Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caelic 06-25-07, 08:54 PM	Folks, I'm currently engaged in research for a new campaign set in an alternate-Earth Caribbean, circa 1670. I'm more than a bit psyched about this campaign, but there are certain details still to be worked out. Although magic exists, gunpowder weapons have been developed--primarily by the Spanish, who (in large part thanks to the efforts of the Inquisition) are extremely intolerant of magic. (Charles II is nicknamed "La Hechizada," or "the Bewitched," because of his numerous physical and mental defects, which are blamed on evil sorcery.) Small-caliber firearms aren't much of a problem; I can tweak some of the existing rules in the DMG and Ravenloft to come up with a system I'm happy with. However, I need to develop a set of rules for cannon that make them dangerous, but don't result in a ship being completely annihilated with a single broadside. To start with, I'd like to examine any published (or in-house) systems for resolving cannon-fire that I can lay hands on, and so I turn to you. Anyone have any rules they like to use for this? Thanks in advance.
TheDarkLord 06-25-07, 08:58 PM	Folks, I'm currently engaged in research for a new campaign set in an alternate-Earth Caribbean, circa 1670. I'm more than a bit psyched about this campaign, but there are certain details still to be worked out. Although magic exists, gunpowder weapons have been developed--primarily by the Spanish, who (in large part thanks to the efforts of the Inquisition) are extremely intolerant of magic. (Charles II is nicknamed "La Hechizada," or "the Bewitched," because of his numerous physical and mental defects, which are blamed on evil sorcery.) Small-caliber firearms aren't much of a problem; I can tweak some of the existing rules in the DMG and Ravenloft to come up with a system I'm happy with. However, I need to develop a set of rules for cannon that make them dangerous, but don't result in a ship being completely annihilated with a single broadside. To start with, I'd like to examine any published (or in-house) systems for resolving cannon-fire that I can lay hands on, and so I turn to you. Anyone have any rules they like to use for this? Thanks in advance. I would look into D20 past myself. And D20 Future for Fire-linked and Battery type weapons (which is what you'll want for ships). But just to clear something up a little, if a Full Broadside did hit another ship, there's a good chance that other ship is going down. Pirates didn't Like to sink ships, neither did most other naval powers. Ships were worth far more floating than sitting at the bottom of the ocean.
Caelic 06-25-07, 09:09 PM	Some initial design assumptions: 1. Cannon typically fired one broadside approximately every two minutes. Since I'm going to be using a primarily cinematic system of ship-to-ship combat (get the PCs in there, blades flashing, as soon as possible,) and since most fights aren't 20 rounds in length, it's likely that most engagements will involve one, possibly two broadsides. 2. Given the hit point system, I'm considering treating broadsides as primarily an area-of-effect attack with a saving throw (I know grapeshot will be treated this way, but I may do so for round shot as well.) What I want to avoid is "Ralphus the Barbarian gets shot in the gut with a cannon. He grunts in pain, gets up, and dusts himself off."
Caelic 06-25-07, 09:10 PM	I would look into D20 past myself. And D20 Future for Fire-linked and Battery type weapons (which is what you'll want for ships). But just to clear something up a little, if a Full Broadside did hit another ship, there's a good chance that other ship is going down. Pirates didn't Like to sink ships, neither did most other naval powers. Ships were worth far more floating than sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Preaching to the choir; I'm trying to decide how much abstraction I want to put into this. I like knowing the distinctions between saker and demi-saker, and knowing the design specifics of a French 74 as opposed to a third-rate British Ship of the Line, but I don't think most of my players are going to go in for quite that level of detail. I tried explaining the rigging differences between a brig and a brigantine at one point. It would make an impressive alternate verbal component for a Sleep spell, if the results are any indicator. ;) Sure, if a 90-gun ship of the line opens up broadside on the players' sloop, it's going to be reduced to kindling. I'd just like to avoid seeing the reverse happen. Thanks for the suggestions, though; I'll look into them. My summer budget is somewhat limited, though (particularly given the need of saving up for Gen Con.) If you had to choose one of the above books, which would you recommend?
TheDarkLord 06-25-07, 10:04 PM	If you had to choose one of the above books, which would you recommend? D20 past, hands down. It's like 20 bucks and well worth it.
Talisman 06-25-07, 10:13 PM	There's a product by Green Ronin called Skull and Bones: Swashbuckling Horror in the Golden Age of Piracy (http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=3). What you're describing sounds exactly like this book. Buy it. Use it.
highbulp 06-26-07, 01:16 AM	I think you might get more out of d20 Past, but just to throw out another option... Stormwrack has ship v. ship combat rules (written for the D&D system, so no translation required--HP and damaging the ship is all covered), and I believe has stats for cannon. If not, it would be easy to extrapolate what you want the cannon to do based on the other siege engines it details.
Polaris 06-26-07, 01:23 AM	Caelic, The problem with this is in a world with DnD style magic, there would be zero incentive to develope cannon. Cannon evolved from backpowder seige artillery and thus pieces were almost as dangerous to the user as they were to the intended target (especially if using crude clay-moding and crappy medieval grade steel or cast iron). Even with the church restricting magic, I can't see any nation putting his ships at such a huge disadvantage (cannon can only fire a broadside once every 40 rounds while the enemy wizards can rake your ship with spells.....perhaps even spells that won't damage your ship but incapacitate the crew) once every round......and each spell of this sort is probably worth one broadside....and frees up enemy crew for boarding and/or shiphandling. In such a spanish-like society, it seems to me that the inquisitors would be intolerant of magic because they wanted to control it for themselves (esp the Spanish-Inquision which answered to the crown of Spain and not Rome). -Polaris
Darth Syntax 06-26-07, 02:07 AM	I must respectfully disagree with Polaris about their being no impetus to develop gunpowder weapons within a world that also has D&D magic. The main issue is economic. Magic is prohibitively (and unreasonably) expensive as outlined in the DMG and other books. As such, making large scale use of magical weapons and the like would be such a drain on the economy as to be impossible. Secondly, casters themselves are very 'expensive' people. Most require years of training and study, not to mention the fact that casters are generally quite fragile. The loss of a caster would be a huge issue. Gunpowder weapons, by contrast, are cheap. They require very little special training to use (a team of commoners can man a cannon) and the powder itself is easy to make.
Polaris 06-26-07, 03:17 AM	I must respectfully disagree with Polaris about their being no impetus to develop gunpowder weapons within a world that also has D&D magic. The main issue is economic. I must respectfully disagree in return. The impetus has to be there. And the initial weapons must show enough promise both militarily and economicially to be feasable. Cannon (at least cannon circa 13th to 15th century) fail this test badly. Magic is prohibitively (and unreasonably) expensive as outlined in the DMG and other books. As such, making large scale use of magical weapons and the like would be such a drain on the economy as to be impossible. Secondly, casters themselves are very 'expensive' people. Most require years of training and study, not to mention the fact that casters are generally quite fragile. The loss of a caster would be a huge issue. Not really...at least not when compared with cannon. Remember that cannon to work has to be made with a high enough quality of steel or sand-cast iron not to burst the breach when firing. That meant the steel or cast iron had to be very expensive (almost sword quality) and had to be produced en-mass. As for casters being 'expensive' people, individually that's true, but one caster could substitute for several score of cannon, and going by the DMG priceguides, even a third to fifth level caster is not an unreasonable train for a junior lieutantant or the like. Just as ships of the line had pilot-majors (navigators) as well as captain-generals, such ships in a magical world would likely have arcane-lieutenants as well as divine-priests. The level needed for tactical ship combat spell-casters to replace cannon is suprisingly low (as low as fifth level). Gunpowder weapons, by contrast, are cheap. They require very little special training to use (a team of commoners can man a cannon) and the powder itself is easy to make. The steel needed for Cannon is not that cheap at least initially and burst guns were a real problem prior to the 16th century. Yes, you can make due with Cast-Iron, but Cast-Iron is brittle, and clay-casting cast iron could and did have unfortunate effects. Also the fact is that one moderately leveled caster (certainly an officer) could replace an entire ship's worth of cannon which levels out the economic effect entirely. Also remember that cannon and other BP weapons were developed in response to seige warefare. With DnD style magic, seige warfare would never develope and certainly never develope a need to smash powerful fixed fortifications (that's what magic is good for) and thus the need for BP artillary would certainly be lacking. The upshot is this: If you have a world with DnD magic, then it's virtually certain that Black Powder weapons would probably not develop except perhaps as curios, grenades, or smoke-devices. There just wouldn't be the military or economic incentive to do so. -Polaris Edit: P.S. Figure that since heavy crossbows cost 50 gp, cannon are going to cost at least this and probably about twice this....call it 100gp per. A ship of the line would have at least 40 or so which is 4000 gp per ship. A single caster looks a lot more promising.....
Darth Syntax 06-26-07, 03:35 AM	You make an excellent point about the cost of the metal for cannon, but I don't quite agree with your assessment that casters can substitute for a whole battery of cannon. In a sustained battle, a caster is going to run out of spells very rapidly and in very short order is going to be rendered useless. Moreover, the number of viable casters is going to be very, very small and I doubt that there would be more than 1 caster of any sort per ship.
Polaris 06-26-07, 03:42 AM	You make an excellent point about the cost of the metal for cannon, but I don't quite agree with your assessment that casters can substitute for a whole battery of cannon. In a sustained battle, a caster is going to run out of spells very rapidly and in very short order is going to be rendered useless. Moreover, the number of viable casters is going to be very, very small and I doubt that there would be more than 1 caster of any sort per ship. Yes, but you are assuming that RL tactics of the 16th-18th century ships of the line would rule the day. Point in fact a fire-ball would demast a ship with a single spell effectively end the battle within a minute or so after sighting (given the range of the fireball spell). Other spells are just as problematic for wooden sailing ships. If you remove this weakness (golem/magic powered ships and metal hulls) then you necessarily make cannon even MORE problematic. The point is that a single arcane caster for a man-o-war, could and would replace cannon (especially given said caster's ability to have and make scrolls) for a fraction of the cost that cannon would entire....and without the risk of bust cannon or a lucky hit to the powder room. Sure getting a lucky hit on the caster would end the battle, but a lucky hit on a rudder of a man-o-war (or mainsail) had pretty much the same effect. -Polaris
TheDarkLord 06-26-07, 12:43 PM	Heh, you two should go to Regdars Repository. There is a discussion on Guns in DnD. Most people agree though, guns are, by and by, a cheaper alternative to magic.
