[D&D] Magic and the Military

[John_C]

A spin-off of the Gunpowder in Eberron thread, which has sparked some interesting ideas....

Take a world like Eberron, where magic is pretty common. How are military tactics going to adapt to dealing with enemies that can throw fireballs, lightning bolts, Entangle spells, and suchlike?

How are you going to organize your forces? Let's say that 1 out of every 20 soldiers is a potential wizard, sorcerer, artificer, or magewright...someone capable of using scrolls, or wands. Do you break these people off into their own units, or integrate them somehow with the mundane troops?

There are no right or wrong answers, of course. I just want interesting theories and neat ideas....

[Mr. Golden Deal]

I'd personally have a unit or two of just mages for 'artillery', and then I'd try to divide the other mages into one per platoon or so if possible, so they can assist with their battlefield control spells or buffs for the group.

[Antithesis]

ADo you break these people off into their own units, or integrate them somehow with the mundane troops?


a little of both i'd think, every unit should probly have an offensive magic user, a healer(or just abunch of potions) and a counterspell expert.

meanwhile you also want a team of diviners advising your generals and at least unit or two of straight-up magic users for heavy artillery.

but hey i'm no strategist, despite the shear hours of Jagged Alliance 2 and silent storm i've played

[Silent Wayfarer]

Invest in swift, flying mounts for mages. Put the mages on the mounts. Cast invisibility on the mounts. Launch high speed bombings of your enemy. Giant Eagles have flight speeds of 80ft/round. Improve this by giving them the Air Heritage feat for an extra 30ft.

Use druids as engineers. Use clerics to planar bind powerful demons and sick them on your foes. Gather enough resources and an artificer will be your ultimate weapon.

You should never have to use nonspellcasters, ever.

[Antithesis]

You should never have to use nonspellcasters, ever.

nah, i mean sombody has to know how to use a sword when that anti magic field goes up

[Bailywolf]

The #1 rule in the soldier's handbook would be "Kill The Mage First".

-B

[John_C]

nah, i mean sombody has to know how to use a sword when that anti magic field goes up

And someone's got to hold the territory after you conquer it.

[Tzeentch]

Most Eberron mages are very low level, and even most of the magic items listed are pretty low-key (eternal wands for example). I doubt you'll see them doing Exalted-like combat sorcery. And you wont see them being as active as even Shadowrun since they have very limited amounts of "charges" and the best spells in war are probably NOT the direct damage spells -- but the utility ones.

[Bailywolf]

What is a spellcaster in D&D terms?

He's highly specialized, exotically trained, and he costs a fortune to equip and supply. Taking out a mage is going to be like taking out a tank or an attack helicopter- except much much easier. Because the mage, despite his ability to break a unit of mundane troops once or twice a battle, can generally be pretty easily taken out. He's just not all that good at avoiding danger. He's lightly armored (unless he's a towering badass, and then, he wouldn't be serving in any ordinary army). He'll have a meatwall of guys with shields and heavy armor running interference for him, but he's got to see you to hit you with his spells, and so you can break his defensive line in a number of ways. A well-trained longbowman with poisoned arrows can work wonders on a mage, with a fraction of the training.

You gank the mage, and you've hurt the other side. Especially if their tactical doctrine relies on magic and magical cover.

And if you adapt your tactics to the threat of magic... you drill and train your troops in magical live-fire exercises, and you impress on them the fact that mages bleed as easily- or more easily- as any man, then they won't crumble when confronting wizardly opposition.

-B

[Silent Wayfarer]

What is a spellcaster in D&D terms?

He's highly specialized, exotically trained, and he costs a fortune to equip and supply. Taking out a mage is going to be like taking out a tank or an attack helicopter- except much much easier. Because the mage, despite his ability to break a unit of mundane troops once or twice a battle, can generally be pretty easily taken out. He's just not all that good at avoiding danger. He's lightly armored (unless he's a towering badass, and then, he wouldn't be serving in any ordinary army). He'll have a meatwall of guys with shields and heavy armor running interference for him, but he's got to see you to hit you with his spells, and so you can break his defensive line in a number of ways. A well-trained longbowman with poisoned arrows can work wonders on a mage, with a fraction of the training.

You gank the mage, and you've hurt the other side. Especially if their tactical doctrine relies on magic and magical cover.

And if you adapt your tactics to the threat of magic... you drill and train your troops in magical live-fire exercises, and you impress on them the fact that mages bleed as easily- or more easily- as any man, then they won't crumble when confronting wizardly opposition.

-B

Fireball.

:D

EDIT: Seriously, the first rule of using a wizard is always fight on your own terms. That means they gather all the intel they want on the disposition of you and your forces via scry, invisible magic spies, etc, then they sick summoned monsters on you and your commanders, murder your infantry with cloudkill, use soften earth and stone on cliffs to trigger avalanches on your men, etc. etc. These people have INT 18. Played right, no wizard would ever let himself die to such mundane tactics. It's their job to study all that strategy and tactics, you know. The only wizards who will ever show their faces on the battlefield are the level 1 magelings, whose sole purpose is to carry a fireball staff / wand into battle atop a flying invisible monster and kill your guys from outside their effective range. Anybody whose death would actually mean anything is hidden in a teleport and scry proof tower and only ever emerges to teleport a Project Image into your camp with a bag of holding full of demons to kill you in your sleep.

Also, when I said "no need to ever use a nonspellcaster again", I was in error. There is no need to use a mundane creature again. Not when you can chain-bind Efreeti to grant you infinite wishes and magic up a neverending supply of clockwork soldiers, demons, angels, and so on. Arrow demons are not technically spellcasters, but they will slaughter ten times their HD in mortal bowmen en masse. Or how about calling up legion devils? These guys have a super hive mind that essentially renders them nigh unto invincible - what one experiences, they all experience, and they can share damage, so they only die when all of them die.

Hell, let's talk about clerics, why don't we? These guys are just as hardcore as any combat monster, they are arguably as badass as any wizard, and they're better summoners and necromancers to boot. Any cleric of level 9-10 will kick the living shit out of an arbitrary number of commoners and anyone less than half his level. That's if he even bothers to fight, because he can just chainbind fiends and ring God up to ask him the best way to own you.

And druids, god, let's leave druids aside. You will never see him coming. That little tweety bird in the trees could be casting a Firestorm and you wouldn't know unless someone with True Seeing were looking in his direction just in time to see him go Trogdor on your camp. At the higher echelons they have almost all the firepower of a mage and almost as much utility divine spells as a cleric, and they get their own special brand of magic that is horrifically powerful when used right. The weather alteration spells - that's the power of a god right there for you.

Even someone like a bard, a minor spellcaster, is still an outrageously potent skillmonkey who can turn every single man charging him into a hardcore fanatic for his cause in 2 rounds. Hell, he could disguise himself as a member of your army, secretly convert every officer in your camp to his side, and have them kill you in your sleep.

I fully expect the counters to come up, like "lol AMF"or "we have magicians too". But that's the whole point. When you have magic, you don't need anything else. When you need to deny magic, or when you need magic to counter magic, you tacitly admit that there is no other way to beat a magic-heavy army.

[Victim]

If you're talking about a caster high enough level to cast fireball, a fighter type of that level can also massacre a squad of guys in short order - especially if trained to deal with numbers. The real issue is fighting across a level gap - magic is just one of the ways the power difference manifests. Large numbers of ranged combatants are often good for nailing even high level characters. If you can get a few hundred guys shooting at one hero, damage just from natural twenties will drag characters without DR down fairly quickly. Granted, high level guys will have lots of different ways to avoid being screwed.

In terms of low level magic, I think the biggest impact is in terms of healing your guys. People can be saved from the very brink of death with little ill effect by even a 1st level cleric. Healing magic is also very portable, in that it often comes in healing potions and wands. So wounded can be returned to service in short order. Taking out a foe's medical center would be a huge deal, since it's returning healthy soldiers to the front instead of maimed guys.

I think many other spells are going to have problems because they simply don't last long enough for a big battle. If a battle is going to last hours, then the 1 minute duration of entangle - basically forever in personal combat - is hardly anything. It'd be another way to disrupt a charge, most likely. I don't really think it's the only game in town there.

[Bailywolf]

Wizards would need to spend a fair bit of their time pre and post battle dogging assassination as well.

-B

[Tzeentch]

Mages powerful enough to do the real abusive Character Optimization combos probably have bigger things to work on then being at the battlefront. And magic isn't necessarily as deadly as even a Great Cleaving high level warrior in dense combat formations :)

One issue to consider is how all these NPC casters are keeping up with the xp outflow from creating magic items - which probably helps explain their relatively low levels in Eberron at least. NPCs don't gain levels fast, or at all, depending on how your campaign is structured.

Honestly, unless someone invents a 1/round wand (like the wands from the Turtledove "World at War" series) those seem pretty pointless in comparison to old standby bows and crossbows and such.

[Antithesis]

also i'd just like to say a caster with protection from arrows and a couple wands of magic missle would waste tons of low level soldiers

[Tzeentch]

Let's see. For lower level "soldier mages" (which don't seem particularly supportable in the D&D rules) - let's say he's third level (I'll work out a full NPC with items appropriate for his wealth later). Here's some spells I could see being useful (note that I worked on strategic level planning and logistics when I was in the military so that will color my perceptions here).

0 level Cantrips: Most of these are VERY useful. In particular:
Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Message, Mending
1st level Sorcery: Not quite as good but still ...
Alarm, Endure Elements, Mage Armor, Mount, True Strike (sniper!), Charm Person, Silent Image (huge range, no disbelief until interacted with), Ventriloquism, Magic Weapon, Expeditious Retreat

2nd level Sorcery: Acid Arrow (good vs enemy casters), Resist Energy, Fog Cloud, Summon Monster II, See Invisibility, Continual Flame, False Life, Spider Climb, Whispering Wind

3rd level Sorcery: Dispel Magic (your all-purpose counterspell), Nondetection, Stinking Cloud, Summon Monster III, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Heroism, Fireball (only 3d6 here and reflex save but long range and nice radius), Tiny hut, Fly, Water Breathing

[loseth]

I'll post my analysis from the other thread:


Let’s say there are two Eberron barons, Baron Magicus and Baron Soldierous, who just can’t stand each other. So, they each scour their treasuries and come up with 30,000gp for a three-month campaign. They go shopping and here’s what they get:

Baron Soldierous

27,000gp 1500 Deneith White Blade Mercenaries for 3 months
3,000gp 55 Deneith Gray Blade Mercenary Officers for 3 months

Baron Magicus

23,000gp 2 wands of Fireball (5d6, 600’, 20’ radius)
6,000gp 333 Deneith White Blade Mercenaries for 3 months
900gp 16 Deneith Gray Blade Mercenary Officers for 3 months
100gp? Two Magewrights for 3 months

So, Soldierous lines his boys up in a single file and marches them toward Magicus’ force. At 600’, Magicus’ magewrights open up on Soldierous’ line and Soldierous orders the charge. Magicus has his force move back at 30’ per round, allowing the Magewrights to still take a standard action each round (to fire their wands). This means that, at a run, Soldierous’ line will be closing at 90’ per round, so he’ll need 7 rounds to close with Magicus’ force. Each 20’ fireball blast will take out 4 men spaced 5’ apart, and the two magewrights can manage 14 total blasts (56 casualties) assuming they have initiative or 12 assuming they don’t (48 casualties). Let’s say they get initative and take out 56 of Soldierous’ men. Upon contact, it is thus 1 499 soldiers against 349 soldiers and two low-level casters. Magicus, prepare to get pwned.

