out of range, unless they're much higher level than mine. The problem here is that unless the wizard is on the crest of a hill, then he will never have line of sight to the opposition, much less line of effect. He needs some elevation advantage to see over his own troops.Yeah, that is a problem with trenches, assuming you lack machine guns and therefore need people in front of them. Which you do. WWII makes are perfect real world reference. Artillery was common on the field of battle and WAY more effective than fireball will ever dream of being. They still fought on even when losing platoons of men, much less squads.Not really. Artillery is something every soldier understands. It's a big gun that shoots shells full of explosives. A fireball, on the other hand, is some sort of bizzare ritual involving bat **** that somehow calls firey doom down on you. And if he can do that, who knows what he can do? Now, of course, hardened veterans will be less affected; they've seen wizards often enough to get a feel for what they can and can't do. But your typical superstitious peasant conscript, who's fought in maybe two battles in his entire life? These are all assumptions that have nothing to do with the premise of how effective AoE attacks are on the battlefield. The cost and logistics is minimal for adding a couple of hundred extra guys to an army.And would you care to back up that statement? No it is him, with 9 other guys keeping him from getting flanked. Greater Cleave is easily acquired by 4th level. Redraven covered this fairly well above.Well, then, what keeps the nine other guys from getting cut down easily? Don't get me wrong, a unit like this will kick some serious ass, but it's far from invincible. If you use the volley rules, the commander makes an attack roll against a DC 15 plus his BAB (+3), Int Mod (+1), and RI penalty (about a -12 penalty for the longbow at 601 feet, out of fireball range), for a total of -8. The unit only gets a single shot and needs a 23 to hit exactly. However, if they miss the volley pattern will scatter. All of the creatures in the area then make a Reflex saving throw to avoid taking damage. In this case, the DC would be 15 -12 = 3. Notice that the AC of the target does not affect this, so depending upon the AC of the target and whether the archers have line of fire to the target, an indirect volley may or may not be better than a direct fire volley. The indirect fire volley can ignore intervening cover if it can clear it. Also notice that the volley will likely land somewhere useful. At this range, to shoot at the wizard, we are at the 20/1 split (a twenty to hit and a 1 to fail on the save). However, the range to the intervening army is less so the chance to hit increases and the damage increases. There are other modifiers that come into play for weapons, etc.So, that's still something like a 19 to hit the part of the army you're aiming at, a DC 9 save, and the same damage. I don't know what the damage or the area is, but that's not going to wipe out a squad particularly fast, mostly since you'll have a hard time hitting the same squad twice. I suppose by scatter you mean it uses something like the rules for a missed catapult shot? That gives you a pretty good chance of hitting either in front of or behind everybody and doing nothing. Concentrated volleys are similar, except that the archers get their full rate of fire; all attack the same 5' square and need a 20 to hit (with a some modifiers). Damage is 1/5 of the number of arrows and reflex save is for half.So, natural 20 to hit except at point-blank range, and one guy gets hit by two arrows? Four if he botches the save? So, individually not too effective until the range closes, but large numbers make even these pot shots worthwhile.Yeah, it's quite a ways from useless. You still had to buy that wand at 50 charges at some point. And if you are going to hand wave free charges, then I will hand wave Masterwork magic strength bows and arrows to give to my archers for free. I can buy a lot of them. For 400 gold per archer I get a +1 to hit and damage. That gives me 28 bows.I'm not saying you don't pay for it. I'm saying you can count that quarter-charged wand as costing a quarter the price of a fully charged one. You'll need to get one, maybe two new wands every battle. You could but then you are admitting that the 5th level wizard fireball idea is lame.Not really; it's an extention of the same concept: area-effect damage. It is an extreme example, I'll admit... Regardless, I said I wasn't going to do that, and I meant it. Not really. “Heroes of Battle” is focused upon making the battlefield a place to adventure on. It is more focused on what the character's contribution to the battle is and what kind of encounters and missions they face using the battle as a backdrop. It does not have a mass combat system or army purchase system. The mass combat system I used in the past was Battle System. However, I have seen some really elegant simple systems that use only the core rules. The most elegant is only two pages of rules.Just as a side note, could you point me towards some of those? I'd rather like to see them. No, this is not really necessary. What it does is force you to build an army with these assumptions in mind including detailing out which spells the wizards prepare. It forces you to really look at the mechanics of this tactic. For each squad of 10 guys it costs 9 sp / day plus 6 for their leader, or 15 sp / day. Support staff is paid at 1 sp per day. However, support staff is outside of this argument, because all armies need them and it is more difficult to assess on general assumptions. Equipment is 120gp per archer (leather, battleaxe, yew bow) plus 1 gp per 20 arrows or basically 1 gp every round the archers fire per squad. For arguments sake, let’s say we get 20 rounds out of each archer or 40 shots per archer.But a numerically larger army is definetly going to require more support staff. Fixed one time cost 1200 gp per unit for equipment. Daily cost is 21.5 gp per unit. I agree cost for a wizard is harder to assess, but a mage most certainly doesn't come for free. If you pay a 5th level wizard based upon the number of spells he can cast per day that is 180 gp at a minimum or 360 gp probably for combat pay. This seems to me to be a little too expensive. The Arms and Equipment Guide is not too much help here for spell casters. So for arguments sake, let’s assume that an NPC wizard accumulates 1 XP per day. That means he can generate an income of 25 gp per day just crafting magic items. According the AE&G, a character earns this value for every level above 1st, so that gives us 125 gp per day for a 5th level wizard just to sit around an make magic items for you. Double that for combat pay and we get 250 gp per day per wizard.Compare that to the total wealth of a 5th level NPC, given on page 127 of the DMG: 4,300 gold. If we assume the 30-day campaign you use below, an NPC could almost triple his net worth if we pay him that much. That's a mite excessive, if you ask me. While that may seem expensive, remember that wizards more than any other class are gold driven. To make items they need gold. To purchase spells they need gold. Spellbooks? Again, gold. The other classes don’t have a method of making the same kind of money by staying at home, so fighters and rogues are going to be much cheaper. For a 30 day campaign that gives us: 7500 gp per 5th level wizard 1845 gp per 10 man archer squad. For 7500 gp I can support 4 squads plus have 120 gp leftover to feed them.Feeding 40 guys for 30 days while on the march for 120 gold? That's crazy talk. Trail rations cost 1 gold a day per man, so it'd cost you 1200 gold to feed them that way. You can get cheaper food, of course, but that's going to be bulkier, and carrying 30 days worth of trail rations is tough enough. That means supply wagons, and people to guard them. It also means cooks and other noncombatants to worry about. Not sure how many of them, though. And I might add that a charge from a wand of fireball costs only 225 gold. Besides, that's if we use the salary you suggested. Not every wizard has item creation feats, you know. A single 5th wizard is not going to take out more than two of these squads, so the advantage is to the archery unit. Note this assumes that the rest of the compositions of the armies are identical. We are only adding wizards and 4 squads of archers to each army in equal proportion. We are also assuming a relatively open battlefield (i.e. not a marsh or forest). Take a look at the description of ‘Plains Terrain’ in the DMG for cover and concealment possibilities. I would consider this to be the default battlefield.That is more than I'd expect, but neither low cover nor concealment is going to do much of anything to protect troops from fireballs. I just interpret it as you being lazy and not willing to back up your assertions.Like I said, throw yourself a party. Just to add some other thoughts, potions of Resist Fire cost 300 gp and last for 30 minutes. So for the cost of the 5th level Fireball wand, I can protect 37 men from a single fireball on average.And with that wand, I can fry 500 guys. You're not going to win many battles with a ratio like that. There is an economics to all of this. Just stating that you have a wizard that can toss a fireball for devastating effect is just not true. A 5th level wizard is a single shot AoE weapon. Fire is an energy type that is the easiest to defend against in D&D terms. A sonic or acid ball would be a slightly more effective. However, we are only taking about killing 9 guys, plus wounding their leader. Outside the battlefield this is impressive. On the battlefield, this is not.And a first level wizard with a wand of fireball is a multiple shot AoE weapon. This is very impressive on the battlefield.
bomaz 07-13-05, 08:42 AM	When he returns the battle is over and his side has lost. His country has been overrun, the earth has been salted, and all of the people in his country are either dead or undead. You have left an enemy army run unopposed through your country for a few days. Meanwhile, the PC opposition will be hunting for this joker, kill him, and feed his soul to the pit fiends. Any, for a mere 100K I doubt that you are going to 'purchase' an archmage which is WAY beyond the scope of this disscussion which is centered on AoE attacks. We are looking at characters from 1st to about 9th tossing fireballs and lightning bolts :rolleyes: firstly it takes quite a few days to warch an army nto a country secondly the power of any area affekt spells is dimunitive compared to some monsters, think dragons, giants, demons, devils and the like in an army. a single pit fiend that can be summoned even by low lvl mages using scrolls can do much more damage than a regular wiz not to mention never running out of ammo
solbergb 07-13-05, 12:56 PM	heh...I am imagining just how badly it would go for a low level mage to summon a pitfiend with a scroll. He would be totally owned by the social skills of said Fiend...it would do whatever it wanted. Planar binding is a BAD idea when the summoner isn't more powerful than the summoned. A summon monster spell would be better for control, but even level 9 summon monsters limit you to things like Bebeilith. Powerful...for 17 rounds and nearly 4000gp expended, and dispellable and hampered by prot evil etc. Gate is better, but now you're talking nearly 9k...and both assume you have an archmage at your beck and call to craft scrolls for you. Go look in the DMG at the level of caster a given population has. It is pretty unlikely to get anyone much above 10th level in most societies willing to take orders in an army and be part of it. My point about pit fiends resembling nuclear weapons more than an army was not addressed. "quickened fireballs" are not "holding ground". Holding ground is...able to coerce the population into doing productive things for you, such as mining and agriculture. Further it is the ability to PROTECT such population from outside threats and internal threats. What good is it to win a war and have nothing but a blasted countryside roamed by pit-fiends? Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather send in the army, then put the survivors to work rebuilding a nice, income-earning property and I'd like to be able to keep my own people from being molested.
solbergb 07-13-05, 12:58 PM	heh...I am imagining just how badly it would go for a low level mage to summon a pitfiend with a scroll. He would be totally owned by the social skills of said Fiend...it would do whatever it wanted. Planar binding is a BAD idea when the summoner isn't more powerful than the summoned. A summon monster spell would be better for control, but even level 9 summon monsters limit you to things like Bebeilith. Powerful...for 17 rounds and nearly 4000gp expended, and dispellable and hampered by prot evil etc. Gate is better, but now you're talking nearly 9k...and both assume you have an archmage at your beck and call to craft scrolls for you. Go look in the DMG at the level of caster a given population has. It is pretty unlikely to get anyone much above 10th level in most societies willing to take orders in an army and be part of it. My point about pit fiends resembling nuclear weapons more than an army was not addressed. "quickened fireballs" are not "holding ground". Holding ground is...able to coerce the population into doing productive things for you, such as mining and agriculture. Further it is the ability to PROTECT such population from outside threats and internal threats. What good is it to win a war and have nothing but a blasted countryside roamed by pit-fiends? Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather send in the army, then put the survivors to work rebuilding a nice, income-earning property and I'd like to be able to keep my own people from being molested. Dragons..are pretty powerful but also fairly vulnerable to massed missile fire. They are very much like modern air-force, and the equivalent of surface-air portable missiles do exist in D&D. Giants aren't that big a deal. Our battle interactive had giant leaders...they weren't able to cope with the attention they got from targeted spells and concentrated missile fire once we scraped away the mooks. Whole units of giants are as expensive as whole units of high level fighters. You might see them in Faerun, but not in most campaigns.
redraven 07-13-05, 02:08 PM	One big failure many people make here is that they price each casting. This is true if you hire a mage on a per spell basis. But not if the mage is part of the army. Or does the Warrior want money for each blow? A mage that is actually employed by the army casts his spells for free. He just gets his monthly wage. Probably with an battle bonus. Of course. The problem is when people start throwing around words like "efficient" and "economical" when the only way to actually justify such assertions is through the NPC pricing guidelines. From using the formulas provided there, it is clear that a wizard using up all those spells just to be able to kill a handful of squads is inefficient, especially considering the relatively low cost of even 25 1st-level mercenaries outfitted with Tower Shields. On a final note, you are incorrect about the assumption of a Warrior charging per swing. That's the great thing about Warriors (and non-spellcasting characters in general): they don't charge per swing. For the same low price they'll swing their swords and attack all day. Wizards, on the other hand, will not. ------- You know, I am still waiting for a reason why the armies would not have a 5th-level wizard flying invisible (with Protection from Arrows active) about 50 ft above and in front of squads which look like prime targets, with a readied action to counterspell the Fireball. Or, you know, Fireball the other wizard.
bomaz 07-13-05, 03:38 PM	Of course. The problem is when people start throwing around words like "efficient" and "economical" when the only way to actually justify such assertions is through the NPC pricing guidelines. From using the formulas provided there, it is clear that a wizard using up all those spells just to be able to kill a handful of squads is inefficient, especially considering the relatively low cost of even 25 1st-level mercenaries outfitted with Tower Shields. On a final note, you are incorrect about the assumption of a Warrior charging per swing. That's the great thing about Warriors (and non-spellcasting characters in general): they don't charge per swing. For the same low price they'll swing their swords and attack all day. Wizards, on the other hand, will not. ------- You know, I am still waiting for a reason why the armies would not have a 5th-level wizard flying invisible (with Protection from Arrows active) about 50 ft above and in front of squads which look like prime targets, with a readied action to counterspell the Fireball. Or, you know, Fireball the other wizard. well a wiz charging per spell lets see what could that possibly cost. at 150 gp per fireball and for to pay for invisibility and the like at 100 gp per casting hm how many squads can you buy for the cost of a single wizards daily spell allotment?
redraven 07-13-05, 04:21 PM	well a wiz charging per spell lets see what could that possibly cost. at 150 gp per fireball and for to pay for invisibility and the like at 100 gp per casting hm how many squads can you buy for the cost of a single wizards daily spell allotment? I already figured this: The wizard has to cast See Invisibility (100 gp), Fly (150 gp), False Life (100 gp) and Wind Wall (150 gp) before he even gets to cast Fireball at 150 gp at pop. Total is 650 gp for one Fireball. Not quite sure how many other Fireballs he is going to have, considering set of spells consists of three 3rd-level and two 2nd-level spells. He also might want an Invisibility spell thrown in there too, for an additional 100 gp. A Wand of Fireballs (5th) cost 11,250 gp, or 225 gp per Fireball. A Fireball scroll (5th) costs either 187 gp +15 XP or 375 gp, depending on how you're calculating the costs. I'd say the market price is the fair one, since I'm using market price for everything else. Meanwhile, per my prior calculations, a 5x5 squad of 1st-level warriors outfitted with Tower Shields costs 750 gp, plus the price of upkeep. The rub is that it takes at least two Fireballs to bring the whole squad down, edging out the price of a wizard. The warriors also have the advantage of being able to hold territory, and if/when they die their equipment can be redistributed, which is not the case with the casting of spells after the death of the wizard.
Vanigo 07-13-05, 04:53 PM	I think charging by the spell is pretty silly. I mean, PC wizards could never in a million years get away with charging for every spell they cast while retrieving the fabled Crown of Mar'Duk; they're going to get a flat rate for the retrieval. Why should NPC wizards fighting in battle be so different? The way I see it, the price per spell in the PHB represents what it takes to get a wizard to take time out of his busy day to cast a spell for you; I don't believe for a second that he's just sitting around waiting for someone to come up and ask if he can cast analyze dweomer for him. And even if you do charge by the spell, you have to give a bulk discount. A wizard who hasn't cast any given spell by the end of the day gets no benefit from it whatsoever, so it's greatly to his benefit to be in a situation where he can get paid for nearly every spell he can memorize. I'd expect him to be willing to charge less per spell under those circumstances.
redraven 07-13-05, 09:48 PM	I think charging by the spell is pretty silly. I mean, PC wizards could never in a million years get away with charging for every spell they cast while retrieving the fabled Crown of Mar'Duk; they're going to get a flat rate for the retrieval. Why should NPC wizards fighting in battle be so different? The way I see it, the price per spell in the PHB represents what it takes to get a wizard to take time out of his busy day to cast a spell for you; I don't believe for a second that he's just sitting around waiting for someone to come up and ask if he can cast analyze dweomer for him. And even if you do charge by the spell, you have to give a bulk discount. A wizard who hasn't cast any given spell by the end of the day gets no benefit from it whatsoever, so it's greatly to his benefit to be in a situation where he can get paid for nearly every spell he can memorize. I'd expect him to be willing to charge less per spell under those circumstances. It's all relative. I'm sure we could buy Tower Shields in bulk too. It would not change the final analysis at all however, as the market price totals here just represent relative values in game terms. Since game terms are the only possible angle we can look at (no one is actually living in the world of D&D), we are left with their conclusions: it is cheaper to equip and field a 5x5 squad of 1st-level Warriors than it is to kill them with Fireballs in a battlefield situation.
