plans for a Castle Keep needed
Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk
Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
bit.
Cheers Nigel
http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
Marc Quattromani
scott
> Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
> obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
> bit.
There are plans for castles and keeps in the Castle Guide (DMGR2), which
is available at TSR's sight in the download area. However, the file is just
a small ZIP file and so I don't think the pictures are included. Maybe
someone will get around to scanning those in.
Another idea is to go to your local library. Check out the section about
medievel history.
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, Grimoire Arcana, World Shapers' Page, and now
my AD&D Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"Emulate, but never imitate." -- Unknown
Dave Brohman
scott (sjcal...@odyssey.on.ca) wrote:
> There are plans for castles and keeps in the Castle Guide (DMGR2), which
> is available at TSR's sight in the download area. However, the file is just
> a small ZIP file and so I don't think the pictures are included. Maybe
> someone will get around to scanning those in.
The pictures are indeed included in the ZIP file, but the scans are of
incredibly poor quality and are almost unuseable.
P.S. - Go see "The 5th Element"...NOW!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman E-Mail : dbro...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University
"Dogs are not like cats, who ammusingly tolerate humans until somone
comes up with a tin-opener that can be operated with a paw."
- Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David M Watkins
>Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
>obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
>bit.
>Cheers Nigel
>http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
I recommend the Palladium Book of Weapons and Castles by Matthew Balent,
1982, Palladium Books, if you can find it. On page 21 is a excellent example
of a *typical* keep and a good starting point. Also included are lots of
floor plans of castles, and lots of clear, concise illustrations (I am not on
their payroll!). Dave.
Mad Hatter
If I were your DM, I'd give you castle Ravenloft... Plus the
occupants!!!
<evil grin of a veteran DM, who dislikes munchkin magic items>
--
I haven't lost my mind - It's backed up on tape somewhere...
Andrew Christopher Lacek
Actually, the TSR site has the whole castles thing on it, including
designs for a couple of keeps. So as long as you can unzip, decode and
read the .gif files you'll be right.
Blenda
scott wrote:
>
> In article <3393402...@news.demon.co.uk>, Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
> > obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
> > bit.
>
> is available at TSR's sight in the download area. However, the file is just
> a small ZIP file and so I don't think the pictures are included. Maybe
> someone will get around to scanning those in.
>
> medievel history.
>
> Dragar Steelepoint
> Master of the Blade
> ______________________________________________________________
> The World of Irial, Grimoire Arcana, World Shapers' Page, and now
> my AD&D Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
>
> "Emulate, but never imitate." -- Unknown
--
Blenda
Prince Etrigan
David M Watkins <watk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3393402...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
>>obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
>>bit.
>>Cheers Nigel
>>http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
>
> I recommend the Palladium Book of Weapons and Castles by Matthew Balent,
>1982, Palladium Books, if you can find it.
I heartily 2nd that reccommendation! The info on that book is below.
TITLE: The Compendium of Weapons, Armour & Castles
AUTHOR: Matthew Balent
PUBLISHER: Palladium Books
ISBN: 0916211-38-X
The published date on my copy is 1989
Annother resource on the WWW is "castle on the web" which can be
reached from my website at http://www.rpg.net/etrigan/
Hope this helps!
Prince Etrigan
etr...@rpg.net
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1141/
(NOTE don't respond to etr...@idt.net that address is going away
soon)
The WeReCHiCKeN
Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
> obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
> bit.
> Cheers Nigel
> http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
If you want a couple of larfs and a nice time of conversion, use the
Star Wars Sourcebook, and take a look at the Imperial Base. Take down a
few floors, maybe, or convert TIE fighters to Griffins or Pegasi, or
something, and you have a viable (and well nigh impenetrable) fortress.
After all, the bases are well organized and well planned, and you would
do well to copy it.
Or, you could copy the sample rebel base, and try making an underground
keep (maybe it was built by dwarves or some such)
Mr. Tines
###
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:55:49 GMT, in <3393402...@news.demon.co.uk>
Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote.....
> Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
> obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
> bit.
HMSO used to do a range of pamphlets detailing various castles and such
around the country. With a UK mail address, you should be able to find
somewhere suitable locally to visit!
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
ef4e1ab9498271b4d6ebecf0468dc2835a36e332333dff06b71bf72b9ce1
4c0921f58441498b8a68464d0084b6fc451c09aeccd0cf923646134795c7
Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 21:55:49 GMT, Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
>Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
>obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
>bit.
>http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
Just a quick thank you for all your help. It has been very useful.
Cheers Nigel
http:\\www.envoke.demon.co.uk
Bryan J. Maloney
The history section of your library...
Damned kids. Anybody else remember when that was the first place you
would go for such stuff for your D&D campaigns?
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation."
Kevin A Barton
Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
: Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
: obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
: bit.
go to your local library and check out a book on mideval (or gothic or
whatever time period is appropriate) architecture and mimmic what designs
are there... then you can alter them a bit to fit what ever level of magic
the campaign is set in (gorgon blood in the mortar and what ever)....
Remember the library is free, and i've seen 1st ed. AD&D material in the
catelog at the one near me...
-mordraith
Marc Quattromani
Kevin A Barton wrote:
[on where to get castle plans]
> go to your local library and check out a book on mideval (or gothic or
> whatever time period is appropriate) architecture and mimmic what designs
> are there... then you can alter them a bit to fit what ever level of magic
> the campaign is set in (gorgon blood in the mortar and what ever)....
Actually, in many fantasy worlds, Earth castles will only be so
appropriate. The most effective barrier in most Earth castles
was the walls. Walls were hard for armies to get over. They
were also hard for a small group of raiders to get over: MANY
castles fell when betrayed from within or less often, when raiders
slipped in and opened a gate.
Now honestly, with an average 5-6th level party containing
mages with fly spells and a thief, how hard would it be for
the party to slip into any of the larger castles and open
a gate? Similarly, if the attackers have aerial mounts, they
might be able to drop/land a large number of troops inside
the walls.
In short, fantasy world castles, depending on the world, might
have to protect against a number of non-Earth points of attack.
Granted, the castle keep will not fall as easily to these
methods but at the least I think this would cause the keep
to be emphasized much more than the walls.
As a discussion topic, how do you think castles would be
altered to be effective in a world with up to 12th level
D&D mages and with aerial mounts?
I can think of a number of things to try against Earth castles
and a few defenses against them. here's a few:
diminuation/fly would let a spy sneak in through an arrow
slit. One counter is to have tight covers on all windows
(could get hot and how hard could it be to force one open).
So maybe also, alarm spells on all windows, too.
flying mounts could land a small force within the walls. One
counter is to only build stand-alone keeps. But walls are
useful even with aerial mounts, so maybe you just make the
walled area smaller and string netting up between walls and
keep. Probably have to be enchanted against fire or made of
fire proof material, though.
warp-wood on a castle gate: counter- don't use wood.
fireballs against the main keep. Nearly all Earth keeps
would burn quite well since only the shell was stone.
I suppose you could counter with more
fireproof building techniques (more stone and metal)
or with anti-fire magic.
There are other ways of attacking and countering. You can
bet that if attackers would use the vast arsenal of D&D
magic in clever ways and defenders would get equally clever
in defense. Most Earth castles are wide open to an attack
with magic and aerial mounts...
Anyone want to bring up any other attacks/defenses?
Marc
Aaron Pound
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> The history section of your library...
>
> Damned kids. Anybody else remember when that was the first place you
> would go for such stuff for your D&D campaigns?
>
What, youm mean you don't have a collection of source materials accumulated in your home
library? :) I must have six or seven books within arm's reach right now that have
floor plans for various ancient military structures.
Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
Skywalker
Kevin A Barton wrote:
>
> Ni...@envoke.demon.co.uk wrote:
> : Does anybody know where I can get some plans for a Keep as I have just
> : obtained one from the Deck of Many Things and need to expand on it a
> : bit.
goto t$r's site and down load the net book on castles... it might help.
skywalker
Tim Breen
> I can think of a number of things to try against Earth castles
> and a few defenses against them. here's a few:
>
> diminuation/fly would let a spy sneak in through an arrow
> slit. One counter is to have tight covers on all windows
> (could get hot and how hard could it be to force one open).
> So maybe also, alarm spells on all windows, too.
Flying predators (hawks, perhaps?) could also cut down on pesky
diminutive flying intruders. So could having metal wires in the window
sills (and or closed shutters). At least, these would make it more
difficult and dangerous for the intruder.
> flying mounts could land a small force within the walls. One
> counter is to only build stand-alone keeps. But walls are
> useful even with aerial mounts, so maybe you just make the
> walled area smaller and string netting up between walls and
> keep. Probably have to be enchanted against fire or made of
> fire proof material, though.
A flying force of your own is also an excellent counter. Don't modern
air forces protect their airfields in part by scrambling fighters? So
too could fantasy castles protect themselves with squads of griffons,
harpies, or whatever.
> fireballs against the main keep. Nearly all Earth keeps
> would burn quite well since only the shell was stone.
> I suppose you could counter with more
> fireproof building techniques (more stone and metal)
> or with anti-fire magic.
If there is _enough_ magic available for castle construction, glassteel
roofs would be a great idea over certain portions of the keep. It
doesn't burn and generally doesn't shatter and I don't think it's
susceptible to very many "warp wood" or "stone shape" type spells. In
fact, putting a glassteel facing on even a wooden drawbridge might not
be a bad idea, if feasible.
-- Tim
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes).
scott
In article <339A0929...@pyramid.com>, Marc Quattromani
<ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
> Actually, in many fantasy worlds, Earth castles will only be so
> appropriate. The most effective barrier in most Earth castles
> was the walls. Walls were hard for armies to get over. They
> were also hard for a small group of raiders to get over: MANY
> castles fell when betrayed from within or less often, when raiders
> slipped in and opened a gate.
<snip>
> Similarly, if the attackers have aerial mounts, they
> might be able to drop/land a large number of troops inside
> the walls.
This is why a fantasy castle will need to be divided up into many
secure sections. This way if one section is breached it can be
contained within a small area. This is effective (at least useful)
against many attacks. Whether through teleporatation-type
magic or psionics (passwall, dimension door, teleport, wormhole),
tunneling under or flying over the wall, or breaching the wall
(or gate). This compartmentalization will at least slow the intruders
down.
> In short, fantasy world castles, depending on the world, might
> have to protect against a number of non-Earth points of attack.
<snip>
> I can think of a number of things to try against Earth castles
> and a few defenses against them. here's a few:
>
> diminuation/fly would let a spy sneak in through an arrow
> slit. One counter is to have tight covers on all windows
> (could get hot and how hard could it be to force one open).
> So maybe also, alarm spells on all windows, too.
I've seen similar suggestions to this before. This may be okay
during a seige or a known attack, but for every day life it
doesn't seem practical.
> flying mounts could land a small force within the walls. One
> counter is to only build stand-alone keeps. But walls are
> useful even with aerial mounts, so maybe you just make the
> walled area smaller and string netting up between walls and
> keep. Probably have to be enchanted against fire or made of
> fire proof material, though.
You don't have to go as far as netting though. Although that
would be best for "sensative" areas. Even ropes or chains strung
up would at least deter flying creatures, or at least make it more
diffficult.
Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
- early warning system: at the very least have some guards
set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
- counter attack: after you see them, destroy them or drive them
off before they can cause damage or land troops inside your
walls; for this you will want to have methods of attack designed
specifically for aerial attacks; how about 2 ballistae that trail a
net between the 2 bolts to entangle flying creatures; you may
even have your own aerial creatures to counter attack
- if the castle is compartmentalized a small force can be at least
contained and dealt with accordingly
- to deter flying creatures from landing on the roof, you may
want to install spikes/spears jutting outwards from rooves
> Anyone want to bring up any other attacks/defenses?
o attack - Knock spells on the gates: defense - multiple locks
o attack - tunnel under the walls - there are lots of
creatures that can easily burrow through the earth: defense? -
compartmentalization may help; possibly have fighters trained to
fight in tunnels so that attackers can be driven back
o attack - Invisibility: defense - dogs (and many other creatures)
will be able to sense invisilbe creatures more easily than humans;
they can be trained to give warning if they sense something that
they can't see
That's all I can think of right now.
An important thing to remember is that while a castles ultimate
purpose is for defense it most likely serves some other mundane
functions. It may be the thriving seat of government, or it may
be a lord's home, or it may only serve as a barracks for troops.
But you have to remember that any defense has to be lived with
during the routine day-to-day functions of living. This applies
to any creature's lair as well. If there is a spike-lined pit every
10' down the entry hallway, how do the creatures go in and out
of their lair every day? There are some simple answers to this
one but remember this when you start guarding hallways with
magical or mechanical traps and warning systems. At least be
sure that there is some easy way to avoid these things during the
day-to-day functions.
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, Grimoire Arcana, World Shapers' Page, and AD&D
Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"Ideas often last but a day; feelings, dreams almost forever."
-- Gabrielle Roy
Marc Quattromani
scott wrote:
> Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
> - early warning system: at the very least have some guards
> set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
That's a very valid point and I think the heart of any defense
in a fantasy world. There are only so many counters to magic,
aerial troops and pesky parties. The best defense will be a
person-intensive, well organized patrol system where people
are 'everywhere' and a missing partol is immediately noticed.
Obviously, signalling devices could be critical.
If your walls are towers are heavily patrolled, intruders don't
have the time they need to open a gate or seize the castle.
It probably means that castle garrisons must be larger than
historical. In game terms, this probably changes nothing because
I'd wager that few refs realize how undermanned many historical
castles were. 300 troops was a heavy defense even for Krak
de Chevalier. During the Own Glyn Dwr revolt in Wales, many
English castles were held by less than 20 men-at-arms,
some less than 10. Most refs probably stock castles with
more defenders which actually is reasonable given magic
forms of stealth and attack.
I think the compartmentalization you mentioned is another
effective defense but not that taking that approach, castles
start diverging from Earth castles fairly quickly...
> > Anyone want to bring up any other attacks/defenses?
>
> o attack - Knock spells on the gates: defense - multiple locks
> o attack - tunnel under the walls - there are lots of
> creatures that can easily burrow through the earth: defense? -
> compartmentalization may help; possibly have fighters trained to
> fight in tunnels so that attackers can be driven back
Counter tunnel networks (dug at the time of siege or castle
construction) can help too. In a sense, you extend your
fortifications below ground. Also techniques for sensing
tunneling would be useful from the vibrations in pans of water
used historically to magic.
> o attack - Invisibility: defense - dogs (and many other creatures)
> will be able to sense invisilbe creatures more easily than humans;
> they can be trained to give warning if they sense something that
> they can't see
Maybe some trained or intelligent bats (it is a fantasy world
afterall). Your bats could be your CAP- combat air patrol ;-)
Marc
Bruce L Grubb
In article <sjcaldwell-08...@ts2-3.odyssey.on.ca>,
sjcal...@odyssey.on.ca (scott) wrote:
> In article <339A0929...@pyramid.com>, Marc Quattromani
> <ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, in many fantasy worlds, Earth castles will only be so
> > appropriate. The most effective barrier in most Earth castles
> > was the walls. Walls were hard for armies to get over. They
> > were also hard for a small group of raiders to get over: MANY
> > castles fell when betrayed from within or less often, when raiders
> > slipped in and opened a gate.
> <snip>
> > Similarly, if the attackers have aerial mounts, they
> > might be able to drop/land a large number of troops inside
> > the walls.