Polaris 06-26-07, 12:50 PM	Heh, you two should go to Regdars Repository. There is a discussion on Guns in DnD. Most people agree though, guns are, by and by, a cheaper alternative to magic. Most people don't understand the history and technology of early firearms. In particular most people don't understand just how bad early blackpowder weapons (both seige and personal) really were. Cannon existed as early as the 12th century (100 years war), but they were basically useless as weapons of war. With the presence of solid artillery magic, that would be that. [And it's worth noting that most real life cultures and in particular the Chinese who first invented black-powder never invented BP weapons even though it was well within their technological/industrial/economic capacity to do so.] -Polaris
keyunp 06-26-07, 07:49 PM	I think you might get more out of d20 Past, but just to throw out another option... Stormwrack has ship v. ship combat rules (written for the D&D system, so no translation required--HP and damaging the ship is all covered), and I believe has stats for cannon. If not, it would be easy to extrapolate what you want the cannon to do based on the other siege engines it details. I was coming here to ask about ship stats, but found this thread. A friend's goit stormwrack and it's got what I wanted. No good cannon stats, though. 2. Given the hit point system, I'm considering treating broadsides as primarily an area-of-effect attack with a saving throw (I know grapeshot will be treated this way, but I may do so for round shot as well.) What I want to avoid is "Ralphus the Barbarian gets shot in the gut with a cannon. He grunts in pain, gets up, and dusts himself off." Area-of-effect sounds good, I'd add more for knock down, and knock off the ship.
PuppyKhan 06-27-07, 05:58 AM	...the Chinese who first invented black-powder never invented BP weapons... This is not entirely accurate. Chinese did use gun powder for weapons long before the Europeans got their hands on it. The problem was they never developed a relatively safe delivery system on their own so the weapons were relegated to rockets (which saw frequent use by Chinese armies) and early attempts at rifles which were horribly unsafe. What changed was when the Mongols conquered, their reach included many different civilizations and they put their respective technologies together. Europeans had metal casting for bells at a level that made practical casings for more powerful gun powder weapons. Also, they mixed Persian chemists with the Chinese scientists who modified the formula into the Black Powder the Europeans got their hands on and ran with. This combination of technology gave rise to weapons like the cannon and exploding cannon balls, some of the oldest known examples are from sunken (subjugated Chinese and Korean) ships of the failed Mongol invasion of Japan. I must respectfully disagree with Polaris about their being no impetus to develop gunpowder weapons within a world that also has D&D magic. The main issue is economic. Magic is prohibitively (and unreasonably) expensive as outlined in the DMG and other books. As such, making large scale use of magical weapons and the like would be such a drain on the economy as to be impossible. Secondly, casters themselves are very 'expensive' people. Most require years of training and study, not to mention the fact that casters are generally quite fragile. The loss of a caster would be a huge issue. Gunpowder weapons, by contrast, are cheap. They require very little special training to use (a team of commoners can man a cannon) and the powder itself is easy to make. Actually this is a fairly accurate assessment compared to the actual history of firearms as opposed to archery. The only point on which I would differ is that it has more to do with training time than money, though cost is still important here especially as the industrial revolution took off. Archery was perhaps the most effect weapon on the battlefield well in the 19th century, possibly even at the beginning of the 20th century. The reason why guns were more widely used is the same reason crossbows were so widely used a few centuries earlier. The amount of training time and personal skill necessary to produce an effective archer was extremely prohibative. A good archer needed lifelong training and constant practice. Not a problem in a society where the bow was a part of daily life as among steppe nomads, but for a farmer in a feudal system it was nearly impossible, unless you were in a particular minority such as a hunter or noble who could spend his days in training. Crossbows on the other hand required a much shorter learning curve to be battlefield effective, and even if a feudal lord lacked the time to train them as effectively as possible, it was easy to compensate with extra manpower. Just line up as many as possible to fire a barrage and someone was bound to hit something. If a unit of crossbowman were wiped out, it was far easier to replace than a unit of archers. Guns had this same advantage as crossbows in the shorter learning curve, but the additional feature of being able to compensate for lack of skill or training by advancing the technology to make the weapon more and more effective in hands that were less and less skilled, making it even easier to raise large armies of combat effective troops, and the inaccuracies could still easily be compensated for by volume. Contrasting the ability to raise an army of peasants and handing them gunpowder weapons and the ability to raise an army of competent wizards in a fantasy setting would have the same tilt toward the easier to produce. Unless you are playing in a fantasy settling where everybody and his brother was a 5th level wizard, you'd likely have a mass of peasants that some feudal lord would want to assemble into an army quickly and cheaply and give them the crossbows or guns, and back them up with the occasional wizard. The Chinese would mix skilled archers into units of crossbowmen to act as snipers to pick off the few enemies not repelled by the barrage of crossbow fire. Europeans did similar mixes with the resources they had. I would think a military strategist in a fantasy setting with guns and magic would jump at the chance to mix every resource available. Guns firing at the demon with anti magic or spell resistance, cleric blessing the units to add to their accuracy, fighter or rogue with the more accurate and expensive sniper rifle or mighty composite bow, wizard blasting at the golem with DR... One anti magic shell protecting the hull of a ship and it doesn't matter if a wizard can get off 20 fireballs, the one cannon shot is the only thing that will do damage. Yeah the individual hero may prefer the power of a wizard over picking up a flintlock, but that won't be the choice for someone trying to levy and army while watching the clock and his budget. Hell if one class being so good meant no one ever did anything else, why do people still play fighters, rogues, or whatnot when there is a wizard class? A powerful wizard (or other spell caster) may always be the the best option in a fantasy setting, but that does not preclude in any way a need to develop alternative weapons of war.
Polaris 06-27-07, 12:50 PM	PuppyKhan, Yes, the chinese never did develope a good delivery system and yes they did use BP rockets in battle, but I never considered BP rockets and grenades, BP weapons (i.e. cannon and guns) within the context of this setting. Edit: This also makes my point. The Chinese never had any incentive to develope any such system either and militarily didn't suffer from the lack until the 18th century. You are also ignoring just how much more effective magic is as artillery than anything else running. I'm not talking about massed troop formation. The economic factor is what keeps crossbowmen and even archers in business for massed armies (although really massive armies didn't arise until the 17th century at least in Europe....well after the middle ages). Early Black Powder Artillery SUCKED and troops that handled them were considered elite troops (called grenadiers) [a name that has survived to this day to describe certain elite units). When one moderately leveled wizard for a fairly princely salary could pump out scrolls that were more effective than entire batteries of black-powder artillery or even trebuchets, there is no incentive to develope them except maybe as curiosities. When one also realizes that guns (aquebi, matchlocks and such) were direct developements from black-powder artillery and that cannon are such, it's a no brainer. I am not saying that magic would stop technology. That's silly. What I *am* saying is that you have to account for it, and a single wizard (in DnD) of even moderate (5th) level is so potent, that it would radically change naval warefare and tactics. As for antimagic shell, fiddlesticks. RAW, you can't protect any ship larger than a captain's skiff with an AMF. Read the spell. Edit: It's also worth noting with the extreme shortness of duration of AMF, that even if you should use it as a ship's defense, you are then necessitating the use of Naval Wizard Officers to protect your ship in which case you've negated your supposed (and disputed) cost advantage...and may as well use them offensively as well. -Polaris
Caelic 06-27-07, 01:44 PM	Caelic, The problem with this is in a world with DnD style magic, there would be zero incentive to develope cannon. Cannon evolved from backpowder seige artillery and thus pieces were almost as dangerous to the user as they were to the intended target (especially if using crude clay-moding and crappy medieval grade steel or cast iron). Trust me, I gave considerable thought to this; in fact, this is the explanation for why ships in this campaign will have many fewer cannon than in the real world. (The mechanical explanation is that I don't want to roll for a hundred-plus attacks every time two ships of the fifth rate or above are involved.) Massive powder magazines are simply too risky. Even with the church restricting magic, I can't see any nation putting his ships at such a huge disadvantage (cannon can only fire a broadside once every 40 rounds while the enemy wizards can rake your ship with spells.....perhaps even spells that won't damage your ship but incapacitate the crew) once every round......and each spell of this sort is probably worth one broadside....and frees up enemy crew for boarding and/or shiphandling. One thing to bear in mind is that there are no "wizards." I'm using the generic classes from UA; consequently, each spellcaster is going to have a tightly-focused repertoire, and relatively few ships will have a dedicated artillery caster on board. Secondly, magic is politically suspect in even the more tolerant countries; the Church's influence is strong (and the Reformation never happened.) Most governments make use of spellcasters, but quietly, publically holding them at arm's length. In such a spanish-like society, it seems to me that the inquisitors would be intolerant of magic because they wanted to control it for themselves (esp the Spanish-Inquision which answered to the crown of Spain and not Rome). A very good thought, and I won't say that there aren't members of the Inquisition who think this way (the Inquisition, incidentally, is operating independent of the Church in this setting; the Church has basically entered a period of detende with the Collegium Magica, on the grounds that they really don't want the consequences of an all-out war with spellcasters. The Inquisition remains committed to neutralizing them wherever and whenever possible.) However, I'm trying not to rely overmuch on the Black Legend in this campaign. Most members of the Inquisition are, in fact, genuine believers who consider the use of magic a dire threat to their immortal souls.