WaterRabbit 07-13-05, 10:03 PM	I think I have a better way to determine the worth of a wizard. A 5th level wizard is a CR 5 encounter. 2 Warriors make a CR 1 encounter. 32 Warriors make a CR 5 encounter. So, one Wizard should have the combat value of 32 Warriors and should be paid accordingly. Based upon all of the discussion so far, we would expect a 5th Wizard only using his spells for offense to take out 20 guys with Fireballs, 3 guys with Acid Arrow, 4 guys with Magic Missile, and 1 or 2 guys with Ray of Frost. These are just examples, but the math seems about right. So, your Wizard should get 32 sliver pieces per day, which is 12 more silver than a siege engineer. Now in the Battle System rules (converting costs to 3E terms), a 5 level wizard would cost 10,000 points + 900 points for spells = 10,900. By comparison, a 5th level fighter would cost 10,000 points. Equipment would cost extra. 19,000 points for a 5th level NPC Wizard, 10,000 points for a 5th level NPC Fighter, and 500 points for a 1st level NPC Warrior. This gives us 5th level Wizard = 38 Warriors. Not too far off from my CR calculation. Since we have to pay for equipment, this will drive the numbers a little closer together. Say we spent all of the NPC allotment that would be 4,300 for the wizard and 450 for the warrior. That would give a ratio of 1:25 (FRU). So this is why I am not impressed. I would expect a 5th level wizard to be equal to about 32 mooks plus or minus 6. However, with his spells he is only taking out 28 guys if he does not play any defense. While within the margin of error, it’s on the low end and the wizard is not protecting himself from enemy wizards or archers. Not by itself, but if it causes the line of battle to fall... That one squad represents losing something like 1% of your troops, right? I'm pretty sure battles have been won and lost by less. Not often, granted. At the right time, an entire battle can hinge on one tiny piece of it. Could you give me one example in history where killing one squad of mooks changed the battle? Not really. Artillery is something every soldier understands. It's a big gun that shoots shells full of explosives. A fireball, on the other hand, is some sort of bizzare ritual involving bat **** that somehow calls firey doom down on you. And if he can do that, who knows what he can do? Now, of course, hardened veterans will be less affected; they've seen wizards often enough to get a feel for what they can and can't do. But your typical superstitious peasant conscript, who's fought in maybe two battles in his entire life? You see this would only occur in a very low magic setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, this is very doubtful given that magic is so prevalent. The only reason that you are discounting the effect of the big gun is because you are familiar with it. The influence of the gun on peoples that did not know about it was out of proportion to its effect. However, we are not talking about this unless you are somehow fighting a bunch of primitive screw heads that have never seen any feat of magic. To a person ignorant of gunpowder, the ritual you described for a fireball is the same. The standard D&D ratio of wizards means that everyone in the world has probably seen some magic. Armies fighting against magic using opponents would be trained to some extent as to what to expect, even so far as having it demonstrated for them. If anything is the morale breaker it is when your wizard gets smoked. This will have a much more dramatic effect on the morale of the army. Well, then, what keeps the nine other guys from getting cut down easily? Don't get me wrong, a unit like this will kick some serious ass, but it's far from invincible. Never claimed invincible; he is just more effective than the mage that is on the battlefield for 13 rounds and then is out of spells. A fighter with healing items will be around for much longer and his impact will continue to be felt. Also, so his nine buddies get cut down. He is part of an army. There will always be nine buddies around him unless he charges by himself into the other army. And would you care to back up that statement? Feeding 40 guys for 30 days while on the march for 120 gold? That's crazy talk. Trail rations cost 1 gold a day per man, so it'd cost you 1200 gold to feed them that way. You can get cheaper food, of course, but that's going to be bulkier, and carrying 30 days worth of trail rations is tough enough. That means supply wagons, and people to guard them. It also means cooks and other noncombatants to worry about. Not sure how many of them, though. We are talking about an army here. By the book, it costs no more than 1 sp to feed a person. Iron rations are not what soldiers use in battle, well at least until recently. Ancient battles don't typically last for days outside of a siege situation. Two armies clash, one runs away. The winner regroups, feeds his soldiers, and moves on. Also, both armies have this problem. The 120 gold will feed 40 guys for 30 days. If we are talking about armies in the 5,000-10,000 range this is not even worthy of notice. I will also point out that it is more likely that the armies are paying a few coppers per solider. The wizard on the other hand will be eating high on the hog and will be costing 1-2 gold per day. So this is really a non-issue. In addition, it does not address the combat effectiveness, which is where this discussion is truly centered. I'm not saying you don't pay for it. I'm saying you can count that quarter-charged wand as costing a quarter the price of a fully charged one. You'll need to get one, maybe two new wands every battle. If we are going to have a valid combat comparison, we must price things as they are. In my calculations, I am not trying to carry over armor, weapons, potions, scrolls, sheep, goat, and the partridge in a pare tree from the last battle. Trying to do so is intellectually dishonest. Lay out the full costs for your tactic. If for no other reason is that the army had to be created from scratch at some point. Let's just assume that you are a king who is raising an army from scratch fighting another king doing the same. We are talking about the first battle between them. After that one side or the other will be on the defensive and thus change the equation anyway. That is more than I'd expect, but neither low cover nor concealment is going to do much of anything to protect troops from fireballs. Don't forget terrain undulations as well. Low cover provides a +2 Reflex save bonus. Concealment makes it easier to hide snipers and other ambush soldiers. If you can't seem them, how do you know where to shoot? Remember you have one fireball are you just going to throw it blindly and hope it hits something useful? Just as a side note, could you point me towards some of those? I'd rather like to see them. If you do a Google search on d20 Mass Combat, you will get quite a few hits on the same ones I have looked at. I have a 22 K PDF of one I downloaded which I could PM you if you want. It is really simplistic. Basically, it just groups individuals together and assigns a common AC and Attack Bonus. Both sides inflict HD equal to its numbers on a successful hit. Then HD damage is marked off, but only one creature in the unit can be wounded.
Vanigo 07-14-05, 12:11 AM	I think I have a better way to determine the worth of a wizard. A 5th level wizard is a CR 5 encounter. 2 Warriors make a CR 1 encounter. 32 Warriors make a CR 5 encounter. So, one Wizard should have the combat value of 32 Warriors and should be paid accordingly. Based upon all of the discussion so far, we would expect a 5th Wizard only using his spells for offense to take out 20 guys with Fireballs, 3 guys with Acid Arrow, 4 guys with Magic Missile, and 1 or 2 guys with Ray of Frost. These are just examples, but the math seems about right. So, your Wizard should get 32 sliver pieces per day, which is 12 more silver than a siege engineer. Now in the Battle System rules (converting costs to 3E terms), a 5 level wizard would cost 10,000 points + 900 points for spells = 10,900. By comparison, a 5th level fighter would cost 10,000 points. Equipment would cost extra. 19,000 points for a 5th level NPC Wizard, 10,000 points for a 5th level NPC Fighter, and 500 points for a 1st level NPC Warrior. This gives us 5th level Wizard = 38 Warriors. Not too far off from my CR calculation.Actually, it seems to give 10,900 points for a fifth level wizard, which is the equivalent of 21 warriors. Unless it's actually 9000 points for spells, not 900 like you said above. Regardless, I can't help but question the validity of any system that charges the same amount for a 5th level fighter as it does for a fifth level wizard with no spells. I suppose the argument could be made that you're spending the 10,000 points to get the ability to spend points on spells or some such, but it kinda feels wrong to me. Much as it weakens my argument, I like your CR-based analysis better. Since we have to pay for equipment, this will drive the numbers a little closer together. Say we spent all of the NPC allotment that would be 4,300 for the wizard and 450 for the warrior. That would give a ratio of 1:25 (FRU). So this is why I am not impressed. I would expect a 5th level wizard to be equal to about 32 mooks plus or minus 6. However, with his spells he is only taking out 28 guys if he does not play any defense. While within the margin of error, it’s on the low end and the wizard is not protecting himself from enemy wizards or archers.But he's not fighting them by himself. It would be more meaningful to take, say, a fifth level wizard and twenty soldiers against 52 soldiers. In a situation like this, the wizard's side stands an excellent chance of doing well. The fireballs won't wipe everyone out, but they'll do significant damage and disorganize the survivors. The wizard's troops will thus gain a significant tactical edge. Not to mention the all-soldier side has to spread out or the fireballs will be even more dangerous, while the wizard's soldiers can stay it a tight formation, which helps them avoid being flanked and such. Besides, a battle doesn't consist of both sides lining up all their troops in front of each other and having each guy kill as many enemy soldiers as they can. There are concepts such as favorable terrain and tactical formations and supporting fire. The wizard's value isn't just that he can kill a lot of guys; he can kill a lot of guys exactly when and where you need them killed. Could you give me one example in history where killing one squad of mooks changed the battle?Not off the top of my head, but I can give you an example where it could have. On the first day of the Battle of the Bulge, the German attackers were held back for most of the day by ridiculously small numbers of American infantrymen dug in at crossroads. While they were eventually overwhelmed, they bought critical time for the Allies to prepare for the attack. You see this would only occur in a very low magic setting. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, this is very doubtful given that magic is so prevalent. The only reason that you are discounting the effect of the big gun is because you are familiar with it. The influence of the gun on peoples that did not know about it was out of proportion to its effect. However, we are not talking about this unless you are somehow fighting a bunch of primitive screw heads that have never seen any feat of magic. To a person ignorant of gunpowder, the ritual you described for a fireball is the same. The standard D&D ratio of wizards means that everyone in the world has probably seen some magic. Armies fighting against magic using opponents would be trained to some extent as to what to expect, even so far as having it demonstrated for them.But in a high-magic campaign, the soldiers know about all sorts of other nasty stuff the the enemy wizards may or may not be able to do, and there are a lot more enemy wizards. And they really have no way to know which wizards are fifth level guys who can really only fireball them and which ones can suck all the moisture out of your body or banish you to the fourth layer of Hell. If anything is the morale breaker it is when your wizard gets smoked. This will have a much more dramatic effect on the morale of the army.And is that a reason not to have them? Never claimed invincible; he is just more effective than the mage that is on the battlefield for 13 rounds and then is out of spells. A fighter with healing items will be around for much longer and his impact will continue to be felt.Wands... Even if you refuse to accept the concept that you can have leftover wands from previous battles and just replace one really old one between battles (and then spend only a small number of the charges in this new wand), you can still just buy a used wand. It can't be that much harder to find than 40 longbows. Also, so his nine buddies get cut down. He is part of an army. There will always be nine buddies around him unless he charges by himself into the other army.Phh. You can't go reorganizing units in the middle of battle and expect to get much by way of results. Besides, it'll take several rounds at least to get more people nearby, and he's still in melee in the meantime. We are talking about an army here. By the book, it costs no more than 1 sp to feed a person. Iron rations are not what soldiers use in battle, well at least until recently. Ancient battles don't typically last for days outside of a siege situation. Two armies clash, one runs away. The winner regroups, feeds his soldiers, and moves on. Also, both armies have this problem. The 120 gold will feed 40 guys for 30 days. If we are talking about armies in the 5,000-10,000 range this is not even worthy of notice. I will also point out that it is more likely that the armies are paying a few coppers per solider.What exactly are you feeding them that's cheaper than bread, baked turnips, onions, and water? Pig slops? Talk about your causes of bad morale... Alright, so say the food you give them costs 1 sp a day, feeding 40 guys for 30 days for exactly 120 gp. You still need to transport that food, though. That means wagons, and wagon drivers, and horses, and feed for the horses, and wagons to transport the feed, and cooks to prepare the poor food on-site. The wizard on the other hand will be eating high on the hog and will be costing 1-2 gold per day. So this is really a non-issue. In addition, it does not address the combat effectiveness, which is where this discussion is truly centered.It's not an issue of combat effectiveness per person, but it is an issue of combat effectiveness per gold piece spent. If we are going to have a valid combat comparison, we must price things as they are. In my calculations, I am not trying to carry over armor, weapons, potions, scrolls, sheep, goat, and the partridge in a pare tree from the last battle. Trying to do so is intellectually dishonest. Lay out the full costs for your tactic. If for no other reason is that the army had to be created from scratch at some point. Let's just assume that you are a king who is raising an army from scratch fighting another king doing the same. We are talking about the first battle between them. After that one side or the other will be on the defensive and thus change the equation anyway.Actually, I think it would be entirely reasonable for you to carry over weapons and armor from the previous battle. Some breakage is to be expected, and some stuff is going to be looted off your fallen soldiers, so you'll be buying new stuff, but you don't need to throw away your weapon after every battle and buy a new one. Can't say that I know how much loss to expect, though. Regardless, you must adknowledge the fact that partially charged wands exist somewhere in the world, and it's not much of a stretch to say that they'll be for sale from time to time. If you can't buy one new wand and use a bunch of old ones you had on hand, you can buy a bunch of old ones, with about the same end result. Don't forget terrain undulations as well. Low cover provides a +2 Reflex save bonus.Not against spreads. Concealment makes it easier to hide snipers and other ambush soldiers. If you can't seem them, how do you know where to shoot? Remember you have one fireball are you just going to throw it blindly and hope it hits something useful?It also makes it easier to hide the scouts who find snipers and ambush soldiers. If you do a Google search on d20 Mass Combat, you will get quite a few hits on the same ones I have looked at. I have a 22 K PDF of one I downloaded which I could PM you if you want. It is really simplistic. Basically, it just groups individuals together and assigns a common AC and Attack Bonus. Both sides inflict HD equal to its numbers on a successful hit. Then HD damage is marked off, but only one creature in the unit can be wounded.I'll have to do that sometime. (I'd do it now, but I happen to have a bit of a headache at the moment. Which is not an insult; I had it before I started here.)
Alienfreak 07-14-05, 05:20 AM	A military paying wizards on a spell basis is ridiculous. It has already been ponted out before but: A 5fth level wizard has an wealth of 4300gp (or so).If i just cast every spell i know for an army it would instantly double my wealth. And where do you take the wisdom from that wizards always get paid on per spell basis? There are rules how much the casting of a spell costs, but that was made for services purposes and not for adventuring or wizards in armies. I really doubt that the War Wizards get paid on a per spell basis. And i guess the Red Wizards Of Thay also dont charge per spell, huh? Otherwise those guys have to be really really rich to be able to pay all their wizards :) Edit: NPC Wealth :)
solbergb 07-14-05, 01:23 PM	Ok, but if we want to use WWII examples, consider that those handful of dug-in soldiers were on the wrong side of artillery, which means that it is an argument that artillery does not in fact defeat ground troops unsupported. They had the advantage of terrain and weather. But on the other hand, the Battle of the Bulge happened primarily because the weather precluded the Allies from using their air superiority. So...we have a situation where: Army 1 can't make good use of its "mage support" due to weather. Army 2 therefore has temporary superiority in number and quality of troops Army 2 attacks, with more "magic" than the army 1 guys Army 1 is pushed back all across the front, except for a few exceptionally well dug-in units. Army 1 however, is actually far superior to army 2 in overall numbers, the numerical advantage is local. So they can absorb the losses and the front firms up with a salient (the "Bulge). Eventually the weather clears, and army 1 now has numeric and quality superiority, destroyes the army in the salient and pushes the entire enemy army2 back across its river lines. The battle of the bulge was pretty much hopeless from a material standpoint, the German army just didn't have the troops to make it work, even with the allied air force out of the picture. A more instructive comparison might be the Russian Front in that war. In the early stages, the German "high k" (ie, less soldiers, more tanks and artillery, in D&D terms, more "leveled" people) resulted in the Soviet army reeling on all fronts, unable to get organized. Eventually though, because the soviets did not give up, the attack stalled due to winter, due to bitter resistance in two cities (Leningrad, Stalingrad) and due just to the sheer hugeness of the front. When it was Poland, the German army could easily cover the entire front. When it was half of Russia, most of the "holding ground" was done with lower quality troops, including some from allied minor powers (Rumania, Bulgaria, etc) and their own lower quality units (short on training, experience and/or material). Eventually the soviets trained up some "mages and fighters" of their own, although inferior to the german models (lower level...but more of them. German airplanes and tanks and especially mobile artillery was superior through the entire war, but the soviets made a LOT of T-37 tanks and cheap, conventional artillery). The combination of the best troops being ground up in environments not suited to their power (due to weather, city fighting or terrain) and the willingness of the Soviets to take 7-1 casualties made any ability to win via firepower impossible. The germans lost 3 million or so on all fronts, the soviets lost 20 million just on the Russian front. At the end of the war, there was no German army, and the soviet army was bigger than when they started. If the soviets had not trained ANY "wizards or fighters" then they probably would have lost. No amount of numbers would have helped them if they had the same quality army they had in 1941 through the entire war. But if you can kill the high quality troops at all, then numbers tell. We talk a lot about "no wizard" or "1 L5 wizard". What about what happens when you get 1 L5 wizard versus 4 L1 wizards? They can actually cause the L5 guy a lot of grief, with truestrike and heavy crossbows and the magic weapon spell (to defeat prot arrows). This is especially true if both sides use the wizards to scribe a few scrolls. The same argument is pretty true of two L3 wizards vs the L5. Also the way things work in D&Dland, those L1 wizards won't be L1 for long if the army wins, where the L5 guy won't advance as quickly, because his opposition is mostly mooks. So a lot depends on how you imagine spellcasters are created. If they can be trained like a military specialist (as long as they don't have a class level yet) and you don't need a bloodline or a "gift" to do magic, a side short on casters will adapt quickly by drafting its youth to make casters. If instead they take 20 years to train up, and you can't do anything to increase the ratio to the population, they become a precious irreplacable resource if they die, so it becomes highly worthwhile to do covert operations to kill or neutralize them before the battle begins. (kidnapping is best, it prevents most ways of reviving them)
Vanigo 07-14-05, 09:30 PM	Ok, but if we want to use WWII examples, consider that those handful of dug-in soldiers were on the wrong side of artillery, which means that it is an argument that artillery does not in fact defeat ground troops unsupported.No one ever said that artillery, or a mage, defeats ground troops unsupported. But they both help a lot. As for the German artillery, I'm sure it's much less accurate than fireballs, especilaly in windy conditions, and it's much less effective against troops in concrete pillboxes. (Admittedly, I don't know if the defenders were in pillboxes or not.) All things considered, though, I doubt fireballs could have taken those positions any faster, since any wizard close enough to cast fireball would have long since entered rifle range. They had the advantage of terrain and weather. But on the other hand, the Battle of the Bulge happened primarily because the weather precluded the Allies from using their air superiority. So...we have a situation where: Army 1 can't make good use of its "mage support" due to weather. Army 2 therefore has temporary superiority in number and quality of troops Army 2 attacks, with more "magic" than the army 1 guys Army 1 is pushed back all across the front, except for a few exceptionally well dug-in units. Army 1 however, is actually far superior to army 2 in overall numbers, the numerical advantage is local. So they can absorb the losses and the front firms up with a salient (the "Bulge). Eventually the weather clears, and army 1 now has numeric and quality superiority, destroyes the army in the salient and pushes the entire enemy army2 back across its river lines. The battle of the bulge was pretty much hopeless from a material standpoint, the German army just didn't have the troops to make it work, even with the allied air force out of the picture.True, but it could have been a lot messier than it was. A more instructive comparison might be the Russian Front in that war.... [snip] ...So a lot depends on how you imagine spellcasters are created. If they can be trained like a military specialist (as long as they don't have a class level yet) and you don't need a bloodline or a "gift" to do magic, a side short on casters will adapt quickly by drafting its youth to make casters. If instead they take 20 years to train up, and you can't do anything to increase the ratio to the population, they become a precious irreplacable resource if they die, so it becomes highly worthwhile to do covert operations to kill or neutralize them before the battle begins. (kidnapping is best, it prevents most ways of reviving them)I suppose this is true, but I don't see how it has much bearing on our debate. If we allow one side to train 20 first level wizards, we must allow the other side to do so as well. The Russians had a massive population to draw on, but we can't count on that. So if it's 20 first level wizards and a fifth level wizard on one side, and 20 first level wizards on the other, the first side still has the advantage. In a situation like that, it's probably best to have the fifth level wizard stay back and craft items if he's got the appropriate feats; he can make scrolls and wands for the first level wizards to use.
redraven 07-14-05, 09:48 PM	A military paying wizards on a spell basis is ridiculous. It has already been ponted out before but: A 5fth level wizard has an wealth of 4300gp (or so).If i just cast every spell i know for an army it would instantly double my wealth. And where do you take the wisdom from that wizards always get paid on per spell basis? There are rules how much the casting of a spell costs, but that was made for services purposes and not for adventuring or wizards in armies. I really doubt that the War Wizards get paid on a per spell basis. And i guess the Red Wizards Of Thay also dont charge per spell, huh? Otherwise those guys have to be really really rich to be able to pay all their wizards :) Did at any point in my analysis did I claim that wizards always make this kind of money? Or ever do, even in non-war situations? Did I claim that PC wizards can charge on a per spell basis? Did I claim anything remotely similar to these ridiculous accusations or "corrections?" No. The NPC pricing guidelines give a consistent and objective scale in which to judge the cost and efficiency of things in D&D by using game terms. Of course we can say that the wizard casts all his spells for free, that his buddies write scrolls/craft wands with no regard to their XP levels, or that my cooks and soldiers supply their own equipment and work for free. This presents a subjective scale and is the equivalent of playground showdowns: "I shot you!" "No you didn't! "Yeah I did!" "I Had my forcefield up." "My bullets go through forcefields!" "I dodged it!" And so on. If the the NPC pricing guidelines are unsatisfactory, then submit your own consistent and objective pricing scheme and see what results. Thus far, I have only seen WaterRabbit do anything close, and it still supports the conclusion that the wizard has better things to do than shooting Fireballs.