In short, assuming that resources are roughly equal, you get more bang for your buck with mercs than you do with magic. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t buy magic, just that you should expect it to play a supporting, not a dominating role on the battlefield.

[R-90-2]

I'll post my analysis from the other thread:

Very nice. :)

Anyway, it also really depends on the setting. I don't really expect a king to necessarily be able to draft clerics or important wizards into the ranks, depending on the political.social relationship between church and state.

[Wolfwood2]

I fully expect the counters to come up, like "lol AMF"or "we have magicians too". But that's the whole point. When you have magic, you don't need anything else. When you need to deny magic, or when you need magic to counter magic, you tacitly admit that there is no other way to beat a magic-heavy army.

It seems like you're talking about some extremely powerful wizards, though. How well can your mages do with they're 5th or even 7th level?

[Bahama'at]

In the Mystara setting there were starting to adapt things. In the Princess Ark narrative series, the Alphatian ship (modelled a la the Next Gen Enterprise but with more of a original series flavor) had marines on board, a mix of fighters and magic-users. The Fighters were your hard core soldiers, the MUs with their wands forms a firing line similar to the red coats of British lore and loosed volleys of magic missiles or lightning bolts into oncoming ranks of enemies. Then there were the NCOs (wardens) who kept more exotic wands and scrolls for emergencies (web and hold person for nabbing people, Dispel Magic for counter-magic use, etc.

- Ma'at

[towishimp]

It seems like you're talking about some extremely powerful wizards, though. How well can your mages do with they're 5th or even 7th level?

That'd be my point, too. Of course an army of 10+ level mages will destroy any army that they come across. I think the OP is more after: what would the more common spellcaster's role be on the battlefield? Lower-level casters have a limited number of spells and are very fragile.

Personally, I'd use them the same way a modern infantry squad makes use of their heavy weapons -- to break the things that their small arms can't easily break. Fire support, basically. And clerics as really efficient medics.

[Tzeentch]

Pretty much everything you would want a magic user for, you can replace them with anyone using a wand or scrolls (a few eternal wands with logistical spells and those with charges to counter enemy spells are probably the best values).

Technology still has an advantage even in the industrial magic setting of Eberron because there is
1) no xp outlay. Imagine trying to field an army with even crappy wands under the basic D&D rules - someone's going to be low level forever and how are they getting the xp to spend by sitting in a factory? I'll note here that MIC has made many items that would be great for military use rather cheap now because they are not as useful to special forces .... errr "adventurers" :)
2) Magic has to deal with counters that not only reduce their effectiveness (resistance spells/items) but outright cancel them or force fizzles: "lol AMF", acid arrow, dispel magic, and various high-SR critter counters. Some of the best magic defenses are rather trivially bypassed in some cases (Protection from Arrows is a good example < magic weapon spell).
3) Crap range. Most of the dd spells in D&D have rather horrible ranges, and a few are downright dangerous to use (the ray-casting siege engines from Heroes of Battle where you have to park them a few feet away to use ...). Some of the most powerful adventuring spells (sleep for example) are not great in a military context with lots of people around.

It will be interesting if 4th edition adopts the triple hp at 1st level from the new Star Wars, that complicates this issue quite a bit by not making even the lowliest of damage spells insta-knockout for grunts (note that lowbies get a decent advantage from the fact that only at -10 is death guaranteed - which can be a significant multiple of their positive hp :) and its pretty easily to stabilize someone in D&D even at the doorway of death)

[LoneWolf23]

Forget wands of fireballs and other flashy destructive magic. How good is D&D Magic in terms of Logistics Support for armies? That will win you wars...

[Tzeentch]

Speaking as someone who has done real-world logistics for the military - D&D magic is a mixed bag - a lot of stuff simply doesn't change enough or target enough people to be anything but a tactical aid. This doesn't necesarily include magic items - many of which are awesome (Decanter of Endless Water, Lyre of Building). From a logistics standpoint here's the ones I think stand out as far as mass utility (which means stuff like Mending and Purify Food and Drink are not counted - despite their rather obvious utility):

* Note Spell Compendium source

CLERICS
*Amanuensis (Clr 0): Huge time saver with the paperwork.
Augury (Clr 2) "Is moving our forces East a good idea?" "Is bombing Y location a good idea?" A half-hour is a long time in battle. Logistically not as useful but great for helping make snap resource allocation decisions.
Make Whole (Clr 2) Eliminates most siege train maintenance crews/equipment
Status (Clr 2) Can be used for scouting too "Lost contact with the scouts at X when they were feared and then died"
Gentle Repose (Clr 2): Food preservation in even the worst environments.
*Stablize (Clr 2): Very, very useful. Especially when combined with *Healing Lorecall (Clr 2) to also zap other status effects at the same time.
Zone of Truth (Clr 2) Root out logistics personnel who are embezzling material (always a huge problem)
Animate Dead (Clr 3): All undead are extremely useful for everything from hauling goods around to digging ditches. Even animal undead are useful if you have moral problems with animating dead enemies. Depending on the situation can be used to deny enemy forces your dead by raising them as very weak undead and destroying them - meaning they cant be raised again.
Divination (Clr 4): Obviously nice to consult the gods about your plans
Stone Shape (Clr 3): Too limited for most walls, but good for creating army grain grinding equipment as needed, or ovens and other such bulky items you would otherwise have to carry around.
Water Walk (Clr 3): At third level thats 3 pack animals you don't need boats for when fording streams and such. And allows you to walk over the deepest mud, lava, etc. Alternately use Water Breathing to just walk along the bottom and evade attackers.
Divination (Clr 4):
Sending (Clr 4):
Hallow (Clr 5): Place on all your storehouses and operations centers.
Triadspell (Clr 5): Lets you cast level 3 or lower spells 3x per cast. Very handy.
Find the Path (Clr 6):

MAGE
Tiny Hut (Wiz 3): Portable command tent. Eternal wands of Tiny Hut for each platoon? :) That's a significant weight savings and reduction of your baggage train - and lets you operate safely in places otherwise extremely hostile to long-term campaigns.
Transmute Mud to Rock/Rock to Mud (Wiz 5): Dramatically simplifies field fortification and transporation. Allows easy shaped stone (pack mud into shape or use wooden frames then turn it into rock).
Wall of Iron (Wiz 6): At level 6 creates 5cf of iron (450 lbs if cast iron). You technically lose 5gp (45 gp value, 50gp reagent) but thats a lot of weight you don't need to carry around for your army quartermasters, and it can be summoned at need.
Teleport Object (Wiz 7): Great for supplying small units in the field or transporting otherwise fragile or valuable objects where needed from central reserves.
Control Weather (Wiz 7): Make your opponent's life miserable and/or your's great.
Moment of Prescience (Wiz 8): Great helper for any logistics mage on their skill rolls.
Polymorph any Object (Wiz 8): Polymorph a tree into a giant slab of meat.

[Xenu's Paradox]

I wouldn't endanger my mages by putting them on the battlefield. I'd have them create items for my soldiers to use (Wands of Fireball, etc.) and equip my troops with scrying foci attuned to my wizards, which they'd be able to cast buff spells through.

I'd use items that create Antimagic Fields and similar effects as a tactical option if my foes are using battlefield mages.

I'd make damn sure to use plenty of bards and related PRCs.

[Befuddled]

I think you guys are too focused on high level magic users. In an army fighting a non-pivotal battle, I don’t see them fielding any more than 10 magic users above level 5. As Loseth said, paying for magic artillery is an inefficient way of using your gold. Why pay for 3 level 5 mages capable of casting fireball when you could spend the same amount to get 45 level 1 mages or 90 arrow tossing mooks?

Purely offensive magic sucks, and is easily eclipsed by a bunch of archers raining arrows on the enemy. If you’re going to use magic on the battlefield, it’s going to be spells that effect more than a few soldiers, and last longer than a single round. Why pay 150gp for a level 3 fireball to blast a handful of soldiers when you can pay 10gp for a level 1 obscuring mist and use clever tactics to kill just as many, if not more?


If I was a general in a fantasy army, each and every squad would be specially trained in tactics exploiting low level magic, and would have enough mages to cast several of these spells.

Level 1 spells
Grease
Obscuring Mist
Hypnotism
Sleep
Color Spray
Silent Image
Cause Fear
Animate Rope
Enlarge Person

Level 2 spells
Protection from Arrows
Fog Cloud
Glitterdust
Summon Swarm
Web
See Invisible
Darkness
Flaming Sphere
Gust of Wind
Hypnotic Pattern
Scare
Darkvision
Pyrotechnics
Whispering Wind

Unless it's life and death for your nation on the line, your high leveled mages are more likely to be sleeping in and being fed grapes by 100gp/day prostitutes than they are to be raining fiery death from the backs of dragons.

[Myrme]

Another thing with mages is that they're not expendable. I kill one of your mages by sneaking up behind him and beating him over the head with a rock. He killed ten of my guys with magic missiles. Guess who wins in the money race?

A bunch of level 10+ mages are beings with many years of experience... and generally respond poorly to being told what to do. But yeah, they're artillery, but they're made of glass. I imagine the opening shots of any war will be taking the mages out of commission through special forces. Or I just send a few waves of expendables at them (like, oh, undead) so they blow their memorized spells... then send in the beat-sticks.

Also, remember your average mage dosn't have the physical stamina for campaign warfare or the brutal conditions. It's hard to get those hours of sleep he needs to cast when thh other side is constantly lobbing noisy artillery shells from over the horizon, and his bed is made of mud.

[Kasumi]

I think it would be interesting to speculate on how command structures would look when it's absurdly easy to teleport in, assassinate the command staff, and then teleport out again.

Or Plane Shift :) Not much point slumming it with the army in some scungy tent when you can stage out of a secure plane...

[SuperG]

yeah... the requirement for 8 hours of actual rest is a real weakness.

[Myrme]

I think it would be interesting to speculate on how command structures would look when it's absurdly easy to teleport in, assassinate the command staff, and then teleport out again.

Or Plane Shift :) Not much point slumming it with the army in some scungy tent when you can stage out of a secure plane...

Well, most general staffs would include at least one skilled mage to do stuff like secure the area against teleporting and scrying. Odds are in most battles both sides mages are busy locking each other down, throwing around spells to keep them from bringing their big spells to bear while simultaniously trying to dispel the other side's casts. Imagine it like modern electronic warfare.

Also, remember that a mage that can teleport in, throw down enough firepower to wipe out a dozen armed men, and hop back out without dying is probably harder to replace than most of the general staff in an army.