Polaris 06-27-07, 02:00 PM	Trust me, I gave considerable thought to this; in fact, this is the explanation for why ships in this campaign will have many fewer cannon than in the real world. (The mechanical explanation is that I don't want to roll for a hundred-plus attacks every time two ships of the fifth rate or above are involved.) Massive powder magazines are simply too risky. Setting all the other issues aside, it also has tactical implications. Even if 'artillery' style wizards are rarer in your world, they aren't unknown, and neither would 'wind' or 'elemental' magic be unknown which would greatly assist a ship that is becalmed or in harborage. It also would greatly reduce the value of 'Crossing the Enemy T' because an enemy caster (admittedly if such were there) would have effectively a 360 degree of arc with no drop-off in effectiveness. Those are just a couple of tactical implications from the top of my head. -Polaris
Lawkeeper 06-27-07, 05:23 PM	Most people don't understand the history and technology of early firearms. In particular most people don't understand just how bad early blackpowder weapons (both seige and personal) really were. Cannon existed as early as the 12th century (100 years war), but they were basically useless as weapons of war. With the presence of solid artillery magic, that would be that. [And it's worth noting that most real life cultures and in particular the Chinese who first invented black-powder never invented BP weapons even though it was well within their technological/industrial/economic capacity to do so.] -Polaris And most people who understand technology and pretend to understand history, don't understand politics.;) Politics is the impetus behind the development of guns in a D&D world, not technology. Politics. And, in a certain measure only, economy, but economy is second to politics in that case. Politics matter, but not only : I'll split my case in four to look at it from different sides, all of which fully justify a development of guns by themselves. Politics Face it : it is not the relative efficiency of magic compared to whatever cannons & guns have been developped that matter, but only the willingness of some people to research them. The need that drives them to have a non-magic powerful weapon. Look at the typical D&D world. You have spellcasters, who compose a minority of the population, and you have all the others - including the non-spellcasting ruling nobles of the land. Nobles who aren't spellcaster themselves (hereafter referred as the "nobles") have to rely on hired spellcasters. Not only does it cost a lot, even counting daily wages only, but it also isn't practical - there're only so many spellcasters in the world. Their relative rarity compared to more ordinary warriors not only has for consequences their higher costs, and also a higher independence. A caster-for-hire who resents being ordered right and left will easily coerce his employers in loosening the reins, else he'd find another "master". Every ruler who depends on spellcasters for his "artillery" is at the mercy of the spellcasters' whims. The fact that he is paying them goes only so far - if he needs them, the casters have a leverage on him. The caster who, in the middle of a battle, insists on getting a wages' raise before casting a day-saving fireball, is clearly forcing his will on the noble. The King who happens to rely on a Royal Corps of Magists to strengthen his troops and enforce his rule, if he manages to find, retain and pay so many mages, that King is gonna have troubled days if his interests ever conflict with his spellguard's. When spellcasters rebel against their former employer, there's not many things he can do. Either he faces oblivion if they're strong enough, which is beyond doubt if he relied so much on them, or he hires other spellcasters. Anyway, if they have some safe abode, sieges aren't gonna anywhere due to magical protections - and finding yet better mages to defeat them is even more costly. Moreover, it's simply replacing the problematic spellcasters by even more powerful potentially-problematic spellcasters. Those are the reasons why nobles would encourage technological research, and the development of cannons & guns in the first place. An unreliable, costly cannon won't rebel ; the artillerists and servants aren't the ones who wield the power, they're only a (small) component of the weapon. Moreover, as they're probably not spellcasters themselves, the master artillerists are not subjected to the same conflicts of interests. The magic-hardenned stone of the wizard's towers makes catapult stones (4d6 dmg, max 24) irrelevant with its 25 hardness ? Bring in cannons : light bombards do 3d10, heavies do 6d10. Even if lighties only are available, 3d10 might score high enough to pass the hardness about one in five shots, and finally bring it down ; heavies are faster, as their average is already well above the hardness. So, cannons are fully reasonnable in a D&D-magic world on a politics reason. Demographics Moreover, look at the demographies. In villages (<800 pop), you only have a one-in-four chance of getting a 2nd-lvl-arcane-spells caster, a wizard one ; all other arcane casters (not numerous in fact) are limited to 1st-lvl spells. In small towns (anything under 2000 pop), you might find one 3rd/4th lvl wizard only 50% of the time, and a 4th-lvl sorcerer 25% of the time ; again, even lowly 2nd level spells are thus rare in most settlements. Likewise, you need to go to Large Towns (2000-5000 pop). There, you get a 75% chance of finding a fireball-launching wizard, one third of which are even able to cast 4th-lvl spells (enlarged fireballs maybe), and 50% chance of finding a fireballing sorcerer. When I say "a", I really mean "one" - and under most circumstances, you'll only get one sorcerer or one wizard, rarely both. So, you only got a very small number of fireballs/day, from two to five probably, depending on the exact levels and abilities. The same Large Town would have over 200 warriors1, to look only at NPC classes (and on average, the lead warrior is 8th level, two and a half above the average lead wiz/sor), meaning that the arcanist isn't all that matter, especially if he keeps one slot for a retreat fly and a good defense spell (what spellcaster-for-hire would not make his own protection his priority ?). In the very best case, a full metropolis, you have 4*16th and 8*8th of each sorcerer and wizard, or 24 potential fireballists total. And this is one of the biggest settlements of the world, probably the only in its country (if there is even one in the country). So, in the vast majority of the settlements, only a very select few are able to be defended by an average arcanist. Most rely at best on 1st lvl spells (that's not much). Statistically, 5th level spells are restricted to 8 casters per metropolis and 4/6 per small/large city (at most, counting on best results on the d4). 8th-lvl spells are restricted to metropolises. As you see, you won't have that many uber-casters at sea or in sieges, devastating the crews or breaking the walls. They might not all have the classic offensive spells, nor be willing to serve in a war. Now, look at the Carribeans in 1670. Populations are sparse. I don't have many exact numbers, not for that period at least, but I have 11000 pop in Kingston, Jamaica, in 1780 (nearly a century later). From Dragon #318 (good article there, Caelic), Port Royal in 1692 has 3000 free adults, 1000 children and 2500 slaves. That's barely a small city, and by the DMG would only have a maximum of 4 arcane spellcasters with 5th-lvl spells and 8 others with 3rd- and 4th-lvl spells. That's 12 real artillerists in one of the few, biggest towns of the area. Economics Let's take a look at various costs. First, spells : - lightning bolt or fireball (or any other 3rd-lvl) : 150gp - ice storm (or other 4th lvl) : 280gp - cone of cold : 450gp Now, from Stormwrack : - light bombard : 2000gp - heavy bombard : 8000gp With gunpowder (smokepowder isn't a good idea in a Carribean setting), the cost of a shot is negligible, so it takes a light bombard 14 shots to pay back compared to fireballs/lightning bolts, or only 5 for cones of colds. It takes four times more for a heavy bombard, but the damage it deals is way higher. So, the initial cost is steep indeed, but a bombard will pay back sooner or later, and at that moment it'll be cheaper than magic. Compared efficiencies So, you feel magic is all-powerful in war. For you, magic is the field-artillery of D&D. Up to some extent, that's true - but magic has its own limits, and is not so good as you think. First things first, spells are not always good at breaching walls. Direct-damage spells mostly do only half damage before counting hardness. Sonic and acid spells are better, but less common, much less common. Take a 6th-lvl lightning bolt (a fireball doesn't damage objects) : 6d6 dmg. On average, 21 points of damage against a simple stone wall will only do 3 dmg points in the end. In contrast, a light bombard shot will do 16.5 dmg on the same hardness, but without halving, for 8.5 dmg in the end. To breach a six-foot simple stone wall, 1080hp, you'll have to fire over 300 lightning bolts (6*3*10=180gp per spell) but slightly less than 130 bombard shots. Return to economics : buy ten bombards (13 shots each), for 20.000 gp, you'll breach the wall in much less than an hour even when counting on one shot every five minutes, for 34.000gp less than the magic way ; and the magic way is gonna take months as you probably don't have one hundred spellcasters, months during which you'll have to pay the upkeep for every soldier. So, if more spells can be cast in a rapid succession of rounds, more gunshots can be fired in a couple minutes or in a day. And what is true of stoneworks is true of woodworks, only numbers change. Not every sea combat is about capturing the enemy ship - many are content to sink them. That said, historically it took much punishment for a ship to sink (several full broadsides at the very least, for comparable ships). Second, you might say : other spells help in bypassing fortifications. Yes, indeed - but only for small groups. Commandos or the like. Fly is single-target. Invisibility sphere is for a small, tight-grouped group. Transmute rock to mud, although much higher, will only help if the walls are built on natural stone foundations. Passwall, 5th-lvl too, is only creating a small passage, leaving the shock troops at the mercy of a concentration of defenders on the other side, or a dispel magic - for if magic can breach a wall, magic can fill the hole too. Other spells help in ship-to-ship combat, or ship operations, whether it's using the wind to get better position (unexpectedly crossing the T), raising a fog to escape, plotting its route in a starless night, etc. As such, the demands for spells on a ship are way beyond simple artillery - and demographics already ensure that not every ship would have even a 1st- to 3rd-lvl mage on board. Third, you tell about wiping a crew ? Yes, but not with a fireball or other direct energy spell, given the vast number of covers available on a ship. Between masts, rigging, launches, winches, cannons, etc, nearly every sailor is gonna have available cover against the spell. Moreover, with sailors everywhere on the deck, one fireball isn't enough, far from that, even on a medieval caravel. Moreover, you see that a good anti-object spell is not a good anti-personnel one, hence the greater flexibility of bombards who might be used either at the hull, at the rigging or at the crew, compared to a single offensive spell. Fourth, speaking of the crew, you greatly underestimate the devastation that a full broadside brings to it. For a realistic depiction, go see Master & Commander for example. It's not bullets that kill crewmen - it's splinters. Much more efficiently than fireballs I think. So, magic is at the same time less efficient at dealing damage to objects, be it walls or ships ; magic is more expensive ; magic requires gifted individuals, of which only a few exist, and so can only be used a few times a day, when cannons are more reliable ; magic is cancellable by magic (counterspells, dispel magic, etc) more easily than cannons are ; individual spells are less flexible on the spot ; and magic is in higher demand for other duties, more important. So, there are many reasons that justify the development of cannons and guns in a magical D&D world.