>
> This is why a fantasy castle will need to be divided up into many
> secure sections. This way if one section is breached it can be
> contained within a small area. This is effective (at least useful)
> against many attacks. Whether through teleporatation-type
> magic or psionics (passwall, dimension door, teleport, wormhole),
> tunneling under or flying over the wall, or breaching the wall
> (or gate). This compartmentalization will at least slow the intruders
> down.
This much the way the 'star forts' near the end of the 1600's were set
up: xomparitively small distances between the bastions and between them,
the ravelins, and moat the attackers usially got bogged down.
The 'star forts' has two main advantages over the old drum tower set up -
visibility and overall defence. Star forts were designed so the defender
had the maximum field of vision possible from any point. In the matter of
overall defence the the enemy had to get past in order: a moat, a ravelin,
another moat or earthworks, and the bastions themselves. Even worst from
the attacker's point of view was that the star fort could use it weapons
(mainly cannon) very effectively against itself.
For example,if you overcome the moat and captured the ravelin the bastions
could blast you from the battlefield. Capturing a bastion was little
better because the two neiboring bastions could almost as easily blast you
to kingdom come as if you were on the ravelin.
Later castles like that built by King Ludwig of Bavartia were little more
than show pieces totally unable to be defended from the weaopns of the
day.
Erik Larson
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:45:13 -0700, Marc Quattromani
<ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
>scott wrote:
>> Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
>> - early warning system: at the very least have some guards
>> set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
>
>That's a very valid point and I think the heart of any defense
>in a fantasy world. There are only so many counters to magic,
>aerial troops and pesky parties. The best defense will be a
>person-intensive, well organized patrol system where people
>are 'everywhere' and a missing partol is immediately noticed.
>Obviously, signalling devices could be critical.
*snip*
This is quite important. Historically the castle was built not so
much as a place to hide behind in times of attack, but to dominate an
area. Mounted patrols should constantly ride around looking for
trouble (or making it. Relieves boardom.)
Also, if castles are built within sight of each other, one can look
after another, so to speak.
Pinback
scott
In article <339AC579...@pyramid.com>, Marc Quattromani
<ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
> > - early warning system: at the very least have some guards
> > set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
>
> That's a very valid point and I think the heart of any defense
> in a fantasy world. There are only so many counters to magic,
> aerial troops and pesky parties. The best defense will be a
> person-intensive, well organized patrol system where people
> are 'everywhere' and a missing partol is immediately noticed.
Yes. The more warning you have the more effective your
counter attack can be.
> Obviously, signalling devices could be critical.
As far as signalling devices go I think that the best method is
sort of a "reversed approach". Instead of sending a signal to
call for help, send a signal when everything is okay. That
way you don't run the risk of having your signal interferred
with at a crucial moment.
An example might be sending a homing pigeon every day
from an outpost to the castle. You wouldn't want to rely on
sending a pigeon when under attack.
Trinixx of Westmarch
> Similarly, if the attackers have aerial mounts, they
> might be able to drop/land a large number of troops inside
> the walls.
A very valid point that I discussed with my gaming group some time ago.
One instance within fantasy literature I recall had the invading force
circumvent the main curtain wall of a fortified city via a bridge of
light that reached its upper portion.
An idea I just had regarding such instances as airborne drops of troops
over the curtain walls; construct them in a fashion and proximity that
the battlements are a semi-closed environment; too close together due to
stone hoardings, etc to allow airborne inserts.. (Pardon my ascii art;
Side view)
hoarding and overcover--> / +/ +/ \
--> \_/ \__/ \__/
| | | | | |
|1| |2 | |3 |
___/ |_| |_| |
* *
1,2 are curtain walls
3 is the keep's Donjon
* denotes a bailey
Note the space between hoardings (+)
***********
> diminuation/fly would let a spy sneak in through an arrow
> slit. One counter is to have tight covers on all windows
> (could get hot and how hard could it be to force one open).
> So maybe also, alarm spells on all windows, too.
*************
The best thing I could think of to defend oneself against the use of
magic to gain unauthourized entry is to deliberately manufacture (via
wild magic IIRC) a magic dead zone. Might be annoying to your magi
advisor however... :) Perhaps small areas could be "fabricated" in
primary stategic areas of a keep that would be vulnerable; terrible
surprise for the attackers... If that fails, I imagine the resident
wizard would make a few wands of "dispel magic" for himself and a few
underlings; remember the spell has a 30' cube area of effect...
************
> Anyone want to bring up any other attacks/defenses?
************
Shore, great thread line :)
The ones I could think up at the moment, so I am not sure all would
work legitimately:
1. "Transmute Rock to Mud/Disintegrate." Creates large holes in primary
curtain walls for first wave assault; probably comprimising the
integrity of the walls as a extra bonus. A better implementation might
have the wall or tower buttresses as the target, followed by the
bastions for the above structures as well as siege weapon support.
"Passwall" also comes to mind to be manipulated to a lesser, albeit
more tactical and covert degree of wall breaching. Perhaps "Stoneshape"
could be used along the lines of obliterating key elements of a defense
when greater magic is not available.
2. Use the moat of the Keep (if existent) against the defenders.
"Conjure" a Water Elemental, primary curtain wall/Gatehouse/Barbican
will probably be taken care of in a short time. Or, summon an Earth, and
make the curtain wall the material component... I imagine that it could
do considerable damage to the entire keep when attacking from below as
well.
3. "Dig/Move Earth." Dig would allow the defenders to remove the
capability of the attackers to manipulate heavy siege weapons in the
field, especially when a pit opens beneath one all of a sudden... Could
also ruin key weapon/food caches/campsites etc. As the foundation of a
keep would be rock, I doubt Move Earth would be effective against it;
but you could try it... If all else fails, ruin a breastwork,
approaching road, level a motte, or more siege weapondry, etc.
4. "Hold Portal/Wizard Lock/Knock" on any number of items including
murderholes, arrowslits, portculli, drawbridges, pittraps, windows etc.
Additionally, "Wall of Iron or Stone" would make an instant-portcullis,
and you could make your own death traps with well placed spells such as
"Wall of Fire and Force." Ring the base of your curtain wall with Wall
of Fire when the attackers begin placing their (almost proverbial?)
ladders.
5. "Hallucinatory Terrain" set around the area of a defending keep in
preparation of an advancing army. Gain valuable information on the
advancing troopies as inconspicuous trees/birds/mice/whatever ala
"Massmorph," "Polymorph Other," etc.
6. "Fabricate" any number of useful items to both sides of a conflict. I
suppose you could "Polymorph any object" on vital castle defenses to a
less durable material, or even "Crystalbrittle" it.
7. Imagine the effects of well utilized "Featherfall/Jump/Spiderclimb
Sleep/Wall of Fog/Levitate/Ventriloquism/Unseen Servant" in support of
each other; especially when against a defending castle when assaulted on
various fronts simultaneously.
6. "Web/Grease" the defenders portion of an area before assaulting it.
Might prove effective against siege engine operators.
7. "Enlarge/Reduce" on fired or incoming siege weapon projectiles.
Hmm the list goes on and on...
Not to detract from the thread, but some time ago I made up a Castle
Generation Sheet on Excel at work, and I was looking to expand its
contents recently... Anyone have any ideas on what they feel is vital;
requiring a high degree of detail that should be included on just such a
record?
Thanks for your time and take it easy all...
--
Lord_Trinixx of Westmarch
"...and he would be the first to tell me that dreaming of things that
cannot be is a waste of time."
-The Duke of Krondor, James to Roo Avery regarding Arutha Con Doin
"...until I realized, it is the struggle that is most important. We
must strive to be more then what we are, it does not matter that we
might never achieve our goals; the effort yields its own rewards."
-Lieutenant Commander Data to his child Lal concerning Humanity
Michelle Othus
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:30:24 GMT, pin...@xsite.net (Erik Larson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 07:45:13 -0700, Marc Quattromani
><ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
>
>>scott wrote:
>>> Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
>>> - early warning system: at the very least have some guards
>>> set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
>>
>>That's a very valid point and I think the heart of any defense
>>in a fantasy world. There are only so many counters to magic,
>>aerial troops and pesky parties. The best defense will be a
>>person-intensive, well organized patrol system where people
>>are 'everywhere' and a missing partol is immediately noticed.
>>Obviously, signalling devices could be critical.
>*snip*
>This is quite important. Historically the castle was built not so
>much as a place to hide behind in times of attack, but to dominate an
>area. Mounted patrols should constantly ride around looking for
>trouble (or making it. Relieves boardom.)
>
>Also, if castles are built within sight of each other, one can look
>after another, so to speak.
>
>Pinback
There are other options lin a fantacy world, such as flying castles.
Such a castle would all buy eliminate ground attacks. When magic is
available, it is possible to enforce a castle or keep to incredible
perportions. Bu using such spells and mending and fabricate in the
walls, you can create a castle that regenerates it'self. I few more
spells and you can protect it from all but the most potant of magics.
Most castles that I have created have a strategic command center from
where I can cause various effects to take place, and command troups.
Of course I generally play magic users, and don't build a castles
until I am at least 20th level. (That must be the reason I only have
2 characters with castles, and then only one castle a piece. :])
Andy Kobernick
First a quick story;
A few years ago our high level (12-14th) party was recruited to infiltrate and
destroy an enemy keep. An idea I came up with but which was never attempted
was to send one of the mages above the keep with a fly spell or on a winged
mount with several small living animals, such as mice, and cast polymorf other
on them to transfrom them into say, blue whales or leviathans. The timing
would have to have been quite good, but I think that a resourceful party like
our own could have pulled it off.
The best defence that I can think of for a fantasy castle is some sort of anti
magic shell. Without that than the keep had better have as much magical
resources as the attackers or it will probably not be able to sucessfully repel
the assault.
dreamsky...
(ry...@unixg.ubc.ca)
Aardy R. DeVarque
mor...@grove.ufl.edu (Kevin A Barton) wrote:
>Remember the library is free, and i've seen 1st ed. AD&D material in the
>catelog at the one near me...
There's a library in the same library system as the one I work in that has
the original three booklets listed in their catalog (and some more of the
pre-AD&D and early AD&D material as well!). I've been sorely tempted to
drive up sometime to see if they're really still there.
(telnet:ccs.nslsilus.org for the curious; login instructions should be on
the entry screen.)
All my library has in the way of RPG books is a lonely copy of the MM1 (and
a just-as-beat-up copy of the V:tM rulebook).
However, I can't begin to stress the importance (and fun) of a
info-gathering trip to the library. For a list of the main areas of the
library to _start_ browsing in for source material, see Section 7 of the
rgfd FAQ. :)
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
The WeReCHiCKeN
S. Wilson wrote:
>
> > fireballs against the main keep. Nearly all Earth keeps
> > would burn quite well since only the shell was stone.
> > I suppose you could counter with more
> > fireproof building techniques (more stone and metal)
> > or with anti-fire magic.
>
Better yet, mix it up between (cold) iron, wood, steel, lead, cork
(soundproofing, don't ya know), Glassteel, diamond, and good ol'
Forcefields. And mix it up between arches, doors, crawlspaces, and doggy
doors to cut down on those nasty Knock spells. Make it airproof, to
protect yourself from gaseous forms and Duo-Dimension spells. And get
the protection of a major deity, so that the Wishes won't affect you.
And use no earth, so that Dig doesn't work. Don't use wood, plaster, or
stone, to combat Passwall and Phase Door. Metal is bad, because of
Crystalbrittle. Don't let anyone in, for fear that a mage will study it
and Teleport in. You can't use magic, because Mordenkainen's
Disjunction will do you in.
Don't bother with a moat, because Water Walk, Water Breathing, and Fly
can all bypass it with ease. Don't place it in air, or else someone can
Air Walk or Wind Walk their way in. God forbid that you have OBJECTS,
they can be animated to use against you.
People can be charmed, bribed, and killed. Don't use them. same thing
with Monsters. Golems could be useful, but they tend to go berserk and
go smashing things up.
Oh hell, why not kill yourself now and get it over with?
-----
The point of the going overboard above was to illustrate that there's no
such thing as a Perfect keep. Even an Excellent keep has its (rather
large) holes, and with the caliber of spells used in this thread, why
build a castle in the first place?
Anyway, the castle's defenses are only as good as its defenders. The
best defense is a contingent of Abjurers and Clerics, with Protection
from Evil, Dispel Magic galore, Anti-magic Shells, etc. And a standing
army of well-trained men (and women, don't get me wrong). And
specialist Archers. and spies, to find out what your enemy is doing
before the enemy does (Diviners can be wonderful things).
And of course, a large contingent of diplomats to make sure that you
won't be going up against mages with access to Transmute Rock to Mud,
Fireball (fat chance), Duo-Dimension, Wish, Phase Door, Mordenkainen's
Disjunction, or Crystalbrittle.
Then again, if you are even dealing with a mage with access to the last
five spells on anything other than an obsequious level, you deserve to
be crushed by legions of two-dimensional, flying, water breathing,
fireproof, Glassteeled, Globe of Invulnerabilitied, Enlarged,
Strengthed, Hasted rabid [insert cute fuzzy animal here :]
I think that's all...
Oh yeah, If I were building a keep, I'd just build a small, unobtrusive
one to be used as a way station for travelers that no one would ever
THINK of attacking. If they did, my legions of Abjurers would take care
of them :)
Laughing Bandit
Marc Quattromani wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > Some things to consider against air-born attacks are:
> > - early warning system: at the very least have some guards
> > set specifically to watch for aerial attacks
>
> That's a very valid point and I think the heart of any defense
> in a fantasy world. There are only so many counters to magic,
> aerial troops and pesky parties. The best defense will be a
> person-intensive, well organized patrol system where people
> are 'everywhere' and a missing partol is immediately noticed.
> Obviously, signalling devices could be critical.
>
> If your walls are towers are heavily patrolled, intruders don't
> have the time they need to open a gate or seize the castle.
>
> It probably means that castle garrisons must be larger than
> historical. In game terms, this probably changes nothing because
> I'd wager that few refs realize how undermanned many historical
> castles were. 300 troops was a heavy defense even for Krak
> de Chevalier. During the Own Glyn Dwr revolt in Wales, many
> English castles were held by less than 20 men-at-arms,
> some less than 10. Most refs probably stock castles with
> more defenders which actually is reasonable given magic
> forms of stealth and attack.
>
I say, you want a near perfect castle defense, just read up on
Darkhold.. ;)
LB
Andrew Christopher Lacek
Trinixx of Westmarch wrote:
> ************
> > Anyone want to bring up any other attacks/defenses?
> ************
> Shore, great thread line :)
I really enjoy playing seiges, both from the defending and from the
attacking side, which i have done a few times. I can't remember all the
wierd ideas we came up with, but one time we were defending against some
weirdo with cannon fodder galore - the usual goblins, orcs etc etc. So
what we did was before the attack, we opened the main gate led some
soldiers out to meet the opposing army. During this time the party mage
cast invisibility on the gate. When the enemy charged we ran back in tho
the castle, and the now invisible gate was shut behind us. You can
imagine the effect of an army storming what they think is an open gate
way, crashing into a solid barrier!!:)
We also did it a similar thing another time, but used I think it was
wall of force or some similar spell - but the effect was the same!
--
Blenda
Andrew Christopher Lacek
Michelle Othus wrote:
>
> There are other options lin a fantacy world, such as flying castles.
> Such a castle would all buy eliminate ground attacks.