WaterRabbit 07-14-05, 10:01 PM	Actually, it seems to give 10,900 points for a fifth level wizard, which is the equivalent of 21 warriors. Unless it's actually 9000 points for spells, not 900 like you said above. Sorry, brain fart, juggling too many numbers. You are of course correct that the 10,900 is equal to 22 (FRU). Now I am about to be really long winded here, but I am trying find a useful method of determining Combat value and the economics of D&D warfare. I am trying to find a simple method without making too many assumptions beyond the RAW. Much as it weakens my argument, I like your CR-based analysis better. I have been thinking about this as well, since it is a better representation of their actual combat value. I might break down if we start going beyond 8th level, but I am willing to take that chance for an approximation. Our formula is then 2^(Level) sp / day, counting character class levels. For NPC classes (warriors and experts primarily) the formula is 2^(Level-1) sp /day. [Note this would make a 20th level character wizard worth 1,048,576 sp / day, which might not be too far off since a PC of that level should have 760k gp.] Let me take this a step further. If a kingdom were to employ wizards to create items for them, their cost is easier to calculate. Since the kingdom is providing the wizards with a steady paycheck, we can assume that the wizards are only charging cost. So the cost of magic items is 50% + the number of days it takes the wizard to create it plus 5 gp for lost XP. For arguments sake, let’s assume that an NPC crafting wizard gains his level in XP per day. This means that an NPC who spends all of his allotment will never gain in levels. If that NPC spends none of that he will gain a level every 2 years, 8 months (assuming a 365 day year). So, that means a crafting wizard could create 12.5 gp times his level in magic items per day. So our hypothetical 5th level wizard would create a 1000 gp item every 8 days. It would cost the kingdom 500 gp (materials) + 25.6 gp (salary) + 40 gp (lost X) = 565.6 gold total. This would a good bargain, instead of paying 1,000 gp. For mundane items, the formula depends too much on the DC of the item, but in general it will cost 1/3 of the market prices + salary of the smith. Let’s take arrows for example and a 1st level Fletcher (Expert (Weaponsmith)). Let’s also assume that we NPC classes are built on an 18 point buy (only to simply the math) and for arguments sake an array of (14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 8). This allows our Fletcher to have a 14 in Int. He will have a craft skill of 4 ranks+2 Int+3 Skill Focus = 9. ‘Taking 10’ gives him a 19 on his skill rolls. Technically, arrows are a martial weapon for a DC15 (I would argue a DC10). That means he can craft 57 arrows per day (it would be only 38 at DC 10). Let’s round to get 60 (we work a little overtime for even numbers). So that cost us 11 silver per day for 3 bundles of arrows. Now in reality we would also have to employ a blacksmith to make the arrow heads, someone to get the goose feathers, someone to cut the wood, etc.; but his is all assumed in the raw materials cost. All I am trying to do here is to try and demonstrate a method that could be used to generate the economic costs and time factors involved in production of items. But he's not fighting them by himself. It would be more meaningful to take, say, a fifth level wizard and twenty soldiers against 52 soldiers. In a situation like this, the wizard's side stands an excellent chance of doing well. The fireballs won't wipe everyone out, but they'll do significant damage and disorganize the survivors. The wizard's troops will thus gain a significant tactical edge. Not to mention the all-soldier side has to spread out or the fireballs will be even more dangerous, while the wizard's soldiers can stay it a tight formation, which helps them avoid being flanked and such. Besides, a battle doesn't consist of both sides lining up all their troops in front of each other and having each guy kill as many enemy soldiers as they can. There are concepts such as favorable terrain and tactical formations and supporting fire. The wizard's value isn't just that he can kill a lot of guys; he can kill a lot of guys exactly when and where you need them killed. We could have tactical arguments till we are blue in the face. A true tactical discussion would require a detailed map, detailed force compositions, etc. I am just trying to get a handle on the actual combat value. Not off the top of my head, but I can give you an example where it could have. On the first day of the Battle of the Bulge, the German attackers were held back for most of the day by ridiculously small numbers of American infantrymen dug in at crossroads. While they were eventually overwhelmed, they bought critical time for the Allies to prepare for the attack. Yes that is an example of a elite unit holding up another elite unit, but if the Germans had destroyed a single squad (which they did over and over by the way) it did not cause the rest of them to flee of the battle. The American’s had high morale throughout that battle. But in a high-magic campaign, the soldiers know about all sorts of other nasty stuff the the enemy wizards may or may not be able to do, and there are a lot more enemy wizards. And they really have no way to know which wizards are fifth level guys who can really only fireball them and which ones can suck all the moisture out of your body or banish you to the fourth layer of Hell. This is why they count on their wizards to protect them from that. If they were to loose too many wizards, say a squads worth it would have a much bigger impact on morale. Wands... Even if you refuse to accept the concept that you can have leftover wands from previous battles and just replace one really old one between battles (and then spend only a small number of the charges in this new wand), you can still just buy a used wand. It can't be that much harder to find than 40 longbows. Look for every charge in your wand you are giving the other side 225 gp to work with. That is 225 squads armed with clubs if nothing else. So, you kill ten of them with that one charge and the other 215 swarm your army. That is my point. Also, D&D does not allow charging of wands or creating of wands less than 50 charges specifically because of this. Otherwise, it allows Adventures (note not armies) a constant supply of extra firepower because they would then not be required to spend their gold in such large chunks. Wands are cheaper than scrolls to begin with. The cost of a 5th level fireball scroll is 3x5x25=375. At the army discount rate above it would take a 5th level wizard 3 days to make and cost 1875 + 96 + 150 = 212.1 gp. This is similar to the guy wanting to outfit his army with just one 20th level wizard for 100,000 gp. That is equivalent to 1 million guys armed with clubs. The numbers just start to add up on the other side too quickly. The archmage will own a small section of land for as long as he is there. However, if I put 1,000 guys in 1,000 armies, I am going to own your country. No archmage is going to bother with this; he is going to hire a bunch of mooks to do the fighting. See the discussion of high cost versus low cost armies above. Phh. You can't go reorganizing units in the middle of battle and expect to get much by way of results. Besides, it'll take several rounds at least to get more people nearby, and he's still in melee in the meantime. No, I am not. Once two ancient/medieval armies collide it is one big swirl of opponents and allies. This is why the concept of a squad only makes sense in this environment to a point. While we buy units in group of 10, they are organized in much larger units. A company of guys is more like it. In the eight squares surrounding our 5th level fighter, we are going to probably have 4 friends and 4 enemies, give or take. I am not reorganizing in the middle of battle. Now, your fireball throwing wizard could isolate this fighter for perhaps a round. Then movement in the next will bring him into contact with more of his army. What exactly are you feeding them that's cheaper than bread, baked turnips, onions, and water? Pig slops? Talk about your causes of bad morale... Alright, so say the food you give them costs 1 sp a day, feeding 40 guys for 30 days for exactly 120 gp. You still need to transport that food, though. That means wagons, and wagon drivers, and horses, and feed for the horses, and wagons to transport the feed, and cooks to prepare the poor food on-site. Take a look in the PHB page 129. A Common meal is 3 sp and a poor 1 sp. However, medieval armies supplemented their supply by forage and conquest, so 1 sp per person for a large body of troops is not too far off. However, for arguments sake let’s assume that for each copper spent we get 100 calories. Fighting men and laborers are going to need between 2500 to 3000 calories per day. That works out with the 3 sp number. A wizard might only need 2000 calories per day (it depends on your assumptions about spellcasting). However, your wizard (or any other high level specialist) will probably have a better fare – officers always eat better than enlisted. In the PHB a good meal is 5 sp. However, all of this is beside the point as to the combat value on the field. So unless you are planning on only fielding an army of wizards, supply and logistics are a big problem for both armies. However, once the system is setup, it can absorb the 31 extra guys for each wizard the opposing army brings with them. Plus, once my horde defeats your army we will have lots of magic to sell to make up the difference. ;) Not against spreads. Yes not against spreads. However, you must still have a line of effect to your detonation point. If that intersects cover you fireball will prematurely detonate. All of the ranged attacks rolls in the world will not help you if your line of effect crosses a 5 cube pile of rubble or a big tree or a wall.
Vanigo 07-14-05, 10:02 PM	Did at any point in my analysis did I claim that wizards always make this kind of money? Or ever do, even in non-war situations? Did I claim that PC wizards can charge on a per spell basis? Did I claim anything remotely similar to these ridiculous accusations or "corrections?" No. The NPC pricing guidelines give a consistent and objective scale in which to judge the cost and efficiency of things in D&D by using game terms. Of course we can say that the wizard casts all his spells for free, that his buddies write scrolls/craft wands with no regard to their XP levels, or that my cooks and soldiers supply their own equipment and work for free. This presents a subjective scale and is the equivalent of playground showdowns: "I shot you!" "No you didn't! "Yeah I did!" "I Had my forcefield up." "My bullets go through forcefields!" "I dodged it!" And so on. If the the NPC pricing guidelines are unsatisfactory, then submit your own consistent and objective pricing scheme and see what results. Thus far, I have only seen WaterRabbit do anything close, and it still supports the conclusion that the wizard has better things to do than shooting Fireballs. If it's consistent and objective and gives you monumentally stupid results, you throw it out. The [i]Arms and Equipment Guide[i] puts the salary of a mercenary leader who's a 1st level fighter at 1 gp a day (for just the leader, not his troops), +2 gp for each additional level. A wizard might certainly make more than that, but he might not - mercenary leaders don't exactly grow on trees either.
WaterRabbit 07-14-05, 10:09 PM	A military paying wizards on a spell basis is ridiculous. It has already been ponted out before but: A 5fth level wizard has an wealth of 4300gp (or so).If i just cast every spell i know for an army it would instantly double my wealth. And where do you take the wisdom from that wizards always get paid on per spell basis? There are rules how much the casting of a spell costs, but that was made for services purposes and not for adventuring or wizards in armies. I really doubt that the War Wizards get paid on a per spell basis. And i guess the Red Wizards Of Thay also dont charge per spell, huh? Otherwise those guys have to be really really rich to be able to pay all their wizards :) Edit: NPC Wealth :) Look I agree with you. I was throwing out the rules using in OD&D Battle System as one way it was done. The only place I can find that gives official rules for large units is the 'Arms and Equipment Guide'. However, that has two flaws, no wizards and v3.0 not 3.5. I don’t have the Miniatures handbook, so I don’t know if there is anything of value there. I think that the CR comparison method gives us a consistent basis to judge combat value.
Vanigo 07-15-05, 12:43 AM	Let me take this a step further. If a kingdom were to employ wizards to create items for them, their cost is easier to calculate. Since the kingdom is providing the wizards with a steady paycheck, we can assume that the wizards are only charging cost. So the cost of magic items is 50% + the number of days it takes the wizard to create it plus 5 gp for lost XP. For arguments sake, let’s assume that an NPC crafting wizard gains his level in XP per day. This means that an NPC who spends all of his allotment will never gain in levels. If that NPC spends none of that he will gain a level every 2 years, 8 months (assuming a 365 day year). So, that means a crafting wizard could create 12.5 gp times his level in magic items per day. So our hypothetical 5th level wizard would create a 1000 gp item every 8 days. It would cost the kingdom 500 gp (materials) + 25.6 gp (salary) + 40 gp (lost X) = 565.6 gold total. This would a good bargain, instead of paying 1,000 gp.Actually, it'd be higher. It's 5 gp:1 XP, so it'd be 200 gold for lost experience, and 725.6 gp total. We could have tactical arguments till we are blue in the face. A true tactical discussion would require a detailed map, detailed force compositions, etc. I am just trying to get a handle on the actual combat value.A tactical discussion would be extremely complex, true. But you can't just say "It'd lose if they went head-to-head, therefore it's not as good." That's almost completely unrelated to actual combat value. It's not unlike saying a dedicated healer is useless because anything can kill it. Or how about walls? Boy, walls sure are useless; they can't kill a single peasant in a one-on-one fight. And there's the issue of effectiveness against different enemies. Does a SAM battery have less combat value than a guy with a screwdriver? Yes that is an example of a elite unit holding up another elite unit, but if the Germans had destroyed a single squad (which they did over and over by the way) it did not cause the rest of them to flee of the battle. The American’s had high morale throughout that battle.They destroyed plenty of squads over the course of the battle, but the guys at the crossroads (and I'm almost positive it was no more than 2-3 squads each) didn't lose many men (although there were lots of injuires) until they ran out of ammunition. Now, the Germans would almost certainly have lost anyway, but this delay was one of the major contributing factors to their defeat. This is why they count on their wizards to protect them from that. If they were to loose too many wizards, say a squads worth it would have a much bigger impact on morale.Protect them how, exactly? Look for every charge in your wand you are giving the other side 225 gp to work with. That is 225 squads armed with clubs if nothing else. So, you kill ten of them with that one charge and the other 215 swarm your army. That is my point.Except we've got our item crafters making the wand, so we only pay 8163 gp/50 = 163.26 gp/charge. And it's a 30 day campaign, so a squad of guys with clubs is 30 gp. That's about 5 squads, seeing as how you have to feed them. 5 squads of unarmored guys with clubs won't do much of anything to a real army. Also, D&D does not allow charging of wands or creating of wands less than 50 charges specifically because of this. Otherwise, it allows Adventures (note not armies) a constant supply of extra firepower because they would then not be required to spend their gold in such large chunks. Wands are cheaper than scrolls to begin with. The cost of a 5th level fireball scroll is 3x5x25=375. At the army discount rate above it would take a 5th level wizard 3 days to make and cost 1875 + 96 + 150 = 212.1 gp.Uh, what? It's 187.5 gold for materials and 15 xp, so 3 days pay = 9.6 gp and 75 gp for experience. (I guess you left out some decimal points.) That's a total of 272.1 gp. This is similar to the guy wanting to outfit his army with just one 20th level wizard for 100,000 gp. That is equivalent to 1 million guys armed with clubs. The numbers just start to add up on the other side too quickly. The archmage will own a small section of land for as long as he is there. However, if I put 1,000 guys in 1,000 armies, I am going to own your country. No archmage is going to bother with this; he is going to hire a bunch of mooks to do the fighting. See the discussion of high cost versus low cost armies above.Or maybe he'd use planar binding spells to summon large air elementals and have them do the work. (They've got 10 foot reach and DR 5/- and they can fly, so they're practically invulnerable as far as guys with clubs are concerned.) He can obliterate any pathetic army of 1000 guys with clubs pretty much whenever and wherever he feels like it (thanks to greater teleport), and have summoned creatures decimate the others. Once news gets around (and, with sending spells, it will), you'll have tens of thousands of deserters every day. Sticking around is clearly a death sentence, after all. No, I am not. Once two ancient/medieval armies collide it is one big swirl of opponents and allies. This is why the concept of a squad only makes sense in this environment to a point. While we buy units in group of 10, they are organized in much larger units. A company of guys is more like it. In the eight squares surrounding our 5th level fighter, we are going to probably have 4 friends and 4 enemies, give or take. I am not reorganizing in the middle of battle. Now, your fireball throwing wizard could isolate this fighter for perhaps a round. Then movement in the next will bring him into contact with more of his army.But I thought you were keeping your squads all spread out to mitigate the effectiveness of fireballs? Take a look in the PHB page 129. A Common meal is 3 sp and a poor 1 sp. However, medieval armies supplemented their supply by forage and conquest, so 1 sp per person for a large body of troops is not too far off. However, for arguments sake let’s assume that for each copper spent we get 100 calories. Fighting men and laborers are going to need between 2500 to 3000 calories per day. That works out with the 3 sp number. A wizard might only need 2000 calories per day (it depends on your assumptions about spellcasting). However, your wizard (or any other high level specialist) will probably have a better fare – officers always eat better than enlisted. In the PHB a good meal is 5 sp.Which is not that big a number. Besides, if you're looting and foraging for 1000 men, and I'm looting and foraging for 500, I need a lot less, so I can stay in one place longer and the locals are going to like me a lot better. And 5 sp for my wizard is way less than 32 sp for your grunts. However, all of this is beside the point as to the combat value on the field. So unless you are planning on only fielding an army of wizards, supply and logistics are a big problem for both armies. However, once the system is setup, it can absorb the 31 extra guys for each wizard the opposing army brings with them. Plus, once my horde defeats your army we will have lots of magic to sell to make up the difference. ;)Supply and logistics are a big problem for my forces, but they're bigger for yours. And what are you going to do in your own territory? Loot from your own peasants? And what about when you're holding territory? Or in wilderness? Yes not against spreads. However, you must still have a line of effect to your detonation point. If that intersects cover you fireball will prematurely detonate. All of the ranged attacks rolls in the world will not help you if your line of effect crosses a 5 cube pile of rubble or a big tree or a wall.But my wizards are on a rise themselves, and quite likely aiming above your troops' heads anyway. A pile of rubble is no problem - just shoot over it - and there aren't many big trees on a battlefield.
redraven 07-15-05, 04:05 PM	If it's consistent and objective and gives you monumentally stupid results, you throw it out. The [i]Arms and Equipment Guide[i] puts the salary of a mercenary leader who's a 1st level fighter at 1 gp a day (for just the leader, not his troops), +2 gp for each additional level. A wizard might certainly make more than that, but he might not - mercenary leaders don't exactly grow on trees either. Oh, so we're no longer sticking to Core? Fine. I won't be able to get my copy of A&EG until this weekend, so I shall address that later. By the way, I am still waiting for your analysis, which has been up to this point merely attempting to disassemble other poster's rather than submitting your own.
WaterRabbit 07-15-05, 08:23 PM	Actually, it'd be higher. It's 5 gp:1 XP, so it'd be 200 gold for lost experience, and 725.6 gp total. Yep, forgot to multiply by 5 for XP. If I were just to play a pick-up game, I would price the troops according to the formulas I suggested. Then I would just charge 50% for magic and 33% for mundane items and call it good. If I were going to play in a campaign, it would be necessary to work out economics. For the most part it would depend upon the length of the campaign as to how detailed the economics really need to be. A truly detailed system would have resources represented on a map. Those resources could be captured, but for a short campaign (say a game year or less) their output could be ignored and we would only focus upon what each side had stockpiled before the fighting started. A tactical discussion would be extremely complex, true. But you can't just say "It'd lose if they went head-to-head, therefore it's not as good." That's almost completely unrelated to actual combat value. It's not unlike saying a dedicated healer is useless because anything can kill it. Or how about walls? Boy, walls sure are useless; they can't kill a single peasant in a one-on-one fight. And there's the issue of effectiveness against different enemies. Does a SAM battery have less combat value than a guy with a screwdriver? All of these have tactical value in and of themselves. A wall has no value in an aerial battle and a druid is not that effective underground. However, your points are somewhat moot. Unless both sides have significant air/teleport power, the armies start at a distance -- far enough they cannot affect each other; they approach; they fight. So they do in essence line up across from each other. How they deploy their units depends upon the intelligence they have about the battlefield, the opposing force, and the compentence of their commanders. So, for purposes of this discussion, we are looking at a combat situation in which gives the fireball its maximum advantage -- i.e. a fairly flat area with good lines of sight. Night, weather, and constricted terrain will all reduce its effectiveness. They destroyed plenty of squads over the course of the battle, but the guys at the crossroads (and I'm almost positive it was no more than 2-3 squads each) didn't lose many men (although there were lots of injuires) until they ran out of ammunition. Now, the Germans would almost certainly have lost anyway, but this delay was one of the major contributing factors to their defeat. Your example does not support your original point. Give me an example of a historical situation where killing one squad of basic foot soldiers caused an entire army to rout. That was your original contention. Protect them how, exactly? They protect them by killing the opposing mages instead of killing the opposing mooks. If they destroy all of the high level opposition in the opposing army then go ahead and mop up the mooks. Except we've got our item crafters making the wand, so we only pay 8163 gp/50 = 163.26 gp/charge. And it's a 30 day campaign, so a squad of guys with clubs is 30 gp. That's about 5 squads, seeing as how you have to feed them. 5 squads of unarmored guys with clubs won't do much of anything to a real army. Uh, what? It's 187.5 gold for materials and 15 xp, so 3 days pay = 9.6 gp and 75 gp for experience. (I guess you left out some decimal points.) That's a total of 272.1 gp. I am glad you have caught my math errors. The point is still that one charge of a wand costs less than the equivalent scroll. You are trying to make your argument by breaking the rules. At 163.26 gp / charge and 1.8 days to make it, I am still ahead by 153 squads. The campaign won't go the full 30 days; your army will be gone after the first. The rest will be just pacifying the civilian population. Or maybe he'd use planar binding spells to summon large air elementals and have them do the work. (They've got 10 foot reach and DR 5/- and they can fly, so they're practically invulnerable as far as guys with clubs are concerned.) He can obliterate any pathetic army of 1000 guys with clubs pretty much whenever and wherever he feels like it (thanks to greater teleport), and have summoned creatures decimate the others. Once news gets around (and, with sending spells, it will), you'll have tens of thousands of deserters every day. Sticking around is clearly a death sentence, after all. Anytime this guy or his minions show up that army just runs. So what? In the first day of the campaign, you kill what, five armies? The other 995 are more than enough to go all Mongol on the population. So on day two the wizard has no economic support since everyone in his country is dead. Meanwhile the adventures have slipped into his stronghold and beheaded him. You see why this is pointless. Let's try to evaluate this on actual battlefield strength and not on strange hypotheticals. I have already demonstrated that AoE attacks are not cost effective when used against CR 1 or less characters unless you have some other advantage. You have yet to bring anything to the argument that shows they are. For every fireball you 'purchase' (by wizard, scroll, or wand) the other guy can purchase a larger number of squads than you can kill with that fireball. What more is there to say? In my mind the classic Elven defense is where this is effective. For Elves, population is their most limited resource. For Orcs, population is their most abundant resource. The elves need to be able to kill lots of orcs without loosing any population. They do this with guerilla tactics, hit and run raids, and strong defenses. If I were going to make a D&D strategy game, I would have to account for all of these different resources. For elves, population would cost more than magic. For orcs the opposite would be true. For humans, they would be about equal. But I thought you were keeping your squads all spread out to mitigate the effectiveness of fireballs? First that was someone else and second once the foot soldiers of both sides charge, they will join up. Remember your supposition was to throw the fireball when they were at 400 feet away. Warriors in light armor can run 120 feet / round. So, 400, 160, wham melee combat (assuming both sides are running to engage). So even if you have an infinite number of fireballs, you still could only get off two since you really cannot shoot into the melee unless you want to kill your own guys. Which is not that big a number. Besides, if you're looting and foraging for 1000 men, and I'm looting and foraging for 500, I need a lot less, so I can stay in one place longer and the locals are going to like me a lot better. And 5 sp for my wizard is way less than 32 sp for your grunts. Ho! We finally get a number from you. That means you have 16 5th level wizards on your side and 484 mooks. So you are assuming a ratio of 1 5th level wizard per 30 guys (less if you have supporting wizards). So that means I have an army that costs 100 gold and you have an army that costs 101.2 gold (close enough). So, after your wizards kill off 16 squads of my men, I have 84 squads to your 48 -- still a 2:1 advantage. The best your wizards can do is to kill enough men for mutual destruction IF they use all of their spells for offense. Remember that your 16 wizards need to kill 512 men to earn their keep. If they succeed in doing that I have 4 men left to your zero. I think we can call that a tie (a pyrrhic victory at best). Supply and logistics are a big problem for my forces, but they're bigger for yours. And what are you going to do in your own territory? Loot from your own peasants? And what about when you're holding territory? Or in wilderness? Until you state the parameters of the battlefield, these questions are meaningless. I am assuming that both sides will have little trouble supplying 1,000 men. If they can’t they shouldn’t be fighting in the first place.
Vanigo 07-15-05, 10:18 PM	Oh, so we're no longer sticking to Core? Fine. I won't be able to get my copy of A&EG until this weekend, so I shall address that later.When were we ever sticking strictly to core? We're sticking mostly to core, especially in what spells are available, but not strictly. By the way, I am still waiting for your analysis, which has been up to this point merely attempting to disassemble other poster's rather than submitting your own. My analysis of how to conduct warfare in a world with magic, you mean? It's a thorny question, compounded by the fact that, in all honesty, I'm much better at finding problems than solutions. When you consider the massive complexity of any military doctrine, it becomes an issue far outside the scope of this discussion. Still, it's not impossible to outlay it in broad strokes. In low magic worlds, the answer is fairly simple. Spellcasters would be so rare on the battlefield that tactics would be essentially unchanged from historical medieval tactics. (Well, actually I think that the mechanics of the d20 system itself would necessitate some major changes from real medieval tactics, but I have no desire to go there.) In a medium-magic world, where mages on the battlefield are uncommon but not unheard of, warfare would probably change differently in different nations. Some would simply use huge numbers of troops and formations with massive depth that could take a couple fireballs without being too devastated. Others would train their troops to a higher level so they'd be able to survive weaker AoE spells - not to mention just being all around better. Some would spread their troops out like somebody suggested - it's far from foolproof, but it's not exactly useless either. Some would train elite assasins to try and knock off enemy wizards before battle is joined. Some would go for a guerrilla warfare approach, with skirmisher units constantly harrasing the enemy, and being stealthy and mobile enough to avoid most enemy magic. I can't really say what would work best, only experience can do that. In a high magic campaign, warfare would involve relatively small numbers of extremely highly trained troops, relying heavily on stealth and cover. They'd have the staying power to hold up against multiple spells and keep fighting, which is important, because they'd get hit by multiple spells as often as not. Battlefield control spells would be at least as important as direct damage, probably more so. Open field combat would favor spellcasters and archers (but not so much that melee troops wouldn't be needed), while fighting in forests and mountains and the like would favor short range fighters and stealthy types. There would be mooks, as well, but they'd mostly be used as occupying forces. Hordes of mooks would still be a viable tactic, but only if you have an enormous number of them and you don't mind heavy casualties. Am I right about all of this? Almost certainly not. There are undoubtedly factors I haven't considered, and I won't think less of you if you point them out. All of these have tactical value in and of themselves. A wall has no value in an aerial battle and a druid is not that effective underground. However, your points are somewhat moot. Unless both sides have significant air/teleport power, the armies start at a distance -- far enough they cannot affect each other; they approach; they fight. So they do in essence line up across from each other. How they deploy their units depends upon the intelligence they have about the battlefield, the opposing force, and the compentence of their commanders. So, for purposes of this discussion, we are looking at a combat situation in which gives the fireball its maximum advantage -- i.e. a fairly flat area with good lines of sight. Night, weather, and constricted terrain will all reduce its effectiveness.So we ignore the possibility of, say, hills that are advantageous to occupy (and which wizards, being mostly unaffected by fighting uphill, are very helpful in taking)? We ignore the whole fireballs-as-shock-troops factor? We ignore the value of breaking up a charge by blowing holes in it? We ignore the value of being able to say "Those guys on the left flank are really messing up my attack plan, but I can't divert troops to push them back. Wizard, kill them."? Your example does not support your original point. Give me an example of a historical situation where killing one squad of basic foot soldiers caused an entire army to rout. That was your original contention.Fine, I concede that I cannot give you an historical example of a battle in which a magical explosion killed a squad of soldiers in such a way as to rout their entire army. They protect them by killing the opposing mages instead of killing the opposing mooks. If they destroy all of the high level opposition in the opposing army then go ahead and mop up the mooks.Only if they're in range of the enemy mages. What are the odds of that? The mages don't want to be in range of the other mages unless they're confident they'll defeat them for exactly that reason. I am glad you have caught my math errors. The point is still that one charge of a wand costs less than the equivalent scroll. You are trying to make your argument by breaking the rules. At 163.26 gp / charge and 1.8 days to make it, I am still ahead by 153 squads. The campaign won't go the full 30 days; your army will be gone after the first. The rest will be just pacifying the civilian population.Yes, because soldiers don't expect to be paid for pacifying the civilian population. And have you ever heard of a retreat? I run from your horde, you don't catch up that day, you run out of money, your troops leave. If you're lucky, they won't take your head with them. And do you think they're not going to want to be paid while they're marching? One of the nicest things about making wands for war is that if you don't use them on any given day, you don't have to pay them. Anytime this guy or his minions show up that army just runs. So what? In the first day of the campaign, you kill what, five armies? The other 995 are more than enough to go all Mongol on the population. So on day two the wizard has no economic support since everyone in his country is dead.The air elementals, who've been tasked to get all your troops out of the country, don't care whether there's any economic support or not. You can't run away from them; they're more than three times faster than you and don't need to sleep. One large air elemental can rout one of your armies, probably every six hours. The wizard can get two of them with every 7th level spell he has available, and it'll be at least a couple weeks before your hordes have gotten to the capitol. You'll lose at least ten thousand troops a day during that time. You lose. Meanwhile the adventures have slipped into his stronghold and beheaded him. You see why this is pointless. Let's try to evaluate this on actual battlefield strength and not on strange hypotheticals.What adventurers? Who said anything about hiring adventurers? I have already demonstrated that AoE attacks are not cost effective when used against CR 1 or less characters unless you have some other advantage. You have yet to bring anything to the argument that shows they are. For every fireball you 'purchase' (by wizard, scroll, or wand) the other guy can purchase a larger number of squads than you can kill with that fireball. What more is there to say?That you're shamelessly mangling the numbers when you purchase these squads? That you're ignoring the very real issues of supply, commanding officers, troop availability, marching time, campaign time, morale (who wants to go to war with a stick?), training, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera? In my mind the classic Elven defense is where this is effective. For Elves, population is their most limited resource. For Orcs, population is their most abundant resource. The elves need to be able to kill lots of orcs without loosing any population. They do this with guerilla tactics, hit and run raids, and strong defenses. If I were going to make a D&D strategy game, I would have to account for all of these different resources. For elves, population would cost more than magic. For orcs the opposite would be true. For humans, they would be about equal.And why, pray tell, can't human wizards hit and run? They get their spells back every day. You don't get your dead soldiers back every day. First that was someone else and second once the foot soldiers of both sides charge, they will join up. Remember your supposition was to throw the fireball when they were at 400 feet away. Warriors in light armor can run 120 feet / round. So, 400, 160, wham melee combat (assuming both sides are running to engage). So even if you have an infinite number of fireballs, you still could only get off two since you really cannot shoot into the melee unless you want to kill your own guys.And why would my troops charge when they know that the longer it takes for the enemy to reach them, the more fireballs they get hit by? Are they severely retarded? Yes, if I'm saddled with retarded troops, I'm going to be at a big disadvantage. Ho! We finally get a number from you. That means you have 16 5th level wizards on your side and 484 mooks. So you are assuming a ratio of 1 5th level wizard per 30 guys (less if you have supporting wizards). So that means I have an army that costs 100 gold and you have an army that costs 101.2 gold (close enough). So, after your wizards kill off 16 squads of my men, I have 84 squads to your 48 -- still a 2:1 advantage.Uh, that weren't actual numbers that I'd use; they were just random numbers I was throwing out. Plus, my wizards can get far more kills for each fireball if they wait until your troops charge; they're converging to do so. I'd say around two squads to a fireball. Alternately, my troops can retreat after some long-range fireballing. Tomorrow, my wizards will have their spells back, and they can do it again. This time, it'll go down to 68 to 48. The day after, it'll be 52 to 48, or 36 to 48 if my wizards hold their fire until they get really good shots. At that point, I've got the advantage. You can try and pursue, of course, but my troops are just as fast as yours, and you don't know which way they're planning to run, while they know exactly where they're going. The best your wizards can do is to kill enough men for mutual destruction IF they use all of their spells for offense. Remember that your 16 wizards need to kill 512 men to earn their keep. If they succeed in doing that I have 4 men left to your zero. I think we can call that a tie (a pyrrhic victory at best).See above. Until you state the parameters of the battlefield, these questions are meaningless. I am assuming that both sides will have little trouble supplying 1,000 men. If they can’t they shouldn’t be fighting in the first place.You can't just say, "I don't know exactly what's involved in this issue, therefore it doesn't exist." There is no battlefield in which these are not at least minor concerns. You can certainly support 1000 troops, but don't pretend you can do it for free.
WaterRabbit 07-16-05, 07:22 PM	Fine, I concede that I cannot give you an historical example of a battle in which a magical explosion killed a squad of soldiers in such a way as to rout their entire army. Don't be petulant. I asked for an example where killing a squad routed a single army. I never stipulated the need for magic -- especially since I asked for a historical example. You cannot because it was an untenable statement. All of these other factors are just a smokescreen. You have yet to support the original assertion that 'AoE spells are just too powerful in a war setting'. I think that the original poster just wasn't aware how few fireballs a mage can throw and how little damage they do in casualties compared to what you have to give up in return for them.
redraven 07-16-05, 11:01 PM	When were we ever sticking strictly to core? We're sticking mostly to core, especially in what spells are available, but not strictly. There was a discussion about it on page 8, but 3.0 splat books can be used when it is convenient to do so, I suppose. It doesn't matter much anyway since you are willing to assume it will cost at least 9 gp (or 90 sp) per day to keep the wizard in your army. According to the A&EG, for that same price per day we can get: x45 1st-level Light Footsoldiers, or x22 2nd-level Medium Footsoldiers (+2 sp), or x22 4th-level Light/Skirmish Calvary (+2 sp), or x9 5th-level Heavy Footsoldiers, or x4 8th-level Medium Calvary (+10 sp) All we're doing here is paying their wages - they come equipped with everything themselves (including horses), according to the book. There are some assumptions here, of course, such as a wizard being paid a fighter's wage when the fighter does not require the same sort of things (extra protections, uninterrupted rest, ect). Now do these numbers mean that the wizard holds the power of 45 footsoldiers, or does it mean that the wizard has to kill 45 footsoldiers per day to be worth the expense? All things considered, I think it merely means that a 5th-level NPC-in-a-PC-class is worth a whole lot more than a bunch of 1st-level warriors, with little actual tactical reasoning behind it.
Vanigo 07-17-05, 03:13 PM	Don't be petulant. I asked for an example where killing a squad routed a single army. I never stipulated the need for magic -- especially since I asked for a historical example. You cannot because it was an untenable statement.Untenable by me doesn't mean untenable in general. I'm not a military historian, and unless I'm very much mistaken, neither are you. All of these other factors are just a smokescreen. You have yet to support the original assertion that 'AoE spells are just too powerful in a war setting'. I think that the original poster just wasn't aware how few fireballs a mage can throw and how little damage they do in casualties compared to what you have to give up in return for them. You call "You have to pay your troops while they march" a smokescreen? You call "Moving an army takes time" a smokescreen? You call "retreat is an option" a smokescreen? You call "people need to eat" a smokescreen? How about "undeniable reality"? Your refusal to adknowledge these considerations is the smokescreen - and a painfully thin one, at that. You know what, that's it, I'm done talking to you. Come back when you're willing to be at least vaguely reasonable. There was a discussion about it on page 8, but 3.0 splat books can be used when it is convenient to do so, I suppose. It doesn't matter much anyway since you are willing to assume it will cost at least 9 gp (or 90 sp) per day to keep the wizard in your army. According to the A&EG, for that same price per day we can get: x45 1st-level Light Footsoldiers, or x22 2nd-level Medium Footsoldiers (+2 sp), or x22 4th-level Light/Skirmish Calvary (+2 sp), or x9 5th-level Heavy Footsoldiers, or x4 8th-level Medium Calvary (+10 sp) All we're doing here is paying their wages - they come equipped with everything themselves (including horses), according to the book. There are some assumptions here, of course, such as a wizard being paid a fighter's wage when the fighter does not require the same sort of things (extra protections, uninterrupted rest, ect). Now do these numbers mean that the wizard holds the power of 45 footsoldiers, or does it mean that the wizard has to kill 45 footsoldiers per day to be worth the expense? All things considered, I think it merely means that a 5th-level NPC-in-a-PC-class is worth a whole lot more than a bunch of 1st-level warriors, with little actual tactical reasoning behind it. Hmm. Yeah, with those costs a 5th level mage really isn't worth the money. I always did think the costs for high-level warriors given in that book were pretty absurd, though.
Derren S. 07-17-05, 03:42 PM	Ok, lets use the A&EG guide prices. Those prices of course also applies to wizards, so for the same price you can get a 8th level fully equipped fighter you can get a 8th level fully equipped wizard. And don't come with "extra costs". Fully equipped means fully equipped so the wizard has spells and items for his level and he doesn't require any luxury the fighter doesn't need.
redraven 07-17-05, 08:28 PM	Ok, lets use the A&EG guide prices. Those prices of course also applies to wizards, so for the same price you can get a 8th level fully equipped fighter you can get a 8th level fully equipped wizard. And don't come with "extra costs". Fully equipped means fully equipped so the wizard has spells and items for his level and he doesn't require any luxury the fighter doesn't need. Who said anything about 8th-level wizards or fighters? Unless you are referring to the medium cavalry, in which case you'd be incorrect since the prices of PC classes are calculated differently than NPC classes. An 8th-level wizard would cost 15 gp (150 sp) per day, which buys a completely ridiculous amount of troops, including: x75 1st-level Light Footsoldiers, or x37 2nd-level Medium Footsoldiers (+2 sp), or x9 8th-level Medium Cavalry (+6 sp), or x6 12th-level Heavy Cavalry (+6 sp), or ...ect. The extra costs I referred to was the fact that for the last six pages people have been talking about these mysterious "wizard bodyguards" that would be protecting them from Dimension Doors, sneaking rogues, snipers, and so on. The scenario assumes equal troop strength, so the bodyguards would either be regular mooks or extra mercenaries forces (which costs extra). So, at the end of the day, could a single 8th-level wizard kill more mooks than nine 8th-level medium cavalry (or a 5th-level wizard and four 8th-level medium cavalry)? We might assume that it would be the wizard versus the cavalry, but that does not necessarily have to be the case since we are looking at overall efficiency and economics. I'm inclined that the actual answer is too complicated to compute since it is entirely dependant on factors such as terrain, the number of archers, which side is advancing, and so on. Edit: On a more serious note, we have been extrapolating a mercenary wizard's pay raise off of a single paragraph that is explaining the concept of a mercenary leader with fighter levels. Just because it mentions fighter does not mean that the prices are necessarily the same for all the other PC classes. After all, wizards do have more utility in that they can turn invisible, fly across the battlefields, and nail the commander with a Fireball. Their ability to assassinate in this regard has nothing to do with whether AoE spells are too powerful however.
WaterRabbit 07-17-05, 09:33 PM	Untenable by me doesn't mean untenable in general. I'm not a military historian, and unless I'm very much mistaken, neither are you. That is true, but since you made the assertion you should be willing to back it up. Also, you are very much mistaken. You call "You have to pay your troops while they march" a smokescreen? You call "Moving an army takes time" a smokescreen? You call "retreat is an option" a smokescreen? You call "people need to eat" a smokescreen? How about "undeniable reality"? Your refusal to adknowledge these considerations is the smokescreen - and a painfully thin one, at that. You are confused about the difference between a unit's combat value and a unit's economic value. Here is an example: The economic value of a club is worth nothing (but I will assign it an economic value of 1 cp for argument’s sake) by the PHB and a short sword is 10 gold pieces. However, the combat value between these two items is negligible. A club does 3.18 points of damage per hit compared to a short sword which does 3.33. So are you going to tell me that a short sword is 100 times more effective than a club? No, it's only about 5% better. [Note: These values are normalized to a warrior with a 14 strength trying to hit a target with an AC Bonus equal to his To Hit bonus.] It is not that I don't acknowledge the economic costs; the economic costs go beyond the original premise. Additionally, neither you nor I have enough data to accurately determine those values without making some sort of assumption. One of the things that you are ignoring is that a wizard will cost more than a warrior regardless of food and equipment costs. A human warrior is ready to fight at age 15+1d4 by the book. A first level wizard is ready at an age of 15 + 2d6. So on average it takes 4.5 years longer to train a 1st level wizard. So, depending upon how fast that wizard takes to train to 5th we are looking at a character between 33 and 50 years of age (for an NPC). Now this is just for humans. An elven wizard is going to have a much higher economic value than a human wizard. An orc warrior is going to have a much lower value than the human warrior. So, it is not that I am refusing to consider the economic value of the wizard; I just think that you haven't considered all of the factors that would go into that calculation. I also don't believe it is important since the combat value of a 5th level wizard is constant, regardless of the economic value and the combat value of a 1st level warrior is constant regardless of race. Additionally, the equipment and supplies used are dependent upon the commodities available to each kingdom and the surplus of those commodities. A kingdom with a large surplus of food will have an easier time feeding its soldiers than one that has to import food just to feed its people. Just taking your idea of feeding the army depends upon the race involved as well. For a human involved in strenuous labor such as fighting, he must consume between 40-45 calories per kilogram of mass. The average human male by the PHB is 5’9” tall and weighs 175 lbs. So he will need between 3,182-3,580 calories per day. Spell casting in D&D is equated with a strenuous activity, so a 125 lb. strength 12 mage will need 2,272-2,557 calories per day. Now, if we go with the assumption that 1 cp = 100 calories of food and that the army pays only for raw materials, then we have 1.2 sp for each warrior and .8 sp for the wizard. Our daily support cost is approximately 37.6 sp more for the additional 31 men. So, going back to the original numbers we have a one time cost 32 sp for the men plus equipment plus a daily cost 38.4 sp / day. For the wizard it costs 32 sp plus equipment + .8 sp per day. However, if we add in the 15.5 years (minimum value) we had to train that wizard beyond that of a 1st level warrior adds an additional 4,526 silver. That gives 118 days of campaigning for those 32 warriors. Moving an army takes time, but you must not be well versed in that. Roman legions marched 20 miles a day and set up extensive fortifications. This is hardly a strenuous pace either. We are talking 2 miles / hour for 10 hours. In more difficult terrain, this number would be smaller. The distance between Rome and Paris, for example is 688 miles or just over a month of marching. The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 1,428 miles or about 2.5 months. However, your wizards are moving at army speeds so I am not quite sure about your point unless it’s to the 20th level archmage single-handedly going after a one million man army. In 30 days he could kill/disperse 150 out of the 1000 armies assuming that he could kill 5 per day. I have yet to really see anything that suggests he is much more effective than this. And of course all of the tactics for this mage have centered around summoning creatures and not using AoE spells. I never said retreat wasn’t an option; however, you are not going to retreat with your platforms. Retreat is also only an option sometimes. If the opposing army is faster than you, say orc barbarians or Mongols, then retreat isn’t an option. If you need to hold ground or protect a site, then retreat isn’t an option. If you are fighting an offensive war, then retreat isn’t much of an option. The whole retrograde fireball discussion is very similar to the retrograde photon torpedo discussion. It’s a powerful tactic that you can almost never use. For it to be really effective you need mobility. For a 5th level mage that is probably a horse. Fly doesn’t last long enough and flying items are beyond his price range in addition to being really expensive. Retreat in general means you are willing to give up territory in exchange for tactical advantage. However, again the original premise limits this somewhat. By definition, if you retreat you have left the battlefield and have lost the battle. If we take a look at history (prior to gunpowder dominating the battlefield), once again the Mongols were able to use this tactic better than anyone. The minimal economics you are trying to slip in are just that. You are trying to strengthen your case by only looking at factors you believe will help your case and ignoring those that don't. You would have a better case if you just bit the bullet and went with a 6th level sorcerer. At 6th level, the sorcerer will have 4 fireballs available for use. Additionally, his training time will be less than that for the wizard. He is going to be between 28-32 years of age. However, since he has a CR of 6 that takes us up to 64 warrior equivalents. He can take out 40 with fireballs (maybe more against an opponent that isn't prepared for it). He can take out another 6 with 2nd level direct damage spells, 7 with 1st, and 3 with 0th using your model of long range stand-off attacks for a total of 56 warriors. That is pretty good in comparison. With some lucky placement of fireballs he could get the additional 8. So again we are looking a zero sum game at best. Since his economic value is less than the wizard, we can have more of them available for recruitment. The one tricky problem here is we are making an assumption about availability. For a wizard we can just train them up. Sorcerers are born not made, so it would depend upon assumptions about how frequently they show up as part of the society. 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? I would like to throw out one more point on availability. To become a wizard you have to be smart. To become a sorcerer you have to be smart and lucky. To cast a fireball requires and intelligence of 13. Say this equates to a 130 IQ (for arguments sake), which means in general we are on the downward edge of the bell curve. 80% of the population has an IQ between 80 and 120. That means at most, 10% of the population is able to become a wizard. However, only about 2% of the population has an IQ of 132 or better. So if we just use that standard, our 16 intelligence wizards will be very rare indeed. So in you hypothetical 1,000 person army, you will only have 1 wizard of 5th or better at best and will probably need 100,000 people to have a real chance at it. Just an aside, current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85. Below that they are not considered to be trainable for the tasks necessary to fight. You know what, that's it, I'm done talking to you. Come back when you're willing to be at least vaguely reasonable. "Throw yourself a party." Finally, I would like to add if you really want a detailed system for calculating the off-battlefield economics it would direct you to this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=71964)
Vanigo 07-18-05, 03:02 AM	"Throw yourself a party." Why would I celebrate? I mourn, not only because I have been driven out of a debate, but because, until you started going on about getting a unit for 1 gp, I had actually started to respect you.
bomaz 07-18-05, 05:21 AM	[QUOTE=WaterRabbit] Moving an army takes time, but you must not be well versed in that. Roman legions marched 20 miles a day and set up extensive fortifications. This is hardly a strenuous pace either. We are talking 2 miles / hour for 10 hours. In more difficult terrain, this number would be smaller. The distance between Rome and Paris, for example is 688 miles or just over a month of marching. The distance between Rome and Jerusalem is 1,428 miles or about 2.5 months. However, your wizards are moving at army speeds so I am not quite sure about your point unless it’s to the 20th level archmage single-handedly going after a one million man army. In 30 days he could kill/disperse 150 out of the 1000 armies assuming that he could kill 5 per day. I have yet to really see anything that suggests he is much more effective than this. And of course all of the tactics for this mage have centered around summoning creatures and not using AoE spells. QUOTE] THe archmage using planar binding will have 4 pit fiends at his disposal. each pit fiend can cast fireball at will. now this turns them into flying essentialy invunerable platforms shoting 1 fireball per round. now this should be able to severly damage the armies. lets say the armies march for 2 days. according to the ruels in the phb this gets them 32 miles. now the pit fiends throwing firealls are also far more likely to rout armies cause of their reputation and the fact that they are essentialy invunerable to the armies. When they so wish the can teleport and fly between the armis and they dont sleep giing them another 24 hours to work with. If neccessary they can start raising undead to create an army to oppose the 1 million man army. if the int lets say 28 with equipment archmage can balance the armies right (he is a genius) the unead will be deafeated but barely making his pit fiend take care of the rest. now 48h assuming the pit fiends have to spend half the time moving between armies thats 24h and then take away 4 h for undead raising later thats 20 hours. that is 48000 fireballs assuming one fireball kills 4 people (most likely more but for the arguments sake) thats 192000 people dead. only bout 1/5 of the army. also with its fear aura all the pit fiends have o do is move above the army and people will flee that is perhaps 8 people per round. that routs 384000 people. now almost half the army is either striken with fear and probably deserting, or fireballed. now we are starting with the numbers where most armies can rout. now 2h for raising undead. this is making perhaps 1000 mohrgs. send that against your army and it will rout or be utterly defeated then you can continue and send the rest of the mohrgs after th fleing army inte the enemy coutry where they probably will be subded. 1 high lvl archmage is terrible as an enemy. in my calcylations I didnt even use him but if he can destroy at least 4 more armies each day due to gate.
solbergb 07-18-05, 11:00 AM	Planar binding is "I bully the guy into doing my bidding and he resents it and tries to pervert it if I don't keep the pressure on." The 4 pit fiends are NOT your friends. Maybe you can keep them under control. Probably not in the long haul. You also don't get to keep them forever, you just get one service. "Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions." Gate has the problem that they can just turn around and go home if they don't like what you want them to do if they are truly powerful, and for the rest, well, any spell with an xp cost is self-limiting. So...you summon the 4 pit fiends. They destroy your enemies for a few days. Then they turn on you, when you are most vulnerable (starting by stealing your spellbook)
Derren S. 07-18-05, 11:06 AM	No, when Gating the creature has to obey for about 2 minutes without question. 2 Minutes is not long but enough for a very powerful creature like a Pit Find to kill hundereds of soldiers.
solbergb 07-18-05, 12:43 PM	Agreed with Gate, but he was talking about Planar Binding. You could use planar binding to get 4 pit fiends "for free" to destroy your enemy army. Then...they'd be mad at you for forcing them into servitude. Go take a look at just their social skills. Do you really want ONE being with bluff +29, intimidate+31, diplomacy+10, hide+29, move silently+29, disguise+29(31), the ability to teleport, go invisible and, incidently, kill you in one full attack mad at you? Much less four? Even if you were somehow capable of remaining able to defeat the four of them 24x7, they could probably poke around until they found someone else capable of killing you and either hire, bully or trick them into going after you. Thus, they slay your enemies, causing as much damage as they can by "accident" that will affect things you value, then they arrange to kill you. This is why I equated this tactic to using nuclear weapons. It's possible if you have the infrastructure and resources, but it usually isn't a good idea unless you're going to fail anyway and the price of "victory" by these means isn't worse than the consequences of failure. Planar ally is another story entirely, but the divine caster using that trick has to pay a fortune to get the service of multiple pit-fiends, making the whole thing even less cost-effective.
Alienfreak 07-18-05, 01:09 PM	The 4 pit fiends are NOT your friends. Maybe you can keep them under control. Probably not in the long haul. You also don't get to keep them forever, you just get one service. "Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions." And what is if your service is that they fight for you in this war? Until the enemy forces are vanquished? Should work, huh? You will have to do some wording **** to prevent the Pit Fiend turning on your troops, allies or whatever. But nothing what couldnt be done in 10 Minutes.
solbergb 07-18-05, 01:53 PM	And what is if your service is that they fight for you in this war? Until the enemy forces are vanquished? Should work, huh? You will have to do some wording **** to prevent the Pit Fiend turning on your troops, allies or whatever. But nothing what couldnt be done in 10 Minutes. Nope, doesn't work for more than 1 day/level. They will also fight as inefficiently as possible, just out of spite, as long as they stick to the wording of the command. You are talking Int26, Wis26, Cha26 creatures, not mindless undead here, do you really think you'll outsmart them with simple wording? You get the pit fiends for 20 days maybe. That's pretty short term thinking. In the end they still hate you for forcing them into servitiude. Planar bound creatures are NEVER your friend. And you do not have control of them past the one task. Which means you'd better be enough more powerful than them to not care that you've made an enemy. Just as an example, all they have to do get license to destroy your allies under "vanquish my foes" wording to is to be nasty enough that your allies become your enemies, and thus become legal targets.
redraven 07-18-05, 03:34 PM	More proof that the pricing scheme for mercenaries with PC levels is skewed: it would only cost 39 gp/day to hire a 20th-level archmage to fight for your army. Does that make any sense whatsoever? No. In any event, no one has demonstrated anything by saying that a high-level wizard casts summoning/binding spells. We are discussing whether or not AoE spells are too powerful in a war setting, not summoning spells. This only proves the point that AoE are weak and a waste of time in these circumstances, when the wizard is better off Planar Binding CR 20 creatures than casting Meteor Swarm.
