Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Han Duo 05-08-06, 09:19 AM	I DM a group that has recently made their way to the city of Trailsend (in Damara, to the north of Faerun). In the description of Trailsend (FRCS) it says that the city has a huge fortress. However it doesn't say anywhere if it has city walls (it also never says that it hasn't got them though). I didn't give it any thought when I wrote the adventure for that particular evening, and simply replied when my players asked: no, it doesn't have walls but it does have a huge castle. My players immediately became suspicious, and began debating whether it is possible for a city to exist with such a huge castle, but without city walls. So, what do you say? Did I make a "faux pas" in assuming that Trailsend has no city walls, or is such a thing perfectly justified? I would especially like an historical point of view, or references to DnD novels and/or supplements that describe such a thing.
nghtsngr 05-08-06, 09:37 AM	I don't know the city you're refering to, but historicaly speaking, absolutly. Cities are not fixed things. They fluxuate with time, as population increases and decreases. If a city is prospering, the population may boom, and quickly fill up any available space inside the city walls. This results in the lower classes building immediately outside the walls. As the city grows further new structures are added to the outskirts leading to a sprawling metropolis. Sometimes new walls are built around the expanded city, which is why you can find several rings of walls in the older cities in Europe (if the walls are still standing that is). However, it can be argued that walls are specifically usefull against terrestial raiders, and with the prevelence of magic in DnD and FR in particular, walls aren't a significant obsticle. Just some thoughts.
Whim 05-08-06, 09:39 AM	I don't know about that particular city, but there's nothing that says a city with a castle MUST have walls around it. I mean, yeah, it's very likely that it would, but if the people who built it decided not to build a wall, then, no, there's not a wall. It's not a hard concept to grasp...hehe.
Arganis 05-08-06, 09:47 AM	I think Nghtsngr touches on a good point. The existence of walls (or lack thereof) is directly related to the kind of enemy Trailsend would face. The type and power of these enemies determines the financial priority of such protection. If the fortress is so big and cool, the city's inhabitants are probably just escorted inside during attack.
Pandaemoni 05-08-06, 09:51 AM	Many cities and towns grew up around, but outside, the walls of a local lord's castle. In others, city walls were built, but expansions of the population required expansion into the surrounding areas (though the population might retreat within the walls temporarily in the event of an attack).
Pegasos989 05-08-06, 10:06 AM	in here, scandinavia, the smaller coastal cities all looked the same. A hill that has a wooden fort (easy to defend) on it and a small city which is built under the hill. When vikings attacked people retreated to the fort. It is much harder to defend wide city walls than gather one big group to fortress, especially if the city was not very rich the time that fortress was built (and building it must have took a long time). Also, like some already said, it might have been that city grew up so fast around the fort, that there was no point in which they could have built the walls as some would always be built just outside the walls. And from finnish fortresses... Turun linna (Castle of Turku) and Suomenlinna (Castle of finland or something propably) are bold built in a big city (though suomenlinna is a coastal fort just outside the city, actually) and neither city has citywalls. I would say that it was common to build fort without city walls and the reason why many people are suspicious of it is that many american medieval movies show practically every city as if it had great citywalls.
Ankalagon 05-08-06, 10:29 AM	Don't mean to pee in your pot but a huge fortress without walls is just a big vulnerable house or a huge 'ress (lacking in fort). That doesn't mean it's not possible. Does it describe it as having a central citadel? If it doesn't then you can always get away with it as typically the citadel was the walled, fortified and central fall back point. It's absence could mean no walls. In truth though walls are a must. Possibly two or even three (outer and inner). Also without walls import and export tax was difficult to control and regulations were difficult to enforce. Then there are issues like peace bonding weapons or confiscation etc
Cifer 05-08-06, 10:48 AM	Don't mean to pee in your pot but a huge fortress without walls is just a big vulnerable house or a huge 'ress (lacking in fort). That doesn't mean it's not possible. Does it describe it as having a central citadel? If it doesn't then you can always get away with it as typically the citadel was the walled, fortified and central fall back point. It's absence could mean no walls. In truth though walls are a must. Possibly two or even three (outer and inner). Also without walls import and export tax was difficult to control and regulations were difficult to enforce. Then there are issues like peace bonding weapons or confiscation etc I believe we have a misunderstanding here: The fortress itself of course has walls, they just don't encompass the whole town, which sounds quite reasonable to me, although not really common. If, say, the town was mainly attacked by harpies, what would you prefer: A single fortification into which the populace could flee in case of any defender except harpies and some freestanding towers in order to cover archers or a big wall which would hold off relatively few attackers while most of them simply fly over it? Pegasos already mentioned another valid case.