Actually, one of my favourite ideas for mass warfare and attacking
castles and cities, was the use of the flying citadels by the Dragon
Armies in Krynn - I think it was the Legends series in the Dragonlance
Books.
i mean how awesome would it be to have a flying Citadel, packed with
draconians, who would proceed to glide down onto the enemies below.
Combine this with a decent ground force and you have one hell of an
advantage. ( Need I mention Kitiara also had a few dragons and Lord Soth
+ his 12 - what an army, what an army!)
--
Blenda
Tim Breen
> During this time the party mage
> cast invisibility on the gate. When the enemy charged we ran back in tho
> the castle, and the now invisible gate was shut behind us. You can
> imagine the effect of an army storming what they think is an open gate
> way, crashing into a solid barrier!!:)
You can't do this in "standard" AD&D, although I'm not entirely sure why
the rule is this way. Invisibility can only be cast on creatures, not
objects.
> We also did it a similar thing another time, but used I think it was
> wall of force or some similar spell - but the effect was the same!
Just make sure to have the Wall of Force spell cast _after_ the
defenders are inside! <grin>
Jon Paradise
In short:
I never really thought about it before, but . .. upon reflection .. . it
doesn't seem like castles are the best line of defense for war in a
magic-using world. AD&D castles would seem to be about as useful as
castles in modern-day combat. With the plethora of spells mentioned in
this thread, as well as the dozens of others that weren't (and this
doesn't even include home-grown spells and items) ... well, launch an
ICBM (just one) at the best fortified castle. You get the idea.
Of course, a castle is still a great defense against non-magic users.
But how many times will bandits storm a keep? I'm completely leaving
out the possibility of monsters, I realize . . . but what this thread
seems to be discussing is just "war" applications.
An existence more like the Mongols might be more in order, at least as
far as survivability in large-scale combat is concerned. Maneuverable
forces (thus they're not grouped enough for large-scale "tactical nuke"
spells), no permanent dwellings (thus they can be abandoned at a moments
notice, or taken with the army . . . ) .. . the list goes on.
Again, I realize that a castle is a perfectly good defense against
dragons .. . usually :)...
-Jon
--
Seek the wisdom of the ages, but look at the world through the eyes of a
child. -Ron Wild
stephenJ
The WeReCHiCKeN wrote:
>
>
> The point of the going overboard above was to illustrate that there's no
> such thing as a Perfect keep. Even an Excellent keep has its (rather
> large) holes, and with the caliber of spells used in this thread, why
> build a castle in the first place?
>
I agree. Given the availability of magic spells and items, and keep or
castle is going to be very hard to defend. You'd have to have like a
20'th level mage or somesuch who could create huge anti-magic defenses
to have any realistic chance....
*******************
Was the order to slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
altar of the ancient Roman crypt beneath the Cathedral, or whether the
Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven had spoken the Three Words?
Stewart
> Of course I generally play magic users, and don't build a castles
> until I am at least 20th level. (That must be the reason I only have
> 2 characters with castles, and then only one castle a piece. :])
What does a level 20 magic user need a castle for? He should have an
extra-dimentional home of some kind to go off to. =)
Zachary P. Stewart
S. Wilson
You make a good point. Castles are fairly defenseless against the right
magic. However, they can also be fairly useful when you don't hit their
weak point. Perhaps they aren't worth enough to bother spending a quarter
of a million gold pieces on, but they are worth something. I would
willingly spend twenty thousand for a decent castle. And with the right
magic, you could build a castle for much cheaper than that. You'd probably
use something along the lines of Fabricate, only maybe higher level for
greater area of effect and more specialized (it's versatile enough right
now that allowing it only to create certain things--like castle
components--is a fairly large restriction, and hence you can take
something else to compensate, like an even larger area). You would of
course want counterspells for some of the more obvious attacks, but do all
this and you have a fairly useful, fairly cheap defense.
Now just man it completely with animated dead soldiers. When they die,
chances are you can just re-animate them. :)
Hemlock
Kevin A Barton
stephenJ (sja...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The WeReCHiCKeN wrote:
: > The point of the going overboard above was to illustrate that there's no
: > such thing as a Perfect keep. Even an Excellent keep has its (rather
: > large) holes, and with the caliber of spells used in this thread, why
: > build a castle in the first place?
: >
: I agree. Given the availability of magic spells and items, and keep or
: castle is going to be very hard to defend. You'd have to have like a
: 20'th level mage or somesuch who could create huge anti-magic defenses
: to have any realistic chance....
Why build a castle? even the minimal defenses of a castle are better than
being crushed on the open field... Imagine if those mages didn't have to
waste magic on negating those defences? And you still have the bands of
orcs and whatnot roaming about, which a castle would defend against...
If you're going to be attacked by forces with magic that much more
superior to your own you have no recourse but to kiss you ass goodbye...
unless you build a fortress in the underdark (or whatever it's called on
your game world...). such a fortress could be made much more defendable
although an earthquake would put a hurting on you...
Besides it sure beats sleeping in a tree.
-mordraith
Tim Breen
> Use layers of metal leafing within your stonework to prevent passwall
> and some other spells. Depending on GM interpretation, this can also
> limit the effects of rock-to-mud, which is critical if you want to have
> castles in your world.
<slapping forehead> Duh! Rebar! Of course! (Why didn't I think of that?)
> External walls are 11' thick, thus requiring
> two passwalls. External walls contain a framework of metal grating,
> thus requiring non-stone-working magic to breach them.
Two five (or six)-foot-thick sections with metal grating between them
might be good, too. Even Disintegrate only goes 10' deep.
Noah Dowd
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> In article <339D89...@sdicorp.com>, Jon Paradise <*stopspam*jpar...@sdicorp.com> wrote:
> >I never really thought about it before, but . .. upon reflection .. . it
> >doesn't seem like castles are the best line of defense for war in a
> >magic-using world. AD&D castles would seem to be about as useful as
> >castles in modern-day combat. With the plethora of spells mentioned in
> >this thread, as well as the dozens of others that weren't (and this
> >doesn't even include home-grown spells and items) ... well, launch an
> >ICBM (just one) at the best fortified castle. You get the idea.
>
> LONG LONG time ago (I think one of the issues might have been the one with
> that cardboard castle in it).
>
> Don't forget that magical protections can also be used to beef up a castle, so
> an imaginative lord may actually be able to protect his expensive target of a
> home =).
>
> Some spells that might be of use (either in original form or perhaps a
> modified version that a lord/king's mage might research) could be: anti-magic
> shell, wall of force, prismatic sphere, prismatic wall, fireballs combined
> with contingency (to blast anyone laying seige), etc.
Off the top of my head, some other defenses (non-magical) could be:
Felt around doors/window shutters. Provides an airtight seal to protect
against Gaseous Form.
Lead mixed into the mortar to protect against passwall spells.
Dogs. Great for sniffing out that invisible intruder.
I remember these from an excellent Dragon article on the subject. I
don't
remember the issue number, and I'm too tired to go look it up.
Oh yeah. Aristotle, that .sig is way too long.
-Noah
Benoit
Stewart <mar...@sgi.net> wrote in article <339DC1...@sgi.net>...
I always think wizard live in tower, priest in temple and fighter in
castle. After 8 years, I continue my life as a 24th level bard, and I live
on the second floor of my bar.
Neargate SilverBlade, Bard.
pie...@serc.si.edu
The castle has another purpose besides defense: a symbol of power of the
lord in residence. (As well as where the lord lives). Many of the keeps
of Japan were for this purpose (see Hirai, 1973. Feudal Architecture of
Japan. ISBN 0-8348-1015-8).
As far as defense, there needs to be a two-prong strategy. The walls and
men-at-arms are used against the typical army, bands of orcs, and
revolting peasants and other mundane types. Any medium- to high-level
party should be able to infiltrate a castle, but then needs to face the
lord and his henchmen, typically high level fighters, mages, priests, and
possibly even a thief or bard.
A typical AD&D castle would likely contain the equivalent of a high-level
adventuring party as the lord and his retainers. One tower might be the
wizard's quarters, laboratories, etc. Another area is likely to be a
temple complete with high priest and acolytes.
When making up a castle, ask yourself how would your party of adventurers
set up their defense, and then pretend that they had much more money and
time to perfect the defenses. The treasury would probably be behind
multiple secret doors and passages. Personal quarters would be rigged
with alarms. Secret passages would connect personal quarters and key
areas. Would one member of your player's party face a band of
adventurers alone when he could get the help of the rest of the party?
Why shouls NPC's play so stupidly?
Finally, the residents of the castle should know their way around the
castle better than the players. They may have ways to monitor the
castle, either through peep holes, or by magical means. The residents
should chose the place and time of battle, not the invaders! Finally,
since the castle inhabitants should outnumber the invaders, simply make
sure that the invaders cannot rest and regain spells by holeing up within
the castle walls. Harrassing attacks every couple of hours should do the
trick.
In short: the castle is a perfectly good form of defense in an AD&D
campaign as long as the DM plays smartly. The walls themselves may not
be much of a hindrance to the players, but the residents should be.
Rich
Aardy R. DeVarque
Tim Breen <bre...@lightside.com> wrote:
>> Use layers of metal leafing within your stonework to prevent passwall
>> and some other spells. Depending on GM interpretation, this can also
>> limit the effects of rock-to-mud, which is critical if you want to have
>> castles in your world.
>
><slapping forehead> Duh! Rebar! Of course! (Why didn't I think of that?)
Been there, done that. ;) (Torg mage using Stone Tunnel in a "modern"
area--managed to clear away the stone from around the bars, though, making
them easier to cut/work around/etc.
>> External walls are 11' thick, thus requiring
>> two passwalls. External walls contain a framework of metal grating,
>> thus requiring non-stone-working magic to breach them.
>
>Two five (or six)-foot-thick sections with metal grating between them
>might be good, too. Even Disintegrate only goes 10' deep.
However, you may only need one--it's not *that* difficult to bring down a
section of wall by taking out most of the support; in fact, that's the
entire point of sapping! :) Even if the hole is only 5' wide, that may be
enough to cause a small section of the wall to collapse--and a 10'x10 hole
will almost *certainly* cause some collapsing (unless one tries the rebar
trick or something along those lines for extra support.
In addition, most castle's outer walls weren't solid rock (or entirely large
cut blocks)--how well does rock-to-mud work on the packed-solid dirt/gravel
mix that made up the core of most curtain walls?
Fenyx3204
> The point of the going overboard above was to illustrate that there's no
> such thing as a Perfect keep. Even an Excellent keep has its (rather
> large) holes, and with the caliber of spells used in this thread, why
> build a castle in the first place?
There's this weird conclusion reached whenever this discussion comes up
(and it always does when your around fantasy people <g>) that because the
keep all by itself cannot protect itself, clearly htere's no reason to
build it.
OK, number one, even with historical technologies there were a thousand
ways of breaking down a wall with a handful of people -- but you still
needed an army to back up those handful or you were going to get
slaughtered by the archers as you tried to break down the wall, and then
slaughtered by the soldiers inside the walls once you HAD broken them
down. All magic has done is decrease the number of people required (but
greatly raised the skills needed -- meaning that if you kill the wizard,
your home free) and decreased (perhaps) the amount of time needed.
Sure, there's dozens of ways to penetrate a keep magically -- there's also
dozens of ways of penetrating the keep WITHOUT magic. Plus, the keep will
have its own mages and magical devices working against you and your army.
Does a castle need some adjusting in a fantasy world (particularly in a
world heavy with magic)? Of course. You adjust with magic, you adjust with
some minor design changes -- but it's still a castle, and far from
worthless. Except in the most extreme cases of magic profusion the most
important people in the army facing you are still going to be the
soldiers.
Justin Bacon
Peter White
Fenyx3204 wrote:
>
> There's this weird conclusion reached whenever this discussion comes
> up ... that because the keep all by itself cannot protect itself,
> clearly htere's no reason to build it.
>
> [many good points deleted]
>
> You adjust with magic, you adjust with
> some minor design changes -- but it's still a castle, and far from
> worthless.
Another somewhat obvious reason to build fortifications is to protect
armies from mages. I was in an 8th-9th level adventuring party that
snuck into an area where a large evil army was assembling.
Unfortunately for the common soldiers, the Giant officers eventually
noticed us. We eventually retreated, but went back the next day. The
general had to *hide* the army from us to protect it!
Massed troops are extremely vulnerable without cover.
--Peter
p-w...@accesscom.com
Scott Zrubek
Fenyx3204 wrote:
>
> > The point of the going overboard above was to illustrate that there's no
> > such thing as a Perfect keep. Even an Excellent keep has its (rather
> > large) holes, and with the caliber of spells used in this thread, why
> > build a castle in the first place?
>
> keep all by itself cannot protect itself, clearly htere's no reason to
> build it.
>
> ways of breaking down a wall with a handful of people -- but you still
> needed an army to back up those handful or you were going to get
> slaughtered by the archers as you tried to break down the wall, and then
> slaughtered by the soldiers inside the walls once you HAD broken them
> down. All magic has done is decrease the number of people required (but
> greatly raised the skills needed -- meaning that if you kill the wizard,
> your home free) and decreased (perhaps) the amount of time needed.
>
> Sure, there's dozens of ways to penetrate a keep magically -- there's also
> dozens of ways of penetrating the keep WITHOUT magic. Plus, the keep will
> have its own mages and magical devices working against you and your army.
>
> Does a castle need some adjusting in a fantasy world (particularly in a
> some minor design changes -- but it's still a castle, and far from
> important people in the army facing you are still going to be the
> soldiers.
>
> Justin Bacon
Slightly off topic.
I just returned from Krakow, Poland where attackers of the city for a
given war pulled off an impressive feat of archery. There is a church
tower well within the city walls of that time (> 100 yards) that has a
tower where a bugler would announce the opening and closing of the city
gates for the merchants. There are four windows through which he would
bugle of a size of 10 square feet. While the city was surrounded, he
was told to bugle if he saw the Turks(?) massing for attack. He saw
them massing and started to bugle, however he was cut off in mid-bugle
by an arrow to his throat! Talk about rolling a critical hit
Opinions on the quality of the archer?
Later,
Scott
--
===================================
Scott Zrubek
http://www.itmm.com/scott/zelazny/
===================================
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>There's this weird conclusion reached whenever this discussion comes up
>(and it always does when your around fantasy people <g>) that because the
>keep all by itself cannot protect itself, clearly htere's no reason to
>build it.
>Does a castle need some adjusting in a fantasy world (particularly in a
>world heavy with magic)? Of course. You adjust with magic, you adjust with
>some minor design changes -- but it's still a castle, and far from
>worthless. Except in the most extreme cases of magic profusion the most
>important people in the army facing you are still going to be the
>soldiers.
I will accept that it depends on just how magic-heavy your world is, but
it is still my belief that castles have little place in magic-rich worlds.
Notice many people building castles today? Noticed many people building
castles in gun-powder age period? They are still potent defenses (look at
Monte Casino) but the basic problem is that cost of defence
as enshrined in a castle is too high compared cost of offence with technologies
available to either. Looking at various magic systems, I would rapidly
reach the same conclusion. Not much help for reducing the enormous building
cost. Way too many offensive spells that beat the defenses for mages
defending to cover continuously. One mage on the offense has a battery of
possibilities to be exercised at time of chosing. Defensive mages have to
cover all options, all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Scadden, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences
Work: PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt Home: 55 Buick St, Petone, Lower Hutt
New Zealand
ph +64 (04) 569-9059, fax (04) 569 5016 ph (04) 568-7190,
Torsten
In article <5orvjs$l...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>, mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
says...