Another thing is: remember monks. They do horrible horrible things to mages. You get cocky with your dozen mages? I'm going to unleash some holy order to introduce you to their version of inner peace. And it's going to eat you alive.

[Silent Wayfarer]

yeah... the requirement for 8 hours of actual rest is a real weakness.

Just Plane Shift to some plane where time passes at 30000x the rate of normal or something. Your 8 hours there is about 1 second here. They sleep there, wake up, prep spells, and come back the next round fully locked and loaded. Cleric 5 spell, Wizard 7 spell.

Hardly a weakness.

[Trackerish]

While mages would be great to have, I really think clerics would be much more common on battlefields. They can walk around in full plate healing your front lines. High level clerics get great spells like Spike Stones (which will kill or disable many, many men) and even low-level clerics can Bless a group of individuals, giving them an edge over the enemy.

[Jon Chung]

Another thing with mages is that they're not expendable. I kill one of your mages by sneaking up behind him and beating him over the head with a rock. He killed ten of my guys with magic missiles. Guess who wins in the money race?

Any mage stupid enough to get his head bashed in by a rock by a mook would not have survived to any decent level. So you kill a level 1 mage. Boo hoo. I weep. A level 10 mage with half a brain would be flying, invisible and warded.

A bunch of level 10+ mages are beings with many years of experience... and generally respond poorly to being told what to do. But yeah, they're artillery, but they're made of glass. I imagine the opening shots of any war will be taking the mages out of commission through special forces. Or I just send a few waves of expendables at them (like, oh, undead) so they blow their memorized spells... then send in the beat-sticks.

Also, remember your average mage dosn't have the physical stamina for campaign warfare or the brutal conditions. It's hard to get those hours of sleep he needs to cast when thh other side is constantly lobbing noisy artillery shells from over the horizon, and his bed is made of mud.

First, a level 10 wizard or sorcerer has rope trick and plane shift in his spellbook. This means he can pop into a fast-time progression plane, pop a rope trick for perfect safety, sleep for eight hours in comfort, and pop back in less than a round of subjective time.

Second, why would said level 10 mage sit there and let you mob him with mooks? He has teleport. If the zombies are bothering him, he goes elsewhere. There is nothing preventing him from doing so - unless you send an equally high level wizard along to mess with his spells.

Assassinating wizards of that level with standard-issue special forces or killing them with waves of mooks is, if you don't have equally skilled spellcasters nearby to shut them down, pretty damn impossible without GM fiat. The fatigue argument is utterly irrelevant.

Another thing is: remember monks. They do horrible horrible things to mages. You get cocky with your dozen mages? I'm going to unleash some holy order to introduce you to their version of inner peace. And it's going to eat you alive.

Monks have spell resistance. Crappy spell resistance and no saving throw boost beyond the small increase given by high naturals. A properly built wizard will blow them away with slightly more difficulty than they blow away a fighter with. The best counter to a wizard is another wizard, or failing that something like a Hexblade/Paladin of Tyranny/Blackguard with triple CHA to saving throws.

[SuperG]

Not if the Wizards actually fight like _Wizards_, rather than powergamers.

I mean, geez. All that power is not written into the rules for powergamers to exploit, it's so that you can be dumb when playing a Wizard and still have a chance at surviving.

It's not 'stupid' to not be optimal according to the system. Using system exploits is the same whether you use a godmode cheat in a FPS or wizard-cheese in D&D. It's utterly missing the point.

So, yes, Wizards should be fragile. They're _supposed_ to be fragile. If they're not fragile, then steps should be taken out of game to MAKE them fragile.

[Silent Wayfarer]

Not if the Wizards actually fight like _Wizards_, rather than powergamers.

I mean, geez. All that power is not written into the rules for powergamers to exploit, it's so that you can be dumb when playing a Wizard and still have a chance at surviving.

It's not 'stupid' to not be optimal according to the system. Using system exploits is the same whether you use a godmode cheat in a FPS or wizard-cheese in D&D. It's utterly missing the point.

So, yes, Wizards should be fragile. They're _supposed_ to be fragile. If they're not fragile, then steps should be taken out of game to MAKE them fragile.

Concession accepted.

[Jon Chung]

It's not 'stupid' to not be optimal according to the system. Using system exploits is the same whether you use a godmode cheat in a FPS or wizard-cheese in D&D. It's utterly missing the point.

The spells are in the PHB. Using them as they're written is a system exploit?

Remember, the wizards probably have twice the INT score of the player or DM running them. Using their spells as they were designed to function is the least they could be doing. Why would you fight a zombie horde if you could teleport away? Why would you sleep in a tent when you can sleep in a Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion?

So, yes, Wizards should be fragile. They're _supposed_ to be fragile. If they're not fragile, then steps should be taken out of game to MAKE them fragile.

They are fragile. They probably have a base 12-14 CON with a d4 hit die, and have crap saving throws. If you catch a Wizard with his figurative pants down, without any contingencies, long-term buff spells and the like prepared, he'll die like a punk. However, an intelligent wizard will not be caught in that situation.

[SuperG]

The spells are in the PHB. Using them as they're written is a system exploit?

Remember, the wizards probably have twice the INT score of the player or DM running them. Using their spells as they were designed to function is the least they could be doing. Why would you fight a zombie horde if you could teleport away? Why would you sleep in a tent when you can sleep in a Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion?



They are fragile. They probably have a base 12-14 CON with a d4 hit die, and have crap saving throws. If you catch a Wizard with his figurative pants down, without any contingencies, long-term buff spells and the like prepared, he'll die like a punk. However, an intelligent wizard will not be caught in that situation.

Yes. As written, Wizards are an overpowered class if used "optimally". For the game to work, something has to change - either the rules, or the powergaming attitude.

[Jon Chung]

More accurately: magic is an overpowered mechanic, if you consider the fighter and his non-magical friends as a baseline. Any spellcasting class has access to a dizzying array of dirty tricks, extremely efficient methods of causing mass destruction, and usually a whole bunch of ways to not die.

Unless you want to go through the entire list of D&D spells and rewrite them all, it's not happening. I just accept that non-magical characters are screwed, and make magical hybrid characters whenever I want to swing a sword or shoot arrows. Magic changes everything.

[SuperG]

More accurately: magic is an overpowered mechanic, if you consider the fighter and his non-magical friends as a baseline. Any spellcasting class has access to a dizzying array of dirty tricks, extremely efficient methods of causing mass destruction, and usually a whole bunch of ways to not die.

Unless you want to go through the entire list of D&D spells and rewrite them all, it's not happening. I just accept that non-magical characters are screwed, and make magical hybrid characters whenever I want to swing a sword or shoot arrows. Magic changes everything.

Or, you know, people could play their wizards like wizards, and not obsess on 'tactical efficiency'. Because the game is actually pretty cool when you do that.

[Jon Chung]

Obsessing over tactical efficiency?

Casting a "Make a safe place for me to sleep" spell when you don't want to be disturbed, casting a "I am not here" spell when you don't want to be attacked and casting a pre-emptive "If X happens, cast I Am Not Here" spell if you don't want to be ganked is not obsessing over tactical efficiency. That's what the spells do. It's blatantly obvious.

A wizard who has fifth level spells and memorizes nothing but Empowered Fireballs is not worthy of his 18+ INT score. It's like a Fighter choosing to wear a robe and plink with a sling instead of strapping on the Full Plate and picking up the Greatsword.

Obsessing over tactical efficiency would be creating a twink build capable of casting Apocalypse from the Sky out of a first level spell slot, which, while possible, is ridiculous and broken.

[Silent Wayfarer]

Except that playing a wizard like a wizard means playing a wizard like a supergenius.

Which roughly adds up to the same thing as tactical efficiency.

The impression you give is that people who play wizards intelligently don't want fun. This is incorrect. These players do what they have to do to continue having fun. It does not always mean killing everyone else, it does not always mean summoning nigh-infinite demons to crush the world under your scrawny foot, it does not always mean turning everything into a cunningly orchestrated tactical exercise. People can actually get tired of that kind of stuff, however empowering it may feel by the rules. Hence my current trend towards nonspellcasters.

But you know what? Sometimes, there are challenges which only a PC can handle. Sometimes, you HAVE to powergame like a maniac, because if not it's not just no fun for you - it's no fun for anyone. In a situation like that, it would be wrong, criminally so, not to powergame to the limit. Ensuring your survival is one such situation. Keeping an enemy from overrunning the things you hold dear is another. So what would a wizard do in that situation, knowing that his beloved homeland was being threatened by alien invaders, and that he alone has the power to break the back of their power?

Kill them all and let the clerics sort them out, that's what.

[Ratoslov]

Or, you know, people could play their wizards like wizards, and not obsess on 'tactical efficiency'. Because the game is actually pretty cool when you do that.

We're talking about the military role of magic. Military wizards are supposed to obsess on tactical efficency. That's their job.

[SuperG]

We're talking about the military role of magic. Military wizards are supposed to obsess on tactical efficency. That's their job.

Then I recommend researching sarrukhs and obtaining ultimate cosmic power over all of reality.

[SuperG]

Except that playing a wizard like a wizard means playing a wizard like a supergenius.

Which roughly adds up to the same thing as tactical efficiency.

The impression you give is that people who play wizards intelligently don't want fun. This is incorrect. These players do what they have to do to continue having fun. It does not always mean killing everyone else, it does not always mean summoning nigh-infinite demons to crush the world under your scrawny foot, it does not always mean turning everything into a cunningly orchestrated tactical exercise. People can actually get tired of that kind of stuff, however empowering it may feel by the rules. Hence my current trend towards nonspellcasters.

But you know what? Sometimes, there are challenges which only a PC can handle. Sometimes, you HAVE to powergame like a maniac, because if not it's not just no fun for you - it's no fun for anyone. In a situation like that, it would be wrong, criminally so, not to powergame to the limit. Ensuring your survival is one such situation. Keeping an enemy from overrunning the things you hold dear is another. So what would a wizard do in that situation, knowing that his beloved homeland was being threatened by alien invaders, and that he alone has the power to break the back of their power?

Kill them all and let the clerics sort them out, that's what.

What does this have to do with anything?


'Nuke the battlefield' should totally be an option for powerful characters. Not powerful wizards - powerful _characters_.


Edit: And no, high intelligence does not mean tactical genius. Even if it did, it does not mean metagaming. Tactical genius is about predicting what your opponents will do, not checking splatbooks for teh broken.

[Jon Chung]

Tactical genius is about predicting what your opponents will do, not checking splatbooks for teh broken.

Put it this way. A spell from the PHB is a pretty common spell. It's in the magical community's general knowledge area. It's not buried in an obscure splatbook. It's not being creatively interpreted. It's just there.

You can reasonably expect a wizard of, say, 10th level to know these things. Given his intelligence score, which is literally superhuman, how could he not use them when their use becomes appropriate?

We aren't talking about infinite shadow dragons, infinite action loops, Pun-Pun or destroying the planet by metamorphosing into an iron ball massing 120 solar masses and causing a supernova/singularity collapse event.