Polaris 06-27-07, 06:01 PM	And most people who understand technology and pretend to understand history, don't understand politics.;) Politics is the impetus behind the development of guns in a D&D world, not technology. Politics. And, in a certain measure only, economy, but economy is second to politics in that case. Politics matter, but not only : I'll split my case in four to look at it from different sides, all of which fully justify a development of guns by themselves. With all due respect, no they don't either seperately or in total. Politics Face it : it is not the relative efficiency of magic compared to whatever cannons & guns have been developped that matter, but only the willingness of some people to research them. The need that drives them to have a non-magic powerful weapon. Yes, and that is what would be lacking. Look at the typical D&D world. You have spellcasters, who compose a minority of the population, and you have all the others - including the non-spellcasting ruling nobles of the land. Nobles who aren't spellcaster themselves (hereafter referred as the "nobles") have to rely on hired spellcasters. Not only does it cost a lot, even counting daily wages only, but it also isn't practical - there're only so many spellcasters in the world. Their relative rarity compared to more ordinary warriors not only has for consequences their higher costs, and also a higher independence. A caster-for-hire who resents being ordered right and left will easily coerce his employers in loosening the reins, else he'd find another "master". Every ruler who depends on spellcasters for his "artillery" is at the mercy of the spellcasters' whims. The fact that he is paying them goes only so far - if he needs them, the casters have a leverage on him. The caster who, in the middle of a battle, insists on getting a wages' raise before casting a day-saving fireball, is clearly forcing his will on the noble. The King who happens to rely on a Royal Corps of Magists to strengthen his troops and enforce his rule, if he manages to find, retain and pay so many mages, that King is gonna have troubled days if his interests ever conflict with his spellguard's. Several things wrong with this argument: 1. In a DnD world, most of the arcane spellcasters would over time be nobles either by elevation (which happened more commonly than people think in modern times) or by birth or both. Consider that in DnD, the ability to use magic isn't an arcane gift (although it can be), but rather is an ability that can be learned but such learning requires years of time and thus relative wealth. Who would become wizards? The same people who became Bishops and Cardinals IRL.....second and third sons of nobility. Thus spellcasters as a group (both arcane and divine) would have a strong incentive to back the status quo, or even more likely be the status quo. 2. A noble that arms peasentry is running a greater risk than one that ticks off his wizard (who is more than likely a noble himself). The revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries were a direct political consequence of putting lots of effective weapons into the hands of the peasentry and thus diluting (and ultimately eliminating) the noble class'es monopoly on power. Need an example? Oliver Cromwell. When spellcasters rebel against their former employer, there's not many things he can do. Either he faces oblivion if they're strong enough, which is beyond doubt if he relied so much on them, or he hires other spellcasters. Anyway, if they have some safe abode, sieges aren't gonna anywhere due to magical protections - and finding yet better mages to defeat them is even more costly. Moreover, it's simply replacing the problematic spellcasters by even more powerful potentially-problematic spellcasters. The noble is likely as not going to be a spellcaster himself....or members of his immedately family likely are. While casters may be rare in general, they'd be concentrated in the aristocratic and noble classes precisely because such classes had the wealth and theirfore leasure to train them. Those are the reasons why nobles would encourage technological research, and the development of cannons & guns in the first place. An unreliable, costly cannon won't rebel ; the artillerists and servants aren't the ones who wield the power, they're only a (small) component of the weapon. Moreover, as they're probably not spellcasters themselves, the master artillerists are not subjected to the same conflicts of interests. The magic-hardenned stone of the wizard's towers makes catapult stones (4d6 dmg, max 24) irrelevant with its 25 hardness ? Bring in cannons : light bombards do 3d10, heavies do 6d10. Even if lighties only are available, 3d10 might score high enough to pass the hardness about one in five shots, and finally bring it down ; heavies are faster, as their average is already well above the hardness. Stone to Mud. Golems, Flying Creatures. Fixed Fortifications in a world with DnD magic is a nightmare at best. Also putting weapons in the hands of your peasents is a disaster waiting to happen and most canny nobles knew it. At least wizards would be one of your own (i.e. fellow nobles). So, cannons are fully reasonnable in a D&D-magic world on a politics reason. Debunked. Demographics Moreover, look at the demographies. In villages (<800 pop), you only have a one-in-four chance of getting a 2nd-lvl-arcane-spells caster, a wizard one ; all other arcane casters (not numerous in fact) are limited to 1st-lvl spells. In small towns (anything under 2000 pop), you might find one 3rd/4th lvl wizard only 50% of the time, and a 4th-lvl sorcerer 25% of the time ; again, even lowly 2nd level spells are thus rare in most settlements. Likewise, you need to go to Large Towns (2000-5000 pop). There, you get a 75% chance of finding a fireball-launching wizard, one third of which are even able to cast 4th-lvl spells (enlarged fireballs maybe), and 50% chance of finding a fireballing sorcerer. When I say "a", I really mean "one" - and under most circumstances, you'll only get one sorcerer or one wizard, rarely both. So, you only got a very small number of fireballs/day, from two to five probably, depending on the exact levels and abilities. The same Large Town would have over 200 warriors1, to look only at NPC classes (and on average, the lead warrior is 8th level, two and a half above the average lead wiz/sor), meaning that the arcanist isn't all that matter, especially if he keeps one slot for a retreat fly and a good defense spell (what spellcaster-for-hire would not make his own protection his priority ?). All this means is that the arcane/casting classes would be concentrated in the noble classes and in the large towns with charters. All the more reason why nobility would appeal to wizards and make them more (rather than less) reliable. Also the numbers go up markedly when one goes above the range of large towns, and those same wizards can keep the peace by overwhelming the smaller ones even in small numbers. In the very best case, a full metropolis, you have 4*16th and 8*8th of each sorcerer and wizard, or 24 potential fireballists total. And this is one of the biggest settlements of the world, probably the only in its country (if there is even one in the country). A concentration of power ideally suited for the preservation of a Feudal Realm. Also remember that said wizards can be used/hired to train others. So, in the vast majority of the settlements, only a very select few are able to be defended by an average arcanist. Most rely at best on 1st lvl spells (that's not much). Statistically, 5th level spells are restricted to 8 casters per metropolis and 4/6 per small/large city (at most, counting on best results on the d4). 8th-lvl spells are restricted to metropolises. Which is enough considering the relative power of said casters...especially when said casters can take the leadership feat which greatly increases the numbers. As you see, you won't have that many uber-casters at sea or in sieges, devastating the crews or breaking the walls. They might not all have the classic offensive spells, nor be willing to serve in a war. You don't need many. One or two would be enough. Now, look at the Carribeans in 1670. Populations are sparse. I don't have many exact numbers, not for that period at least, but I have 11000 pop in Kingston, Jamaica, in 1780 (nearly a century later). From Dragon #318 (good article there, Caelic), Port Royal in 1692 has 3000 free adults, 1000 children and 2500 slaves. That's barely a small city, and by the DMG would only have a maximum of 4 arcane spellcasters with 5th-lvl spells and 8 others with 3rd- and 4th-lvl spells. That's 12 real artillerists in one of the few, biggest towns of the area. Populations were sparse because transportation was difficult and conditions were diseased and dirty which meant population growth wasn't great either. All these are either mitigated or eliminated by "royal" magic (teleport, cure disease, purify water) and many of said conditions can be mitigated by a humble first level cleric. In addition to that, sparse populations make it even easier to controll by a handful of arcane casters who by disposition are more likely to support (and BE) the ruling class. Debunked. Economics Let's take a look at various costs. First, spells : - lightning bolt or fireball (or any other 3rd-lvl) : 150gp - ice storm (or other 4th lvl) : 280gp - cone of cold : 450gp Now, from Stormwrack : - light bombard : 2000gp - heavy bombard : 8000gp With gunpowder (smokepowder isn't a good idea in a Carribean setting), the cost of a shot is negligible, so it takes a light bombard 14 shots to pay back compared to fireballs/lightning bolts, or only 5 for cones of colds. It takes four times more for a heavy bombard, but the damage it deals is way higher. So, the initial cost is steep indeed, but a bombard will pay back sooner or later, and at that moment it'll be cheaper than magic. One fireball will set the sails of a Man-o-war abaze. It took until the last part of the 18th century for true incendary shells to be developed (thus signaling the end of the wooden warship). DnD wizards START with this ability. In short, spells are more effecient and you never reach break-even. Debunked. Compared efficiencies So, you feel magic is all-powerful in war. For you, magic is the field-artillery of D&D. Up to some extent, that's true - but magic has its own limits, and is not so good as you think. Really? First things first, spells are not always good at breaching walls. Direct-damage spells mostly do only half damage before counting hardness. Sonic and acid spells are better, but less common, much less common. Take a 6th-lvl lightning bolt (a fireball doesn't damage objects) : 6d6 dmg. On average, 21 points of damage against a simple stone wall will only do 3 dmg points in the end. In contrast, a light bombard shot will do 16.5 dmg on the same hardness, but without halving, for 8.5 dmg in the end. To breach a six-foot simple stone wall, 1080hp, you'll have to fire over 300 lightning bolts (6*3*10=180gp per spell) but slightly less than 130 bombard shots. Return to economics : buy ten bombards (13 shots each), for 20.000 gp, you'll breach the wall in much less than an hour even when counting on one shot every five minutes, for 34.000gp less than the magic way ; and the magic way is gonna take months as you probably don't have one hundred spellcasters, months during which you'll have to pay the upkeep for every soldier. So, if more spells can be cast in a rapid succession of rounds, more gunshots can be fired in a couple minutes or in a day. Or I can summon creatures inside the fixed fortifications or I can FLY and use damaging spells within the walls (effectively making them armor piercing), or I can D-Door troops past the fortifications. DnD magic turns midaeval fortifications into junk and it doesn't take many wizards to do it. Heck even one and a bunch of apprenti and mooks with UMD does wonders. The ability to FLY ALONE makes the wizard the king of the battlefield (and completely changes the paradigm of pre-modern warfare). And what is true of stoneworks is true of woodworks, only numbers change. Not every sea combat is about capturing the enemy ship - many are content to sink them. That said, historically it took much punishment for a ship to sink (several full broadsides at the very least, for comparable ships). Two Words: Magical Fire. This was the greatest fear on a wooden man-o-war and eventually why (penetrating incinderary shells) they were abandoned. Second, you might say : other spells help in bypassing fortifications. Yes, indeed - but only for small groups. Commandos or the like. Fly is single-target. Invisibility sphere is for a small, tight-grouped group. Transmute rock to mud, although much higher, will only help if the walls are built on natural stone foundations. Dig deep enough and they were and had to be. Undermining walls is an old trick even without magic. With it, it's hellaciously effective. Fly: nope Flight can be done for groups. See Spell Compendium. Passwall, 5th-lvl too, is only creating a small passage, leaving the shock troops at the mercy of a concentration of defenders on the other side, or a dispel magic - for if magic can breach a wall, magic can fill the hole too. Other spells help in ship-to-ship combat, or ship operations, whether it's using the wind to get better position (unexpectedly crossing the T), raising a fog to escape, plotting its route in a starless night, etc. As such, the demands for spells on a ship are way beyond simple artillery - and demographics already ensure that not every ship would have even a 1st- to 3rd-lvl mage on board. D-Door. It's only fourth level. Third, you tell about wiping a crew ? Yes, but not with a fireball or other direct energy spell, given the vast number of covers available on a ship. Between masts, rigging, launches, winches, cannons, etc, nearly every sailor is gonna have available cover against the spell. Moreover, with sailors everywhere on the deck, one fireball isn't enough, far from that, even on a medieval caravel. Moreover, you see that a good anti-object spell is not a good anti-personnel one, hence the greater flexibility of bombards who might be used either at the hull, at the rigging or at the crew, compared to a single offensive spell. Stinking Cloud. Cloudkill for a really high level wizard, but stinking cloud by itself will likely disable a ship. Fourth, speaking of the crew, you greatly underestimate the devastation that a full broadside brings to it. For a realistic depiction, go see Master & Commander for example. It's not bullets that kill crewmen - it's splinters. Much more efficiently than fireballs I think. I'm not underestimating a broadside. I've read Forrester. However, Forrester also says that fires of any sort are deadly. You aim a fireball at the sails and even the weakest fireball is almost assured of disabling even the largest galleon....and certainly the crew would be hardpressed to fight on becalmed. Without sails, the ship would likely be forced to surrender. Debunked. So, magic is at the same time less efficient at dealing damage to objects, be it walls or ships ; magic is more expensive ; magic requires gifted individuals, of which only a few exist, and so can only be used a few times a day, when cannons are more reliable ; magic is cancellable by magic (counterspells, dispel magic, etc) more easily than cannons are ; individual spells are less flexible on the spot ; and magic is in higher demand for other duties, more important. As I pointed out in earlier posts, all these defenses against magic require magic which doesn't help your case. If you are going to have a ship's wizard to protect against magic, you may as well use him offensively as well since you are paying the cost regardless. So, there are many reasons that justify the development of cannons and guns in a magical D&D world. Not really as I have shown. -Polaris
Feeb 06-27-07, 06:46 PM	I'm just going to pop in here and ignore the historical argument and address one of the OP's points: I need to develop a set of rules for cannon that make them dangerous, but don't result in a ship being completely annihilated with a single broadside. I can't suggest a WoTC or 3rd party product offhand, but why not just give the ships a custom form of damage resistence that scales somewhat with cannon damage? Area of effect/splash damage that goes over the DR effects secondary targets, perhaps with a deafen/daze effect added in (DC set by the surplus damage.) S,o a direct hit can be lethal and being close enough to the impact can kill/harm/impede characters as well, depending on the level of the character.