> >There's this weird conclusion reached whenever this discussion comes up
> >(and it always does when your around fantasy people <g>) that because the
> >keep all by itself cannot protect itself, clearly htere's no reason to
> >build it.
> [snip]
>
>
> I will accept that it depends on just how magic-heavy your world is, but
> it is still my belief that castles have little place in magic-rich worlds.
> Notice many people building castles today? Noticed many people building
> castles in gun-powder age period? They are still potent defenses (look at
> Monte Casino) but the basic problem is that cost of defence
> as enshrined in a castle is too high compared cost of offence with technologies
> available to either. Looking at various magic systems, I would rapidly
> reach the same conclusion. Not much help for reducing the enormous building
> cost. Way too many offensive spells that beat the defenses for mages
> defending to cover continuously. One mage on the offense has a battery of
> possibilities to be exercised at time of chosing. Defensive mages have to
> cover all options, all the time.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phil Scadden, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences
> Work: PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt Home: 55 Buick St, Petone, Lower Hutt
> New Zealand
> ph +64 (04) 569-9059, fax (04) 569 5016 ph (04) 568-7190,
>
set on their points, but here it goes.
The magic system in D&D is a low level fantasy magic. By that I mean that
Magi and spell-casters are rare to very rare compared to the average
population. Now, that point is arguable, but I’m talking about the
foundation of the magic system more then it’s current implementation.
Magic is a mysterious thingt hat was feared and held in awe by the common
folk. Armies and castles they understood. Sieges they understood. That is
how battles were fought - since magic did not really exist. The Fantasy
realm was/is about playing the special and gifted heroes with powers
beyond the common mortal. What real threat are five heroes to a normal
castle? Probably they are a threat. But that’s what you want in a good
story. Now, what threat are the five heroes to all the castles in a
country. Not as much.
But the above holds only true if magic is rare. What about a world where
magic works. I mean really works. Well, number one, everyone would use
magic. Why spend hours cleaning your house if a simple spell will do the
trick. Magic becomes technology - and everyone uses the new tools
(spells) created. Do you scrub your carpet on your hands and knees to do
you use the new Vacuum Spell? In a world like that, offensive and
defensive spells would grow equally. And everyone would know and be
competent in defending themselves. What fighter would step outside
knowing that a mage could put him to sleep and cut his throat in a
second? Not without know a Prevent Sleep spell/charm. The D&D system is
not published to support such an environment. A GM would have to add
hundreds of counter spells or some innate "un-weaving" ability that gives
everyone a fighting chance against spells. Another interesting note,
offensive spells are more fun to create then defensive spells (how often
do you tune into a show called ‘The art of defense’?). In the evolution
of D&D, more people have created offensive spells then defensive once. So
it’s not very balanced.
So, where does that leave us with the castle issue? Castle still make
sense in either high magic or low magic worlds. They are a concentration
of force geared towards defense. Much like the tank in the modern
battlefield, a castle establishes a powerful presents. Granted, tanks can
be blown away by other technology, but they (in mass) are design to take
and hold land. A castle is the center of local power. In a low magic
campaign, it is a true challenge to the exceptional heroes who have to
take the castle - and who knows, may- be a wizard is helping the evil
lord protect his castle. In a high magic campaign, a castle is an arsenal
of offensive and defensive power with more anti-magic and ‘Man-to-Maggot’
spell traps then one could comfortably imagine.
Just my thoughts…
Torsten Kablitz
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>The magic system in D&D is a low level fantasy magic. By that I mean that
>Magi and spell-casters are rare to very rare compared to the average
>population.
Well compared to worlds I run, D&D seems way too high magic but this
is of course highly subjective.
>But the above holds only true if magic is rare. What about a world where
>magic works.
Agreed entirely.
>So, where does that leave us with the castle issue? Castle still make
>sense in either high magic or low magic worlds. They are a concentration
>of force geared towards defense. Much like the tank in the modern
>battlefield, a castle establishes a powerful presents. Granted, tanks can
>be blown away by other technology, but they (in mass) are design to take
>and hold land. A castle is the center of local power. In a low magic
>campaign, it is a true challenge to the exceptional heroes who have to
>take the castle - and who knows, may- be a wizard is helping the evil
>lord protect his castle. In a high magic campaign, a castle is an arsenal
>of offensive and defensive power with more anti-magic and ‘Man-to-Maggot’
>spell traps then one could comfortably imagine.
Well I agree with low-magic argument. As pointed out, high magic shakes
the foundations of the world to point where I think building a believable
world with it hasnt been done. Too many of the assumptions of the medieval
world fall away. However, I do not accept the argument that defensive magic
grows organically with offensive magic to cancel it out. Has defensive
technology matched offensive technology in the real world? Well for some
periods in history it did but mostly the balance is with the attacker -
and defensive power in the counter-attack. Its the old problem of timing
and options resting with the attacker while the defender has to cover all
options all the time.
Erik Ward
In article <5p6i0l$b...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>, mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz says...
>
<snipped>
>Well I agree with low-magic argument. As pointed out, high magic shakes
>the foundations of the world to point where I think building a believable
>world with it hasnt been done. Too many of the assumptions of the medieval
>world fall away. However, I do not accept the argument that defensive magic
>grows organically with offensive magic to cancel it out. Has defensive
>technology matched offensive technology in the real world? Well for some
>periods in history it did but mostly the balance is with the attacker -
>and defensive power in the counter-attack. Its the old problem of timing
>and options resting with the attacker while the defender has to cover all
>options all the time.
>
You are correct, of course. Offensive technology is almost always ahead of
defensive technologies. This would undoubtably be true for magic as well --
it is in the nature of humankind. One developes a defense for a given
offensive ploy, so the attacker developes some method of bypassing the new
defenses. By its very nature, defensive technology (magic) can't advance (too
far) ahead of offensive technology (magic) -- conception of the offensive
technology is implicit in designing a defense against it.
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Benjamin Warrington
Erik Ward wrote:
> You are correct, of course. Offensive technology is almost always ahead of
> defensive technologies. This would undoubtably be true for magic as well --
> it is in the nature of humankind. One developes a defense for a given
> offensive ploy, so the attacker developes some method of bypassing the new
> defenses. By its very nature, defensive technology (magic) can't advance (too
> far) ahead of offensive technology (magic) -- conception of the offensive
> technology is implicit in designing a defense against it.
>
> the Nightshade,
> Erik Ward
OTOH, there is no reason offensive spells cannot be used for defensive
purposes: Give the enemy wizard a good fire-balling before he can
complete his wall-smashing spell...
--
__ _
| \ /_\ \ /
|__/ / \ \/\/ Benjamin Warrington
| \
|__/ http://www.agt.net/public/warrngtn/bwrrngtn/
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>
>OTOH, there is no reason offensive spells cannot be used for defensive
>purposes: Give the enemy wizard a good fire-balling before he can
>complete his wall-smashing spell...
Agreed - offense is powerful defense BUT you need enough fire-ballers to
defend the wall at all points, 24 hours a day, while attackers need one
wall flattener, at time and place of their choosing. The cost problem again.
The medieval structure of tiny (if any) standing armies, restricted campaign
season etc. all points to need for strong defensive structures to project
power, but in a high magic world I doubt they would look like castles.
Benjamin Warrington
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz wrote:
> Agreed - offense is powerful defense BUT you need enough fire-ballers to
> defend the wall at all points, 24 hours a day, while attackers need one
> wall flattener, at time and place of their choosing. The cost problem again.
> The medieval structure of tiny (if any) standing armies, restricted campaign
> season etc. all points to need for strong defensive structures to project
> power, but in a high magic world I doubt they would look like castles.
You are going to need to defend your spellcasters against non-magical
attack as they are probably more worried about enemy spellcasters than
enemy foot soldiers. Castles with all of a castle's defenses (archers,
boiling oil,...) should serve this purpose nicely. However, this brings
us back to whether or not magical defenses can hold off magical attacks.
Assume that the castle is suprised. An enemy wizard breaks the castle
wall and enemy foot soldiers start pouring in. The castle's foot
soldiers begin trying to fight off the enemy soldiers while the castle's
wizard goes after the enemy wizard. In the end, it seems to come down to
whoever has the best or most wizards and the most capable General.
If you are going to build a magical stronghold, should it not be a
physical stronghold as well in order to protect the wizard. Perhaps in a
high-magic world strongholds of any kind are no longer feasible. Castles
lost a lot of their usefulness with the invention of gunpowder and now a
stronghold only serves as a target for aerial bombardment.
To summarize my overly long and incoherent post, a castle still seems a
reasonable idea for a stronghold even in a fantasy game, but perhaps a
high-magic world negates the value of strongholds in general.
Eddy Tanumihardja
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz wrote:
: Agreed - offense is powerful defense BUT you need enough fire-ballers to
: defend the wall at all points, 24 hours a day, while attackers need one
: wall flattener, at time and place of their choosing. The cost problem again.
But the attackers would need to muster their forces together, an operation
which would be hard to conceal for long. Should the defenders be more
powerful, they'll strike first with the home advantage. Espionage and
counter-espionage also play a vital role so the element of surprise is not
easily gained.
Unless the attackers wished to assemble their forces far far away,
communicate only with their very small scouting taskforce, and then
teleporting an entire army to outside the castle (cf Return of the Jedi).
Gonna cost a very hefty fee employing all that magic.
ET
Bernard Peek
In article <33BEE44F...@telusplanet.net>, Benjamin Warrington
<bwrr...@telusplanet.net> writes
>If you are going to build a magical stronghold, should it not be a
>physical stronghold as well in order to protect the wizard. Perhaps in a
>high-magic world strongholds of any kind are no longer feasible. Castles
>lost a lot of their usefulness with the invention of gunpowder and now a
>stronghold only serves as a target for aerial bombardment.
>
>To summarize my overly long and incoherent post, a castle still seems a
>reasonable idea for a stronghold even in a fantasy game, but perhaps a
>high-magic world negates the value of strongholds in general.
The magical spells described in the D&D books are mainly designed for
adventurers. One high-level mage could Dim-Door in, drop a flask of
poison in the water supply and leave. There's no way that a castle could
sensibly defend against that type of attack using the magical spells
described in the rules.
The only way I could think to balance the equation was to create a
completely new school of magic designed exclusively for large-scale
engineering. It's something that a magic-using world would certainly
develop, but the D&D rules missed it completely because they are
designed for adventurers.
I decided a different class of mage, the Engineer-Mage, could use
hundreds of low-level adepts to focus magical energies in long and slow
spellcasting. The Engineer-Mage spells put up barriers to teleports and
similar, give the walls resistance to spell attacks etc.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Erik Ward
In article <njUdEBAz...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
says...
A mage could easily develop a counter-teleport spell. He could also develop a
purify water spell. The point is, a mage should look for what he could do to
an opponent's castle, then design spells to counteract these approachs. There
should be no spells that cannot be countered.
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
barbara haddad
> I decided a different class of mage, the Engineer-Mage, could use
> hundreds of low-level adepts to focus magical energies in long and slow
> spellcasting. The Engineer-Mage spells put up barriers to teleports and
> similar, give the walls resistance to spell attacks etc.
Very good points. (Possibly because I both agree and have designed
similar safe-guards in my own game world. :)
For my world there is a 'teleport trap' spell that re-routes
in-bound teleport spells [or d-doors; improved t-port spells, etc] into a
prison cell (that is guarded at all times). Allies expect this and wait
to be 'cleared' and allowed into the stronghold, while enemies get
greeted by the guards.
I have also decided that very heavy metals (like lead...or gold)
provide shielding against magical entry/scrying. So a thin lead layer on
the walls of a room keep it from being scryed upon or tport within.
(Usually a stronghold will have at least one room so protected to hold
its treasury - and another for councils of war to meet and make plans.)
I'm sure other refs have come up with similar ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
eric harbak
Bernard Peek wrote:
>
> In article <33BEE44F...@telusplanet.net>, Benjamin Warrington
> <bwrr...@telusplanet.net> writes
>
> >If you are going to build a magical stronghold, should it not be a
> >physical stronghold as well in order to protect the wizard. Perhaps in a
> >high-magic world strongholds of any kind are no longer feasible. Castles
> >lost a lot of their usefulness with the invention of gunpowder and now a
> >stronghold only serves as a target for aerial bombardment.
> >
> >To summarize my overly long and incoherent post, a castle still seems a
> >reasonable idea for a stronghold even in a fantasy game, but perhaps a
> >high-magic world negates the value of strongholds in general.
>
> The magical spells described in the D&D books are mainly designed for
> adventurers. One high-level mage could Dim-Door in, drop a flask of
> poison in the water supply and leave. There's no way that a castle could
> sensibly defend against that type of attack using the magical spells
> described in the rules.
>
>
> Bernard Peek
> b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
As to the Dim-door, this is nothing a castle would be overly fearful of
if they had the standard contingent of local cleric folk. This is
assuming the mage was in good standing with the clergy in the first
place. If so he would have several clerics assisting in the defense of
the keep.
With this help it wouldn't be to extreme to assume powerful Glyphs
protecting the source of water, or any other special place in the keep
which would be a target.
Although mages are tough I don't think I would want to be the mage to
dim-door, or teleport into a keep only to possibly fail my save and
become paralyzed, then get to watch a 0 level guard slice my throat.
I think another option in a magic strong world is that a wizard of these
powers would have a guard or two in the important parts of the castle
with enchanted items, with anti-magic shell cast on them which could be
activated upon discovery of an intruding wizard. What would he do then?
With all these possibilities I for one wouldn't send my mage in.
Elric th White Wolf of Lacey
Bernard Peek
In article <33c12...@usenet.lexmark.com>, Erik Ward
<erik...@lexmark.com> writes
>A mage could easily develop a counter-teleport spell. He could also develop a
>purify water spell. The point is, a mage should look for what he could do to
>an opponent's castle, then design spells to counteract these approachs. There
>should be no spells that cannot be countered.
I agree that a mage could design a counter-teleport spell, and could
come up with a purify water spell (although there's already a clerical
spell that does that). But to make a castle reasonably secure it's an
absolute necessity to have both of those spells available. The owner
also needs to be able to instantly negate Rock To Mud, Earthquake and
Reverse Gravity spells. There are dozens of other spells that are also
required, I just handed all of them over to a different class. I did
that because I didn't want player-characters to have access to spells of
that power.
In a magic-using world each castle would need dozens of high level mages
and priests to set up adequate defences. One or two isn't enough unless
they can find a way to protect their castle 24*7.
In this world, technology made castles obsolete. In the D&D world magic
as described in the books would do the same. The only way I could think
to restore the balance was to make defensive magic *much* cheaper and
easier. I did not want to give player-characters access to that much
power, so I put in big limitations. So spell casting times are in days,
weeks or months and there are backlash effects if the spell is
interrupted.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Lawrence R. Mead
barbara haddad (bha...@LunaCity.com) wrote:
: > I decided a different class of mage, the Engineer-Mage, could use
: > hundreds of low-level adepts to focus magical energies in long and slow
: > spellcasting. The Engineer-Mage spells put up barriers to teleports and
: > similar, give the walls resistance to spell attacks etc.
:
: Very good points. (Possibly because I both agree and have designed
: similar safe-guards in my own game world. :)
: For my world there is a 'teleport trap' spell that re-routes
: in-bound teleport spells [or d-doors; improved t-port spells, etc] into a
: prison cell (that is guarded at all times). Allies expect this and wait
: to be 'cleared' and allowed into the stronghold, while enemies get
: greeted by the guards.