Arganis 05-08-06, 10:51 AM	Don't mean to pee in your pot but a huge fortress without walls is just a big vulnerable house or a huge 'ress (lacking in fort). Surely the fortress itself has some kind of "inner yard" that allows the exterior to qualify as "wall" that only protects the fortress itself. I don't know that I agree with you anyway. A fortress without walls is a floating roof. Meanwhile, if the walls of a free-standing citadel are as strong as a surrounding wall might be, there's no reason that it is not as easily defensible as a traditional castle. The whole multiple-wall thing is only necessary if one wall isn't regularly enough. A monolithic fortress that is hardened against seige (magical and mundane) could incorporate fallback points and choke points into its interior floorplan. In truth though walls are a must. Possibly two or even three (outer and inner). Also without walls import and export tax was difficult to control and regulations were difficult to enforce. Then there are issues like peace bonding weapons or confiscation etc For protecting and controlling a city, I agree. On a side note, don't we have any FR GMs that have used Trailsend in the past? Hell, does it have walls in that NWN game?
Gladi 05-08-06, 10:56 AM	Bright day Well in my country the difference between town and city was the wall. (At least most obvious) City had right to build walls, town not. City walls also appear in mythology as early as Epic of Gilgamesh. As you play FR some FR info- in the book on Calimport (which is downloadable from this very site for free) it says it does not have any protective walls, and that it confuses all Northerners. Now Bloodstone Lands are not Savage North but it is dangerous county and just few years ago the baronies were in war.
Ankalagon 05-08-06, 11:24 AM	I believe we have a misunderstanding here: The fortress itself of course has walls, they just don't encompass the whole town, which sounds quite reasonable to me, although not really common. Oh, you're right missed that :embarrass If, say, the town was mainly attacked by harpies, what would you prefer: My preference is irrelevant as I am not the OP.
Zherog 05-08-06, 11:47 AM	In a D&D type world, walls around a city are generally useless. The ability to fly or burrow make getting around a wall ridiculously easy; the ability to chuck area of effect spells defeats the purpose of a wall; the ability to use spells such as passwall, dimension door, teleport, and so on to bypass a wall defeats the purpose of a wall. Thick, fortified walls served a purpose in medieval times. There were no dragons or hippogriffs or chimeras flying around. There weren't xorns or earth elementals around. There weren't wizards around. There were people with spears and swords and bows. Walls are pretty effective at slowing and even stopping those. :)
Oakspar77777 05-08-06, 11:50 AM	If you go back far enough, you will find that most houses had walls, and most houses were surrounded by fences (also walls). While these were primarely to keep livestock close, the walls of a house also protected livestock from predators. I know it seems odd to have a large one room house where the entire family, the mule, both cows, and eighteen sheep all live inside, but even bringing a singe cow into a house can go far to warming it up at night. Later on, cites often would buile pickets arround them (each house still having its own compound). The would keep predetors out of the entire city, and off some defecnce against raids. The first real cities with walls (as we would think of them), actually were little more than houses all built in a row. Even as late as the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the wall consisted of private residences built in a row. Economy of wall space (also, being right up against the wall helps protect from ranged weapons topping the walls. Medieval fortresses SELDOM envolved a walled city. Rather, the community would have a single fortress (castle, abby, etc) and several surrounding villages. The real threat was not raiders or monsters, but (1) enemy armies and (2) internal revolt. Enemy armies would move slow enough that you knew they were comming and could retreat to the castle. Internal revolts are easier to put down when they happen outside the fortress walls. NOW, in a D&D world, where raiders and monsters are frequent, it would make MUCH more sense for every village to be as defended as possible. Historically, that was never that necessary (and remember that even a simple pallisade takes hundreds of man-hours to build and must be constantly maintained as the wooden stakes rot, walls wash, moats fill, etc). Of course, in D&D, there are so many exceptions to the rules, that a city with no walls, but a retired group of adventurers could be better protected that a massive fortifided demi-state.