Caelic 06-27-07, 07:19 PM	Folks, The debate is interesting, but not hugely germane to the issue of my specific campaign, for a number of reasons. 1. First and foremost: cannons will exist. Cannons will exist because my players like the idea of cannon. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I'll come up with as much pseudo-realistic rationale as possible to support the notion of cannon existing, but ultimately, D&D isn't a sociopolitically realistic game and never has been. Note that the typical D&D game is still loaded with castles. 2. Magic is rare. Much, much moreso than in a setting like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms; significantly moreso than in a setting like Greyhawk. Most folk might well go their entire lives without ever seeing magic in action. 3. Most of the casters hired by ship captains focus on some of the other factors Polaris noted. Controlling the wind or storms is a HUGE asset. Being able to predict the weather reliably is valuable. Even just being able to create water is a biggie. If a ship captain can afford a caster, it's typically going to be someone who can do those things. Very, VERY few ships can afford the extravagance of a second spellcaster. 4. As noted before, magic is a matter of inborn talent in this game; there are no wizards or clerics. There's no real way to concentrate magic in the hands of the nobility, which is one reason they're so leery of it. It shows a tendency to run in some lines; Portugal no longer exists as a country in this setting, because the Portuguese royal family showed a strong talent for magic, and that was one thing the various other crowns were NOT willing to allow. Ultimately, the setting's going to be no more realistic than, say, the Forgotten Realms. I'm not all that concerned with whether it's "realistic," though. What I want it to have is playability and verisimilitude.
Tolby 06-27-07, 09:18 PM	I think you should check out heroes of battle plenty of rules there to convert over. Lots of different types of siege engines.
Caelic 06-27-07, 10:25 PM	Well, it's not so much siege engines I need, Toby; I have both Heroes of Battle and Stormwrack. What I need is a way to reasonably abstract batteries of cannon, and a number of the suggestions made thus far should help. I'm seriously considering abstracting things further when it comes to NPC cannon crews--simply working out the average number of hits per broadside and the average damage each will inflict, rather than rolling twenty to forty attacks.
TheDarkLord 06-27-07, 11:40 PM	Well, it's not so much siege engines I need, Toby; I have both Heroes of Battle and Stormwrack. What I need is a way to reasonably abstract batteries of cannon, and a number of the suggestions made thus far should help. I'm seriously considering abstracting things further when it comes to NPC cannon crews--simply working out the average number of hits per broadside and the average damage each will inflict, rather than rolling twenty to forty attacks. D20 Past is your Friend :)
Lawkeeper 06-28-07, 04:20 AM	Well, it's not so much siege engines I need, Toby; I have both Heroes of Battle and Stormwrack. What I need is a way to reasonably abstract batteries of cannon, and a number of the suggestions made thus far should help. I'm seriously considering abstracting things further when it comes to NPC cannon crews--simply working out the average number of hits per broadside and the average damage each will inflict, rather than rolling twenty to forty attacks. If your players want cannons, I bet they want some details too, and don't want everything to be abstract. What follows are some basic ideas that could be further refined - I'm at your disposition to help you further develop it, for I'm interested in the subject too. I don't know what's in D20 Past, so maybe they have a better system - I might have to look at it if I manage to find it. First, battery fire. Put your individual cannons in groups of 5, 10 or whole battery for the "attack roll". Maybe give a bonus to the roll of +1 or +2 for every 5 cannons, to represent the easiest time in hitting the enemy when you have many cannons firing. If you hit, roll 10d10 : this gives you a number between 10 and 100, with a strong average of 55 and a bell curve. This number gives you the percentage of cannons that actually hit the target. Optionnally, you might reduce that number by 1d10 for every range increment above the first, or every two RI above the first, to represent the greater spread of the volley : broadsides were truly devastating at point blank, but far-shots were widely spreading. Once you have the number of cannons hitting, roll the damage normally for one cannon, apply hardness, and deduce that final damage from the targetted ship component's (see later) hp for each hitting cannon. Many modifier can apply beyond what I mentionned. The state of the sea is a big penalty, especially at long range : for example, have the penalty for range increments doubled, tripled or more the stormier the sea is. Some types of ships might have bonuses on attack rolls for exceptionnaly stable decks or fine visibility. Range should decrease the damage of cannons, due to the lower final velocity of the shots at greater ranges, beyond the penalty for the attack rolls and the spread. Etc. That's for battery fire. Second, technical differences. Feel entirely free to develop new stats for cannons. The Stormwrack sourcebook depicts late-medieval bombards, which were rather crude. By the second half of the XVIIth century, cannons were more powerful, farther reaching, more secure and more varied. For information : Naval artillery in the Age of Sail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery_in_the_Age_of_Sail), a Wikipedia article with links to other articles. You don't have to fix all the properties of each cannon type by an exhausting mathematical formula - just go with cannon-to-cannon comparisons. For example, pick one cannon to represent the ideal average. From there, modify damage according to the weight of the shot - heavier cannonball, heavier damage. The same weight will also inversely affect the range of the cannon. Then, check the relative length of the barrels, and further adjust the range. Then, you'll have different statistics for different types, weight & length, of cannons. Add in some modifiers for the quality of the powder (e.g. have five qualities : mediocre, poor, average, good, perfect) and the eventual masterwork quality (both for cannon and ball). Decide what the base reload time and crew are. Then, you're basically done with cannons. Do the same for the statistics of the ships. The one thing that matters is comparison to other ships. A frigate should be faster than a ship-of-the-line and less sturdy & lighter-armed, but less maneuverable and more powerful than a bermuda-rigged sloop. To have disparate types of ships, you can play on a great number of variables : speed, maneuvrability, shiphandling modifier, seaworthiness, size, draft, height (and visibility) hit points (thickness of the hull), hardness (better or weaker woods, particular architecture strengthenning the planks, etc), crew requirements, number of artillery slots, cargo hold. Add in some different maneuveur qualities. The sailplan is important, not only for speed, but for the points of sail as well : one sailplan is gonna reach a close haul with a little loss of speed, while another's base might be faster but unable to come at a close reach. To represent that, have a set of multipliers that apply on the speed depending on the heading relative to the wind, with different sailplans having different modifiers. And introduce the fact that changing the sails takes time. Third : ship's structure. Have each ship "split" in various components : hull, rigging, crew, battery, for example. Assign hardness/hp to each on the whole, not by section (or make bigger sections : for example, for very big vessels, have starboard upper hull, starboard lower hull, port upper hull and port lower hull) : with battery fire, good luck to consistently target the same 10-foot square section of the hull to breach it... Have each broadside targetted at one of the components, and reduce the hp accordingly to the damage done and the type of shot (chained shots do well against rigging, but poorly against the hull). At certain threshold, reduce the efficiency of the ship. No component should be of the safe-until-destroyed kind. Simple damage should have an effect once certain threshold are reached. And damage should not be applied in the same way on each : some types of shots (chained, heated, double, etc) have varying efficiencies on different components. Rigging damage, first, should reduce speed, maneuverability, shiphandling, etc. The effects don't have to be proportional to the damage. For example, once rigging hp reach 75% of their hp, speed is reduced to approximately 80% of the base speed ; once at 50% damage, speed is reduced to 50% of base speed ; once under 25%, speed is brought to 5ft with no adjustment for the strength of the wind. Hull damage should bring reduced speed & maneuvrability, penalties on seaworthiness and shiphandling, penalties on artillery attack rolls (listing decks and greater rolls). Broadsides targetted at the batteries of a ship would have the potential of bringing the firepower low. All battery components should be split in two at least, starboard and port ; moving a cannon from one side to the other is not a lightly-done operation, it requires calm seas and steady course (or even full stop), and doing it in the heat of the action might bring greater damage from runaway cannons or even capsize the ship. For the crew, you might want to have a way to heal the casualties : "deads" are not only the true deads, but also the woundeds unable to continue their duty, that might be put back on their feets with later healing. The easiest method I think off is to pool the hp of all crewmen (not officers or the like, simply rank-and-file), apply all damage to that pool, and determine the exact casualties after the action. Many slightly wounded crewmen would still be able to work, albeit at a reduced efficiency. When the crew is hit, look at the inflicted damage as a damage on the whole component (you'll have to determine the multiplier of dice-changer of the damage of cannons), divide it by two, then compare to the average hp of the crewmen : it gives you the number of disabled crewmen. So, basically half the damage is applied to light wounds. You might change that when the crew-pool is running low, since woundeds are wounded a second or third times and finally disabled. All the disabled will have to pass a check (either individually or, better, as groups or a whole) after the fight to determine how many survive to their heavy wounds ; the availability of healers, both mundane and magical, is a great factor here. Remember that healing is capped by the individual hp of crewmen : if the average hp is 4, and your mass cure light wounds would heal ten crewmen of 1d8+10hp, you're only healing 40 hp of the crewpool (10*4hp - or even 10*3hp if not disabled is healed). For mundane healers, their role is mostly to give first aid and long-term care, so they should only modify the survivability rolls, not bring actual healing. Moreover, every broadside targetting another component should damage the crew component, but less than shots taken specifically at it. Well, I've got carried over. Let's see if you're interested, Caelic.:)