: I have also decided that very heavy metals (like lead...or gold)
: provide shielding against magical entry/scrying. So a thin lead layer on
: the walls of a room keep it from being scryed upon or tport within.
: (Usually a stronghold will have at least one room so protected to hold
: its treasury - and another for councils of war to meet and make plans.)
: I'm sure other refs have come up with similar ideas.
Indeed, yes, but a lot of the work is done by sages in my world as well.
Often, they are the experts (recall that they can also be mages or clerics
or almost anything else as well) who have knowledge arcane enough to
build anti-magic traps or strengthening of stuctures in general. Another
attack trick is to have spies insinuated into the castle; not only do
such spies (if not caught) provide information, but can frustrate defenders
by poisoning water supplies, etc. Thus, *internal* scrying and/or screening
precautions are needed as well.
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
KLINT
Just as an aside, I understand gorgon or minotaur blood (I don't
remember which) is proof against teleportation.
--
******************************
'Politicians are people who, when they see the light at the end of the
tunnel, go out and buy more tunnel."
Erik Ward
In article <OuAHHAAd...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>I agree that a mage could design a counter-teleport spell, and could
>come up with a purify water spell (although there's already a clerical
>spell that does that). But to make a castle reasonably secure it's an
>absolute necessity to have both of those spells available. The owner
>also needs to be able to instantly negate Rock To Mud, Earthquake and
>Reverse Gravity spells. There are dozens of other spells that are also
>required, I just handed all of them over to a different class. I did
>that because I didn't want player-characters to have access to spells of
>that power.
>
>In a magic-using world each castle would need dozens of high level mages
>and priests to set up adequate defences. One or two isn't enough unless
>they can find a way to protect their castle 24*7.
>
WHY would 1 or 2 be insufficient? With a bit of forethought, the keep could
be made defensible ahead of time, with the 1 or 2 defending mages could
counteract 3 or 4 equal level mages in the attacking army. If you grant the
attacking army surprise every time, of course they will win. That is pretty
much true today, yesterday, and 100 years ago. Surprise is the second most
important factor in battle (numbers be the first!) But why should every mage
situation you refer to be a surprise?
'Look Lord Hexen. An army doth approach our gates.'
'Go fetch the Lord Magus immediately!'
Counter-teleporters, magical barriers, mundane barriers (for instance, the
rock to mud you are so worried about becomes significantly less worrisome by
the (rather) simple use of multiple walls! By the time the attacking mages
engage the second wall, the defending mages can begin to counteract.
Lets say I am commanding a keep, with 2 mage defenders and their
apprentices (this is, of course, assuming the attacking army mage(s) are not
significantly higher level -- in this case, the advantage is indeed in the
attackers side. However, why is it reasonable that only the attacker has high
level mages?
The outer wall is actually in two parts, with a wall of iron in between the
two halves. The wall of iron has many magic mouths on them, set to sound the
alarm when exposed to air (passwalls, rock to mud, catapult pounding, etc).
Anyway, preset magics (firetraps, teleport traps, antimagic shells, etc) have
been established. In my case, the second wall has anti-magic shells randomly
set in the wall. [These were made permanent by utilizing life energies of
convicted criminals -- magic jar to allow the mage to take over the criminal,
then cast the spells.] The third wall is completely anti-magicked. Fire
traps guard the outer gates; wizard locks bar the middle and inner gates.
The high tower is sheathed in permanent illusions that make it appear to be
solid obsidian, although those within can see out. There is also a permanent
globe of invulnerability protection those within. Likewise, permanent
illusions make the moat seem incredibly wide, and are set to make wall look
complete REGARDLESS of the real state of the wall.
The keep itself is stone, with a paint of gorgon blood (makes it impossible to
teleport through), lead (no scrying), and covered in ivy (no ethereal or
astral entry). The first level of the dungeon is protected from lower levels
by gorgon-blood paint, lead, and ivy (continual light to keep it alive), as
well as permanent walls of force. The only exception is a narrow staircase
ending in a small room. A trap drops a huge stone and iron block into the
stairs, cutting off the entry when necessary.
The lowest level of the dungeon is filled with undead -- skeletons, zombies,
ghouls, ghasts, and possibly worse; there is no entrance from the lowest level
to the rest of the keep, save a stairs blocked by a permanent wall of force.
The second lowest level is literally a huge moat -- one large area filled with
water, inhabited by water weirds. A small area allows the stairs to pass up
to the real dungeon.
When the attack begins, the apprentices (MU:1 or 2), each armed with a wand -
magic missiles, fire, or lightning - are tasked to watch for enemy spell
casters. Once sighted, magic is launched at the enemy spell casters, which
will disrupt a fair number of spells. One of the 'real' mages will watch for
enemy spells that work -- for instance, when a wall is knocked down, a wall of
fire will hold the gap until soldier arrive. This mage is tasked to perform
defensive magics (dispels, walls, etc).
The other mage drops offensive magic on the enemy army - cloudkills,
fireballs, etc. Perhaps a summoned earth elemental will inflict damage on the
attackers.
After the first cloudkill, a phantasmal force of a cloudkill works just as
well (and maybe better, as the mage can alter its appearance even more.
Phantasmal Killers on enemy leaders work wonders. After the first elemental,
illusionary elementals can be popped up at will, doing devestating damage and
forcing enemy mages to react to them.
Of course, enemy mages will be doing similar things. However, each time they
are reacting to the defenders actions, they are not advancing their cause any.
If they are forced to use magics to overcome previous defenses, their spells
are NOT going towards the attack. And, by my example, their magic will have
little to NO effect against a properly prepared location.
Of course, none of this really matters if only the attacking army has high
level mages in it. If the defenders never have equivilant access to mages,
then of course the attack will always win. It is also true that if the
attacker always has absolute surprise, things will be grim. But most
defenders should not be taken by surprise -- they have scouts out, know the
political situation, etc.
>In this world, technology made castles obsolete. In the D&D world magic
>as described in the books would do the same. The only way I could think
>to restore the balance was to make defensive magic *much* cheaper and
>easier. I did not want to give player-characters access to that much
>power, so I put in big limitations. So spell casting times are in days,
>weeks or months and there are backlash effects if the spell is
>interrupted.
>
>
>
>--
>Bernard Peek
>b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Actually, the parallel breaks down significantly: technology has the offensive
capability to destroy a castle, but NONE of the defensive capabilities to
counter-act the offensive ones. Magic does have the countering ability.
EVERY spell can be counteracted, either at the time of casting (dispel magic)
or by intelligent planning. Better yet, defensive magicks can be hidden from
the attacker pretty easily. (if an entire castle glows - Nystul's Permanent
Magic Aura (2cd level? 3rd?) when view by detect magic, it is a little hard
to determine what is defensive magic, what is trap magic, and what is not
magical at all.) Similarly, a permanent illusion over the entire keep making
it look exactly as it did before the attack will make it difficult to
determine where things are breaking down.
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Torsten
New Spell: Defend Castle
Level: 9
Duration: Permanent
Casting Time: 2 months - 1 year (depending on castle size)
Effect:
Creates an Anti-Magic / Force (like Wall of Force) sphere around the castle
which neutralizes all magic which attempts to penetrate it. Only the spells
of the caster or spells of casters whose energy has been woven into the
fabric of the Anti-Magic / Force sphere work both through and within the
sphere. Can only be dispelled by using the original command word or a wish.
May be cast duplicate times, each with a different command word and each
taking another wish to dispel.
Okay, so it's a bit over board, but it does demonstrate a point. If you (DM
or Player) want to protect your castle - you can.
--
Torsten Kablitz
DragonStar
torsten...@msn.com
sean patrick palmer
On 7 Jul 1997, Erik Ward wrote:
> In article <njUdEBAz...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
> says...
> >
> >In article <33BEE44F...@telusplanet.net>, Benjamin Warrington
> ><bwrr...@telusplanet.net> writes
> >
> >>If you are going to build a magical stronghold, should it not be a
> >>physical stronghold as well in order to protect the wizard. Perhaps in a
> >>high-magic world strongholds of any kind are no longer feasible. Castles
> >>lost a lot of their usefulness with the invention of gunpowder and now a
> >>stronghold only serves as a target for aerial bombardment.
> >>
> >>To summarize my overly long and incoherent post, a castle still seems a
> >>reasonable idea for a stronghold even in a fantasy game, but perhaps a
> >>high-magic world negates the value of strongholds in general.
> >
> >The magical spells described in the D&D books are mainly designed for
> >adventurers. One high-level mage could Dim-Door in, drop a flask of
> >poison in the water supply and leave. There's no way that a castle could
> >sensibly defend against that type of attack using the magical spells
> >described in the rules.
> >
> >The only way I could think to balance the equation was to create a
> >completely new school of magic designed exclusively for large-scale
> >engineering. It's something that a magic-using world would certainly
> >develop, but the D&D rules missed it completely because they are
> >designed for adventurers.
> >
> >I decided a different class of mage, the Engineer-Mage, could use
> >hundreds of low-level adepts to focus magical energies in long and slow
> >spellcasting. The Engineer-Mage spells put up barriers to teleports and
> >similar, give the walls resistance to spell attacks etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Bernard Peek
> >b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
>
> A mage could easily develop a counter-teleport spell. He could also develop a
> purify water spell. The point is, a mage should look for what he could do to
> an opponent's castle, then design spells to counteract these approachs. There
> should be no spells that cannot be countered.
>
> the Nightshade,
> Erik Ward
>
>
>
Isn't there a priest spell purify food/drink? Why not use it, or if you
want a more effective version (greater quantity of h20 affected or some
sort of prevention from poisoning type spell) have a priest come up with
it?
Priests would be present at larger castles/citadels certainly, so use them.
Sean Palmer
Bernard Peek
In article <33C13D...@televar.com>, eric harbak <har...@televar.com>
writes
>As to the Dim-door, this is nothing a castle would be overly fearful of
>if they had the standard contingent of local cleric folk. This is
>assuming the mage was in good standing with the clergy in the first
>place. If so he would have several clerics assisting in the defense of
>the keep.
>
>With this help it wouldn't be to extreme to assume powerful Glyphs
>protecting the source of water, or any other special place in the keep
>which would be a target.
There are quite a lot of those. In fact most of the keep. One fireball
in the grain store and it's all over. One flask of poison in the
cistern. Another fireball in the armoury and your troops are useless.
>
>Although mages are tough I don't think I would want to be the mage to
>dim-door, or teleport into a keep only to possibly fail my save and
>become paralyzed, then get to watch a 0 level guard slice my throat.
I can think of several ways into castles that don't have that risk, and
I've used several of them.
>
>I think another option in a magic strong world is that a wizard of these
>powers would have a guard or two in the important parts of the castle
>with enchanted items, with anti-magic shell cast on them which could be
>activated upon discovery of an intruding wizard. What would he do then?
Spells that require activation are too risky, there's too much chance
that the guard won't survive long enough to activate them. Good
defensive magic has to be permanent and has to cover almost the whole of
the castle.
>
>
>With all these possibilities I for one wouldn't send my mage in.
You can use point-defence to cover a specific part of the castle, say
the cell in which the kidnapped princess is held. If the attackers are
only interested indestroying the fortifications then using magic makes
it easy.
I recall a battle where a DM had set up an elaborate castle for us to
attack. It had troops and archers and catapults and mages and clerics
and traps and....
We destroyed it in three rounds without taking a casualty. We used
Transmute Rock to Mud on the foundations and it fell down.
That's why if I build a castle it, and the surrounding lands, have
magic-resistance.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>A mage could easily develop a counter-teleport spell. He could also develop a
>purify water spell. The point is, a mage should look for what he could do to
>an opponent's castle, then design spells to counteract these approachs. There
>should be no spells that cannot be countered.
Well to keep labouring the point - the defender has to counter all of them
all the time. Unless you know the spell capability of attacking mage, then
that is every known spell. To me, that means that attackers need only a
rumour of a mage amoung them to force the defender into expensive magical
defense - needing how many mages? Does one mage know every defensive counter?
The better idea that was mentioned was some limitations on magic (eg through
lead) that would allow CHEAP defense against magic. (Lead coatings on armour
would be very popular in a world I expect...). I think they also need to
be strong against non-magical attack. ie if a lead barrier was broken by
a missile, does the defense collapse suddenly as the magical attack is brought
to bear.My non-DnD magic system is very much low magic and full of such
limitations, so castles are perfectly viable.
Adamanaxiel
: that is every known spell. To me, that means that attackers need only a
: rumour of a mage amoung them to force the defender into expensive magical
: defense - needing how many mages? Does one mage know every defensive
counter?
: The better idea that was mentioned was some limitations on magic (eg
through
: lead) that would allow CHEAP defense against magic. (Lead coatings on
armour
: would be very popular in a world I expect...).
IMHO I would have to disagree with the spell limitation idea. It sounds as
this decision is being made to keep strongholds impregnable. If they were
not in the real world why should they be in the fantasy environment.
Besides it is a two way street when it come to the mages on each side
guessing on what the other has. The spell possibilities are so diverse that
no one is going to have all the bases covered. That can be seen in a mage
vs. mage contest. Do you case a fast spell in hopes of hitting your
opponent first or go for the spell with the longer casting time and more
whollop, praying the other guy has a bad initiative or one that fails.
You may find that you need to go with a more oriental approach of strong
hold development. With rings of defenses placed around the palace. It takes
more acreage but in that way they kept their opponents at a distance and
forced them to break through many-a-barrier. Or if a lord has the mula and
an skill mages to back him/her up. Then go with misdirection. If you can't
stop the attack put your strategic areas off site. (the diversion trick).
Sure they win the battle at a high cost but no not get the prize. With all
the unlimited spell varieties and levels mentioned in this thread the Lord
should be able to rig a few teleports to said location. Be it in the next
shire or some 40 stories underground in a room cut out of the bed rock.
Besides if the neighbors attack your stronghold only to find your goodies
are not there, won't they really be bummed to return home with their all
powerful mage are to find their own holdings and families put to the
preverbal torch. You gotta watch the back door, because death can go both
ways. Think of it as the Magical version of the Atomic deterrent. :)
Adaminaxiel
Erik Ward
In article <ZEzi9EAQ...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
says...
<snipped>
>I recall a battle where a DM had set up an elaborate castle for us to
>attack. It had troops and archers and catapults and mages and clerics
>and traps and....
>
>We destroyed it in three rounds without taking a casualty. We used
>Transmute Rock to Mud on the foundations and it fell down.
>
>That's why if I build a castle it, and the surrounding lands, have
>magic-resistance.
>
>--
>Bernard Peek
>b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
This is an example of poor defensive planning, NOT an example of uselessness
of castles. If you can come up with that plan, so can a defending mage, who
should take action to prevent such a situation. Literally, every offensive
plan CAN be counteracted. Most archmages are supposed to be genius-plus on
the intelligence scale -- they should be able to sit down, look at a castle as
it now stands, and think through every spell they know or have heard of. How
can this spell be used to attack the castle? How do we defend against it?
Implement defenses. Next spell.
IF you are going to have a world with immense amount of high (and power)
magics, those some magics can be brought to bear on defensive positions, and a
vast majority of all contingencies planned for. If a fireball will wipe out a
grainery -- by god, store the grain in a anti-magicked silo. Wells are
necessary weaknesses -- perhaps the mage of the keep should manufacture a
Decanter of Endless Water -- little hard to poison them. Perhaps an easier
approach would be a long term purify water spell (yes, I know its a clerical
spell -- a mage CAN research new mage spells!) Worried about your armory?