Alienfreak 07-18-05, 03:39 PM	Nope, doesn't work for more than 1 day/level. They will also fight as inefficiently as possible, just out of spite, as long as they stick to the wording of the command. You are talking Int26, Wis26, Cha26 creatures, not mindless undead here, do you really think you'll outsmart them with simple wording? You get the pit fiends for 20 days maybe. That's pretty short term thinking. In the end they still hate you for forcing them into servitiude. Planar bound creatures are NEVER your friend. And you do not have control of them past the one task. Which means you'd better be enough more powerful than them to not care that you've made an enemy. Just as an example, all they have to do get license to destroy your allies under "vanquish my foes" wording to is to be nasty enough that your allies become your enemies, and thus become legal targets. Before i get even upset. 3 Tipps. Before you answer one more time. 1. Read the Spell description 2. Search in the Forums for Topics about Planar Binding if you dont understand the spell. 3. READ MY POSTS!!!! You will have to do some wording **** to prevent the Pit Fiend turning on your troops, allies or whatever. But nothing what couldnt be done in 10 Minutes. And yes. I can outsmart almost anything with wording. No problem at all.
Vanigo 07-18-05, 04:41 PM	Then...they'd be mad at you for forcing them into servitude. Go take a look at just their social skills. Do you really want ONE being with bluff +29, intimidate+31, diplomacy+10, hide+29, move silently+29, disguise+29(31), the ability to teleport, go invisible and, incidently, kill you in one full attack mad at you? Much less four? That's one of the reasons I suggested Large air elementals. Weaker, dumber, and still more than enough to rout rabble like WaterFish was suggesting. And, actually, taking a bunch of lantern archons would work fine, too. They fly, they've got a ranged attack with a 30' range, they've got DR 10/evil and magic that'll protect them from just about any ranged attack, and they only have 1 HD, so a planar binding can get you a dozen of them.
solbergb 07-18-05, 07:16 PM	Before i get even upset. 3 Tipps. Before you answer one more time. 1. Read the Spell description 2. Search in the Forums for Topics about Planar Binding if you dont understand the spell. 3. READ MY POSTS!!!! And yes. I can outsmart almost anything with wording. No problem at all. I'm reading them. The spell description says they might take revenge. The spell description says open-ended tasks have a time limit. The spell description says they may pervert the intent. All of that is posted in the excerpt from the SRD, in my prior post. And to outsmart a 26 int, 26 wis, 26 cha critter with social skills in the high 20s and low 30s and lots of mobility and stealth abilities usable at will, you'll need more than clever wording of the planar binding instruction. The only way to avoid the inevitable payback is to kill the 4 pit fiends permanently. Oh and by the way...I was responding to Bomaz's post about the archmage+4 pit fiends = army, not one of yours. So I'm not sure why you are getting angry, unless it is to the suggestion that four super-genius creatures backed by a DM and all the time in the world for him to work out a payback can outsmart your wording. There is no way to word a planar binding that leaves the caster safe from reprisal and it is damn tough to word it in such a way to get your goals accomplished without something going wrong along the way. The air elemental suggestion is better, but as others have stated, none of this has anything to do with "AoE spells just too powerful in war settings."
Vanigo 07-18-05, 09:09 PM	There is no way to word a planar binding that leaves the caster safe from reprisal... Actually, there is, but it's kinda pointless: "Destroy yourself utterly".
WaterRabbit 07-18-05, 09:15 PM	Why would I celebrate? I mourn, not only because I have been driven out of a debate, but because, until you started going on about getting a unit for 1 gp, I had actually started to respect you. The only one driving you out is yourself. Instead of picking apart my numbers or offering an alternative system you throw in the towel. Your in ability to do basic math is not my problem. This is an intellectual argument and not an emotional one; I have nothing vested in ‘winning or losing’. The reason I have continued it this far is it forces me to do the math to compare combat values and to explore this topic, which I find somewhat interesting. Whether you respect, like, or have any other emotion is irrelevant to this discussion. Only your ability to defend your position is relevant. That's one of the reasons I suggested Large air elementals. Weaker, dumber, and still more than enough to rout rabble like WaterFish was suggesting. And, actually, taking a bunch of lantern archons would work fine, too. They fly, they've got a ranged attack with a 30' range, they've got DR 10/evil and magic that'll protect them from just about any ranged attack, and they only have 1 HD, so a planar binding can get you a dozen of them. Apparently not quite driven out. ;) Again, being childish doesn’t help your point. The premise was that AoE spells are too powerful. I have already pointed out that summoning spells are more effective than AoE spells. Using a wizard to summon creatures is WAY more effective than AoE spells. This is why everyone else has abandoned that position – even Derren S. the original supporter of this position. Just to make a further point here since you think I am ‘shamelessly manipulating the numbers’. Take a look at ‘Cry Havoc’ by Skip Williams (you might have noticed his name on the core rulebooks). This book is touted as the Mass Combat System that would have been in the core books if there was space. A 5th level human NPC mage (from the DMG) has a power level of 56. A 15th level human NPC mage (from the DMG) has a power level of 350. In both cases the majority of their power comes from their defenses. For example, the 15th level wizard has an offensive value of 10 and a defensive value of 35. Compare that to a 1st level human warrior in chain mail, shield, and mace. That single warrior is given a power of 27, so 10 would have a power of 270. This is all done by calculations in the book. A goblin warrior is given a power of 14. A 10 goblin squad has a power of 140 – 2.5 times the value of the 5th level wizard. So in comparison my numbers are generous. I would have rated a 5th level wizard worth 48 goblin warriors not just 4. Also, I give the possibility of a fireball affecting more than one unit; this system does not. Just in passing I will address the 20th level wizard willing to sell his soul to kill an army. What a complete and utter waste of time. The most powerful force in the Middle Ages was the Mongol horde. They were stopped why? Because their leader died! If I were a 20th level wizard, I would take my small crew of men and just go kill the army’s leaders. No muss, no fuss, it would probably take less than a day to find them, hunt them down, and kill and/or enslave them for some other purpose. It is for stupid reasons like this that wizards have to become liches in the first place. If they die payback is going to be a beyatch. The four pit fiends that he summoned to knock off some mooks are going to make him their play toy when his soul arrives in Hell. Summoning Devils is not going to get you into the Seven Heavens after all. Solbergb has really laid out the problems with this strategy better than I. One minor point that the Planar Binding advocates are missing here: A Pit Fiend has a Will save of +21. The NPC wizard in the DMG would have a DC of 26 (10 + 8 + 8) with maybe an additional +2 if he had SF (conjuration) and GSF (conjuration) for a total of 28. The Pit Fiend only needs a 7 or better to save. Hmm, don’t think you will be getting four into service. If he fails, he still gets a SR 32 against a caster check of 1d20+20, so a the wizard needs a 12 or better to succeed. Or a charisma check of +8 against 24, which is a 16 or better (again using the wizard from the DMG). Plus this wizard at least is going to have a very difficult time of winning an opposed CHA check to compel the devil to service. Now all of this is just to compel ONE devil to service. It seems to me that the Pit Fiends will take care of a wizard that tries this tactic themselves and the opposing army will never even know that they had any opposition. :) Even if successful, it will take more than 4 days on average to win over the pit fiend. He has 55 chances out of 400 or a 13.75% chance of success. He has 5% chance of automatically freeing the Pit Fiend. Now sure the wizard can buff his charisma, but it will take a lot of buffing to raise it from 8 – about a +16 to get an even chance on the first day. This is also a lot more spells, but spells alone won’t get him there, his is going to need items which cost money which raises both his economic value and his combat value. However, this has little to do with the original premise and I take it that since all of the supporters have abandoned any attempt to demonstrate how ‘AoE spells are too powerful’ the premise is false. I challenge any one of you to put forth a combat value that makes this a worthwhile tactic. If we were playing Advanced Squad leader, for example, we both would buy units and fight it out. A squad is worth x, a tank worth y, and a artillery piece worth z. It is the same process here: a squad of archers is worth w, a squad of foot is worth x, a squad of cavalry is worth y, and a wizard is worth z. How many of each can I buy with the points allotted to me and how many units can I expect to kill for that expenditure? I have laid out a system the gives an approximate answer. A better answer would require more statical analysis. At the very minimum we will need a better method than gold pieces to evaluate the combat value of weapons, armor, spells, and magic items. This is partly why I included a link to the disscussion on the other board, though it centers more around economic value than combat.
Vanigo 07-19-05, 12:25 AM	The only one driving you out is yourself. Instead of picking apart my numbers or offering an alternative system you throw in the towel. Your in ability to do basic math is not my problem. This is an intellectual argument and not an emotional one; I have nothing vested in ‘winning or losing’. The reason I have continued it this far is it forces me to do the math to compare combat values and to explore this topic, which I find somewhat interesting. Whether you respect, like, or have any other emotion is irrelevant to this discussion. Only your ability to defend your position is relevant.See, this is where my view of how the argument went and yours apparently diverge. The way I see it, I conceded your numbers under the circumstances you suggested, and then pointed out the absurd conditions necessary to bring those circumstances about. You proceeded to insist that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an unlimited number of trained warriors are available, they don't eat, and that they will accept one day's salary for several months of work. I then called you a madman and refused to debate with you any further. Why would I waste time arguing with a madman? A madman can simply refuse to adknowledge any argument, no matter how persuasive, and thereby claim victory in any debate - with emphasis on the word 'claim'; it's quite likely that an impartial judge would say otherwise. Apparently not quite driven out. ;) I said I was done talking to you. Was I talking to you there?
Vallah 07-19-05, 09:50 AM	I beleive this was the point some ten pages ago: :eek: My goodness. Within a war setting a wizard is just a destructive death machine. Fireball = Dead troops. Lighting bolt = dead troops. Flame Wave = dead troops. Sudden Maxamized Force orb = death commander. After reading countless threads about how badly wizards got screwed over by 3.5 it's refreshing to see one suggesting the opposite. so- are wizards too powerful in a war setting? Yes. Why?.. because that's the way we like it and the sooner the rest of you non mages just accept that we are your betters and take your rightfull place kneeling before us the better. :rant:
Alienfreak 07-19-05, 09:55 AM	I'm reading them. The spell description says they might take revenge. The spell description says open-ended tasks have a time limit. The spell description says they may pervert the intent. All of that is posted in the excerpt from the SRD, in my prior post. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions. 1.End Condition: Until the enemy forces are vanquised. So its not open ended and it can complete it though its own actions. Great. Not 1 day/level 2.Seek revenge: Outsiders cant even enter the Material through their own actions. 3. It can only subvert some insrtuctions. Skills dont help it at all. If you word an contract that lets no space for the creature to subvert it wont be able to do anything. Even not with 200 Int and 300 Ranks in Diplomacy.
solbergb 07-19-05, 01:12 PM	..
solbergb 07-19-05, 01:13 PM	1.End Condition: Until the enemy forces are vanquised. So its not open ended and it can complete it though its own actions. Great. Not 1 day/level Man I'd have a field day with that wording. "Enemy", "forces" and "vanquished" leave a lot of room for interpretation. Given that instruction, I'd fly over the opposing army with my fear effect, scatter them, have them run away. Vanquished. Then return and say I'm done, get my free trip home and begin plotting my revenge. I'd start my revenge by only defeating your enemies on the field, but not actually killing them. Now you have a humiliated enemy army and a fiend plotting revenge in the 9th plane of hell. If you define "vanquished" more precisely, something like I dunno, nobody who dislikes me remains alive or some such...that is in fact an open ended task, and will suffer the 1 day/level limit, although most Pit Fiends will probably find a way to make you wish you'd chosen something else a lot sooner. 2.Seek revenge: Outsiders cant even enter the Material through their own actions. So what? All you need is one cleric to summon you as a planar ally and you can offer to do whatever he wants for free as long as the two of them (cleric and fiend) take some time out to screw you over. Pit fiends have friends too, they sometimes even have their own clerics. This isn't a lemure you ****** off, they've got some standing in their home ground. 3. It can only subvert some insrtuctions. Skills dont help it at all. If you word an contract that lets no space for the creature to subvert it wont be able to do anything. Even not with 200 Int and 300 Ranks in Diplomacy. There is no such thing as a foolproof contract or wording. Languages just aren't designed to be that precise. Vanquished for example. That has a lot of meanings. You can keep giving me examples and I can keep coming up with ways to interpret them that will annoy you. And I don't even have 26 int and 26 wisdom. All you have to do is pick a word meaning you like and the summoner does not, or extrapolate or interpolate in the instructions some way that defeats the spirit of the order. It is exactly what gamer rules-lawyers do routinely. I would expect a Pit-Fiend to be exceedingly good at that sort of thing.
Alienfreak 07-19-05, 07:36 PM	Man I'd have a field day with that wording. "Enemy", "forces" and "vanquished" leave a lot of room for interpretation. Given that instruction, I'd fly over the opposing army with my fear effect, scatter them, have them run away. Vanquished. Then return and say I'm done, get my free trip home and begin plotting my revenge. I'd start my revenge by only defeating your enemies on the field, but not actually killing them. Now you have a humiliated enemy army and a fiend plotting revenge in the 9th plane of hell. 1. I dont want to write 3 pages. So i reduced it to enemy forces and vanquish 2. As long as the army is defeated by that the enemy forces are indeed vanquished. And that was all you were hoping for, didnt you? The enemy is defeated, you won the war. That has a lot of meanings. It has exactly one meaning. And that is all you want in an battle. If an enemy army is vanquished you HAVE to be victorious, otherwise the enemy army is not vanquished.
WaterRabbit 07-19-05, 09:43 PM	See, this is where my view of how the argument went and yours apparently diverge. The way I see it, I conceded your numbers under the circumstances you suggested, and then pointed out the absurd conditions necessary to bring those circumstances about. You proceeded to insist that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an unlimited number of trained warriors are available, they don't eat, and that they will accept one day's salary for several months of work. I then called you a madman and refused to debate with you any further. Why would I waste time arguing with a madman? A madman can simply refuse to adknowledge any argument, no matter how persuasive, and thereby claim victory in any debate - with emphasis on the word 'claim'; it's quite likely that an impartial judge would say otherwise. Again, combat value versus economic value. You didn't concede my numbers, you let them stand without much comment and then presented a minimal economic analysis to try and show how they were wrong. Put forth your method for determining the economic value of these units. I have asked this repeatedly. If you are unable or unwilling, then you are correct in that you are adding nothing to this debate. Also you should go back and read what you and I wrote. My assumption is that there is only 1 wizard / 1000 soldiers. To balance that combat value, the other side only needs 31 extra warriors. This is hardly an unlimited number of soldiers. This is hardly them not eating. This is hardly them only taking a day's pay for a month's work. I think I demonstrated that the economics are against this strategy and I am not going to rehash it since all of my assumptions were set out in my previous post. I have never asserted that the economics were not important for a campaign, just not for an individual pick-up battle. The only number you put for assumed a 1:50 ratio of wizards to soldiers; and then you backpedaled on even that number. Finally, I haven't "claimed victory". I am looking for a well thought out analysis of the economic factors that would make this a viable strategy. The other supporters of this assertion have abandoned their position and have moved the wizard from AoE support to summoning creatures. To me this is an indication that AoE spells are not too powerful on the battlefield. All of the discussion prior to me joining this debate was how to protect the wizard from retribution. I only pointed out that it was not much of a consideration given how little damage the wizard will do for his apparent combat value. If you have read any of the mass combat systems that have been put out, you would also see that destroying the enemy's command structure is much more effective than killing his troops. However, since each product has a slightly different take on how morale works it precludes a general analysis. A specific product can be analyzed; however, there is no general consensus among the different products. I ordered 'Fields of Blood' and hope to have it by this weekend. It seems to be the most highly regarded product on this topic. I said I was done talking to you. Was I talking to you there? Actually this is what you wrote: Why would I celebrate? I mourn, not only because I have been driven out of a debate, but because, until you started going on about getting a unit for 1 gp, I had actually started to respect you. And that was what I responded to (emphasis mine). This is why you are having so much difficulty trying to make your point; you don't really read or analyze what anyone else has written, including yourself. 1. I dont want to write 3 pages. So i reduced it to enemy forces and vanquish 2. As long as the army is defeated by that the enemy forces are indeed vanquished. And that was all you were hoping for, didnt you? The enemy is defeated, you won the war. It has exactly one meaning. And that is all you want in an battle. If an enemy army is vanquished you HAVE to be victorious, otherwise the enemy army is not vanquished. Of course this is all moot, since it is an improbable maneuver by an NPC wizard. He is more likely to be killed or taken back to Hell if he were to try this. The probability is vanishingly small that he would bind one much less four and it is quite small that he would accomplish this in 4 days. I demonstrated this in my previous post.
tiercel 07-19-05, 10:15 PM	Although this thread has been interesting in places, it seems like a lot of people are assuming the only wizards on the battlefield are NPCs. Since D&D is, after all, all about PCs, I think we have to look at the effect of PC spellcasters on the battlefield. That is to say, we have to consider what happens to a battlefield when there are high-level and high-equipment casters there. Those who argue that NPC casters are rare/low-level actually make the problem worse, in the sense that a low-magic army facing PCs won't have many counters. Sure, that's fine if you are worrying about a background war, but come on -- how many times are there wars in your campaign that your PCs hear about and never get involved in? So in a sense, the question facing DMs isn't just "how do armies make war on each other off-screen" but "how do armies fight in a world where there are handfuls of wandering adventurers hideously more powerful than almost everyone else." If your PCs are a 14th level party and you put a war on, how is the enemy army going to prepare or adapt against a handful of individuals that outclass it? (And what if *gasp* the enemy army has a party of adventurers working for it? How improbable is that, given that the PCs are apparently willing to do so?)
WaterRabbit 07-19-05, 10:46 PM	Although this thread has been interesting in places, it seems like a lot of people are assuming the only wizards on the battlefield are NPCs. Since D&D is, after all, all about PCs, I think we have to look at the effect of PC spellcasters on the battlefield. That is to say, we have to consider what happens to a battlefield when there are high-level and high-equipment casters there. Those who argue that NPC casters are rare/low-level actually make the problem worse, in the sense that a low-magic army facing PCs won't have many counters. Sure, that's fine if you are worrying about a background war, but come on -- how many times are there wars in your campaign that your PCs hear about and never get involved in? So in a sense, the question facing DMs isn't just "how do armies make war on each other off-screen" but "how do armies fight in a world where there are handfuls of wandering adventurers hideously more powerful than almost everyone else." If your PCs are a 14th level party and you put a war on, how is the enemy army going to prepare or adapt against a handful of individuals that outclass it? (And what if *gasp* the enemy army has a party of adventurers working for it? How improbable is that, given that the PCs are apparently willing to do so?) The combat value of PCs can be quantified in much the same manner as NPCs. A 5th level PC wizard has access to the same number of spells as an NPC. The only real difference between the two is the amount of wealth they have access to and if they are willing to use their personal wealth to affect the outcome of a battle without compensation for it. This will affect their economic value, but will have little effect upon their combat value. If the PCs want to waste their resources battling mooks, then their counterparts have the ability to hit their army where it really hurts. If the PCs really want to mix it up on the battlefield, just toss in 4 encounters per day equal to their challenge rating. They can then spend their time kill mooks and have the rest of their army wiped out or they can go after the higher value targets. For example, 4 ogres make a CR 5 encounter. Sprinkle 4 bands of these in the opposing force and you now have balanced the PC influence. If you think that’s too easy for your player increase the number of bands. Not only will they gain more XP for going after the ogres, they will gain more recognition among their own soldiers. While 'Heroes of Battle' does not have a mass combat system or a point balance system or an economic system, it is quite useful in examining the role of PCs on the battlefield. It is also useful in working out interesting encounters for the PCs to face. The concerns of actually working out how a mass combat plays out, the combat value of units, and the economic value of units is most useful in the context of players that want to manage realms. For the majority of players and DMs the details are probably more than they wish in their games.
JohnnyReb 08-08-05, 12:31 AM	You could just read pages 123 and 124 in the Complete Warrior. You just go from ranks of Knights in Shining Armour, archers, and peasant levys all meeting up on a field with banners waving to camouflaged and dispersed units ambushing each other.
Kayli 08-09-05, 01:46 PM	First of all, the Rules in DnD do not lend themselves very well to mass combat. They are desinged for, at best squad lvl combate, 3-6 PC's vs 1-4 Monsters. and the Rules reflect this quite abit. Massed Combat with Hundreds and even thousands of troops on the battle field, require an entirely different set of rules to adjudicate properly. Having said that, AoE spells are far more usefull on the Battlefield then they are in the squad situation. I mean really, how meny times have you been unable to cast that Firebal spell becuase you couldn't place it with out killing or at least seriusly wounding all fo your allies? Now on the battle field you can place it such that you will kill at least 9 injuring 2 or as meny as 11 and injuring 4 soldier in a 5x5 formation. Now honestly tell me that unit wouldn't emediatly rout and your crazy. that is 1/2 the unit strength either way you look at it. People have stated that a unit does not make a moral check until 1/2 its fighting strength is dead, that is the stupidest, must unrealistic nonsensical mass combat rule ever. Historical Units regualarly routed with as few as 10% dead or injured. very few melee units reached casualty rates as high as 50% unless it had already routed and was being chewed up by charging cavelry while its back was turned. Some one asked for a situation where a battle was Won by the routing of just one unit, well that is a little skewed because in historical times there was simply no way for a unit to suffer 50% casualties in the 1st 6 seconds of battle. It simpley was impossible. But when you add magic, ie Fireball into the equation it becomes impossible not to do it in the 1st 6 seconds of the battle. Well before the two sides have engaged in combat. It is relitively easy to see how routing 1 unit could change the course of battle, even when their are 100 units or more. Fear is contagious. if the Unit next to you routs before you have even engaged the enemy, you now have a hole in you line. this is hazardous to your health(even more so then actual battle). so now instead of confident you are shacken, or at least concerened. then you see an other unit flee the battle. "Oh my Gosh! the battle is lost, if I don't flee now then there will be no escape. Run a way, run a way!" That is how destroying 1 or 2 units can win a battle easily. It is by no means garounteed to work that way, but you have a good chance at it. There is an example of where the lack of a unit lost a war. The Schliefen plan, in WWI called for a wave of German Soldiers to advance across France from the southern boarder of Germany all the way to the coast and for the top end to start collapsing down as it moved forward. So that it would look something like a backwards r. The end was suppossed to reach around Paris and envelope the City. As we all know the City of Paris was never enveloped. The German line only got to within 30 miles of Paris. A major contributing factor was that the Russians invaded Prussia. The Germans became concerned about the eastern front, having commited almost all of their troops to the West. So they pulled 1 unit(maybe it was 2), out of many hundreds, from the west and sent it east to fight the Russians. When the unit was pulled it created a gap in the German Formation. Aerial Recon showed this gap to the French and British commanders and they ordered an attack. The Germans Responded by shortening the Formation to eliminate the gap. As a result they where unable to continue to envelope Paris, and as a direct resut the Germans Lost WWI. Ironicaly the Unit that was sent east, had no impact on that front as by the time it reached the eastern front, the Germans had already stalled out the Russion offensive. We can see from this that if a Wiz or Sorc or Any Spell Caster with AoE spells can rout the right unit he can create a gap in the enemies line. A gap that his commander can exploit. And it is a gap that might take only 2 or 3 spells to create. And of Course AoE spells are not limited to Boom, Boom spells. Entangle or Grease or Web, make excellent Battle Field Controle spells that slow, hamper or outright halt enemy movement. This is great for shoring up weak areas, or making your enamies powerful knights all but useless. Again these are all AoE Spells. If you have access to these spells you are stupid to not make use of them. If you are a good commander you stratagy for the battle will assume that your enemy has access to them and will use them. A unit of Bare Chested men with clubs is no mach for a 5 lvl Wizard. And it does not matter how many times you multiply it out, 5 5lvl Wiz is still better then 5 units of bare chested men with clubs. In fact 1 unit of pike men is worth more then 2 or 3 units of bear chested men with clubs. And since 1 5 lvl Wizard can immediatly rout or destroy 2 units of pikemen then his battle field value is at least that much. But consider the implications of 2 units immediatly routing or being destroyed, how meny units will follow them, simply because those two routed or were destroyed? will they take 2 each? in that case the wizard is worth 6 units of Pike men. and he still has some ground controle spells, Web mainly to stop or hamper the hvy cavelry, so he still has value left, worth at least 1 cavelry unit. So then is his battle field Value worth 6 units of pikemen and 1 cavelry? Any Caster With AoE spells will have a tremendous impact on the battle field. Tactics must be developed to deal with and or take advantage of these spells, in every battle. Magic on the battle field would have a similer effect to the introduction of Gunpowerder on the battle field. New Tactics, must be developed to utilize its effectiveness. New Tactics have to be developed to minimize its impact. Either way you look at it, magic has now defined how wars are fought. even if they only have an effect on the battle field for a few minutes at best. As for other types of spells on the battle field, Targeted spells have a very short range, meaning they can't be used when it is still safe for the caster. And with the exception fo Scorching ray do not do enough dmg to stop the things that it would be worth using them on. until you get really powerful. Same goes for summoned creatures. Until you can summon at least 5 black bears they are not much use in a mass battle situation. especially since they will go away before they have a chance to kill enough to impact the battle. And again we are talking about fairly powerful mages at this time. The Impact of Magic on warfare won't always be good for the commander who uses it. After All Gustavus Adolphus had to take firearms away from his cavelry because they would not charge when they could just hang back and fire a few rounds off during the battle. Take the guns away and poof, his cavelry charged and helped the Protistants to win the 30 yrs war. Like wise, an army that wont charge because it is waiting for its mages to do all the work won't win any wars either. But magic still has to be acounted for or the other side will use it to rout your army.
RobertJ 08-09-05, 02:10 PM	First of all, the Rules in DnD do not lend themselves very well to mass combat. They are desinged for, at best squad lvl combate, 3-6 PC's vs 1-4 Monsters. and the Rules reflect this quite abit. Massed Combat with Hundreds and even thousands of troops on the battle field, require an entirely different set of rules to adjudicate properly.... Agreed here. It should be obvious that D&D gets pretty silly if a Mage can place an AoE spell to affect an enemy unit under every square. If someone wanted to hack it a bit, I'd say let a formation of units use the group's average AC as SR, use the commander's SR for the group, or some other generalizing rule. I think it's also worth pointing out that if casters are employed by both armies (and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't be, aside from one army having a death wish), Counterspelling seems like it would become much more useful. Not too difficult to predict the enemy's spell choice in this scenario. Divination spells are even stickier than AoE.
Derren S. 08-09-05, 02:12 PM	To counterspell a fireball you have to be inside its range. Bad idea for a wizard.
Kayli 08-09-05, 03:14 PM	Not only do you have to be in range of an enemies Fireball to dispel it, you also have to use 1 of your 2, 3 lvl spell slots to do it (assuming 5 lvl Wiz w16 Int, as seems to be the accepted norm for this board). Not only that but you can only counterspell with a readied action, which means your movement is 1/2 normal and you wont be able to adequetly defend from other sources of attack, in your more thretened position. Counter spelling is extremely difficult to do in DnD, and very dangerous on a battle field. Also you must make a Spellcraft Check if you are going to Counter a spell with itself. This means that a 5 lvl Wiz countering A Fireball must correctly analyse that the Enemy is casting fireball (DC 18) against a Spellcraft Skill of 11. Meaning that he has to roll a 7 or higher. Easy enough to do, but not a forgone conclusion, and he fails to recognise it as a fireball 35% of the time. And just becuase Fireball may be the most utilitarian battle field spell, doesn't mean you get to just say, I'm going to counter with a Fireball, you got to make the SpC check first. Again remember that he uses up 1 of only 2, third lvl spell slots to do this. He could always use Dispel Magic and forgoe the Spellcraft Check, but that has a max range of 150 ft for him. That means he would have to be postioned well ahead of his army. Not a smart place for a Wiz to be. He is better of using his fireball to obliterate an enemy formation instead. You know, a little *** for tat. There would be very little in the way of counterspelling in a battle field. It is too risky with to high a chance of failure. Unless your lvl scales way up. Then it might be possible. but again only if the enemies power does not scale up with yours. the odds of success go way down if the enemy has decoy mages, who go around pretending to be mages and casting spells. You have to have a specific target for your dispell, and if you geuss wrong you have been neutralized. (by the way, this is a relatively cheep, both in terms of money and manpower, way of protecting your Wiz from would be assassins) Worse still, as others have pointed out a wiz spot check is abysmally low, try spoting the wiz amongst several decoys at 400+ ft. Maybe on a natrual 20 you might pick him out, other wise you just got to guess. Unless you way out rank your opponent, you are much better off casting your spells rather then resurving them for counters. As a side note, the way I see it the Wiz would be well served to have a 5 lvl rogue or ranger body gaurd with see invisibility cast on him, rather then on the wiz. said body gaurd will pick out would be DDing invisible anti-mage assassins and deal with them accordingly. Also for mobility and protection a wiz could be carried in a wagon with a covered reinforced platform. With something akin to a horizontal arrow slit for him to view the battle field and hurl spells from with relative safety from enemy arrows. and giveing him mobility and with out using a precious 3 lvl spell slot.
Xeviat-DM 08-09-05, 04:14 PM	I'm not sure if it's been said yet, but why don't you simply say that soft cover applies to reflex saves just like regular cover does? sure, the people at the center of a fireball are probably toasted, but the ones on the outer edges who have 3 guys between them and the center will be more likely living. And, wizards in war are elite troops, just like fighters and other PC classes. The enemies will likely send their elite troops after your wizards.
Kayli 08-09-05, 04:35 PM	I'm not sure if it's been said yet, but why don't you simply say that soft cover applies to reflex saves just like regular cover does? sure, the people at the center of a fireball are probably toasted, but the ones on the outer edges who have 3 guys between them and the center will be more likely living. And, wizards in war are elite troops, just like fighters and other PC classes. The enemies will likely send their elite troops after your wizards. And if AoE spells were useless or had minimal impact on the Battle Field then you wouldn't bother sending your Elite Troops after them. And besides, Elite Troops are best used against your enemies weakest units where you will crash though and either split his forces or flank him. Medium troops are what you want to face your opponents Elites. Hopefully they can delay his crash though long enough for you to do it to him first. This is why Wiz are best used Fbling the pikemen instead of the 4 lvl Cavelry. You get a ready made hole for your cavelry this way. If you use up your Fb's on the 4 lvl Cavelry unit then you will have minimized you impact on the battle field as you may not kill any of them with 1 Fb (figure 20 Hp for 4 lvl Warriars and 22 Hp for lght WHorse, 15 Fire dmg on average, Ref DC 16 for 7 fire dmg avg). Wareas your 1 lvl warriar Pikemen will dire regardless of the save.
Kayli 08-09-05, 11:21 PM	I'm not sure if it's been said yet, but why don't you simply say that soft cover applies to reflex saves just like regular cover does? sure, the people at the center of a fireball are probably toasted, but the ones on the outer edges who have 3 guys between them and the center will be more likely living. It doesn't work that way in normal combat, why should it in Mass Combat???
WaterRabbit 08-10-05, 12:42 AM	People have stated that a unit does not make a moral check until 1/2 its fighting strength is dead, that is the stupidest, must unrealistic nonsensical mass combat rule ever. Historical Units regualarly routed with as few as 10% dead or injured. very few melee units reached casualty rates as high as 50% unless it had already routed and was being chewed up by charging cavelry while its back was turned. Some one asked for a situation where a battle was Won by the routing of just one unit, well that is a little skewed because in historical times there was simply no way for a unit to suffer 50% casualties in the 1st 6 seconds of battle. It simpley was impossible. But when you add magic, ie Fireball into the equation it becomes impossible not to do it in the 1st 6 seconds of the battle. Well before the two sides have engaged in combat. It is relitively easy to see how routing 1 unit could change the course of battle, even when their are 100 units or more. Fear is contagious. if the Unit next to you routs before you have even engaged the enemy, you now have a hole in you line. this is hazardous to your health(even more so then actual battle). so now instead of confident you are shacken, or at least concerened. then you see an other unit flee the battle. "Oh my Gosh! the battle is lost, if I don't flee now then there will be no escape. Run a way, run a way!" Oh look another military expert. Please name 10 battles prior to 1500 in which "Historical Units regualarly routed with as few as 10% dead or injured". Please name 10 after. This shouldn't be hard since it occured so regularly. Perhaps you might try reading all of the disscussion that occured prior. All of your points were addressed ad nausem. Take a look at the rules in Heroes of Battle, Cry Havok, and Fields of Blood. Or bring in a system that you think accurately models these types of actions. Also, historically speaking, it is very easy to loose entire units in the first 6 seconds of combat as it were. (Though none of the mass combat rules use a 6 second turn). Depending upon the prevalance of magic either there will be little effect on battle tactics or there will be enough of an effect that armies use more modern dispersed tactics. However, modern dispersed tactics require the use of an infantry weapon being able to act as a force multiplier. Frankly, it has already been demonstrated that wizards are more effective using summoned creatures than acting as artillery. Even having a wizard control a construct will be more effective. You have missed the point of the entire discussion. It is not IF wizards and magic could change the medieval battlefield; it is IF AoE spells are too powerful in a War setting, something which NO ONE has yet to demonstrate. Finally, I will take my 32 1st level warriors against your 5th level wizard. The wizard will be hard pressed to take them all out. Please show us how AoE spells will take them out. Again state all of your assumptions and advantages you are going to grant to the wizard to make this happen.
Kayli 08-10-05, 04:42 AM	Oh look another military expert. Please name 10 battles prior to 1500 in which "Historical Units regualarly routed with as few as 10% dead or injured". Please name 10 after. This shouldn't be hard since it occured so regularly. So, where did you recieve your military History Training? Heres two examples (after all I have neither the time, nor the inclination to right a term paper): Battle of Granicus: Alexander lost ~115 men out of 18,000 (<1%), the Persions lost 4000 out of 15000 (27%). 1000 of the persian dead where from a group of 3000 mercenary foot soldiers that never participated in the actual battle, who tried to surrender but AtG rejected their terms and slaughterd them when he had them compleatly surrounded. (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/blalexandersfirstgreatvictory4.htm) This Victory was so great that it meant that the Persians were unable to build another army to stop or halt AtG while he was in Asia Minor. And that was only 27% casualties. A far cry from 50% before taking a moral check. Battle of Waterloo: Wellington lost 17,000 out of 77,000(22%), Blucher lost 7,000 out of 102,000(<7%) and Napoleon lost 32,000 out of 72,000(44%). Even Napolean, Who lost the battle, lost less then 50% of his fighting Force.(http://www.napoleonguide.com) from these two examples, we can extrapolate that a winning force should lose between 10 and 20% of his force. While the Loser should lose between 30 and 45% of his total force. This indecates that Moral comes into play long before a unit would lose 50% of its fighting force. Other wise we would see far higher casualty rates. The Moral Rules in Warhammer 40K (sorry don't have Fantasy) suggest that a unit must make a moral check under these three circumstances. A) It suffers 25% or more casualties from its current strength B) It is defeated in Close Combat, that is it suffers more wounds then it inflicts C) If a (insert shock troop of some sort) breaks through their line under these conditions you wouldn't even need to kill 1 of your enemies to cause him to retreate. And this is a system solely devoted to Mass Combat. Also, Units are assumed to continue retreating until they can regroup. In WH40K this occurs under 3 conditions A) The unit is at least 50% of its starting strength B) There is no enemy with in (converting to DnD terms) 30-60 ft C) The Unit must be Coherent. Ie no part of the Unit can be farther then something like 15 ft apart. any unit that has lost 50% of its starting strength and has started retreating is routed under these rules. Perhaps you might try reading all of the disscussion that occured prior. All of your points were addressed ad nausem. Take a look at the rules in Heroes of Battle, Cry Havok, and Fields of Blood. Or bring in a system that you think accurately models these types of actions. If money grew on trees I could own every DnD book ever made, weather by Wizards o' the Coast, or whatever other third party dined to chip in. In any case, ownership of these spicific books should not be necissary to partake in this discussion, which is not, by the way, a discussion on the Mass Combat Rules for DnD. I don't have a "perfect" system. a perfect system is impossible using DnD rules. DnD rules were desinged for small scale, scuad lvl, or smaller, battles. to make the "perfect" system you would have to write an entirely new system that is in no way related to DnD, because it would be a new game. Also, historically speaking, it is very easy to loose entire units in the first 6 seconds of combat as it were. (Though none of the mass combat rules use a 6 second turn). Sight your sources. Depending upon the prevalance of magic either there will be little effect on battle tactics or there will be enough of an effect that armies use more modern dispersed tactics. However, modern dispersed tactics require the use of an infantry weapon being able to act as a force multiplier. Frankly, it has already been demonstrated that wizards are more effective using summoned creatures than acting as artillery. Even having a wizard control a construct will be more effective. This was only demonstrated by using a 20 lvl Wiz. However the vast majority of the Discussion delt with Wiz of 5 lvl, maybe 6 lvl, but that was getting into extreme range. at these lvls summoned creatures are to weak, to few and don't stick around long enough to dramaticaly alter the course of battle. You have to be able to cast at least MS V before you can viable alter the Outcome of the battle. And for this you must be at least 9 lvl. You might be able to do it with a wand of MS IV, since you can keep summoning small squads of creatures each round for 5 minutes. As for Constructs, ya one might be enough to turn the tide, but people have been crying "foul" over the cost of a wand of Fireballs, how do you propose to pay for it? You have missed the point of the entire discussion. It is not IF wizards and magic could change the medieval battlefield; it is IF AoE spells are too powerful in a War setting, something which NO ONE has yet to demonstrate. First off, Magic will change the Medieval battlefield dramaticaly in any battle that it is used. I did not miss the point. Also, No one will demonstrate that AoE spells are "overpowered" on the battle field. Are they powerful? Yes. over Powered? Not as long as the two sides are within 30% of each others relitive power. Once one army crosses a certain threshold of being more powerful then the other then no matter what it is composed of it is "overpowered." It is far more relavent to discuss how utilitarian they are. AoE spells where desinged to effect large # in a small space. Most armies, especialy medievel style armies where desinged to fit large numbers of people in to rather small spaces. AoE spells were custom made for just this situation. Finally, I will take my 32 1st level warriors against your 5th level wizard. The wizard will be hard pressed to take them all out. Please show us how AoE spells will take them out. Again state all of your assumptions and advantages you are going to grant to the wizard to make this happen. Go ahead. I cast fireball on them once and they're all dead, regardless of saves. x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x x-x-x-x-x ---x-x--- 32 1 lvl warriars in formation, thats 25 ft across and 35 ft deep ---x x x x---- --x x x x x x-- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x --x x x x x x-- ---x x x x---- appox fireball spread, thats 40 ft across and 40 ft deep. thats 15 points of fire damage ref DC 18 for 7, against Ref save of +0 = 28 dead warriors. with 4 at 1 hp. next round MM for 3 more dead warriars. battle is over with 31 dead warriars, one warriar at 1 hp and 1 victorious Mage at full health. If they spread out so that there is 5 ft between each one I still kill 14 outright. If they reforme to fill the hole, then I kill the rest the next round. The only way 32 1 lvl warriors kills a 5 lvl mage is if they attack him, one at a time with at least 45 ft inbetween them. Then yes, he will run out of spells and they will kill him. but that wont happen on a battle field.
Lord shadow35 08-10-05, 11:57 PM	Wizard's dominate in war setting's Just let it go. As demonstrated even a 5th level wizard kicks but on a battle field. i can't imagine a high level game with wizards agianst warriors. That is not fair the wizards have it everytime.
Kayli 08-11-05, 03:23 AM	32 1 lvl Fighters wont fair any better. Just that those who make their save have 3 hp instead of 1.
Ellone 08-11-05, 08:05 AM	i would gladly heard how a 32 1st level warior unit could handle a 10th level fighter, rogue, cleric, ranger, monk, barbarian or bard not too badly equiped. It's not a matter of aoe effect, it's a matter of level, how can you handle a medieval battle were some character are worth hundred others ?
Kayli 08-11-05, 01:25 PM	i would gladly heard how a 32 1st level warior unit could handle a 10th level fighter, rogue, cleric, ranger, monk, barbarian or bard not too badly equiped. It's not a matter of aoe effect, it's a matter of level, how can you handle a medieval battle were some character are worth hundred others ? My example uses only the power of a non-optimized 5 lvl wizard, not a 10 lvl character. In Melee the 5 lvl wizard does not stand a chance against the 32 warriors, that is why he safely blasts them from a distence of 400 ft. A lone 5 lvl Fighter (even an optimized one) would be hardpressed against a formation of 32 warriors. A 10 lvl fighter probably could since he will have magical armor as well as weapons. and if he is optimized then it is not even a close fight.
DHP 08-11-05, 03:20 PM	i think that one thing that everyones forgetting is that the PC wizard or sorcerer is a rarity in terms of population ratio's. an army would be likely to have mabey one or two mages blasting away with blasty kill spells. If you create a town by using the rules in the DMG p. 137 there is actually alot of sorcerors and wizards in a town above 5k in population (I don't think smaller towns would be be in major battles). I tried to use the rules to determine how many sorcerors and wizards there would be in a town with a population of 30k (I don't know if that's rare to have so high pop). sorceror 1 lvl 16 3 lvl 14 2 lvl 8 6 lvl 7 16 lvl 4 32 lvl 2 64 lvl 1 wizard 1 lvl 16 1 lvl 15 1 lvl 14 1 lvl 13 4 lvl 8 4 lvl 7 12 lvl 4 4 lvl 3 32 lvl 2 64 lvl 1 I know that maybe not all of them will participate in the war but still there are alot more than just a few that can cast fireball edit: lol. didn't notice that there were 10 pages.. I only read the first page so sry if this has been discussed
dm_avenger 08-12-05, 02:05 PM	Except that those sniper rogues have to be within 30 ft of their target... not so their is a spell that allows an archer to fire upto max range and still sneak attack, i think its called sniper shot or sumthing. (can check just give me a week)
Lord shadow35 08-12-05, 05:14 PM	That is also above 1st level ranger and rouge. So..... it won't matter if it's a 1st level spell for the ranger the rangers minimum level would be 4th. And then you add rouge level because you want some SA. There used to be a spell that assassins get called snipers eye. but i don't know if it's been reprinted. i think it might have been reprited in the complete adventurer. Even if thats the case at min level the assassin would be 13th level. that is some work.
WaterRabbit 08-15-05, 11:15 PM	So, where did you recieve your military History Training? Heres two examples (after all I have neither the time, nor the inclination to right a term paper): Battle of Granicus: <snip> Battle of Waterloo: <snip> Apparently from a better source than yours. ;) Perhaps you might want to rethink your examples. You don’t appear to understand the difference between a unit and an army. The original supposition was that the destruction of a single unit would cause an army to rout. In both of your examples, units in the battle received 50% or more casualties. In WWII for example, a unit would be a squad, depending upon the nationality. Unit sizes are larger (for many reasons) as we look further back in time. In general a unit is the smallest maneuver element that receives independent orders. An Army Group/Army/Corps/Division/ Brigade/Regiment/Battalion are all comprised of units. Battalion, Company, Platoon, Squads, and Fire teams are examples of maneuver elements that could be considered to be units based upon time frame. Obviously I am using modern terms and these terms would not necessarily apply to pre-modern armies. I am using them in a general way to show the concept. For example, if I were describing a Roman Legion (a brigade-sized formation) I would use Legio (Legion) /Cohort/Centuria/Contubernium. You also don’t seem to understand how to read casualty figures. The majority of any army is comprised of individuals that do not fight. An extreme example would be a modern carrier. It is a floating city of about 10,000 individuals all supporting around 80 or so pilots. If all of the pilots were shot down and/or killed you would only be reporting that as less than 1% casualties. It seems your background is in journalism. The Moral Rules in Warhammer 40K (sorry don't have Fantasy) … So to support your argument you are going to use a system that is totally broken? Even the rules for Warhammer are pure fantasy. Also the word is morale. Moral rules come from a source like the Bible or Qur’an. If money grew on trees I could own every DnD book ever made, weather by Wizards o' the Coast, or whatever other third party dined to chip in. In any case, ownership of these spicific books should not be necissary to partake in this discussion, which is not, by the way, a discussion on the Mass Combat Rules for DnD. I don't have a "perfect" system. a perfect system is impossible using DnD rules. DnD rules were desinged for small scale, scuad lvl, or smaller, battles. to make the "perfect" system you would have to write an entirely new system that is in no way related to DnD, because it would be a new game. You clearly have access to the web. A simple Google search lead me to several pages of D&D based mass combat rules. I have a set that is two pages in length. The reason I referenced these is to show how others have treated wizards in mass combat. Cry Havok is touted as the mass combat system that would have been in the core rules if there had been room. There are many things about it that don’t thrill me, but it demonstrates that AoE spells weren’t considered by Sean to be that dominant. Sight your sources. Any battle that involves artillery can destroy an entire unit in a single barrage with flight time being the primary factor. In the D-Day landings, large numbers of units were destroyed just coming out of the landing craft, yet I don’t recall the entire army fleeing from battle. I will also remind you that the invading force here was mostly composed of untested soldiers. Morale is a tricky thing to model. In D&D terms, the HoB rules seem to be the most reasonable. Each unit has five morale states from Heartened to Panicked with Crazed thrown in for a kicker. A unit’s morale (as well as an army’s) is eroded – it doesn’t just drop from high to rout with one event. Throwing a few salvos of fireballs into an opposing army would like start the erosion of morale, but would not just cause them to rout in one fell swoop – especially in a high magic setting. This was only demonstrated by using a 20 lvl Wiz. However the vast majority of the Discussion delt with Wiz of 5 lvl, maybe 6 lvl, but that was getting into extreme range. at these lvls summoned creatures are to weak, to few and don't stick around long enough to dramaticaly alter the course of battle. You have to be able to cast at least MS V before you can viable alter the Outcome of the battle. And for this you must be at least 9 lvl. You might be able to do it with a wand of MS IV, since you can keep summoning small squads of creatures each round for 5 minutes. As for Constructs, ya one might be enough to turn the tide, but people have been crying "foul" over the cost of a wand of Fireballs, how do you propose to pay for it? Yes, summoning spells are of short duration and really require higher level wizards, to a point. However, bringing several powerful creatures to a battle does not since even a low level wizard has the power to coerce. A wizard’s power is best used as a lever not a hammer when the ratio of wizards to the general populace is low. If the ratio of wizards to the general populace is high (to the point where 20th level wizards can be hired as mercenaries) it complete changes the battlefield from medieval to modern. Also there are quite a few inexpensive constructs (at least when compared to siege engines and the like). In a high magic world they would probably replace certain types of siege engines. First off, Magic will change the Medieval battlefield dramaticaly in any battle that it is used. I did not miss the point. Also, No one will demonstrate that AoE spells are "overpowered" on the battle field. Are they powerful? Yes. over Powered? Not as long as the two sides are within 30% of each others relitive power. Once one army crosses a certain threshold of being more powerful then the other then no matter what it is composed of it is "overpowered." It is far more relavent to discuss how utilitarian they are. AoE spells where desinged to effect large # in a small space. Most armies, especialy medievel style armies where desinged to fit large numbers of people in to rather small spaces. AoE spells were custom made for just this situation. Only if your premise is that wizards are common. A single wizard in an army of 10,000 will not have a direct battlefield effect (intelligence operations would be a better choice). If the ratio of wizards is 1:100 then yes the effect will be larger. However, I have already demonstrated that the combat value of a single 5th level wizard is equal to 32 1st level warriors. So if we were to purchase units we are looking at something similar. I have also demonstrated that the economic value of a 5th level wizard is greater than that of 32 1st level warriors. So you need to state your assumptions on ratios of wizards to soldiers and how you would rate their combat and economic values. Go ahead. I cast fireball on them once and they're all dead, regardless of saves. Your premise is true only if their commanders are unaware of the possibility that the enemy has that ability. Otherwise, the tactics adjust to the situation. This is the problem with the ‘wizard would destroy’ arguments is they are based upon a poorly commanded straw man army. It is more likely that both sides would change their tactics if they thought that AoEs were common and effective. To assume that all 32 warriors would be in the 40’ diameter radius is quite a bit. A simple example of how to counter this is to use the line formations of Roman legions and space the lines out further. A single fireball would only hit 8 soldiers at most. The lines then attack in succeeding waves, once each line has joined the melee, the AoEs risk affecting units of both sides, so soldiers would rush to melee. At least in melee their skill has some effect upon their survival as opposed to being killed randomly by either fireballs or arrows. Also the most effect method of neutralizing wizards is with small teams of heavy crossbows and light ballistae outside of the wizard’s range. A wizard would then have to start diluting his offensive power to protect against this threat. A wizard has a few spells that protect him from this, that have already been discussed, though only the AC boosters will help with the ballista bolts. Assuming they all need twenties to hit, a couple of rounds of attacks are likely to pin cushion the wizard which would have the effect of boosting your own army’s morale offsetting the initial shock value of the wizard. Sure these are expensive weapons, but they are weapons that can be built by the army. Also, like the threat of an opposing wizard, the threat of opposing crossbows and ballistae is enough to add them to an army’s arsenal. However, unlike the wizard, these items are more common in relation to the population. For example, take a small city of 10,000 people. By the DMG we have (assuming maximum die rolls for wizards and warriors): 2 10th level wizards 4 5th level wizards 6 3rd level wizards 12 1st level wizards So 24 out of 10,000 using the maximum values from the DMG. Compare that to 2 14th level warriors 4 7th level warriors 8 4th level warriors plus 5% of the remaining population (just to throw out a number assume that 9,000) people are left for 450 1st level warriors – a total of 464. 464 / 24 or 20:1 for simplicity, could be a little more or less depending upon the accuracy of the 9,000 value. If we then factor in any smaller settlements this ratio just gets bigger and bigger, without factoring in militia. To even get a 5th level wizard you must have a settlement the size of a large town (2001-5000 people). So how many settlements of large town are bigger are in a realm? If we use the DMG again and assume the 1/10 figure, a realm of one million would have 100,000 living in small towns and larger. If the realm had a metropolis 25,000+ (1 x 12 wizards = 12) 2 x large city 12,000+ (2 x 9 wizards = 18) 4 x small city 5,000+ (4 x 6 wizards = 6) 8 x large town 2,000+ (8 x 1 wizard = 8) 16 x small town 900+ (0) that would just about equal 100,000 and a total of 44 wizards at maximum (since I was assuming the highest roll possible above for each population center) capable of casting fireball out of one million people. However, we are 50,000 warriors at a minimum. I am also trying to create the maximum number of wizards; the reality is that we are probably looking at half the number above or less. I also haven’t bothered to throw in the other classes, though clearly fighters followed by clerics will be both more numerous than wizards (sorcerers will be on par with wizards) and of higher level. So, if you are running a realm are you going to take your wizards and risk them on the battlefield tossing fireballs or use them for something more effective like making magic items, intelligence, and recruitment of more powerful allies? The highest level for wizards will be 16th level (fighters will be at 20th level).
WaterRabbit 08-15-05, 11:17 PM	Wizard's dominate in war setting's Just let it go. As demonstrated even a 5th level wizard kicks but on a battle field. i can't imagine a high level game with wizards agianst warriors. That is not fair the wizards have it everytime. Not only has this been demonstrated to be false, you clearly haven't bothered to read the entire thread. A 5th level wizard is insignificant on the battlefield.
WaterRabbit 08-15-05, 11:19 PM	i would gladly heard how a 32 1st level warior unit could handle a 10th level fighter, rogue, cleric, ranger, monk, barbarian or bard not too badly equiped. It's not a matter of aoe effect, it's a matter of level, how can you handle a medieval battle were some character are worth hundred others ? There would be 32 1st level warriors for each 5th level character. For a 10th level character there would be 2048 1st level warriors.
valvorik 10-15-05, 05:14 PM	DMG II introduces the "mob" creature, whereby 48 ordinary humans are effectively a single big swarm creature with CR 8, in a 20' by 20' space. I know some folks "hate mobs" but if you're going to do with "well DND has fireballs and they work this way", then also go with, "it has mobs and they work this way". You could easily create a variant "martial mob" which would be allowed to use ranged attacks or otherwise have "one military unit feature" SQ, say instead of Trample, have better physical stats (non-elite array say Str 13, Con 12, Dex 11 for combat unit) With the swarm rule for mob anatomy, a Fireball does +50% damage, the mob of warriors has a Reflex save +9 any Dex adjustment, and 135 hp + 30 for Con = 165 hp. A fire ball from average Wiz 5 is 5d6 x 1.5 damage for them (26.25), so they can take over 6 such fireballs before dispersing. Under mob rules that is 30% fatal casualties (which is also a good rate to establish as the loss rate under which a unit is routed). Thus it can use its archery ranged attack 6 times, you would have to come up with the system for such a ranged attack (ranged mob style damage might be too lethal). In melee vs PC, they do their 5d6 unavoidable swarm damage. Also has benefit of being faster resolution.
Dartanel 10-15-05, 11:28 PM	The Easy answer, Valvorik, would be that it generates an arrow volley as per the rules in Heroes of Battle, Complete Warrior, etc.
Rake 10-16-05, 02:31 AM	lol.. evokers are too powerful when fighting large groups of soldier types? Huh. Well, anyway... in other news, this just in: Conjurers are overpowered when it comes to getting around, necromancers need a nerf desperately as they smoke the other mages at killing tough monsters, and diviners are severely unbalanced when it comes to information-gathering!
smrtgmp 10-16-05, 02:33 AM	lol