We're talking about second through fifth level basic spells out of the PHB with a very obvious effect. How is using them 'teh broken'? Is a Fighter using a +5 Sword to kill someone 'teh broken' because it's just a good idea to use it rather than a rusty iron spork?

[SuperG]

Put it this way. A spell from the PHB is a pretty common spell. It's in the magical community's general knowledge area. It's not buried in an obscure splatbook. It's not being creatively interpreted. It's just there.

You can reasonably expect a wizard of, say, 10th level to know these things. Given his intelligence score, which is literally superhuman, how could he not use them when their use becomes appropriate?

We aren't talking about infinite shadow dragons, infinite action loops, Pun-Pun or destroying the planet by metamorphosing into an iron ball massing 120 solar masses and causing a supernova/singularity collapse event.

We're talking about second through fifth level basic spells out of the PHB with a very obvious effect. How is using them 'teh broken'? Is a Fighter using a +5 Sword to kill someone 'teh broken' because it's just a good idea to use it rather than a rusty iron spork?

He's not "literally" superhumanly intelligent. He's human. He has a high intelligence, yes, but it's simply a high _human_ intelligence.


And I refuse to believe you're seriously saying that everything suggested falls within the intent of the spell designers. I mean, just look at official characters for the ultimate proof that what you're doing is exploiting flaws left in because they were throwing powergamers a bone.

[Jon Chung]

A 10th level wizard built for spell power has had two level-up points pushed into his base 20 INT, and a +6 item of INT boosting. He has an INT of 28.

Do you know anyone with an IQ of 280? Do you know how such a person thinks? I sure as hell don't.

And no, I don't think using a spell explicitly created for the purpose of getting a safe place to rest to get a safe place to rest, or using a spell explicitly created for the purpose of getting the fuck out of there when the shit hits the fan to do just that to be powergaming.

[SuperG]

A 10th level wizard built for spell power has had two level-up points pushed into his base 20 INT, and a +6 item of INT boosting. He has an INT of 28.

Do you know anyone with an IQ of 280? Do you know how such a person thinks? I sure as hell don't.

And no, I don't think using a spell explicitly created for the purpose of getting a safe place to rest to get a safe place to rest, or using a spell explicitly created for the purpose of getting the fuck out of there when the shit hits the fan to do just that to be powergaming.

If you think that was the limits of what was being suggested you were reading a different thread. The early responses were reasonable. The ones with the wizard uber alles attitude? They were talking about some kind of weird wargame thing.

And by the way? IQ is a subjective test that even experts have trouble agreeing on the meaning of or getting consistent results from... and INT does not equal IQ/10.

That's just a BS claim made up by powergamers to try and justify their crap.

[Jon Chung]

If you think that was the limits of what was being suggested you were reading a different thread. The early responses were reasonable. The ones with the wizard uber alles attitude? They were talking about some kind of weird wargame thing.

Teleport, plane shift and rope trick were mentioned. These spells do exactly what they say they do on the packaging. There is no 'creative interpretation'. There is no rules bending.

I need to go to sleep? I make myself a pretty secure hidden shelter. I don't want to fight the zombies? I go elsewhere. I need time to pass faster? I go somewhere where it does. Sure, together they mean I cannot be assassinated, but you cannot really claim this is against the spirit of the spell rules. It's pretty damn hard to read "create hidden shelter", "teleport to different location" and "shift to different plane" any other way.

And by the way? IQ is a subjective test that even experts have trouble agreeing on the meaning of or getting consistent results from... and INT does not equal IQ/10.

That's just a BS claim made up by powergamers to try and justify their crap.

May I direct your attention to the D&D 3.5 FAQ? Read the section on Intelligence, then come back to me.

[BoJo]

I'd give minimal mage training to all recruits and equip them with scrolls, potions and wands.

BoJo

[SuperG]

Teleport, plane shift and rope trick were mentioned. These spells do exactly what they say they do on the packaging. There is no 'creative interpretation'. There is no rules bending.

I need to go to sleep? I make myself a pretty secure hidden shelter. I don't want to fight the zombies? I go elsewhere. I need time to pass faster? I go somewhere where it does. Sure, together they mean I cannot be assassinated, but you cannot really claim this is against the spirit of the spell rules. It's pretty damn hard to read "create hidden shelter", "teleport to different location" and "shift to different plane" any other way.



May I direct your attention to the D&D 3.5 FAQ? Read the section on Intelligence, then come back to me.

Rule of thumb introduced to give an idea how to handle the incredibly stupid, not the incredibly smart.

And you do realize that there a number of different IQ tests, and that modern humans would probably qualify as 'inhumanly smart' on IQ tests designed for medieval people, given that 'average IQ' has risen by 15 every generation since we started measuring it?

No, really. IQ tests are pretty much completely and utterly useless.



By the way, the intention of the game is for wizards to be in danger as much as any other character. Rope trick isn't supposed to be used every night, just the ones where the party is actually in a dangerous area. The movement spells aren't supposed to be used to run away from all danger - you're supposed to try and win fights and only run away if you absolutely must.

That's the mindset they're designed around. That is the conditions under which they are balanced.

[Jon Chung]

No, really. IQ tests are pretty much completely and utterly useless.

Okay, let me put it a different way. That wizard is literally almost three times more intelligent than the average human by raw ability scores. Whatever scale you use to measure that, I'm fairly certain it's a very small subset of the population.

By the way, the intention of the game is for wizards to be in danger as much as any other character. Rope trick isn't supposed to be used every night, just the ones where the party is actually in a dangerous area. The movement spells aren't supposed to be used to run away from all danger - you're supposed to try and win fights and only run away if you absolutely must.

That's the mindset they're designed around. That is the conditions under which they are balanced.

You claim that rope trick is not intended to be used every night. Is there a limitation on the spell giving it a one week cooldown? Does it use a high-level slot that the wizard wouldn't normally waste on a utility spell? No.

It's a second level spell, and not only does it make a secure shelter for the wizard, it makes a secure shelter for the entire party, plus space for their accumulated loot. Tell me why someone who has that spell would willingly camp out in the open wilderness or in some dungeon room which had just been violently cleared of its previous inhabitants? Or someone who has a reasonable expectation that assassins might be after him? :)

If he actually wants to use the higher level slot, he can cast Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion instead, and get himself a palace with the same defensive properties. He never needs to expose himself. Neither does his party.

As for teleport, if the wizard sees a horde of mooks heading towards him, he has no particular reason to defend the place and he has an easy method of getting out of the area, why wouldn't he?

You are trying to project your personal idea of what wizards should be over the actual D&D wizard. Dude, that's not cool.

[SuperG]

Okay, let me put it a different way. That wizard is literally almost three times more intelligent than the average human by raw ability scores. Whatever scale you use to measure that, I'm fairly certain it's a very small subset of the population.

A small point that deserves to go in there...: Wisdom is the 'not doing stupid things' stat. So even if I accept that the wizard does have some kind of massive intellect, it's all about academics anyway. He's not got the Wisdom score to be a good tactician.

Now, about your "three times smarter" claim... there's a lot of potential responses. One is that the the average human isn't that smart. Another is that "three times smarter" is NOT borne out by what the numbers actually translate to in game terms.

I like that last, so I'll expand on it: That extra 18 INT gives +9 to INT checks, and gives an extra spell of each level. It does NOT triple skills, die rolls, or spells per day. It represents a 45% increase, actually. So he's more like IQ 145, if you like your IQ charts (which you do)... hey, what do you know, I /do/ know people that smart, and they have been known to make tactical mistakes with their RPG characters! Shock, horror!


You claim that rope trick is not intended to be used every night. Is there a limitation on the spell giving it a one week cooldown? Does it use a high-level slot that the wizard wouldn't normally waste on a utility spell? No.

It's a second level spell, and not only does it make a secure shelter for the wizard, it makes a secure shelter for the entire party, plus space for their accumulated loot. Tell me why someone who has that spell would willingly camp out in the open wilderness or in some dungeon room which had just been violently cleared of its previous inhabitants? Or someone who has a reasonable expectation that assassins might be after him? :)

As for teleport, if the wizard sees a horde of mooks heading towards him, he has no particular reason to defend the place and he has an easy method of getting out of the area, why wouldn't he?

You are trying to project your personal idea of what wizards should be over the actual D&D wizard. Dude, that's not cool.

D&D based novels tend to back me up here. Typical actual play tends to back me up here. While the _rules_ allow for the method of behaviour you mention, the rules are not what define D&D. How it is played defines D&D, and obsessive tactical play is a minority position.

This isn't even my opinion. This is the opinion I've seen over and over again from guys, new to the internet world of gaming, fresh from their tabletop games, who clash with the hardcore 'elite' of the powergamers.

It's also the opinion put forwards by the guys who are in charge of writing the rules.

Newsflash: They don't try and tightly define the rules to make them work exactly how they meant. That would be impossible. That's why they put in all the fluff about what people actually do.

[Bailywolf]

I think it would be interesting to speculate on how command structures would look when it's absurdly easy to teleport in, assassinate the command staff, and then teleport out again.
.

That was pretty much the order of the day for breaking armies when I played a lot of D&D back in college. We'd tool up, 'port in, gank command/control, dump dead plague-infected dogs in the wells, summon kobolds to infest the supply waggons, and then 'port out.

We had it down solid, until an enemy of the group staged an invasion specifically to lure us into a trap. We 'ported in, then got stuck there when that spell that prevents teleportation locked us down. Then we had an actual fight on our hands. Teach us to be predictable.

The same dynamic applies to armies backed by a powerful wizard (beyond the usual battle-wizard... like 6+ level). Assassinating his ass becomes a major priority. Poison and knives in the darkness. You don't even need to kill him- just convince him that his life will be shit if he continues to back your enemy's army.

-B

[Jon Chung]

A small point that deserves to go in there...: Wisdom is the 'not doing stupid things' stat. So even if I accept that the wizard does have some kind of massive intellect, it's all about academics anyway. He's not got the Wisdom score to be a good tactician.



Now, about your "three times smarter" claim... there's a lot of potential responses. One is that the the average human isn't that smart. Another is that "three times smarter" is NOT borne out by what the numbers actually translate to in game terms.

I like that last, so I'll expand on it: That extra 18 INT gives +9 to INT checks, and gives an extra spell of each level. It does NOT triple skills, die rolls, or spells per day. It represents a 45% increase, actually. So he's more like IQ 145, if you like your IQ charts (which you do)... hey, what do you know, I /do/ know people that smart, and they have been known to make tactical mistakes with their RPG characters! Shock, horror!

The average human is an NPC class of level 1, with an INT modifier of +0. Assuming he puts four skill points into his INT-based skill, and a Skill Focus feat because that's his job, he has a total roll of +7.

The 10th level wizard can put 13 skill points in, with his +9 INT modifier, for a total of +22. That's three times plus a bit. And he didn't need a feat. Or, to be fair, let's use a 1st level wizard with INT 18. He has a roll of +8, the normal guy has +4. Nicely doubled!

D&D based novels tend to back me up here. Typical actual play tends to back me up here. While the _rules_ allow for the method of behaviour you mention, the rules are not what define D&D. How it is played defines D&D, and obsessive tactical play is a minority position.

This is not obsessive tactical play. This is using the spells as they are printed. The only reason not to use them, when the uses are literally spelled out, is if you have a metagame reason not to do so.

This isn't even my opinion. This is the opinion I've seen over and over again from guys, new to the internet world of gaming, fresh from their tabletop games, who clash with the hardcore 'elite' of the powergamers.

I find it very hard to believe anyone playing a spellcaster who read through the PHB magic section in detail wouldn't think of using rope trick to rest securely every night, using teleport to run away from unnecessary battles and using plane shift to go to a different plane.

It's also the opinion put forwards by the guys who are in charge of writing the rules.

Wrong. Because they wrote the rules, and the rules don't say "you can't use rope trick more than once a week", or "you can't teleport unless your HP is below 50%", and "you can't shift to planes with beneficial ambient effects".

Newsflash: They don't try and tightly define the rules to make them work exactly how they meant. That would be impossible. That's why they put in all the fluff about what people actually do.

Newsflash: It isn't hard to define the rules to make sure the wizard and his party can't rest every night in a perfectly secure shelter. One thing you could do is, say, not publish two separate spells that allow you to do that, one with built-in room service. It isn't hard to define the rules to make sure the wizard can't teleport away from all danger. It isn't hard to not put fast-time planes in the game.

[Kasumi]

D&D based novels tend to back me up here. Typical actual play tends to back me up here. While the _rules_ allow for the method of behaviour you mention, the rules are not what define D&D. How it is played defines D&D, and obsessive tactical play is a minority position.

This isn't even my opinion. This is the opinion I've seen over and over again from guys, new to the internet world of gaming, fresh from their tabletop games, who clash with the hardcore 'elite' of the powergamers.

It's also the opinion put forwards by the guys who are in charge of writing the rules.

Newsflash: They don't try and tightly define the rules to make them work exactly how they meant. That would be impossible. That's why they put in all the fluff about what people actually do.


That all makes a great deal of sense when discussing bugs like Pun-Pun or even legal and reasonably balanced but obscure four-PrC combos. But do you honestly believe that most players would stick around to get assassinated with a Teleport sitting unused on their character sheet out of general principle?

The middle ground that you're excluding here is pretty vast, and it includes a lot of very obvious tactics. You don't need to get into hardcore tactics to give a spellcaster some useful responses to the sorts of dangers they'll face hanging around with an army.

[Silent Wayfarer]

I'd give minimal mage training to all recruits and equip them with scrolls, potions and wands.

BoJo

I quite like this idea for a somewhat more conventional war setting. Even if you can't train up a cadre of hardcore spellcasters, you can still augment each individual team with superior equipment.

Equipment advantage, winning you wars ever since someone figured out that stones cut better than bone.

[SuperG]

The average human is an NPC class of level 1, with an INT modifier of +0. Assuming he puts four skill points into his INT-based skill, and a Skill Focus feat because that's his job, he has a total roll of +7.

The 10th level wizard can put 13 skill points in, with his +9 INT modifier, for a total of +22. That's three times plus a bit. And he didn't need a feat. Or, to be fair, let's use a 1st level wizard with INT 18. He has a roll of +8, the normal guy has +4. Nicely doubled!

Except those are percentage increases. The level one wizard is only 20% more likely to make such a check, and your example with a high level character leads to the interesting observation that an INT 3 level 20 character is as smart as the level 10 wizard...

Conclusion: It's a jumbled mess, and you've failed to meet the burden of proof to claim that your wizard is superhumanly smart. And it's only fair the burden be on you; you're the one trying to prove that there's a signficant difference here.


This is not obsessive tactical play. This is using the spells as they are printed. The only reason not to use them, when the uses are literally spelled out, is if you have a metagame reason not to do so.



I find it very hard to believe anyone playing a spellcaster who read through the PHB magic section in detail wouldn't think of using rope trick to rest securely every night, using teleport to run away from unnecessary battles and using plane shift to go to a different plane.

Who says most players do read the PHB rules on magic thoroughly? They're long, boring, and about as much fun to read as the dictionary.

*I* haven't read said rules thoroughly. I'd be bored out of my mind if I tried.


Wrong. Because they wrote the rules, and the rules don't say "you can't use rope trick more than once a week", or "you can't teleport unless your HP is below 50%", and "you can't shift to planes with beneficial ambient effects".

Just because that's what _you_ would do if that was your intent and you could go back in time with a time machine, does not mean that that was what they ended up doing.


Newsflash: It isn't hard to define the rules to make sure the wizard and his party can't rest every night in a perfectly secure shelter. One thing you could do is, say, not publish two separate spells that allow you to do that, one with built-in room service. It isn't hard to define the rules to make sure the wizard can't teleport away from all danger. It isn't hard to not put fast-time planes in the game.

It IS hard to iron out every single bug in a game, however, especially when you have a release date and some players will want to play the game in a style you did not intend and did not balance the game against.

[SuperG]

That all makes a great deal of sense when discussing bugs like Pun-Pun or even legal and reasonably balanced but obscure four-PrC combos. But do you honestly believe that most players would stick around to get assassinated with a Teleport sitting unused on their character sheet out of general principle?

The middle ground that you're excluding here is pretty vast, and it includes a lot of very obvious tactics. You don't need to get into hardcore tactics to give a spellcaster some useful responses to the sorts of dangers they'll face hanging around with an army.

Stick around to die? No.

Stick around for a few rounds to try and kill the assassins, get their loot, and gain some XP?

Hell yes.

[Jon Chung]

Conclusion: It's a jumbled mess, and you've failed to meet the burden of proof to claim that your wizard is superhumanly smart.

The normal, unexceptional human maximum is defined as 18. This guy has a 28. How hard is that to grasp? Are you going to claim that the "barely higher than animal" INT 3 orc is only mildly retarded as well?

Who says most players do read the PHB rules on magic thoroughly? They're long, boring, and about as much fun to read as the dictionary.

*I* haven't read said rules thoroughly. I'd be bored out of my mind if I tried.

Then it's not my problem that you don't have a grasp on how wizards work. You failed to read the rules, you failed to realize what they can really do, and you think you know better than the designers how wizards should work?

Just because that's what _you_ would do if that was your intent and you could go back in time with a time machine, does not mean that that was what they ended up doing.

It IS hard to iron out every single bug in a game, however, especially when you have a release date and some players will want to play the game in a style you did not intend and did not balance the game against.

If their intent was to prohibit such "abusive" use of spells, it's not hard at all. Just don't print them. You don't print a spell that gives the wizard and his party a bloody otherdimensional mansion complete with unseen servants if you don't intend for it to be used regularly.

[Jon Chung]

Stick around to die? No.

Stick around for a few rounds to try and kill the assassins, get their loot, and gain some XP?

Hell yes.

If you're being jumped by assassins, you probably don't have the right spell array prepared, you probably aren't buffed up for battle, and you probably aren't in the best tactical position.

Sticking around in this disadvantageous situation when you can teleport out, get a breather, buff up the party and teleport right back to kick their asses with a much better shot at it?

You know, I like that idea. And it doesn't take me an INT score of 28 to figure that out.

[Silent Wayfarer]

It amuses me how WW's position seems to be "we have to make wizards/mages/spellcasters retarded to give everyone else a fighting chance!" and then he tries to justify his decision by repeating the same mantra about how normal people wouldn't be like that.

Well, duh. Wizards aren't normal people. They've got a supernatural toolkit and the godlike intellect to use it properly. Making them throw it away and act retarded in the process in order to give your attackers a chance to compete only proves how much superior they are.

[SuperG]

The normal, unexceptional human maximum is defined as 18. This guy has a 28. How hard is that to grasp? Are you going to claim that the "barely higher than animal" INT 3 orc is only mildly retarded as well?


Stat bonuses for aging and level up can easily break the '18' cap. An INT 26 character with no magic effects can be achieved right there - level 20 Venerable /anything/. Find some class or feat choice that increases INT and you've got a mundane human of the same INT score.


Then it's not my problem that you don't have a grasp on how wizards work. You failed to read the rules, you failed to realize what they can really do, and you think you know better than the designers how wizards should work?


I know exactly what they can do. I read the writings of people who DID bother to read all that text.

None of what you have been spouting surprised me in the slightest.


So, yeah, that ad hominem attack there? Not only is it poor form, but it doesn't even apply.


If their intent was to prohibit such "abusive" use of spells, it's not hard at all. Just don't print them. You don't print a spell that gives the wizard and his party a bloody otherdimensional mansion complete with unseen servants if you don't intend for it to be used regularly.

Actually, the intent is for magic to not be "used regularly" at all. The idea of limited spell slots was to encourage players to only use spells sparingly.

Now, you can easily claim they failed - but that IS the intent.


See, a wizard should be able to whip up an extra-dimensional mansion if they want to. It looks cool, and it's the sort of thing that an extravagant wizard would _do_. That doesn't mean that they'd memorize that spell all the time. They might need that spell slot some time during the day for something more important.

[Jon Chung]

Stat bonuses for aging and level up can easily break the '18' cap. An INT 26 character with no magic effects can be achieved right there - level 20 Venerable /anything/. Find some class or feat choice that increases INT and you've got a mundane human of the same INT score.

A level 20 character is anything but normal.

I know exactly what they can do. I read the writings of people who DID bother to read all that text.

None of what you have been spouting surprised me in the slightest.

So your entire argument boils down to "Wizards must act stupid because it's unfluffy if they don't", since you know exactly what a wizard played halfway intelligently is capable of doing.

Uh...

So, yeah, that ad hominem attack there? Not only is it poor form, but it doesn't even apply.

You have a very strong opinion on how wizards should do their thing (ie, act like an idiot). That opinion is not supported in the rules of the game. Ad hominem? I laugh.

Actually, the intent is for magic to not be "used regularly" at all. The idea of limited spell slots was to encourage players to only use spells sparingly.

Now, you can easily claim they failed - but that IS the intent.

Dude, once a day is practically the essence of sparingly when your entire supply refreshes every 24 hours. The only possible way that argument could apply to either rope trick or magnificent mansion is if it took you a week to refresh. The only way to use it less would be to not use it at all. If they wanted that, then why is the spell in the book?

Also, for all your claims of 'intent'... you have realized that your opinions are not the rules of the game?

See, a wizard should be able to whip up an extra-dimensional mansion if they want to. It looks cool, and it's the sort of thing that an extravagant wizard would _do_. That doesn't mean that they'd memorize that spell all the time. They might need that spell slot some time during the day for something more important.

It's one spell slot. One spell slot for the ability to completely ignore the whole "get ambushed in my sleep" thing. If you've got any expectation that you might encounter this situation, that spell is worth more than anything else you could possibly put in there.

[SuperG]

It amuses me how WW's position seems to be "we have to make wizards/mages/spellcasters retarded to give everyone else a fighting chance!" and then he tries to justify his decision by repeating the same mantra about how normal people wouldn't be like that.

Well, duh. Wizards aren't normal people. They've got a supernatural toolkit and the godlike intellect to use it properly. Making them throw it away and act retarded in the process in order to give your attackers a chance to compete only proves how much superior they are.

Your typical D&D wizard is played by your typical D&D player, who does not focus on tactical expediency... the D&D rules are written so people can play D&D with them...

Did I mention D&D enough? D&D D&D D&D.


D&D players are not retarded.

[Mokuren]

Stick around for a few rounds to try and kill the assassins, get their loot, and gain some XP?

Hell yes.

I'd call this blatant metagaming, but since I don't really give a damn about metagaming, I'm more worried about it being a very stupid tactic.

If I'm not expecting an assault, my opponents are unknown and of unknown power and have clearly managed to surprise me in spite of my defenses and I have a chance to get the hell out, I get the hell out.

Then I try to make heads and tails of the situation, find out who they are, what they want, who sent them and why and how they got past my tricks. Then I go kick their ass.

If I'm ambushed, I'm clearly at a disadvantage, and I don't want to fight when the odds are against me if I can avoid it.

Well, duh. Wizards aren't normal people. They've got a supernatural toolkit and the godlike intellect to use it properly. Making them throw it away and act retarded in the process in order to give your attackers a chance to compete only proves how much superior they are.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

If I have to dumb out people or houserule something just to give a non-spellcaster a chance, it's because there's quite a power creep already.

Back on topic, I feel that most of the best uses of magic rely on having spellcasters in the army that work together with non-spellcaster; some arguments are built on "Let's see how X fireball-casting wizards fare against Y fighters in situation Z"-like assumptions, which I think is just wrong.

Magic and tactics are all about options, if I have an army, and freedom to build whatever I want, I'll do my best to have as many options as I want. I don't want my 1st level wizard to cast magic missile three times a day, I want my 1st level wizard to max out on his cross-class Hide and Move Silently (or pick something to make them in-class) to go with a handful of rogues, cast "Grease" on an unexpecting flank, and watch everyone without 5 ranks in Balance get sneak attacked to death regardless of whether he passes the saving throw or not. And that's just one 1st level spell, he has two.

Spells that mess with formation and movement are pretty handy too, it's pretty difficult to command a charge if your troop is subject to Confusion, especially mounted troops: both cavalier and steed have to make their saving throw, and horses don't really have a huge Will save... Force walls block arrows and still allow you to see what's going on, Stone walls block arrows and still allow you to buff yourself or others, it's hard to be subject to arrows (or whatever) at all with Greater Invisibility, and even 2nd level Invisibility is good to get somewhere unnoticed.

Now, let's not make the mistake to consider the spellcaster alone... Invisibility is better off on a couple rogues to go and mess with the opponents' supplies, or to infiltrate camps and carry out assassinations, and that's viable tactic at 3rd level already, and guess who has countermeasures against invisible opponents? Yes, spellcasters.

That's why you always want magic around, it works better than any mundane equivalent, and you need magic to counter magic. "AMF lol"? That's a spell, too.

[R-90-2]

Your typical D&D wizard is played by your typical D&D player, who does not focus on tactical expediency...

Now that's comedy. That's like saying your typical person isn't focused on living to see the next sunrise.

[BoJo]

Your typical D&D wizard is played by your typical D&D player, who does not focus on tactical expediency...

My experience suggests that this is, indeed, precisely how many people play D&D. Maybe not your group, but my group - hell, yeah!

BoJo

[John_C]

The high-level casters are, while no doubt effective and all that, rather less fun in play...especially en mass. Besides, they've no doubt got better things to do with their time.

Set the sights lower. 4th, 5th level spellcasters, say. As Tzeentch was saying, even the low-level spells can change things in a lot of ways. While remaining (and this bit is important for me) more managable for the poor GM.

Little things. Using Dancing Lights, or Message, to relay orders, like.

[SuperG]

A level 20 character is anything but normal.


I didn't say he wasn't exceptional. But, as a human with no magic (your definition thereof) enhancing his mental faculties, he's a textbook case of 'not superhumanly intelligent'.

I'll easily agree Wizards are unusually intelligent people. You're trying to argue they're smarter than is humanly possible.


So your entire argument boils down to "Wizards must act stupid because it's unfluffy if they don't", since you know exactly what a wizard played halfway intelligently is capable of doing.

Uh...



You have a very strong opinion on how wizards should do their thing. That opinion is not supported in the rules of the game. Ad hominem? I laugh.

But I /do/ know what the powergamer approach to wizardry is. They pretty much press the big red 'I win' button when following. The fact that I found this out by spending a few afternoons on CharOp boards and tactical advice threads doesn't make me know it any less.

And I've got something better than the 'rules of the game' - I've got 'what people actually do en masse'. Countless PBP games, untold newb threads, some repetitive FtF drama.

I'm a competitive gamer. I actually have fun with char-op. But it's ultimately pointless, because it just leads to unbalanced games, and where's the fun in that?


Dude, once a day is practically the essence of sparingly when your entire supply refreshes every 24 hours.


It's one spell slot. One spell slot for the ability to completely ignore the whole "get ambushed in my sleep" thing. If you've got any expectation that you might encounter this situation, that spell is worth more than anything else you could possibly put in there.

It's one spell slot per day for the rest of your life, one spell slot that you could replace with simply resting only in reasonably safe places and having people keep guard.

Every spell slot devoted to personal defense is one NOT devoted to winning. The optimal strategy for a wizard is as little defensive magic as you can get away with, and as much 'win' as you can.

Note that I say 'as little as you can get away with'. That does not mean none, but that does mean that you do need to think carefully about allocations when you try for optimal play. (Well, that or just /pure/ cheese your way to victory, obv)

[SuperG]

Now that's comedy. That's like saying your typical person isn't focused on living to see the next sunrise.

Focus on big numbers and huge amounts of damage is arguably more common...

[SuperG]

If you're being jumped by assassins, you probably don't have the right spell array prepared, you probably aren't buffed up for battle, and you probably aren't in the best tactical position.

Sticking around in this disadvantageous situation when you can teleport out, get a breather, buff up the party and teleport right back to kick their asses with a much better shot at it?

You know, I like that idea. And it doesn't take me an INT score of 28 to figure that out.

And share the XP?

(Or, to be less OOC)

And look weak?


You're a wizard. You should be able to win the fight handily.

[Ranx]

This was a really interesting discussion before it dissolved into an 8 page flamewar. I suggest that everyone involved needs to take a deep breath and get some perspective.

I think in order to have a productive discussion we need to define some baselines. We should use Eberron, I think.

Assumptions in Eberron:

Magic items are relatively cheap and common: House Cannith has access to artifacts that allow the construction of magic items with reduced XP costs, and by lower level casters than usual.

High level characters are rare: Less rare during the last war than afterwards, but the vast majority of people "peak" after a few levels and never get any better. Most people have NPC classes. The majority magical presence on the battlefield is likely to be adepts, magewrights and magic items.

Time flows at the same rate everwhere: Except for the plane of dreams, but that's unreachable by normal magic and super-dangerous anyway. So no planeshifting to recover all your spells in a single round.

Hopefully we can avoid the vitriol this time.

[Jon Chung]

I didn't say he wasn't exceptional. But, as a human with no magic (your definition thereof) enhancing his mental faculties, he's a textbook case of 'not superhumanly intelligent'.

I'll easily agree Wizards are unusually intelligent people. You're trying to argue they're smarter than is humanly possible.

+5 tomes of intellect and +6 items of intelligence are inherently part of you? How strange. I was under the impression that they were magical items. An unaugmented human is incapable of the level of intelligence displayed by a magically augmented one. Wizards simply tend to do it more, since they rely on it.

But I /do/ know what the powergamer approach to wizardry is. They pretty much press the big red 'I win' button when following. The fact that I found this out by spending a few afternoons on CharOp boards and tactical advice threads doesn't make me know it any less.

Pressing the IWIN button would be pulling out Pun-Pun, the infinite shadow dragon gnome, the infinite actions psion or any other of the countless broken builds out there.

Using spells in the PHB as they're written with a plain Wizard 20 is not powergaming. By that definition, any Fighter 20 who takes Power Attack, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in Great Sword is powergaming.

And I've got something better than the 'rules of the game' - I've got 'what people actually do en masse'. Countless PBP games, untold newb threads, some repetitive FtF drama.

Funny, most of my experience with D&D has been pretty intensely tactical. Judging by the few posts just above this one, that experience is fairly common. Do not assume your ancedotal evidence speaks for everyone.

I'm a competitive gamer. I actually have fun with char-op. But it's ultimately pointless, because it just leads to unbalanced games, and where's the fun in that?

This is not char-op. This is called not being an idiot.

It's one spell slot per day for the rest of your life, one spell slot that you could replace with simply resting only in reasonably safe places and having people keep guard.

One level 2 spell slot - a single web, mirror image or invisibility - isn't worth being immune to scry-teleport-gank? For a self-confessed competitive gamer, you have an odd sense of tactical realities.

Every spell slot devoted to personal defense is one NOT devoted to winning. The optimal strategy for a wizard is as little defensive magic as you can get away with, and as much 'win' as you can.

Note that I say 'as little as you can get away with'. That does not mean none, but that does mean that you do need to think carefully about allocations when you try for optimal play. (Well, that or just /pure/ cheese your way to victory, obv)

I perfectly agree.

Except that I think 'minimum investment into personal defense' includes contingencied teleport spells, sequenced/triggered buff suites, always resting in a non-dimensional location, and keeping Mind Blank on 24/7.

Because whatever I can do, the enemy can also do, and I don't want to be woken up in bed by an army of ninjas because I couldn't be bothered to take adequate precautions. Equally, I expect any enemy with half a brain to take similar precautions against me summoning up a small horde of demons, teleporting into their bedroom while they're busy with their slave girls, and ripping them to shreds mid-orgasm.

[Jon Chung]

And share the XP?

If you die, you don't get any XP. Sticking around to fight a bunch of people you have no information about, with your metaphorical magical pants down? Not a good idea.

And look weak?

You're a wizard. You should be able to win the fight handily.

Wizards who think like this don't live to reach level 20. Wizards who think like this don't live to reach level 5.

[Silent Wayfarer]

This was a really interesting discussion before it dissolved into an 8 page flamewar. I suggest that everyone involved needs to take a deep breath and get some perspective.

I think in order to have a productive discussion we need to define some baselines. We should use Eberron, I think.

Assumptions in Eberron:

Magic items are relatively cheap and common: House Cannith has access to artifacts that allow the construction of magic items with reduced XP costs, and by lower level casters than usual.

High level characters are rare: Less rare during the last war than afterwards, but the vast majority of people "peak" after a few levels and never get any better. Most people have NPC classes. The majority magical presence on the battlefield is likely to be adepts, magewrights and magic items.

Time flows at the same rate everwhere: Except for the plane of dreams, but that's unreachable by normal magic and super-dangerous anyway. So no planeshifting to recover all your spells in a single round.

Hopefully we can avoid the vitriol this time.

Cannith also has loads of artificers, who can crank out eternal wands easily. I should also add that high Int characters, especially Wizard or Artificer 1 type characters, are best for operating siege engines, which use an INT-modified attack roll vs AC 25 to lob a huge rock over 2000 feet.

Ideally, your trebuchet targeteer would use true strike from a single-use magic item, add his +3-4 Int mod to the attack roll, and receive help from the rest of the trebuchet crew, which could add anywhere from +2 to +10 to the roll.

Low-level spells like soften earth and stone would be used to create huge masses of difficult terrain, requiring magewright engineers to clear it up with their own magic.

Living spells, should they ever be tamed, would be a horrifically effective weapon on the battlefield. A single living fireball / fly will kill any mundane creature it runs over until destroyed by concerted ranged attacks.

[Jon Chung]

Wonderous items of silent image make fantastic camouflage in any terrain - even a level 1 version can cover a ten foot square, enough to hide a squad of men keeping close together. As long as they don't get too close to anyone using detect magic, they should be just fine. Even if they do, they're close enough to charge him in one combat round.

These things would cost 2000 GP each according to the item-creation rules. Pretty expensive to issue as standard to every soldier, but easily affordable enough to issue to a squad leader to cover his men. Would make for some interesting skirmisher forces as well, with groups of soldiers popping out of nowhere to hit your rear.

[SuperG]

If you die, you don't get any XP. Sticking around to fight a bunch of people you have no information about, with your metaphorical magical pants down? Not a good idea.



Wizards who think like this don't live to reach level 20. Wizards who think like this don't live to reach level 5.


Wizards who think that below level five definately won't make it to level five.
At the mid-to-high levels? It's not the safest move, but the odds really are in their favour for it working, especially if they do remain poised to leave if the fight proves more difficult than expected.

Also, running away is losing.

+5 tomes of intellect and +6 items of intelligence are inherently part of you? How strange. I was under the impression that they were magical items.

My rogue with stat bonuses and the aging modifiers example _was not using those_. Just because your wizards need mental steroids to be that smart does not mean they're superhumanly smart.


Pressing the IWIN button would be pulling out Pun-Pun, the infinite shadow dragon gnome, the infinite actions psion or any other of the countless broken builds out there.

Using spells in the PHB as they're written with a plain Wizard 20 is not powergaming. By that definition, any Fighter 20 who takes Power Attack, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in Great Sword is powergaming.

Powergaming is about being effective. Playing a Fighter 20 is not effective. Surely you know that?

Fast time 'reload spells to full' isn't pun-pun, but you've got to be kidding me if you think that was allowed with the intent of making spells per day meaningless as a restriction on high level PC's.


Funny, most of my experience with D&D has been pretty intensely tactical. Judging by the few posts just above this one, that experience is fairly common. Do not assume your ancedotal evidence speaks for everyone.

How many all-paranoid-wizard parties have you been in? Because honestly, from a PG perspective, your professed character preferences (other thread) are _terrible_ choices.


This is not char-op. This is called not being an idiot.

It is not stupid to play a game in a particular style because you find it more fun.

Quite the opposite.


One level 2 spell slot - a single web, mirror image or invisibility - isn't worth being immune to scry-teleport-gank? For a self-confessed competitive gamer, you have an odd sense of tactical realities.

For one thing, it doesn't make you immune to all such ambushes - one could argue to _any_ such ambushes. For another, a single web can be all you need to win an entire fight, a single invisibility all you need to circumvent it, and a single mirror image enough to let you pull of a proper 'I win' sequence.


I perfectly agree.

Except that I think 'minimum investment into personal defense' includes contingencied teleport spells, sequenced/triggered buff suites, always resting in a non-dimensional location, and keeping Mind Blank on 24/7.

Because whatever I can do, the enemy can also do, and I don't want to be woken up in bed by an army of ninjas because I couldn't be bothered to take adequate precautions. Equally, I expect any enemy with half a brain to take similar precautions against me summoning up a small horde of demons, teleporting into their bedroom while they're busy with their slave girls, and ripping them to shreds.

You know that it's impossible to prepare effectively against a wizard who wants you dead, and it's trivial to defeat a non-wizard, right? (there are a number of other classes that can effectively be wizards for the purpose of that sentence)

So what's the point of making it a challenge for the wizard? That only gives them another reason to try and kill you.

[dimensional]

A 10th level wizard built for spell power has had two level-up points pushed into his base 20 INT, and a +6 item of INT boosting. He has an INT of 28.

Do you know anyone with an IQ of 280? Do you know how such a person thinks? I sure as hell don't.



Actually he doesn't he has a base of 18 2 level ups and a +4 item (the +6 being more that 25% of wealth guidlines so he shouldn't have it)

even then thats the absolute top end. thas the PC wizard who's focused his whole life of being a wizard. he's supposed to be that focused.

In The D&D world however Yea old NPC has a base Int of 11 and thus only even gets 2nd lvl spells at 4th level when he gets his int bump.

An excpetional NPC will have the Elite Array and thus have a starting int of 15.

In The context of this specific dicussion the base line is these Guys. The Grunt Wizards and wizards aprentices who Make up the Majority of An armies Magical forces. Most of which probably don't have moe than 3 Levels.

A 10th level PC optimized Wizard Is Extreme and unusual and Should not Be considered for the discussion on how an army would use magic. They break the mould, and they should thats why they are PC's

Jeremy

[Jon Chung]

Wizards who think that below level five definately won't make it to level five.
At the mid-to-high levels? It's not the safest move, but the odds really are in their favour for it working, especially if they do remain poised to leave if the fight proves more difficult than expected.

And teleporting away, buffing up and teleporting back to surprise them is a better plan. Especially if you left them a going-away present to keep them occupied while you did so.

Also, running away is losing.

Dying is more permanent.

My rogue with stat bonuses and the aging modifiers example _was not using those_. Just because your wizards need mental steroids to be that smart does not mean they're superhumanly smart.

By definition, someone with INT 20, four level ups into INT and +3 worth of aging modifiers is the absolute limit of human (or ECL +0 humanoid, anyway) intelligence. Whacking on +11 points of magical augmentation pushes them into a level of intelligence not normally reachable. Therefore, superhuman.

Powergaming is about being effective. Playing a Fighter 20 is not effective. Surely you know that?

Neither is ignoring perfectly good spells on your list because you feel like crippling yourself. Playing a Fighter 20 is a pretty stupid decision, so is not using your basic spellcaster toolkit.

Fast time 'reload spells to full' isn't pun-pun, but you've got to be kidding me if you think that was allowed with the intent of making spells per day meaningless as a restriction on high level PC's.

Designer placed fast-time planes into game.
Designer placed plane hopping spell into game.

Obviously, the fast-time planes were meant to be accessible. If they're accessible, then taking advantage of their side effects is as obvious as picking a heavily fortified castle to hole up in over a goblin's hut.

How many all-paranoid-wizard parties have you been in? Because honestly, from a PG perspective, your professed character preferences (other thread) are _terrible_ choices.

Quite a few, when I feel like munchkin-fu. And what I personally prefer playing and what is the most absolutely effective builds I can create are not the same thing. I like playing things like Ranger 1/Fighter 1/Psion 8/Illithid Slayer 10 to be competent with three basic party roles. I can play Pun-Pun, the Shadow Gnome or Energizer Bunny Psion and wipe out planes.

It is not stupid to play a game in a particular style because you find it more fun. Quite the opposite.

If you like ignoring useful spells on your list because it doesn't fit your personal idea of wizards in D&D, fine. That is not the default method of play. With the assumption that the DM is running things by the book, doing that causes you to end up dead.

For one thing, it doesn't make you immune to all such ambushes - one could argue to _any_ such ambushes. For another, a single web can be all you need to win an entire fight, a single invisibility all you need to circumvent it, and a single mirror image enough to let you pull of a proper 'I win' sequence.

You know that it's impossible to prepare effectively against a wizard who wants you dead, and it's trivial to defeat a non-wizard, right? (there are a number of other classes that can effectively be wizards for the purpose of that sentence)

So what's the point of making it a challenge for the wizard? That only gives them another reason to try and kill you.

If you're hiding in an extradimensional space with a mind blank and nondetection on and somebody finds you, they probably blew a few wish spells to do it, or your DM hates you. Contingency-teleport or contingency-shift away, laugh at their lost XP, then do it right back to him while you still know where he is and he's inconvenienced by landing in the middle of all your traps.

[towishimp]

Can you guys PLEASE take this argument to another place? We all get it. First guy thinks wizards are awesome and "totally rulz over all." They do, using the rules to their fullest. Most 3.5 D&Ders know this, and some like it some don't. Some nerf wizards for greater enjoyment, some don't. That's fine. Some people like cucumbers, some don't. That doesn't mean we need 5 pages of fighting over the merits and demerits of cucumbers, okay?

Back on topic (using the Eberron assumptions posted by Ranx): I still assert that wizards are pretty fragile, and their power is limited on a day-to-day basis. Disturbing their rest can make them even more limited. I would definitely limit their role on the actual battlefield to casting concealment and other misleading magic, so that I could maximize the use of my normal soldiers. A big blasty spell might be useful everyone once and awhile -- to break up an elite formation, take down a marauding giant, etc. But overall, I'd rather have my wizards using their limited magical capacity to help my army, not just to keep themselves alive on a dangerous battlefield.

[Jon Chung]

They'd probably be a lot more useful creating handy, cheap (1000-2000 GP) little use-activated magical trinkets, such as the silent image item I mentioned a few posts up, to cloak skirmishers, forward scout teams and special forces under an illusory shield. A similar item for cure light wounds or cure minor wounds would drastically simplify the combat medic's job - one standard action and the average soldier moves from bleeding out his life to fully cured. A few items of prestidigitation would make day-to-day issues of hygiene and such go away. Items of message allow efficient communication and mending ensures maintenance is a breeze.

A low level mage doesn't really have a lot of individual impact on the battlefield, but if he can crank out a bunch of scrolls, wands and maybe a minor magic item or two, and you have a fairly large contingent of wizards like him, you can do pretty well in the combat utility spell department while not risking your production.

As long as you have a few magewrights out with the grunts to use the consumables, anyway. They're more expendable than a full-blown wizard or artificer.

[malindle]

Yes. PLEASE take the flamewar elsewhere, k? And for the record; you guys are seriously ignoring one important fact: Intelligence is not the Common Sense stat, that's wisdom, which generally is fairly low for a wizard (For a number of reasons). That generally means that said Wizard has at least one major hole in his short or long term plans and contingencies. Irregardless of level or Intelligence.


Anyway:

There's a wealth of novelization on such a topic, and i'm surprised no one has mentioned the Black Company novels. Mundane troops fighting wars, with both powerful, mid-level, and low-level wizards hittin' about. And they're fairly good books by themselves (at least the first bunch).

Within the settings laid out for Eberron:

Lots of low to mid level magewrights and adepts, a few potent/talented individuals with PC spellcasting classes. They make up the majority of an armed forces' magic. But don't forget that there's also scads of PC's floating around Eberron (or so it seems to me), but they're generally occupied by some immediate goal rather than "go wage war". Also, level is generally fairly low in Eberron, at least for NPC schmucks.

I forsee battle-magic being a lot like it suggests in the Complete Warrior: Magic is impressive in the small-area skirmishes and whatnot, but just not big enough to affect an entire battlefield. You just don't have enough Fireball's to affect the battle in a huge and significant way.

Hrm.. One other important thing to remember is that even with mid-level PC's, duration and range for most spells is pathetically low. The 1 round/level schtick just doesn't cut it, and 100-200 feet for a spell to cast, with line of sight, is almost askin' to be gutted or shot to pieces. You can summon a celestial dire badger to fight for you... for four rounds (24 seconds) Woop-de-friggin' do. Oh? You're potent enough to summon something much scarier/larger? 10 rounds. :-P

If you're big enough to actually throw down to the point where you can shift the battle, you're gonna get picked on by a LOT of people. Enemy wizards, archers, riflemen, etc. And one thing to remember, is that D&D 3rd' protective spells are HORRIBLE compared to earlier editions. Protection from arrows doesn't do squat against a Magic Weapon spell, and can be whittled down pretty well by a volley of arrows anyway. Same goes for Stoneskin (if you can even cast it). Mirror Image will dissappear under a single round of shooting from archers, or a cadre of level 2 mook warriors. And they can STILL get lucky.

Most of this assumes low level spellcasters. Which I think is fair at least for Eberron. Even if you've got The Limper, and The Howler, and Soulcatcher and Lady fighting for you (Black Company References) there's just as many as likely to be on the other side.

And lets not forget, non-wizards can be pretty damn clever too. "Hey, see the Green Necromancer of the Night over there? Yeah, mean. Hey, I been saving something for juuuusst such a situation...." A scroll of Silence sucks.

[Moonstone Spider]

How does the Book of 9 Swords affect the equation here? I haven't seen it in actual play but I understand that it basically pumps up fighter types until they can stand next to the mage and be an even match.

[John_C]

How does the Book of 9 Swords affect the equation here? I haven't seen it in actual play but I understand that it basically pumps up fighter types until they can stand next to the mage and be an even match.

The Crusader makes one hell of an officer, especially with the ability to heal his comrades during combat. Unlikely to come into play if we're assuming low-level soldiers on the battefield, but even the low level Crusaders have useful maneuvers.

As do the other two classes, come to think of it. Hmmmm...this requires some looking....

[Silent Wayfarer]

Massed crusaders are fucking awesome. Not only do they have the healing power of the Devoted Spirit discipline, but the White Raven discipline is exponentially more powerful when used in a group. They're actually more likely to succeed than Warblades or Swordsages, in conventional mass combat. Also, Furious Counterstrike and Steely Resolve make them rock hard. The White Raven and Devoted Spirit have the best battlefield control stuff in BONS and the Crusaders have both.

Warblades would be heavy assault pioneers, since their maneuvers are all "push button receive bloodshed" attack techs. They're also pretty buff and can resist bad conditions with Iron Heart Surge, perfect for when everyone starts aiming debilitating crap at you. They'd be good for engaging enemy heroes, or to serve as a hammer to the crusaders' anvil.

Swordsages would tend more towards the rogue role with their diverse disciplines which reward sneak attacks. They also tend to have slightly poorer combat performance (3/4 BAB, mostly) but make up for it with assloads of exotic maneuvers. 6+Int SPs/level also makes them good skillmonkeys. The lack of White Raven makes them quite bad for mass combat, but Shadow Hand and Setting Sun makes them great for lone ops vs big enemies and for smacking down loads of weak enemies at once.

[vitus979]

Low to mid-level "Legion" and "Mass" spells can really buff up the rest of the group on a company level if you were to distribute spellcasters that way.

Also, loseth's example is overly simplistic and given a real battlemat situation would not go as he predicts.

Options:

1) a squad of 10 of so of Magicus's troopers out on one flank half way between the main bodies would devour the entire end of Soldierous's line because the 10 troops will never have to fight more than 3 - 7 of Soldierous troopers since they're so spread out and the time it would take running up. The first round when the troopers hit the enemy on the ends of the line only 6 of Soldierous's would be able to charge in to fight (only 6 soldiers within 60ft because of spacing), additional troops would have to at least triple move into combat unable to attack on round 1. Also, when Soldierous's troops move to intercept the squad they need to converge, allowing more targets per fireball attack.

2) Even if they advanced as you predicted, the line of Magicus would be very short and compact to protect the spellusers. Soldierous's line would therefore have to spend at least a couple rounds compacting into a decent depth to attack Magicus's infantry line with any kind of efficiency. The soldiers on the ends of the line would be 300ft away from the center, requiring at LEAST 3 rounds, and probably 4 to get into a position to attack the enemy. Again, this few rounds of convergence is when the Fireballs are the most useful. While this is going on Magicus's troops could move to intercept some of the troopers. This option assumes that the warriors for Magicus will have some kind of phalanx fighting formation and/or feat to increase AC by being closely pressed together.

[Tzeentch]

I quite like this idea for a somewhat more conventional war setting. Even if you can't train up a cadre of hardcore spellcasters, you can still augment each individual team with superior equipment.

Equipment advantage, winning you wars ever since someone figured out that stones cut better than bone.
This is not only absurdly expensive in D&D, but at least for wands and potions a HORRIBLE way of doing things -- wands cannot be recharged and have only 50 shots for a expensive outlay of xp and gp; potions are extremely expensive for each use and manufacturing limits are very, very low (maximum of 1 per day/mage capable of creating them). These are things you give your special forces and not the average Commoner or Warrior grunt.

[Tzeentch]

I don't think the popular "scry and fry" commando operations would work well unless the opposing side lacked any sort of countermeasures (can't even use Nondetection (Wiz 3) or Rope Trick (Wiz 2) or hit the commandos with Dimensional Anchor (Wiz 4) or create a Permanent Mage's Private Sanctum for the commanders?). Or to really mess with people use Dimensional Lock - at the point you're talking about teleporting wizard assassins or commando units we're talking about some pretty seriously high level mages anyways.

There are lots of spells that prevent scrying and teleports, or ways of simply removing the targets from attack (Rope Trick!).

D&D magic is very powerful tactically but I have doubts it would sway things strategically like some people are claiming. But supermagic and supersmart godmages change things in ways I doubt any DM would ever allow -- for one thing the commanders can sit back in the capital and run wars on the squad level with the level of magical influence some of you folks are talking about - using teleport object to get supplies to the front without any logistics train. The obvious result of supermages and everyone having wands of fireball/potions is that you fight in places where the opposing side can't easily use their advantages -- like fighting in their cities after you teleport your troops there. I really doubt that would be very fun and quickly leads to a situation that is not much like warfare you can easily game or even think through.

[jimthegray]

A spin-off of the Gunpowder in Eberron thread, which has sparked some interesting ideas....

Take a world like Eberron, where magic is pretty common. How are military tactics going to adapt to dealing with enemies that can throw fireballs, lightning bolts, Entangle spells, and suchlike?

How are you going to organize your forces? Let's say that 1 out of every 20 soldiers is a potential wizard, sorcerer, artificer, or magewright...someone capable of using scrolls, or wands. Do you break these people off into their own units, or integrate them somehow with the mundane troops?

There are no right or wrong answers, of course. I just want interesting theories and neat ideas....


try reading through iron kingdoms they go into this a lot

[Srathnal]

Personally I would think magic and the military would mesh pretty much like our current day militaries...

You have standard infantry... nothing special except in numbers. The good ones are trained not to stand too close to one another and have training on fighting in different scenarios (urban, woods, desert) the less elite have less training or experience. These might be archers or crossbowmen with armored soldiers with sword/shield acting as buffers.

You would have light area effects groups (something akin to the modern mortor or M203s). That would be either a small group of low level mages or a single mage attached at the squad level.

You would have tanks...that could be something like armored giants or mamoths with platforms for archers or mages depending on world flavor.

You would have artillery... higher level mages that hang back and lob big nasties at the battle field.

You would also probably have some sort of air force... dragons, pegusus riders, flying manta riders, sky barges....whatever... that act as bombers, fighters and reconn.

I also think it is important to note that probable magic on the battle field would drastically change tactics. Gone would be the 'Braveheart' days of lining up on opposite ends of a field until someone gets the gumption to charge the other guy's line... too easy for the other side (or your side ... or both) to start dropping extended range, extended area cloudkills on someone. Lines went out of vogue when accuracy and range made them deadly for a company to form.

I think that there would probably be more guerilla type warfare... more movements to contact with brief, smaller battles... and quick deadly assaults against smaller less fortified outposts.

Remember scrying would mostly be useless as the other side surely has illusions and anti-scrying magics of thier own... so the cloud of war would still apply.

The exception would be as wars wound down ... assaults of cities ... which would probably be more like WWII. Squad sized movement, controlled by magical communications as magical artilery hammered down from the skies and enormous flying beasts wrangled for superiority in the sky.

At least... that's my take on it.

[mindstalk]

The Black Company books are indeed awesome. But they strongly support the "high Int rules" side of things. The Black Company wins by being sneaky. They don't fight fair, they use their advantages, they *make* the advantages they use. They've got a few mid-level wizards good at illusions and divination, so they use lots of scrying, illusions, and talk loudly about spies to hide the fact that they have a few wizards on their side. Those wizards themselves don't "powergame" most of the time but they're often distracted by squabbling or being drunk; they can when they need to. Of the top level wizards, at least two -- the Dominator and the Lady -- seem like "powergamers" (i.e. going for advantage not just intelligently but obsessively) in different ways. Of the top wizards some rely heavily on their power, bulling through things, but the Lady and Soulcatcher rely on wits and sneakiness as much as power, and guess who are the last ones standing?

One-Eye might not always sleep up a rope trick (*hic*), but the Lady probably would. Hell, if you gave her magnificent mansion I'm not sure she'd ever leave, morbid little paranoid that she was.

And yeah, if you have safe and easy access to planes with different time-rates people will use them. The Amberites did with Shadows, the Heechee hide out in a black hole, wizards would do it with planes. If you don't like it, ban the frigging planes. Fast-time's just asking for trouble anyway.

[wokuma]

Hmm... it all should begin with training.

Training is life.

Historically the better trained and led armies did better. So I would build an army starting with an aggressive training program. I'd have my druids train and practice game management (i.e. hunt). Incidentally it was said that hunting was a form of medieval war training.

So, I'd have my druids hunt and train.

So in times of war I can field a mid level professional blooded druid army. As for my professional war druids (militant forest protectors), well... their spells speak for themselves. And we got wisdom (i.e. common sense). And war means leveling up and loot.

And reincarnation is gotten quite early.

[Tzeentch]

The "World at War" series