Again, anti-magic shells work wonders.
If the defending mage is good, he will probably need to work within the law,
although once he explains his plan to use convicted criminals (those who
receive the death penalty perhaps?) to fortify the keep (see below) to the
local lord, said lord will probably okay the plan. If not, alternate versions
of permanency may be necessary (like, for instance, the ritual (long casting)
magics described earlier in the thread).
If the defending mage is neutral or evil, it is even easier: if evil, just
capture some peasants, feeblemind them, magic jar into them, cast spells and
permanencies until the body dies, then repeat with peasant #2. If neutral,
you can PAY peasants for this usage, maybe intimidating them into not saying
no.
The whole point is, the defender has the advantage of time -- they can set up
defenses and deceptions. The attacker has the advantage of knowing WHAT he is
going to do when. The defender, however, should have covered a large
percentage of possible ploys.
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Bernard Peek
In article <33c28...@usenet.lexmark.com>, Erik Ward
<erik...@lexmark.com> writes
>>In a magic-using world each castle would need dozens of high level mages
>>and priests to set up adequate defences. One or two isn't enough unless
>>they can find a way to protect their castle 24*7.
>>
>
>WHY would 1 or 2 be insufficient? With a bit of forethought, the keep could
>be made defensible ahead of time, with the 1 or 2 defending mages could
>counteract 3 or 4 equal level mages in the attacking army.
I doubt that this is true. To provide an effective defence the mages
would need to have the whole of the perimeter under observation around
the clock. That would have to extend into the nearby planes too. The
observers would have to be intelligent enough to tell the difference
between an attack by a high-level mage and a feint by a 3rd level decoy
with illusory support.
They would have to be able to defend against continuous magic-missile
snipers. There are passive defences that could do that, but these can be
taken down as fast as they are built. To be truly effective the
battlements would have to covered by permanenced minor globes at the
very least, and they wouldn't stop attacks from the air.
> If you grant the
>attacking army surprise every time, of course they will win. That is pretty
>much true today, yesterday, and 100 years ago. Surprise is the second most
>important factor in battle (numbers be the first!) But why should every mage
>situation you refer to be a surprise?
Because the attacking force chooses when to attack. If they can manage
an attack every three or four hours the defending mages will never get
any sleep. To be able to meet the attacking mages on equal terms the
defenders need a 3:1 numerical advantage. If they don't have that then
their best option would be a sally to attack the attackers.
>
>'Look Lord Hexen. An army doth approach our gates.'
>'Go fetch the Lord Magus immediately!'
>
>Counter-teleporters, magical barriers, mundane barriers (for instance, the
>rock to mud you are so worried about becomes significantly less worrisome by
>the (rather) simple use of multiple walls! By the time the attacking mages
>engage the second wall, the defending mages can begin to counteract.
Nope. Take down the first wall and run. Take down the second wall on
Tuesday next and the third next Friday, or perhaps next month.
>
>Lets say I am commanding a keep, with 2 mage defenders and their
>apprentices (this is, of course, assuming the attacking army mage(s) are not
>significantly higher level -- in this case, the advantage is indeed in the
>attackers side. However, why is it reasonable that only the attacker has high
>level mages?
>
>The outer wall is actually in two parts, with a wall of iron in between the
>two halves. The wall of iron has many magic mouths on them, set to sound the
>alarm when exposed to air (passwalls, rock to mud, catapult pounding, etc).
Fine, it's going to be shouting all day and night. The outer wall will
fall to the Rock To Mud and then the walls of iron will fall in the mud.
>
>Anyway, preset magics (firetraps, teleport traps, antimagic shells, etc) have
>been established. In my case, the second wall has anti-magic shells randomly
>set in the wall. [These were made permanent by utilizing life energies of
>convicted criminals -- magic jar to allow the mage to take over the criminal,
>then cast the spells.] The third wall is completely anti-magicked. Fire
>traps guard the outer gates; wizard locks bar the middle and inner gates.
If you have enough permanence spells you can set up an inpenetrable
defence and probably an invincible attack. With the sort of enemies that
would attract you might expect someone to start throwing mountains at
your castle, or possibly throwing your castle at a mountain. They might
settle for putting a wall of force around it.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In article <33c37...@usenet.lexmark.com>, Erik Ward
<erik...@lexmark.com> writes
>This is an example of poor defensive planning, NOT an example of uselessness
>of castles. If you can come up with that plan, so can a defending mage, who
>should take action to prevent such a situation. Literally, every offensive
>plan CAN be counteracted.
Nobody is disputing that offensive plans can be countered, but a
successful defence requires that *every* offensive plan is countered
simultaneously.
> Most archmages are supposed to be genius-plus on
>the intelligence scale -- they should be able to sit down, look at a castle as
>it now stands, and think through every spell they know or have heard of. How
>can this spell be used to attack the castle? How do we defend against it?
>Implement defenses. Next spell.
That's a good start and in theory it's possible. To make it work though
the defender needs to be able to cast phenomenal numbers of spells which
need to be maintained around the clock. Without an unlimited number of
wishes and/or permanence spells it's just not a practical proposition.
>
>IF you are going to have a world with immense amount of high (and power)
>magics,
If...
It doesn't require an enormous number of 200th level mages to take out a
castle. It can be done with a raiding party using nothing more than one
Invisibility 10' Radius spell.
>those some magics can be brought to bear on defensive positions, and a
>vast majority of all contingencies planned for. If a fireball will wipe out a
>grainery -- by god, store the grain in a anti-magicked silo. Wells are
>necessary weaknesses -- perhaps the mage of the keep should manufacture a
>Decanter of Endless Water -- little hard to poison them. Perhaps an easier
>approach would be a long term purify water spell (yes, I know its a clerical
>spell -- a mage CAN research new mage spells!) Worried about your armory?
>Again, anti-magic shells work wonders.
If the world has that amount of magic. I've never played in that type of
world.
>
>If the defending mage is good, he will probably need to work within the law,
>although once he explains his plan to use convicted criminals (those who
>receive the death penalty perhaps?) to fortify the keep (see below) to the
>local lord, said lord will probably okay the plan. If not, alternate versions
>of permanency may be necessary (like, for instance, the ritual (long casting)
>magics described earlier in the thread).
The use of convicted criminals isn't available to all characters,
because of their, er... philosophical inclinations as we call them
around here. None of the DMs in our group would permit any good
character to do that. The Magic Jar spell isn't available to every mage
either, and it is risky.
(As a DM I'd give the disposessed spirit a small chance of reposession
when the mage attempts the Permanency spell, a succesful attempt would
cause the Permanency spell to fail and the mage to lose constitution.)
[...]
>The whole point is, the defender has the advantage of time -- they can set up
>defenses and deceptions. The attacker has the advantage of knowing WHAT he is
>going to do when. The defender, however, should have covered a large
>percentage of possible ploys.
They can cover a large percentage of possible ploys, but that's not good
enough. The defender needs to cover all possible ploys. Most is not good
enough.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Garrie Irons
Erik Ward wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> of castles. If you can come up with that plan, so can a defending mage, who
> should take action to prevent such a situation. Literally, every offensive
> the intelligence scale -- they should be able to sit down, look at a castle as
> it now stands, and think through every spell they know or have heard of. How
> can this spell be used to attack the castle? How do we defend against it?
> Implement defenses. Next spell.
1) I wouldn't put my hand up as having an INT better than 16 ( without
making any real attempt at testing for it ) and
2) that fantasy world archmage literally has weeks ( or longer ) to go
through this process. I'm not on the dole ( unemployed ) -> hence, I'd
be limited to say 60 hours of thought about "what spell will be used
against me and how can I counter it".
Who wouldn't appreciate a realistic list of spell and obvious counterspell?
I'd love one but "I'm too busy to do it" ( not to add, too slack ;) ).
<<Significant snippage>>
> the Nightshade,
> Erik Ward
Cheers.
Garrie
Erik Ward
In article <2oApGEAYlAxzEAo$@intersec.demon.co.uk>, b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>Nobody is disputing that offensive plans can be countered, but a
>successful defence requires that *every* offensive plan is countered
>simultaneously.
This is not true. A successful defense requires planning for as many
aggressor plans as possible, then actively countering what actually happens.
>
>That's a good start and in theory it's possible. To make it work though
>the defender needs to be able to cast phenomenal numbers of spells which
>need to be maintained around the clock. Without an unlimited number of
>wishes and/or permanence spells it's just not a practical proposition.
>
I covered permanencies, although you obviously have decided that ANY ploy used
by defending mages will be disallowed. Furthermore, unless your attackers
have no rhyme or reason to their attacks, not all spells need to be up at all
times -- only during times of conflict and unrest. During times of peace,
vigilance is not as needed.
>
>It doesn't require an enormous number of 200th level mages to take out a
>castle. It can be done with a raiding party using nothing more than one
>Invisibility 10' Radius spell.
>
This is easily counter through non-magical means. Dogs have a high chance of
detecting invisible. Curtains hanging from the ceiling in critical locations
will reveal the presence of invisible creatures. Of course, there are magical
means as well: glyphs of warding (fire) combined with magic mouths set to
sound the alarm upon the sight of fire work well.
>If the world has that amount of magic. I've never played in that type of
>world.
I thought that was the whole point of this thread -- high magic obviates the
use of castles.
>
>The use of convicted criminals isn't available to all characters,
>because of their, er... philosophical inclinations as we call them
>around here. None of the DMs in our group would permit any good
>character to do that. The Magic Jar spell isn't available to every mage
>either, and it is risky.
>
Actually, unless the DM seriously warps the spell (which is his option as DM),
magic jar is NOT that unsafe. The main threats to the casting mage are lose
of original body and loss of the jarring object. The spell (as written) does
NOT allow for the jarred body to force the caster out -- and it is a simple
feeblemind away from making it nearly impossible for the defending mind unable
to do anything about it anyway.
I would also appreciate if you quote me correctly -- I stated that this use of
magic jar would be harder for good mages than neutral or evil mages. Good
mages would have to find morally acceptable ways to use these spells in this
manner. Maybe the use of irretrievably evil beings would be the only way.
THAT is a campaign specific question. In several campaigns I know of, this IS
an option for good mages, subject to limitations by the political powers that
be. 1 country in a world I play in, one of the penalties for heinous crimes
is death by magic drain -- the evil-doers put to good use as he dies, creating
magical items for the defense of the country.
>
>(As a DM I'd give the disposessed spirit a small chance of reposession
>when the mage attempts the Permanency spell, a succesful attempt would
>cause the Permanency spell to fail and the mage to lose constitution.)
>
Earlier you stated that the spells as written allow the aggressor mage (in
that case, using dimension door) the advantage. Yet now you decide to alter a
spell that the defender would use. You are correct: in your world, fantasy
castles are obsolete. Since every advantage is GIVEN to the aggressor,
castles will fall to a single high-level mage without any chance for the
defenders.
>[...]
>
>They can cover a large percentage of possible ploys, but that's not good
>enough. The defender needs to cover all possible ploys. Most is not good
>enough.
>
Unless the attacker has a complete defensive layout, he will not know what
ploys HAVE been countered. And he may waste energies against countered
ploys. Granted, it is possible to get lucky and hit a ploy not defended
against; then again, the aggressor might hit a ploy that HAS been planned for,
and find himself in a disadvantaged situation.
>
>--
>Bernard Peek
>b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Tim Breen
> >Nobody is disputing that offensive plans can be countered, but a
> >successful defence requires that *every* offensive plan is countered
> >simultaneously.
>
> This is not true. A successful defense requires planning for as many
> aggressor plans as possible, then actively countering what actually happens.
This should be restated for emphasis: The defenders should PLAN for
anything they can think of, but only counter what HAPPENS. And then,
only WHEN it happens (i.e., not necessarily "simultaneously").
> >That's a good start and in theory it's possible. To make it work though
> >the defender needs to be able to cast phenomenal numbers of spells which
> >need to be maintained around the clock. Without an unlimited number of
> >wishes and/or permanence spells it's just not a practical proposition.
> >
>
> I covered permanencies, although you obviously have decided that ANY ploy used
> by defending mages will be disallowed. Furthermore, unless your attackers
> have no rhyme or reason to their attacks, not all spells need to be up at all
> times -- only during times of conflict and unrest. During times of peace,
> vigilance is not as needed.
One thing to keep in mind is that the inherent advantage goes to the
defender. He has much more time to prepare (and to raise money for those
preparations), and typically knows the field of battle much better.
Another thing to keep in mind is cost. A defender doesn't have to make
his fortress absolutely impregnable, he just has to make it so that it's
not cost-effective to attack. If an attacker stands to lose more (in
terms of casualties, spell components, over-extended supply lines, or
whatever) to defeat the defender than the expected value of that defeat,
a rational attacker simply won't attack at all.
Regarding the issue of using prisoners/slaves/coerced peasants as "fuel"
for permanancy spells, I think that it should be pointed out that this
is, in my opinion, an unmitigated evil act. That is, it could only be
performed (in my campaign) by an evil wizard, and only sanctioned by an
evil ruler. A non-evil person might be able to use _volunteers_ but
never someone unwilling.
Finally, vigilance is as needed during peacetime as at any other time.
Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. <g>
> Actually, unless the DM seriously warps the spell (which is his option as DM),
> magic jar is NOT that unsafe. The main threats to the casting mage are lose
> of original body and loss of the jarring object. The spell (as written) does
> NOT allow for the jarred body to force the caster out -- and it is a simple
> feeblemind away from making it nearly impossible for the defending mind unable
> to do anything about it anyway.
The main risk in my campaign to a PC using Magic Jar in this fashion
would be a voluntary alignment change. Possession is an inherently evil
act (again, IMC) and I don't allow evil PCs. Thus, a player could lose
his character entirely if he used this plan.
> >They can cover a large percentage of possible ploys, but that's not good
> >enough. The defender needs to cover all possible ploys. Most is not good
> >enough.
Throughout history, this has proven false. Almost by definition, no one
(attacker or defender) has even THOUGHT of "all possible ploys." The
only ploys the defender needs to cover are the ones actually used by the
attacker -- ploys unused need not be countered and it would be a waste
of resources to do so.
-- Tim
Personal: http://personalweb.lightside.com/Pfiles/breen1.html
Gaming: http://www.rpga.org/Home.html
To subscribe to the RPGA-Talk mailing list, send a blank message to
requ...@lists.consultantalliance.com with a subject of "subscribe
RPGA-Talk" (no quotes).
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>
>But the attackers would need to muster their forces together, an operation
>which would be hard to conceal for long. Should the defenders be more
>powerful, they'll strike first with the home advantage. Espionage and
>counter-espionage also play a vital role so the element of surprise is not
>easily gained.
First rule of castle attack is that Attacker is stronger than defender - by
considerable margin. Attacking castle means attack on opponent which has
massive terrain advantage. Dont bother without 2 to one preferably much much
more. The popularity of castles was that can be held with help with tiny forces
for quite reasonable periods of time - long enough for allies to summon those
owing sevice and move to help. That is, the cost of castle building is way
smaller than maintaining a standing army. Usually a castle defense collapsed
quickly if wall breached - in realms of overwhelming odds.
That given, the attackers surround the castle so can move on ANY breach.
They assemble outside missile range.
Erik Ward
In article <33C53B...@lightside.com>, bre...@lightside.com says...
>
>> >Nobody is disputing that offensive plans can be countered, but a
>> >successful defence requires that *every* offensive plan is countered
>> >simultaneously.