Han Duo 05-08-06, 12:14 PM	Thanks for all the feedback, it's really apreciated! The precise line in the text out of the FRCS (page 107) is: "This barony capital is built around a huge, heavily fortified castle." This is the only line that says anything about the city's defenses.
Honored_Clan 05-08-06, 04:33 PM	Barony = basically a "...self-governing social unit" as described by the historian Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie. They generally functioned as land held by a person or family in which they were administer the affairs of the land on behalf of the crown. The baronical castles were of a nature created to be secure against as many forms of attacks as is feasible and many barons built their castles to be secure even against the crown, if a time should arise. As to the description of your castle, it is what others have said. Basically a Castle surrounded by a city. Do not get confused by thinking this Castle does not have walls. It is not just a Keep. (It appears that there is some confusion on this.) Baronical castles do have walls and many buildings inside them. They functioned as the center of the local government, but the majority of the populace...usually 80% lived outside the castle. As to the Barony Land, it usually was marked by the Lord's symbol, but marking were spaced quite far apart and often resulted in disputes.
stargate525 05-08-06, 04:41 PM	In a D&D type world, walls around a city are generally useless. The ability to fly or burrow make getting around a wall ridiculously easy; the ability to chuck area of effect spells defeats the purpose of a wall; the ability to use spells such as passwall, dimension door, teleport, and so on to bypass a wall defeats the purpose of a wall. For a party, maybe. For en antire Army, not so much. unless they are flying or burrowing creatures naturally, burrowing takes time, and flight is expensive and leaves you vulnerable to ranged attacks. If they occur naturally there, the walls would be adjusted magically to copensate. area effect spells are actually quite bad for this. (after hardness, most spells with an AOE take an additional reducement to damage) The only thing would be sonic damage and disintigrate, both impractical for anything more than a small breach. again, passwall, dimension door, and all those (unless I'm mistaken) aren't that useful for getting an entire army through. Secondly, if they really want to invest on keeping magic out of the equation, they could get an enormous anti-magic field to cover the city ending just inside the walls. Countering magic with magic takes it out of the equation.
Brehon 05-08-06, 05:02 PM	I don't have my map of Faerun with me but, if memory serves, Trailsend is near the border that Damara shares with Vaasa, which is a haven for evil humanoids. It would make a certain amount of sense to have an outer protective wall (in fact, when my players were there, it did have one, but that's just because I thought it should), but I hardly think it's required. It's not directly on the border, so it could be relying on having extra time to herd the surrounding peoples into the fortress. It seems reasonable either way, so stick with what you told your players already.
Cifer 05-08-06, 06:56 PM	For a party, maybe. For en antire Army, not so much. unless they are flying or burrowing creatures naturally, burrowing takes time, and flight is expensive and leaves you vulnerable to ranged attacks. If they occur naturally there, the walls would be adjusted magically to copensate. area effect spells are actually quite bad for this. (after hardness, most spells with an AOE take an additional reducement to damage) The only thing would be sonic damage and disintigrate, both impractical for anything more than a small breach. A small breach is exactly what attackers aim for - they wish to take over a city and a castle, not a bunch of ruins. Additionally, a mage is small enough not to be discovered until it is too late: Get him to the wall and blow a hole in it. I daresay an effective troup would be able to secure a beachhead quite quickly since the defenders usually don't expect their walls to fall if there is no obvious siege equipment present and thus don't have their forces at that point. again, passwall, dimension door, and all those (unless I'm mistaken) aren't that useful for getting an entire army through. Secondly, if they really want to invest on keeping magic out of the equation, they could get an enormous anti-magic field to cover the city ending just inside the walls. Countering magic with magic takes it out of the equation. Ok, in this case the city has no functioning magical healers, no magic weapons and none of the little conveniences magic provides. If we are talking about mighty mages, however, consider teleportation circle: How many troops would you say could march through the circle in about three hours?
Burgundy Lotus 05-08-06, 07:07 PM	For a party, maybe. For en antire Army, not so much. unless they are flying or burrowing creatures naturally, burrowing takes time, and flight is expensive and leaves you vulnerable to ranged attacks. If they occur naturally there, the walls would be adjusted magically to copensate. area effect spells are actually quite bad for this. (after hardness, most spells with an AOE take an additional reducement to damage) The only thing would be sonic damage and disintigrate, both impractical for anything more than a small breach. again, passwall, dimension door, and all those (unless I'm mistaken) aren't that useful for getting an entire army through. Secondly, if they really want to invest on keeping magic out of the equation, they could get an enormous anti-magic field to cover the city ending just inside the walls. Countering magic with magic takes it out of the equation. If a mage used greater invisibility, levitate or fly and cast the AOE spells from a point higher then the wall he could target people and buildings inside the wall quite easily. On the scale of an army if there are several wizards it wouldn't be too hard to overwhelm large portions of the walls (Transmute rock to mud). I've never seen the use for them around towns and cities where magical assault would be common, they are only good controling those on foot. Controling weapons and trade and charging an entrance fee are the only real uses for walls where magic is prevelant, and even those things aren't controlled 100%
stargate525 05-08-06, 08:53 PM	If a mage used greater invisibility, levitate or fly and cast the AOE spells from a point higher then the wall he could target people and buildings inside the wall quite easily. On the scale of an army if there are several wizards it wouldn't be too hard to overwhelm large portions of the walls (Transmute rock to mud). I've never seen the use for them around towns and cities where magical assault would be common, they are only good controling those on foot. Controling weapons and trade and charging an entrance fee are the only real uses for walls where magic is prevelant, and even those things aren't controlled 100% Greater invisibility lasts one round per level, so a tenth level caster would have effective invisibility for one minute, being able to pull off nine spells before he has to recast. Both fly and invisibility don't prevent mages on the walls from casting their own AOE spells in the general area, and shooting him down that way. As for targeting the walls directly, I think that if you were to enchant the walls (which isn't that expensive), it allows saves against that sort of thing. A small breach is exactly what attackers aim for - they wish to take over a city and a castle, not a bunch of ruins. a 'small breach' I would consider a ten foot section. Note these walls are often thick and rather tall. Breaching that small of a hole is innefficient. Congrats, you have now created a pile of very solid rubble 3/4 as high as the rest of the wall. Once you get a navigable breach in the walls, all they need is a couple of people to hold, maybe five wide and three deep, have them aid defensively, hold their ground, while the walls quickly concentrate arrows on the breach. Congratulations, you have created a rather solid wall again, this time with bodies of your fallen. Additionally, a mage is small enough not to be discovered until it is too late: Get him to the wall and blow a hole in it. I daresay an effective troup would be able to secure a beachhead quite quickly since the defenders usually don't expect their walls to fall if there is no obvious siege equipment present and thus don't have their forces at that point. Umm, magical world. Unless your mages are attacking a city devoid of magic itself and has never heard of it, there would probably be a large number of arrows and spells heading for the guys without armor first. Ok, in this case the city has no functioning magical healers, no magic weapons and none of the little conveniences magic provides. Granted. I didn't say it was practical. If we are talking about mighty mages, however, consider teleportation circle: How many troops would you say could march through the circle in about three hours? Of course, he cannot reset the teleportation location after the casting, and there is no stipulation on a 'close to the same place' like other teleportations, it just fails. How long would it take to move a cart over the location? Also, that 1000gp power isn't cheap, especially if this is your tactic. Remember, the defenders have magic too, and that the walls prevent someone from simply marching right into the city.