Lawkeeper 06-28-07, 06:28 AM	With all due respect, no they don't either seperately or in total. I won't answer to eveyrthing, and I will only answer once, for you're showing particular lack of thought on this and bad comprehension of D&D's demographics. Several things wrong with this argument: 1. In a DnD world, most of the arcane spellcasters would over time be nobles either by elevation (which happened more commonly than people think in modern times) or by birth or both. Consider that in DnD, the ability to use magic isn't an arcane gift (although it can be), but rather is an ability that can be learned but such learning requires years of time and thus relative wealth. Who would become wizards? The same people who became Bishops and Cardinals IRL.....second and third sons of nobility. Wrong. Nothing in D&D system makes any heritability. A son of an aristocrat is as likely to become a wizard as a son of a commoner is - that is, only a handful in each generation. Only a minority of the nobles would be arcanists, and there would be plenty of non-noble arcanists. There is a Gift to look for. This Gift for magic comes in the form of abilities : Intelligence and Charisma. An NPC has greater odds of having an average array of scores (10s and 11s) than he is to get even an NPC's array (13, 12, down to 8, 7 - I don't remember the specifics), and much less of having an elite array. Elite arrays represent the PC-classed NPCs, and they're not numerous (look at the demographics in DMG). So, nobles are in no way more easily arcanists. And no, you can't simply teach anybody to cast spells : first, every NPC starts with a class (so he'd get XP to gain a level), and second his Int/Cha will make your endeavour useless for he won't be able to cast even 2nd-lvl spells. 2. A noble that arms peasentry is running a greater risk than one that ticks off his wizard (who is more than likely a noble himself). The revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries were a direct political consequence of putting lots of effective weapons into the hands of the peasentry and thus diluting (and ultimately eliminating) the noble class'es monopoly on power. Need an example? Oliver Cromwell. Wow, absolute wrong knowledge of those events.:rolleyes: Guns & cannons brought low the nobles, yes, but in favor of the kings, not of the peasants. The peasants are not gonna do anything with the cannon if they can't get enough gunpowder - having them trained in the handling but the powder kept in secure places is much easier done than keeping a wizard from his own assets. Stone to Mud. Golems, Flying Creatures. Fixed Fortifications in a world with DnD magic is a nightmare at best. Also putting weapons in the hands of your peasents is a disaster waiting to happen and most canny nobles knew it. At least wizards would be one of your own (i.e. fellow nobles). Stone to Mud : natural, uncut or unworked stone. Doesn't work on walls. And it's a 5th-lvl spell. Golems : costly, much more than a battery of cannons. Flying creatures : you have to retain them. Etc. Fixed fortifications in a D&D world are useless only in front of a couple of situations. But the vast majority of the world doesn't have those assets, and against them they're really much effective. To compare, look at modern-day alarm systems. Good burglars have no problem bypassing them, thieves run with stolen cars, but alarm systems are still used and placed, more and more. Locks are still crafted in the doors, despite the fact that very few burglars effectively open the lock : instead, they cut a hole in or break a window. The goal of a lock or an alarm system is to deter most of the thieves, that is most of the less-effective thieves. Same goes for fortifications in D&D. Low-level creatures are still hampered by city walls ; an ECL5 creature is truly exceptional, and that's where city walls tend to become useless (either a big climb skill, fly spells, tanking through the gate despite the 20 on-duty 1st-lvl warriors, etc). But the horde of orcs is kept outside ; the raiding parties of hobgoblins are kept outside. Besides, again fortifications may be magically enhanced : it is not a strong or/either here, just a question of best synergies. Moreover, buying an enchantment for a fortification or a cannon is safer than retaining a wizard : you pay the cost of buying it, but it won't turn against you like the wizard could. All this means is that the arcane/casting classes would be concentrated in the noble classes and in the large towns with charters. All the more reason why nobility would appeal to wizards and make them more (rather than less) reliable. Also the numbers go up markedly when one goes above the range of large towns, and those same wizards can keep the peace by overwhelming the smaller ones even in small numbers. Once more, you consider the arcanists decide to uniformly uphold the status quo. Considering the fact that these are individual people with probably an over-inflated ego, it's very doubtful that this is what would happen. A concentration of power ideally suited for the preservation of a Feudal Realm. Also remember that said wizards can be used/hired to train others. Look above. Training is not everything. You can't simply mess with the demographics because you decided to train some people. Getting into a PC-class requires good abilities, first, and also the adequate mindset. PC-classes represent the elite portion of the world, those that are willing to take risks to achieve greater goals. In fact, most of the backgrounds suppose that they have already taken some risks to develop their particular abilities. NPC-classes exist solely because only a handful of elite characters are able to enter any PC-class. Why commoners ? Why experts when they could be rogues ? Why warriors instead of fighters/rangers/paladins/barbarians ? Why adepts instead of full spellcasters ? One answer : because 95% of the population is unable/unwilling to enter a PC-class. Which is enough considering the relative power of said casters...especially when said casters can take the leadership feat which greatly increases the numbers. Leadership lets you call followers and a cohort - not adding them to the demographics. I also find particularly stupid the fact that followers aren't limited to NPC-classes anymore. This is plain stupid : why would people that represent the elite be willing to fall in a backstage role ? You don't need many. One or two would be enough. Yep, thank you for proving my point. "One or two". Exceptions. Not every ship, not every army is gonna have good spellcasters - this means that you have to find other weapons to bring down the castle's walls or devastate the pirate ship's deck. Exceptions also mean that each of them has to be carefully handled, else they simply refuse to work for you (same way that PCs don't only have to find a proper spellcaster, but also to convince him to cast his spell for them). Exceptional people have their own agendas and aren't at the whim of any and all potential employer. Populations were sparse because transportation was difficult and conditions were diseased and dirty which meant population growth wasn't great either. All these are either mitigated or eliminated by "royal" magic (teleport, cure disease, purify water) and many of said conditions can be mitigated by a humble first level cleric. In addition to that, sparse populations make it even easier to controll by a handful of arcane casters who by disposition are more likely to support (and BE) the ruling class. No : populations were sparse because going away was a risk. People would leave their home only if their odds of living a better life were much greater and if it wasn't suitable for them to stay there. An already powerful mage would have few incentive to go seek fortune across the ocean when all he has to do is stay at home and be as much considered. A mage would only cross the ocean if he had an opportunity to gain something that he wouldn't get by staying in Europe - and serving as a living artillery-for-hire isn't such an opportunity. One fireball will set the sails of a Man-o-war abaze. It took until the last part of the 18th century for true incendary shells to be developed (thus signaling the end of the wooden warship). DnD wizards START with this ability. True, I always forget that fireballs now start fires. Which is downright stupid given the instantaneity of the fire. WotC seems fully ignorant of even basic physics.:rolleyes: Don't you wonder why it was so hard to put ships ablaze ? Don't you wonder why it took so late to manage that (false, in fact : greek fire was just lost at the fall of Byzantium, and it was a damn' efficient way of putting a ship on fire) ? Do you remember that we're discussing ships ? Ships, mind you, stand on the seas, on huge expanses of water. They're literrally soaked with water. Their rigging and wooden hull are soaked by the ever spray. An instantaneous fire like fireball would not put a ship afire, unless the DM is ruling such stupid things as to contradict logic and common sense. He might as well say that every city has an aerial adult dragon-mounted squadron of paladins. Or I can summon creatures inside the fixed fortifications or I can FLY and use damaging spells within the walls (effectively making them armor piercing), or I can D-Door troops past the fortifications. DnD magic turns midaeval fortifications into junk and it doesn't take many wizards to do it. Heck even one and a bunch of apprenti and mooks with UMD does wonders. The ability to FLY ALONE makes the wizard the king of the battlefield (and completely changes the paradigm of pre-modern warfare). Most of the spells you mention only matter for a couple of individuals. You won't get a regiment to fly above or dimension-door through the walls. Look at my above statement in regard to modern-day burglary : the truly elite is gonna pass, not the basic soldier. Summon monsters is a bad example, in fact. Any summon monster spell summons monsters whose CR is, at the very beast, slightly above its spell level. Summon monster IX summons CR 10-12 creatures at best - yet requires 17th-lvl caster at least. Summon mosnter IV, available to 7th-lvl wizards & clerics, calls CR 3 or less creatures. Not only are the mosnters summoned rather weak compared to the ECL of the caster, but also the spells aren't long-lasting : a few rounds later, the monsters are gone, whether in one piece or in small bits. Ability to fly ? In a metropolis, one of the biggest kind of city, the ability to fly through a fly spell is limited to 24 arcanists. 24, in a settlement of above 25.000 inhabitants, not including neighboring communities. And again, would a spellcaster-for-hire take the risk of flying above the walls and in the city, being at the mercy of archers or a simple dispel ? Like I've said above, magic is in the defense as much as in the defense. If sieging armies have wizards, the besieged city has wizards too - no double-standards there. A wizard who takes to the clouds above a city is reckless. If his spell is dispelled, he's plummeting in the midst of enemies. Compare this to modern-day aerial warfare, or the WWII's Battle of Britain for example. Airfights were conducted above the british isles - crashing german pilots that survived were captured, but crashing british pilots were rescued and sent back to their squadron with a new airplane. Flying over enemy territory has always been a risk, and is a major factor in aborting missions. Two Words: Magical Fire. This was the greatest fear on a wooden man-o-war and eventually why (penetrating incinderary shells) they were abandoned. Nope : they were abandonned because shots were penetrating wooden hulls and were explosive. They were abandonned because the weapons became too powerful and plating was needed. Stinking Cloud. Cloudkill for a really high level wizard, but stinking cloud by itself will likely disable a ship. Eh, only for a round : the ship will move past faster, and exit the cloud. Cloudkill is a much higher-level spell, and so much rarer. I'm not underestimating a broadside. I've read Forrester. However, Forrester also says that fires of any sort are deadly. You aim a fireball at the sails and even the weakest fireball is almost assured of disabling even the largest galleon....and certainly the crew would be hardpressed to fight on becalmed. Without sails, the ship would likely be forced to surrender. As I pointed out in earlier posts, all these defenses against magic require magic which doesn't help your case. If you are going to have a ship's wizard to protect against magic, you may as well use him offensively as well since you are paying the cost regardless. Russian roulette. You're basically hoping that your damage will outdo the enemy's damage. But in the end, even the survivor is in a bad shape. This is even truer with magic, since once the enemy ship is disabled, you might still have to face the enemy mage. What good is it for the master of the ship if his hireling mage has sunk the pirate but not before his ship is sent to the bottom ? Hired spellcasters are mainly defensive and utily, not offensive, tools. Now, I have answered once, and won't continue with you. The OP expressed that his world is gonna have cannons whatever, and that's the way to continue this thread.