>>
>> This is not true. A successful defense requires planning for as many
>> aggressor plans as possible, then actively countering what actually
happens.
>
>This should be restated for emphasis: The defenders should PLAN for
>anything they can think of, but only counter what HAPPENS. And then,
>only WHEN it happens (i.e., not necessarily "simultaneously").
>
THAT was what I was trying to say, apparently not in a clear concise manner,
but it was my point.
>> >That's a good start and in theory it's possible. To make it work though
>> >the defender needs to be able to cast phenomenal numbers of spells which
>> >need to be maintained around the clock. Without an unlimited number of
>> >wishes and/or permanence spells it's just not a practical proposition.
>> >
>>
>> I covered permanencies, although you obviously have decided that ANY ploy
used
>> by defending mages will be disallowed. Furthermore, unless your attackers
>> have no rhyme or reason to their attacks, not all spells need to be up at
all
>> times -- only during times of conflict and unrest. During times of peace,
>> vigilance is not as needed.
>
>One thing to keep in mind is that the inherent advantage goes to the
>defender. He has much more time to prepare (and to raise money for those
>preparations), and typically knows the field of battle much better.
>Another thing to keep in mind is cost. A defender doesn't have to make
>his fortress absolutely impregnable, he just has to make it so that it's
>not cost-effective to attack. If an attacker stands to lose more (in
>terms of casualties, spell components, over-extended supply lines, or
>whatever) to defeat the defender than the expected value of that defeat,
>a rational attacker simply won't attack at all.
>
The advantage for the aggressor is knowing where and when and what the attack
will be. The advantage for the defender is having time to prepare defenses.
>Regarding the issue of using prisoners/slaves/coerced peasants as "fuel"
>for permanancy spells, I think that it should be pointed out that this
>is, in my opinion, an unmitigated evil act. That is, it could only be
>performed (in my campaign) by an evil wizard, and only sanctioned by an
>evil ruler. A non-evil person might be able to use _volunteers_ but
>never someone unwilling.
The definition of evil, of course, is up to the DM in a given game. In my
campaign, and in those I play in, it is NOT evil to use condemned criminals to
build castles, or be used in the manner I described, if said people were
convicted and their guilt is established beyond doubt (which is where the
priests of the god of justice come in!) Furthermore, it is not evil to use
volunteers (as expressed in my post as well.) Do you think a peasant would
jump at the opportunity to make 10 times what they would make in a decade for
the RISK that they might lose a little bit of health? With the added bonus of
being a patriot to boot?
A question for you -- would you have any problem with utilizing condemned
criminals to help build the castle, then hang them? If so, is there any
difference between that and using their aura to build castle defenses until
they die?
>
>Finally, vigilance is as needed during peacetime as at any other time.
>Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. <g>
>
True, but very rarely do battles pop up for no reason. The castle would not
need every defense active all the time -- just when battle seems imminent.
The rest of the time, the defenses can be relaxed somewhat.
>> Actually, unless the DM seriously warps the spell (which is his option as
DM),
>> magic jar is NOT that unsafe. The main threats to the casting mage are
lose
>> of original body and loss of the jarring object. The spell (as written)
does
>> NOT allow for the jarred body to force the caster out -- and it is a simple
>> feeblemind away from making it nearly impossible for the defending mind
unable
>> to do anything about it anyway.
>
>The main risk in my campaign to a PC using Magic Jar in this fashion
>would be a voluntary alignment change. Possession is an inherently evil
>act (again, IMC) and I don't allow evil PCs. Thus, a player could lose
>his character entirely if he used this plan.
Again, this depends on the situation and the DM.
Bernard Peek
In article <33c4c...@usenet.lexmark.com>, Erik Ward
<erik...@lexmark.com> writes
>>
>>Nobody is disputing that offensive plans can be countered, but a
>>successful defence requires that *every* offensive plan is countered
>>simultaneously.
>
>This is not true. A successful defense requires planning for as many
>aggressor plans as possible, then actively countering what actually happens.
That's true as far as it goes. Yes, a defence succeeds if it defeats an
attack, but it's only winning a battle. Defending a castle is a series
of battles and the defemder has to win all of them, 99 times out of 100
is not good enough.
Defenders also has to realise that the attacker gets to choose which
point to attack. If the castle has impenetrable walls then an attacker
is unlikely to attack them, and will choose an alternative approach.
This might mean flying over the top or using subterfuge to persuade the
defender to invite them in.
It's the weak points of the defence that count, not the strong points.
That's what makes it so difficult to defend against a magical attack.
Magical attacks deliver a lot of force at a single point. The defence
has to be able to counter that level of force at every point and at all
times.
>
>>
>>That's a good start and in theory it's possible. To make it work though
>>the defender needs to be able to cast phenomenal numbers of spells which
>>need to be maintained around the clock. Without an unlimited number of
>>wishes and/or permanence spells it's just not a practical proposition.
>>
>
>I covered permanencies, although you obviously have decided that ANY ploy used
>by defending mages will be disallowed. Furthermore, unless your attackers
>have no rhyme or reason to their attacks, not all spells need to be up at all
>times -- only during times of conflict and unrest. During times of peace,
>vigilance is not as needed.
Naturally. But conflict and unrest might last a century or more. Even in
peacetime there's a possibility that a party of adventurers might happen
by and decide that they might like to own a castle.
>
>>
>>It doesn't require an enormous number of 200th level mages to take out a
>>castle. It can be done with a raiding party using nothing more than one
>>Invisibility 10' Radius spell.
>>
>
>This is easily counter through non-magical means. Dogs have a high chance of
>detecting invisible. Curtains hanging from the ceiling in critical locations
>will reveal the presence of invisible creatures. Of course, there are magical
>means as well: glyphs of warding (fire) combined with magic mouths set to
>sound the alarm upon the sight of fire work well.
Dogs would probably work, but there are ways of dealing with them
(poisoned or drugged meat is the traditional one), moving curtains are
only effective while someone is around to notice them. I'm uncertain
whether the Glyph of Warding would be triggered by someone who is
invisible, I think it probably would which makes it a useful trap
(mechanical traps, even deliberately loosened floorboards also work).
>
>>If the world has that amount of magic. I've never played in that type of
>>world.
>
>I thought that was the whole point of this thread -- high magic obviates the
>use of castles.
Yes it does, but so does moderate level magic. It doesn't need an
enormously powerful mage. A single Charm Person spell might be enough.
>
>>
>>The use of convicted criminals isn't available to all characters,
>>because of their, er... philosophical inclinations as we call them
>>around here. None of the DMs in our group would permit any good
>>character to do that. The Magic Jar spell isn't available to every mage
>>either, and it is risky.
>>
>
>Actually, unless the DM seriously warps the spell (which is his option as DM),
>magic jar is NOT that unsafe. The main threats to the casting mage are lose
>of original body and loss of the jarring object. The spell (as written) does
>NOT allow for the jarred body to force the caster out -- and it is a simple
>feeblemind away from making it nearly impossible for the defending mind unable
>to do anything about it anyway.
Yes, that would work.
>
>I would also appreciate if you quote me correctly -- I stated that this use of
>magic jar would be harder for good mages than neutral or evil mages. Good
>mages would have to find morally acceptable ways to use these spells in this
>manner. Maybe the use of irretrievably evil beings would be the only way.
>THAT is a campaign specific question. In several campaigns I know of, this IS
>an option for good mages, subject to limitations by the political powers that
>be. 1 country in a world I play in, one of the penalties for heinous crimes
>is death by magic drain -- the evil-doers put to good use as he dies, creating
>magical items for the defense of the country.
>
>>
>>(As a DM I'd give the disposessed spirit a small chance of reposession
>>when the mage attempts the Permanency spell, a succesful attempt would
>>cause the Permanency spell to fail and the mage to lose constitution.)
>>
>
>Earlier you stated that the spells as written allow the aggressor mage (in
>that case, using dimension door) the advantage. Yet now you decide to alter a
>spell that the defender would use. You are correct: in your world, fantasy
>castles are obsolete. Since every advantage is GIVEN to the aggressor,
>castles will fall to a single high-level mage without any chance for the
>defenders.
Where a spell has a saving throw it's normal in our campaigns to give
another chance to save if the attack causes real permanent damage. The
same would be true whether it was the attacker or defender.
Given mages of equal ability I'm pretty sure that the attacker has the
overall advantage. The defender has the advantage of having time to
prepare, but this is only useful when that time can be used in creating
an effective defence. Most spells expire so, without Permanency, they
aren't useful in setting up defences unless the defender knows when the
attack will come.
>
>>[...]
>>
>>They can cover a large percentage of possible ploys, but that's not good
>>enough. The defender needs to cover all possible ploys. Most is not good
>>enough.
>>
>
>Unless the attacker has a complete defensive layout, he will not know what
>ploys HAVE been countered. And he may waste energies against countered
>ploys. Granted, it is possible to get lucky and hit a ploy not defended
>against; then again, the aggressor might hit a ploy that HAS been planned for,
>and find himself in a disadvantaged situation.
But the next attacker, and the one after....
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
C. Williams
In a campaign I played in a fair while back, our characters who started
out as your basic 4th level adventurers with a bare modicum of reputation
('Jarlik? Hmmm.. I dunno, the name might be familiar, what did you say
you do again?') to very high level (the way being led by a 22nd level
fighter). At this point in the GM's campaign world we'd all pretty much
acheived what we could as adventurers, amassed a decent array of
treasure, and generally decided that feats of daring-do weren't quite as
rewarding as a steady income and a soft bed.
So we settled down collectively and started a school, giving each
of us a chance to still research, train, etc, and dabble in local
politics. Which led to less time sleeping in hard beds then we might have
hoped. (The problem with being well known hero's is well... you're well
known, and when things really go to hell in a hand basket people come
looking for you.)
So when we were charged by our King to bring to justice a Duke
that had been consorting with demons, we prepared all the basic elements
of your standard seige, taking along a fair number of our most gifted
students for the trial by fire. Over the course of the campaign I found
out what the most deadly seige spell is in a fantasy campaign.
Mordenkanin's Disjunction (spelling mangled).
Walls of the keep imbued with spelled enhancements? Guards with magical
weapons? +1 Arrows in the hands of the archers at the wall? They turn
into quite excellent artillery pieces, and you don't have to even launch
them.
This firmly established in my mind that the best defenses even in high
fantasy are mostly mundane. Strong walls, decent patrols, well trained
army, and siegecraft. Relying too heavily on magic can really come to
hurt you in the end.
Yes you need some fixed magic to win a seige, but it should be
localized, and in vital areas. (Water supplies etc.) Because it can be
used against you to horrific effect. For your needs as the battle
commences, having mages on hand works out very effectively.
ChrisW.
Just my .02 cents, refunds available upon request
---
Lios Alfar, most hated by the dark, for their name is light.
Eddy Tanumihardja
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz wrote:
: First rule of castle attack is that Attacker is stronger than defender - by
: considerable margin.
Not necessarily. "Stronger" is a subjective term.
Usually, the attackers are more *numerous*, but numbers do not immediately
translate to strength. In a castle attack, stronger mean more than just
considerable numerical superiority.
: smaller than maintaining a standing army. Usually a castle defense collapsed
: quickly if wall breached - in realms of overwhelming odds.
: That given, the attackers surround the castle so can move on ANY breach.
: They assemble outside missile range.
Assembling takes time, more if attackers come from different directions.
Synchronisation of troop positions are hard. It matters not that they
assemble outside the missile range. A castle with enough men can mount
a strike force to take out smaller hostile forces as they arrive.
Furthermore, one must consider the warchest.
Can the attackers really assemble a 10,000 troop force just for a castle
defended by 1,000 defenders ? The attackers have to pay their troops and
most of the time, the $$$ come from the looting and sacking of the castle.
Now, if the castle really have all the mullah in the first place, they'd
spens (part of) it to boost up their defence rather than lose it all in
their utter defeat.
The home advantage of the defenders do not end beyond the range of the
missile defence from the castle. Only those in very weak positions will
allow attackers to besiege them first thing in the conflict. Prior
skirmishes, ambushes and sabotage will provide information to the defenders
what kind of attacks the invaders are capable of, thereby taking the
appropriate counter measures.
If the attackers are not foolish, neither should the defenders be.
ET
Tim Breen
Eddy Tanumihardja wrote:
>
> mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz wrote:
> : First rule of castle attack is that Attacker is stronger than defender - by
> : considerable margin.
>
> Not necessarily. "Stronger" is a subjective term.
> Usually, the attackers are more *numerous*, but numbers do not immediately
> translate to strength. In a castle attack, stronger mean more than just
> considerable numerical superiority.
I think what was meant by the original statement was that if you're NOT
"considerably stronger" than those in the castle, you don't want to
attack. Whether your strength comes from superior numbers, magic,
technology or whatever, if you're the attacker you want to make sure
that you are _much_ stronger than you believe the defender to be, else
don't attack at all (yet).
Bernard Peek
In article <5q6i08$h...@nuscc.nus.sg>, Eddy Tanumihardja
<issp...@leonis.nus.sg> writes
>Furthermore, one must consider the warchest.
>Can the attackers really assemble a 10,000 troop force just for a castle
>defended by 1,000 defenders ?
Probably not. In this world castles were not attacked in order to take
the castle, but to take the surrounding land that they defended.
Occasionally they were attacked because there was something inside that
the attackers wanted, like perhaps an heir to the throne. Either way,
the cash value of the castle was not important.
It might be important in a D&D world where there is a chance of takking
a castle with a relatively small force, perhaps a party of adventurers.
>Only those in very weak positions will
>allow attackers to besiege them first thing in the conflict. Prior
>skirmishes, ambushes and sabotage will provide information to the defenders
>what kind of attacks the invaders are capable of, thereby taking the
>appropriate counter measures.
I've never taken part in a siege attack on a castle, all of the castle
attacks I've seen have been surprise attacks using small parties. The
defenders don't usually find out about it until too late.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Tim Breen
> What is at stake is the question, "given the same millieu, does the addition
> of magic rule out castle in same way that gunpowder ruled them out in the
> real world?"
Given this redefinition/clarification, my answer would almost certainly
be "no." My reasoning would be that in the real world, there was no
defensive development comparable to the use of gunpower (with cannons,
bombards, howitzers, etc.). Thus, offensive parties got a much stronger
"punch" over time, whereas the defenders did not get a much stronger
"shield" at the same time. (Historical note: the fortress El Morro in
Puerto Rico survived attack during the Spanish American war of 1898 --
not bad!)
In the "standard" AD&D setting, there are both offensive and defensive
spells which are quite powerful, plus rules for researching new spells
which could, in theory, give the defenders every bit as much new
capability in protecting castles as attackers get in trying to breech
them.
Thus, by itself I would say that the addition of magic does not
necessarily rule out the castle, and especially not "in the same way"
that gunpowder and artillery made them obsolete in our world.
--
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>: First rule of castle attack is that Attacker is stronger than defender - by
>: considerable margin.
>
>Not necessarily. "Stronger" is a subjective term.
>Usually, the attackers are more *numerous*, but numbers do not immediately
>translate to strength. In a castle attack, stronger mean more than just
>considerable numerical superiority.
If you couldnt beat the defenders on an open battle field, then you dont
have a prayer of beating them in a castle. You dont attack a castle unless
this is so. It is a pointless arguement to consider case when a defender
is militarily stronger than attack (be it numerical or whatever). You
dont have an attack on a castle in those situations unless the attacking
commander is terminally stupid. A castle acts for the defender as a
counter to the attackers strength.