Cifer 05-09-06, 07:16 AM	a 'small breach' I would consider a ten foot section. Note these walls are often thick and rather tall. Breaching that small of a hole is innefficient. Congrats, you have now created a pile of very solid rubble 3/4 as high as the rest of the wall. Once you get a navigable breach in the walls, all they need is a couple of people to hold, maybe five wide and three deep, have them aid defensively, hold their ground, while the walls quickly concentrate arrows on the breach. Congratulations, you have created a rather solid wall again, this time with bodies of your fallen. Since walls were built high rather than thick in the pre-cannon-age, I'd expect to have a small hole in said wall - a hole noone really expected, so there are probably no troops on the other side, at least not for the time it takes to move some soldiers through it. Umm, magical world. Unless your mages are attacking a city devoid of magic itself and has never heard of it, there would probably be a large number of arrows and spells heading for the guys without armor first. Depends on how your troops are looking generally. If you have lots of heavily armored, a skinny little mage sticks out, of course. If we are talking about a bunch of conscripts with the mage in the middle of them (and more or less ignoring the penalty of his great padded armor bolstered by Protection from arrows, Shield and Mage armor or some bracers), I do believe it could work. Of course, he cannot reset the teleportation location after the casting, and there is no stipulation on a 'close to the same place' like other teleportations, it just fails. How long would it take to move a cart over the location? How long would it take to fill a hole where soldiers are constantly pouring through and forming a perimeter around it?
Pegasos989 05-09-06, 08:01 AM	Archers can't just use "shoot unarmored ones first" to target warmage. A wizard can have a wand of firbealls and wand of dispel magic. He teleports to the said teleport circle and bye bye everyone who got through it. Some people said that raids are common in DnD. Well, garrison is expected to, well, garrison military inside it so a city with a fort is not first subject to raids. Normal monsters (wolves and the like) are propably not common near that big cities and bigger monsters (dragons ant he like) can expect to encoutner high level wizards and fighters in the city anyways, so it would propably not assault it. Seriously tho, now that I think about it... RICH cities SHOULD have walls. In medieval times there was problem of cities growing too fast and the like, but a wizard who has only prepared wall of stone/iron spells can take care of entire walls in a few months. The city is getting biggter than the walls? Use shape stone or something similar spell to move them a few metres. Tho poor cities can't afford making high level wizard work for them for several months. Wizards can break walls and get past them and kill a LOT of military (normal conscript is a first level commoner, hardened soldier is a first level warrior, one fireball devastates a LOT of them) even if defensive sides also uses spells. That is all the matter of resources: Does the defence spend spells fortifying walls or destroying enemies? Think of this as an interesting idea for defensive town: Walls consisting entirely of a huge amount of wall of forces made peramanent. Like three at each pouint so even dispelling wouldn't leave it defenseless (and if dispelled, it gets back in 10 minutes). Wall of forces can be made so that anything gets out but not it. Sure, that again takes a LOT of resources so might be impractila, just played with the thought.
CriminalTruth 05-09-06, 09:51 AM	Historicly castles were built and a populace grew OUTSIDE the castle. LOTS of times there where no " city walls" (just look at castles all over europe)....the idea was simply this... if something attacked villagers would go to the castle and live in there... if there was no attack a small village would gather outside of the castle ( and eventually create a city) .. its not until the village accually became a resonably large with stability that they would build a wall.. ( cost benifit analysis ( its true ) ) ...