Caelic 06-28-07, 10:59 AM	If your players want cannons, I bet they want some details too, and don't want everything to be abstract. What follows are some basic ideas that could be further refined - I'm at your disposition to help you further develop it, for I'm interested in the subject too. I don't know what's in D20 Past, so maybe they have a better system - I might have to look at it if I manage to find it. Agreed. I'll want to take a peek at it; I may not use everything there, but I'll probably find at least some ideas I want to pilfer. :) First, battery fire. Put your individual cannons in groups of 5, 10 or whole battery for the "attack roll". Maybe give a bonus to the roll of +1 or +2 for every 5 cannons, to represent the easiest time in hitting the enemy when you have many cannons firing. This is probably the route I'm going to take; it's easier than determining hits for each and every cannon, and makes it easier to determine when a section is holed than treating the damage as an undifferentiated mass. Many modifier can apply beyond what I mentionned. The state of the sea is a big penalty, especially at long range : for example, have the penalty for range increments doubled, tripled or more the stormier the sea is. Oh, certainly; as a rule of thumb, a cannon's level range is only one-tenth that of its maximum range. In choppy seas, you're going to get very few "skipping shots." Range should decrease the damage of cannons, due to the lower final velocity of the shots at greater ranges, beyond the penalty for the attack rolls and the spread. I'm not decided whether I want to include carronade or not; in the real world, they were a more recent development, but with magic, who knows? Second, technical differences. Feel entirely free to develop new stats for cannons. The Stormwrack sourcebook depicts late-medieval bombards, which were rather crude. By the second half of the XVIIth century, cannons were more powerful, farther reaching, more secure and more varied. Way ahead of ya. :) There'll be some level of abstraction, though; I'm going to group cannon by weight of shot. Thus, your demi-cannon will fall into the category of heavy cannon; culverin and demi-culverin will fall into the category of medium cannon; saker and minion will likely fall into the category of light cannon. Falconets will likely be distinct, as they were used more as anti-personnel weapons than full cannon. Do the same for the statistics of the ships. The one thing that matters is comparison to other ships. A frigate should be faster than a ship-of-the-line and less sturdy & lighter-armed, but less maneuverable and more powerful than a bermuda-rigged sloop. Way, WAY ahead of ya here. ;) Got the ships all statted out; the greatship provided the baseline for a war galleon or (slightly tweaked) a third-rate ship of the line. Ran down the line from there to frigates, brigs, sloops-of-war, and assorted and sundry other ship types. Numerous modifications then come into play; for instance, thousands of years of selective (and magic-enhanced) breeding by the Druids and later traditions in Britain have left English oak far stronger and more resilient than other types; thus, ships built of said oak have a higher hardness and seaworthiness. The sailplan is important, not only for speed, but for the points of sail as well : one sailplan is gonna reach a close haul with a little loss of speed, while another's base might be faster but unable to come at a close reach. To represent that, have a set of multipliers that apply on the speed depending on the heading relative to the wind, with different sailplans having different modifiers. I'm probably going to shy away from this level of detail. I like taking prevailing winds and rigging into account; two of my players would enjoy this level of detail; the rest just want to get in there, cutlasses a-flashing. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance between the cinematic and realistic; something that will leave all of my players happy, from those who favor "Pirates of the Caribbean" to those who have read the entire "Master and Commander" series seventeen times. Well, I've got carried over. Let's see if you're interested, Caelic.:) Most definitely!
Lawkeeper 06-28-07, 11:51 AM	I'm not decided whether I want to include carronade or not; in the real world, they were a more recent development, but with magic, who knows? Indeed, carronades are later development. I wouldn't make it already developped, but it could be the subject of an adventure (a pirate just invented it and is causing ravages). Way ahead of ya. :) There'll be some level of abstraction, though; I'm going to group cannon by weight of shot. Thus, your demi-cannon will fall into the category of heavy cannon; culverin and demi-culverin will fall into the category of medium cannon; saker and minion will likely fall into the category of light cannon. Falconets will likely be distinct, as they were used more as anti-personnel weapons than full cannon. Falconets could be super-heavy muskets. Way, WAY ahead of ya here. ;) Got the ships all statted out; the greatship provided the baseline for a war galleon or (slightly tweaked) a third-rate ship of the line. Ran down the line from there to frigates, brigs, sloops-of-war, and assorted and sundry other ship types. Numerous modifications then come into play; for instance, thousands of years of selective (and magic-enhanced) breeding by the Druids and later traditions in Britain have left English oak far stronger and more resilient than other types; thus, ships built of said oak have a higher hardness and seaworthiness. Well, you're really way ahead then. Would you mind if I asked to take a look at your stats for the ships ? I'm probably going to shy away from this level of detail. I like taking prevailing winds and rigging into account; two of my players would enjoy this level of detail; the rest just want to get in there, cutlasses a-flashing. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance between the cinematic and realistic; something that will leave all of my players happy, from those who favor "Pirates of the Caribbean" to those who have read the entire "Master and Commander" series seventeen times. In these conditions, taking sailplans into account might be too much, unless only those players really interested in it are going to run the ship.
Caelic 06-28-07, 02:12 PM	Well, you're really way ahead then. Would you mind if I asked to take a look at your stats for the ships ? Not at all! Once I get them transferred from my nearly-illegible binder full of notes to a nice, neat, typed format, I was planning on posting them for feedback.
Polaris 06-28-07, 02:20 PM	I won't answer to eveyrthing, and I will only answer once, for you're showing particular lack of thought on this and bad comprehension of D&D's demographics. Given this rather insulting answer, you realize I am going to have to debunk you once again. Wrong. Nothing in D&D system makes any heritability. A son of an aristocrat is as likely to become a wizard as a son of a commoner is - that is, only a handful in each generation. Only a minority of the nobles would be arcanists, and there would be plenty of non-noble arcanists. There is a Gift to look for. This Gift for magic comes in the form of abilities : Intelligence and Charisma. An NPC has greater odds of having an average array of scores (10s and 11s) than he is to get even an NPC's array (13, 12, down to 8, 7 - I don't remember the specifics), and much less of having an elite array. Elite arrays represent the PC-classed NPCs, and they're not numerous (look at the demographics in DMG). So, nobles are in no way more easily arcanists. And no, you can't simply teach anybody to cast spells : first, every NPC starts with a class (so he'd get XP to gain a level), and second his Int/Cha will make your endeavour useless for he won't be able to cast even 2nd-lvl spells. Wrong and way to miss the point. In the first place, sorcerers do have an inborn talent that is inherited at least in the flavor text of the class. As for wizards (and clerics), there is nothing in the classes that says that they are restricted, and the fundamental keystone is that ANYONE can learn arcane wizard magic if they are smart enough and have enough leisure time to do so. It's the later part that's key. Also remember that a wizard capable of gaining full power only needs to start with an Int of 14 (although 15 is better). That's 90%ile which gives a large available pool. Who became bishops and other high ranking clerics in the church? NOBLES. As a result the church tended to favor the nobles very strongly if not uniformally. Why was clergy dominated by nobles? Becaue the nobility could afford to spend the leisure studying the bible and other theological works instead of earning a living elsewhere! Consider the scholastic universities. Which class did students invariably come from? NOBLES. Same reason. Given that it takes years of schooling to become a wizard, which class would generate wizards? That's right....nobles....and ennobling likely commers happened more often than is given credit for even during the middle ages. Net result: You'd see a concentration of magical power in the noble classes not because of genetics but because of politics and economics. It's you that hasn't thought this through. Wow, absolute wrong knowledge of those events.:rolleyes: Guns & cannons brought low the nobles, yes, but in favor of the kings, not of the peasants. The peasants are not gonna do anything with the cannon if they can't get enough gunpowder - having them trained in the handling but the powder kept in secure places is much easier done than keeping a wizard from his own assets. Actually ulimately in favor of the peasents. You are right that Kings were the first to concentrate the power into their own person into the form of absolute monarchies (King Louis XIV, the Sun King being the archetype), but ultimately the power rested with the peasantry...as I am sure King Charles I would agree (at least the 5'2" post beheading would). Stone to Mud : natural, uncut or unworked stone. Doesn't work on walls. Doesn't have to. Undermining castle walls worked wonders IRL. And it's a 5th-lvl spell. Don't have to know it to cast it from a scroll (for example). Golems : costly, much more than a battery of cannons. More effective too given that pretty much nothing will be able to hurt it. Flying creatures : you have to retain them. Etc. Why is that insurrmountable. Giffins and Hippogryphs aren't that expensive. Elite? Certainly...but no more than Pilots in modern war. Fixed fortifications in a D&D world are useless only in front of a couple of situations. But the vast majority of the world doesn't have those assets, and against them they're really much effective. This has been talked about since the 1980s. The general concensus is that in a DnD world, manor houses would be more effective than true castles given the state of magic. Of course because of flavor that's often ignored, but shouldn't be forgotten. To compare, look at modern-day alarm systems. Good burglars have no problem bypassing them, thieves run with stolen cars, but alarm systems are still used and placed, more and more. Locks are still crafted in the doors, despite the fact that very few burglars effectively open the lock : instead, they cut a hole in or break a window. The goal of a lock or an alarm system is to deter most of the thieves, that is most of the less-effective thieves. Same goes for fortifications in D&D. Low-level creatures are still hampered by city walls ; an ECL5 creature is truly exceptional, and that's where city walls tend to become useless (either a big climb skill, fly spells, tanking through the gate despite the 20 on-duty 1st-lvl warriors, etc). But the horde of orcs is kept outside ; the raiding parties of hobgoblins are kept outside. There is a big difference between a car (or house) and a castle. Given the importance of castles, it's worth it to bring an expert to crack it especially since in the late middle-ages/early rennaissance warfare was often a series of seiges. Cars and houses are common enough, that 'good enough' is good enough. I can assure you that BANKS and Government facilities have a different take than you do on this. In fact I know they do and I will leave it at that. Besides, again fortifications may be magically enhanced : it is not a strong or/either here, just a question of best synergies. Moreover, buying an enchantment for a fortification or a cannon is safer than retaining a wizard : you pay the cost of buying it, but it won't turn against you like the wizard could. Cannon can and eventually did turn against the noble class first by kings (who wanted all the power) and later by the soldiers themselves. As for buying enchantments and the like, just get the wizard. At this point you have undermined yourself. Once more, you consider the arcanists decide to uniformly uphold the status quo. Considering the fact that these are individual people with probably an over-inflated ego, it's very doubtful that this is what would happen. Who said uniformally. What I said and still say is that wizards will for the most part be nobles themselves and thus will act in their own best interests which is a safe thing to assume for most people. Will that stop an individual wizard from rebelling against an individual lord (assuming they aren't one and the same)? Certainly not. It will insure that as a class, wizards will uphold or tend to uphold the status quo because of their position in it (same as the church did). Look above. Training is not everything. You can't simply mess with the demographics because you decided to train some people. Let's talk about the effect of the cantrip, purify water on populations. Historically, yes, medaeval/rennaissance populations were low. Sanitation makes a huge difference....and people knew that bad sanitation drew disease long before they knew about germs. Once you have a population explosion (or even a much higher total population), means you have more wizards. Furthermore said wizards will be concentrated in the noble classes. Getting into a PC-class requires good abilities, first, and also the adequate mindset. PC-classes represent the elite portion of the world, those that are willing to take risks to achieve greater goals. In fact, most of the backgrounds suppose that they have already taken some risks to develop their particular abilities. There is nothing about the PC wizard class that says that anyone that is given training can't take the class. Period. Look for it; you won't find it. There is such language in the flavor text for sorcerer, paladin, and (arguably) cleric, but not wizard. NPC-classes exist solely because only a handful of elite characters are able to enter any PC-class. Why commoners ? Why experts when they could be rogues ? Why warriors instead of fighters/rangers/paladins/barbarians ? Why adepts instead of full spellcasters ? One answer : because 95% of the population is unable/unwilling to enter a PC-class. No. Why Adepts? It was to give the DM access to a slightly inferior casting class so not to overshadow PCs. No real justication is given. It's a game mechanical decision. However, it's worth pointing out that most of what I said about wizards can also be applied to adepts if permitted in th game at all. Leadership lets you call followers and a cohort - not adding them to the demographics. I also find particularly stupid the fact that followers aren't limited to NPC-classes anymore. This is plain stupid : why would people that represent the elite be willing to fall in a backstage role ? The rules are silent on this and just because you think it's "stupid" doesn't change the DnD rules as written. Follows and Cohorts can be PC classes AND there is no reason why a leading wizard in a metropolis couldn't have the leadership feat....and indeed given his political pull in such a city SHOULD have the leadership feat. Yep, thank you for proving my point. "One or two". Exceptions. Not every ship, not every army is gonna have good spellcasters - this means that you have to find other weapons to bring down the castle's walls or devastate the pirate ship's deck. Exceptions also mean that each of them has to be carefully handled, else they simply refuse to work for you (same way that PCs don't only have to find a proper spellcaster, but also to convince him to cast his spell for them). Exceptional people have their own agendas and aren't at the whim of any and all potential employer. Including nobles. The best way nobles insure the loyalty of such people is by making them nobles and especially by forging blood ties. The classic story of the hero marrying the king's daughter is a myth based on fact. No : populations were sparse because going away was a risk. People would leave their home only if their odds of living a better life were much greater and if it wasn't suitable for them to stay there. An already powerful mage would have few incentive to go seek fortune across the ocean when all he has to do is stay at home and be as much considered. A mage would only cross the ocean if he had an opportunity to gain something that he wouldn't get by staying in Europe - and serving as a living artillery-for-hire isn't such an opportunity. The mage would certainly be able to send others far easier and faster than it would be to ship. With the existance of flying creatures as well, much of the transportation issues are mitigated. Also consider that wizards of any sort would be looking for new magics and new materials for projects and the like. Not all would actively go seek them, but a lot would, and wizards being human, a number could be bought...and not just with money but grants of land. True, I always forget that fireballs now start fires. Which is downright stupid given the instantaneity of the fire. WotC seems fully ignorant of even basic physics.:rolleyes: Read the rules then. Don't you wonder why it was so hard to put ships ablaze ? Don't you wonder why it took so late to manage that (false, in fact : greek fire was just lost at the fall of Byzantium, and it was a damn' efficient way of putting a ship on fire) ? Do you remember that we're discussing ships ? Ships, mind you, stand on the seas, on huge expanses of water. They're literrally soaked with water. Their rigging and wooden hull are soaked by the ever spray. An instantaneous fire like fireball would not put a ship afire, unless the DM is ruling such stupid things as to contradict logic and common sense. He might as well say that every city has an aerial adult dragon-mounted squadron of paladins. Sails were usually flammable. Admittedly canvas isn't the easiest thing to set ablaze, but it can be done and WAS done even with burning arrows which do a lot less fire damage than any magic. Most of the spells you mention only matter for a couple of individuals. You won't get a regiment to fly above or dimension-door through the walls. Look at my above statement in regard to modern-day burglary : the truly elite is gonna pass, not the basic soldier. You don't have to get more than a squad across as long as it's the right squad in the right area. This particular scenario was the nightmare scenario for a besieged castle even without magic. Summon monsters is a bad example, in fact. Any summon monster spell summons monsters whose CR is, at the very beast, slightly above its spell level. Summon monster IX summons CR 10-12 creatures at best - yet requires 17th-lvl caster at least. Summon mosnter IV, available to 7th-lvl wizards & clerics, calls CR 3 or less creatures. Not only are the mosnters summoned rather weak compared to the ECL of the caster, but also the spells aren't long-lasting : a few rounds later, the monsters are gone, whether in one piece or in small bits. Actually it's not. For adventuring summon is indeed a rather crappy spell, but against rank-and-file garrison troops (first level at best), summon can be a nightmare for the defender especially if the summon is timed and placed just when another section of wall is being attacked....or when a party has been ported through. Ability to fly ? In a metropolis, one of the biggest kind of city, the ability to fly through a fly spell is limited to 24 arcanists. 24, in a settlement of above 25.000 inhabitants, not including neighboring communities. And again, would a spellcaster-for-hire take the risk of flying above the walls and in the city, being at the mercy of archers or a simple dispel ? Like I've said above, magic is in the defense as much as in the defense. If sieging armies have wizards, the besieged city has wizards too - no double-standards there. A wizard who takes to the clouds above a city is reckless. If his spell is dispelled, he's plummeting in the midst of enemies. Compare this to modern-day aerial warfare, or the WWII's Battle of Britain for example. Airfights were conducted above the british isles - crashing german pilots that survived were captured, but crashing british pilots were rescued and sent back to their squadron with a new airplane. Flying over enemy territory has always been a risk, and is a major factor in aborting missions. Flying wizards are basically immune from non-magical artillery and ranged weapons because of Prot N. Missiles and Wind-Wall. See Char-Op. In this situation and given the disparity of ranges AND the fact that BP weapons don't arc enough, flying is very low-risk. Nope : they were abandonned because shots were penetrating wooden hulls and were explosive. They were abandonned because the weapons became too powerful and plating was needed. Explosive incinderiary shells....just as I said. Read the accounts of the Moniter vs the Merrimac (or CSS Virginia). Wizards START with the ability to penetrate (OK by pass) the hull and set the ship ablaze amoung other things. Eh, only for a round : the ship will move past faster, and exit the cloud. Cloudkill is a much higher-level spell, and so much rarer. You assume the ship would. The effect would last d4+1 rounds even after leaving the cloud basically incapaciting the crew at least for a critical juncture. Oh...and that leads to two spells that I forgot. Control Weather and Control Winds both of which will pretty much instantly win the battle for you in the "Age of Sail" without an enemy wizard to counter. Russian roulette. You're basically hoping that your damage will outdo the enemy's damage. But in the end, even the survivor is in a bad shape. This is even truer with magic, since once the enemy ship is disabled, you might still have to face the enemy mage. What good is it for the master of the ship if his hireling mage has sunk the pirate but not before his ship is sent to the bottom ? Hired spellcasters are mainly defensive and utily, not offensive, tools. This was different than IRL how? Even surviving ships during the 17th-19th century were often barely seaworthy themselves if at all. That's WHY a ships tended to agree to surrender when disabled. Otherwise the victor who often wasn't in good shape would either abandon the crippled ship or let it burn to the waterline (dooming the losing ship either way). Now, I have answered once, and won't continue with you. The OP expressed that his world is gonna have cannons whatever, and that's the way to continue this thread. I am sorry to continue this but you are still being shortsighted. However, I think some of the points I have raised (esp weather spells) need to be considered even given the world the OP wishes to have. Also the changes even minor magics (create food and water, purify water) should be considered especially in a place like the Carribean where it was often so hard to find good, disease-free water. -Polaris
Caelic 06-28-07, 02:49 PM	I am sorry to continue this but you are still being shortsighted. However, I think some of the points I have raised (esp weather spells) need to be considered even given the world the OP wishes to have. Also the changes even minor magics (create food and water, purify water) should be considered especially in a place like the Carribean where it was often so hard to find good, disease-free water. Considered, noted, and already taken into account, Polaris; as I mentioned, those vessels that can afford the luxury of a spellcaster will almost invariably focus on these issues. European populations in the Caribbean are somewhat higher because of better water supply and magical means of controlling disease. On the other hand, they're also subject to native attacks. The Aztecs did not lie down for Cortez, and they had considerable magical resources of their own. A bitter war still rages on the continent. Explosive incinderiary shells....just as I said. Read the accounts of the Moniter vs the Merrimac (or CSS Virginia). Wizards START with the ability to penetrate (OK by pass) the hull and set the ship ablaze amoung other things. One thing I think you're glossing over is that military technologies (and we're treating magic as a technology here) tend to nullify themselves. The metallurgy that allowed the development of incendiary shells also allowed the development of ironclads (and provided the impetus to develop them.) Radar technology led to ECM technology, which led to ECCM technology, and so on and so forth. In a world where magic is a major offensive force, defenses will be developed. It didn't take long for ironclads to be developed once the need for them existed; magic as an offensive weapon has existed in this world for thousands of years. Consequently, spells designed to ward a ship against fire are (relatively) commonplace and inexpensive.
Lawkeeper 06-28-07, 03:47 PM	Not at all! Once I get them transferred from my nearly-illegible binder full of notes to a nice, neat, typed format, I was planning on posting them for feedback. Thank you. I've taken a look at the D20 Past by the way. Some things are interesting, there're some 25 pages on the Age of Adventure (your time period) with a 1667 map of the Carribeans and short rules for ship combat, but on the whole nothing more. Stormwrack is IMO way better. The statistics for ships are too simplistic too, albeit their firearms department (except cannons) is pretty well furbished. @Polaris : don't exhaust yourself, I've warned you I wouldn't answer anymore. Consequently, I didn't even read your post.
keyunp 06-28-07, 05:01 PM	Not at all! Once I get them transferred from my nearly-illegible binder full of notes to a nice, neat, typed format, I was planning on posting them for feedback. I'd be intersted in looking at that as well. If your still looking for a rational for developing cannons with magic around, then I've got an idea. Say that whoever came up with the idea for cannons had a mage brother and a simple spell was created that's used during the creation process to enable the cannon to not blow up. This would also explain why that cannons are not more common.