>: smaller than maintaining a standing army. Usually a castle defense collapsed
>: quickly if wall breached - in realms of overwhelming odds.
>: That given, the attackers surround the castle so can move on ANY breach.
>: They assemble outside missile range.
>
>Assembling takes time, more if attackers come from different directions.
>Synchronisation of troop positions are hard. It matters not that they
>assemble outside the missile range. A castle with enough men can mount
>a strike force to take out smaller hostile forces as they arrive.
A little historical realism here. It was normal for the attacker to surround
the castle (to stretch the defense right around the wall). Often the
attack would first try direct assault - see if there were enough defenders.
This failing, you dig in right around the wall. "A castle with enough men"
is a telling point. Once again, you dont launch castle assaults without
having enough reserves to counter a sally.
>Furthermore, one must consider the warchest.
>Can the attackers really assemble a 10,000 troop force just for a castle
>defended by 1,000 defenders ? The attackers have to pay their troops and
>most of the time, the $$$ come from the looting and sacking of the castle.
>Now, if the castle really have all the mullah in the first place, they'd
>spens (part of) it to boost up their defence rather than lose it all in
>their utter defeat.
Castles belong to world with say 10 knights defending along with their men-at-
arms. Way less than 100. An attacking army might be 1000. Again, the answers
to questions are in history. Castles bought you time, and the need for the
attacker to have a large force. Castles regularly fell to enough time and/or
attackers.
What is at stake is the question, "given the same millieu, does the addition
of magic rule out castle in same way that gunpowder ruled them out in the
real world?"
>The home advantage of the defenders do not end beyond the range of the
>missile defence from the castle. Only those in very weak positions will
>allow attackers to besiege them first thing in the conflict. Prior
>skirmishes, ambushes and sabotage will provide information to the defenders
>what kind of attacks the invaders are capable of, thereby taking the
>appropriate counter measures.
Again, look at history. Look at the numerous situations which gave rise
to castle attacks. "Invaders" were more likely to be your neighbours.
Castles were way for a small group like normans to extend and hold power
in hostle ground in England. Similarly for the crusaders. European history
I know less about.
Mr. M.J. Lush
Its time I stuck my nose into this debate, briefly
I think castle type fortifications have become obsolete not
because the weapons got better, but because the armys got more
mobile.
In standard fantasy armys still tromp round on foot or
if lucky on horse, transport is pretty primitive so and have
more in common with the 18-19th centuary
That said really I just want to muse on how a castle could
be defended from normal and magical seage...
In article <5q5shl$cce$1...@robin.cqi.com>, C. Williams <chr...@cqi.com> wrote:
<Mordenkanin's Disjunction makes magic go BANG! snipped>
>This firmly established in my mind that the best defenses even in high
>fantasy are mostly mundane. Strong walls, decent patrols, well trained
>army, and siegecraft. Relying too heavily on magic can really come to
>hurt you in the end.
I would tend to agree with you there. A while ago I did
a bit of thinking on the subject and realised the most important
thing about magic would how it would affect building. Basically
Thalmic concrete would rule (ie Rock to mud on handy outcorp of
hard stone cart the mud to giant molds pour in and cast dispell magic
to return it to rock) a 10th Lvl mage can make 10,000 cu ft a day
very cheap (no expensive stone masons etc) just some good carpenters
and a lot of pesents who don't mind a bit of dirt..
Throw in chains and big metal plates and you have a reinforced
non-magical stone wall with no faults or cracks, and resistant to
passwall (doesnt work on metal last time I looked), if you make them at
least 50 feet thick and high it would need five rock to muds to breach
(AFAIK Rock to mud affects a 10 ft depth) and lots of mud (dispel magic
anyone?:-> and chains etc to wade through.
The defenders would probably fight from a twisty turny mass
of tunnels connecting 'pillboxes' arrow slits etc, segmented by
airtight doors (to limit a fire balls progress) and probably kept at a
positive air pressure to keep out cloud kills etc etc (this would have
to be done by a couple of bound air elementals in a well defended basement
connected to the walls by lots of pipes trapped against reduced partys
of adventurers).
Teleporters could be discouraged by filling all corridoors
with dangling bits of string with wooden, metal and ceramic beads
strung on them and perminant illusions could really confuse scrying.
I'm sure mage-architects could come up with a lot more counter
measures.
Finally I suspect the occasional limited wish/wish would be used
on important castles probably used to seal off the castle to
etherial/phased attack. Knowledge of the exact wording of the
wish would be very closely guarded!
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Teddy Bear
Sigh...must...fight ...inclinations ...to ...post...
Ah well, too late. *note* this option only works in FR or a similar
handmade setting. Why not build your castle/keep in a dead-magic area.
Then invite the clergy of Mystra to set up a temple within. they can
still cast...
Also I really like the previously posted Defend Castle spell.
Third, with all this talk of defending magic being so expensive, people
are forgetting that those attacking mages have to be paid as well,
probably more, as they'll need travel pay, and they are facing defending
maics they may or may not know the full extent of. If I were a mage I'd
charge pretty heftily to be put in that situation. In the beginning, the
attacker is almost always goin to incur more expenses then the defender
(moving an army costs lotsa $)
Also while I'm on the mage subject (and I suppose this works both ways),
what's to stop the castle (or attacker) from having a few loyal mages
around. Mages who aren't so mercenary. I mean what's cheaper, paying
thousands of gold per spell (shudder) or thousands of gold once to an
adventuring group to go out and collect rare stuff, and possibly new
spells and magic items, for the mage, who being loyal to the seat of
power, willingly casts spells for his beloved king (prince, queen, duke,
whatever).
Just my 2 cp
--
,
/| __
/ | ,-~ /
/ :| // /
| jj /( .^ Everybunny's a critic.
>-"~"-v"
/ Y Dusty Miller ;)
jo o |
( ~T~ j http://www.wam.umd.edu/~matti
>._-' _./
/ "~" |
Y _, |
/| ;-"~ _ l
/ l/ ,-"~ \
\//\/ .- \
Y / Y
l I !
]\ _\ /"\
(" ~----( ~ Y. )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Harbak
>
>
> . Try getting a map of say the Thames valley in 11-12th century,
> and just count the no. of castles. A defending line is going to have
> several
> mages per castle. Attackers only need one mage for the attack and from
> say
> set position in the north has a large no. of potential castles to
> attack
> in easy striking range. The castles were built in first place because
> a
> tiny force hold an army for a few days - long enough to marshall the
> defenders
> for other positions. Does this style of fortification still makes
> sense
> in a fantasy world? Is that style of power base still relevant in a
> high
> magic setting? Modern fortication leans on cheap earthworks and
> overhead
> cover. I cant help but think this would be more effective in high
> magic
> setting.
Many people in this discussion are attempting are comparing sorcery
to modern weaponry
relative to this question. I think that is a good way to look at it but
if so then the whole picture must be looked at.The attacker, due to the
fact he can attack at any point may have an initial
advantage, however I feel that the defending forces would utilize a
"mobile strik force" concept
to defend their line of castles. Somewhere 100 miles behind the front
lines a group of wizards
would sit in wait. Then after the attackers have made their presence
felt at the castle in question the "strike force" decides how many of
them will be sufficient to put the kybosh on the assault and this group
teleports into the keep. That night the attackers get a nasty surprise
as the reinforcements light up their camp. Just a thought.
I generally feel that castles would still prove a neccssity in
controlling the countryside and would be very important after all of the
high level mages had killed each other off. Kind of like gaining air
superiority. The last side with mages left wins anyways.
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz
>Sigh...must...fight ...inclinations ...to ...post...
I should too but still cant resist...
>Third, with all this talk of defending magic being so expensive, people
>are forgetting that those attacking mages have to be paid as well,
>probably more, as they'll need travel pay, and they are facing defending
>maics they may or may not know the full extent of. If I were a mage I'd
>charge pretty heftily to be put in that situation. In the beginning, the
>attacker is almost always goin to incur more expenses then the defender
>(moving an army costs lotsa $)
Not what I meant by expense - more the fact you still have only a limited
no. of mages. Try getting a map of say the Thames valley in 11-12th century,
Bernard Peek
In article <sjcaldwell-18...@ts2-15.odyssey.on.ca>, scott
<sjcal...@odyssey.on.ca> writes
>And the dead-magic area can be used against you by intelligent
>opponents.
Only if they know it is there, can you scry an anti-magic area?
> This was discussed in the thread about paladin's
>with holy swords. A good tactic is to magically reduce boulders
>then throw or drop them on the castle. However, the advantages
>of the dead-magic area would seem to outway the disadvantages.
An anti-magic area 100ft above the walls is very effective against most
(but not all) flying attacks. See: _The Medici Hawks_ by Woodhouse &
Ross.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
scott
In article <5qip4p$r...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Teddy
Bear) wrote:
> Ah well, too late. *note* this option only works in FR or a similar
> handmade setting. Why not build your castle/keep in a dead-magic area.
> Then invite the clergy of Mystra to set up a temple within. they can
> still cast...
It's been a while since I've had anything to do with FR, but ...
Aren't Mystra's priests working to eliminate such areas? While
this would be an effective strategy for the short term, eventually
the priests would probably eliminate the effects of the area.
However, it would be a great strategy, while the situation lasted.
And the dead-magic area can be used against you by intelligent
opponents. This was discussed in the thread about paladin's
with holy swords. A good tactic is to magically reduce boulders
then throw or drop them on the castle. However, the advantages
of the dead-magic area would seem to outway the disadvantages.
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, The Grimoire Arcana, The World Shapers' Page, &
My AD&D Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"Ideas often last but a day; feelings, dreams almost forever."
-- Gabrielle Roy
Doc Smith
> > >we prepared all the basic elements>of your standard seige,
taking along a fair number of our most gifted
>students for the trial by fire. Over the course of the campaign I found
>out what the most deadly seige spell is in a fantasy campaign.
>
>Mordenkanin's Disjunction (spelling mangled).
>
Area of Effect of 30 feet. Even a small castle will be larger than 10
yards across. Also the casting time deos not allow any room for error
(ct 9), if you are using the optional rules.
So lets assume that your mage teleports into the castle, and blows off
his spell before leaving;-
1 mage t/ports in (here we presume that he is not seen, and so is able
to cast his spell undisturbed)
2 effects take place, the enchantments on the castle wall are taken out,
if he is lucky somone is nearby with a powerful item, that too is
destroyed
3 mage wins initiative and t/ports out, unscathed
SO WHAT! The mage has used up a spell that took 90 mins to memorise, and
put himself in mortal danger, to take out 1 defence and possibly some
magic. Why not just stand a couple of hundred yards off, summon an earth
elemental, and cast Move earth, to build a rampart up to the top of the
wall. Or, at a pinch, just use up a limited wish and cast an earthquake.
What's five years against being too slow and getting pincushioned with
arrows!!!
>Walls of the keep imbued with spelled enhancements? Guards with magical
>weapons? +1 Arrows in the hands of the archers at the wall? They turn
>into quite excellent artillery pieces, and you don't have to even launch
>them.
>
>This firmly established in my mind that the best defenses even in high
>fantasy are mostly mundane. Strong walls, decent patrols, well trained
>army, and siegecraft. Relying too heavily on magic can really come to
>hurt you in the end.
>
>Yes you need some fixed magic to win a seige, but it should be
>localized, and in vital areas. (Water supplies etc.) Because it can be
>used against you to horrific effect. For your needs as the battle
>commences, having mages on hand works out very effectively.
>
>ChrisW.
>
>Just my .02 cents, refunds available upon request
>---
>Lios Alfar, most hated by the dark, for their name is light.
--
Doc Smith
Michael J. Tedin
Doc Smith wrote:
>
> In article <5q5shl$cce$1...@robin.cqi.com>, "C. Williams" <chr...@cqi.com>
> writes
> >
> >Mordenkanin's Disjunction (spelling mangled).
> >
> You forgot to mention that Mords Disjunction has a range of 0, and an
> Area of Effect of 30 feet. Even a small castle will be larger than 10
> yards across. Also the casting time deos not allow any room for error
> (ct 9), if you are using the optional rules.
>
> So lets assume that your mage teleports into the castle, and blows off
> his spell before leaving;-
>
> 1 mage t/ports in (here we presume that he is not seen, and so is able
> to cast his spell undisturbed)
> 2 effects take place, the enchantments on the castle wall are taken out,
> if he is lucky somone is nearby with a powerful item, that too is
> destroyed
> 3 mage wins initiative and t/ports out, unscathed
>
> SO WHAT! The mage has used up a spell that took 90 mins to memorise, and
> put himself in mortal danger, to take out 1 defence and possibly some
> magic. Why not just stand a couple of hundred yards off, summon an earth
> elemental, and cast Move earth, to build a rampart up to the top of the
> wall. Or, at a pinch, just use up a limited wish and cast an earthquake.
> What's five years against being too slow and getting pincushioned with
> arrows!!!
>
Well, if you have those spells, then OK. I think that, if you have MD &
Teleport, then it is a viable, though dangerous option.
Guy Robinson
mdl...@lhn.gns.cri.nz wrote:
This is an attempt to draw out the Fantasy Castle discussion and to
change it's direction a little.
> Modern fortication leans on cheap earthworks and overhead cover. I
> can't help but think this would be more effective in high magic
> setting.
Prehaps we just need to expand the recourses that are available in a
AD&Dn world to provide things the equivalent of magical earthworks.
It would make sense if certain areas could be defended from
teleportation, scrying and all those other things that make mundane
security methods pretty obsolete. These kind of defenses are not
unreasonable as AD&Dn is more geared to the magic of personal might
rather that the magic that would be developed to counter the common
tactics that such magics would promote.
Prehaps there could 0-level Ward-Wrights who do for areas of real estate
what Alchemists do for potions. You could call in such specialists
along with your engineers and strategists when you want to design,
rebuild or site a castle. Or these people could help select or detect
"comologically" stable areas that have the same properties naturally.
They could lay down the magic necessary to obscure the secret matters
of courts, protect treasuries and make castles more defensive.
Another way is to think about using existing magical technology to
better defend somewhere. Hatching broods of gargoyles to beef up a
castles air-defences would not be an unreasonable measure, for example.
Essentially I think we should consider that if nAD&D spells where in use
what counter-measure would be usefull to have. Then we can start to
debate what kind of counter-measure are reasonable for our individual
campaigns or perceptions of AD&Dn.
Guy Robinson
[standard disclaimers apply]
Bernard Peek
In article <33D5B1AF...@emtex.com>, Guy Robinson <gu...@emtex.com>
writes
>Essentially I think we should consider that if nAD&D spells where in use
>what counter-measure would be usefull to have. Then we can start to
>debate what kind of counter-measure are reasonable for our individual
>campaigns or perceptions of AD&Dn.
There were two basic methods of attacking a castle, before the brute
strength attacks using gunpowder.
The first was to get a small raiding party inside to open the gates.
There are various ways of doing this. Troy's wooden-horse is a famous
one. A more probable approach would be to have a traitor inside who
could open a small unguarded door away from the main entrance. The last
resort would be to charge the walls with siege ladders and try to fight
a way in.
The second approach was to lay siege. Eventually the castle ran out of
food or water or developed a plague. Firing dead bodies over the walls
helped to promote disease inside.
Either of these could be enhanced my magic. Charm Person on the key-
holder would work. Invisible thieves walking alongside a cart that has
legitimate access to the castle. Spells to pollute or lower the water.
None of these necessarily need a super-powerful mage.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk