The Gorgon's Legions

[kgauck]

stone had once been subjected to heat; it's current form is what it looks like after it cools down, and pressure is what packs it tight, whereas a fireball is pure heat, and extremely potent at that (enough to melt even stone, according to the theme behind the spell). In fact, I find it mistaken that people generally don't reduce wall and floor hit points whenever fireball is used: to common people, fireball is no less than hellfire unleashed!

The amount of damage neccesary to do damage to stone is measured in multiple hundreds of degrees Celsius and hours of exposure. The damage neccesary to do damage to flesh is much lower. If a fireball were actually hellfire unleashed it would do considerably more damage to people (such as reduce them to power) and we could seriously discuss for game purposes what a momentary blast of such heat could do to stone. But, if a fireball's heat does five to ten d6 to people, at best its the kind of heat that can do 3rd degree burns with a full round of exposure. Consider this burn chart for flesh damage.

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Now consider that in terms of fire protection, steam at 100°C is considered cold. 540°C, for example, is considered the critical temperature for structural steel, above which, it is in jeopardy of losing its strength, leading to collapse. Six inches thick of most building stone is expected to last four hours of sustained heat at 1000°C (2000°F).

The difference between damaging people and damaging stone requires an increase in tempreture by an order magnitude or more, and a duration of 400 times longer. I have no doubt believing, based on my common knowledge of fire that a blast of intense heat could hurt people. The chart I provided identifies specifics, but that is not required to convince me that fireballs hurt people. Exact tempretures and durations are not required, its in the right ballpark. The tempreture required to damage stone used in construction is so much greater, that no window exists in which people could survive but stone is damaged. Either people can survive a fireball and stone is entirely undamaged, or people are a pile of ash and stone might get damaged.

I only bother to carry this real world data into such a discussion because the gap between damage to flesh and damage to stone by fire is so terribly great that even a casual observer can see ruins left by fires, cities sacked, or other damage and observe the stone that not only survives, but is suitable for re-building. If stone did not survive intense fires (such as the London fire of 1666) then the observable and describable landscape for PC's would be substantially different.

[RaspK_FOG]

Uh-huh... yeah. Remind me to wear plate armour in your games against the first wizard or druid that is very well known for his habit of using electricity spells; in case you didn't know, there's this whole Faraday cage phenomenon that would make me completely immune to electricity damage, and, according to the rules, there's only electricity damage in the process, so I'm cool.

I see where you come from, but simple examples like the one above show why too much realism can be a pain in the character sheet. Would you rather strive for: "Magic should be able overcome some obstacles." or the whole: "Magic Structural Services, Ltd." thing?

And, in case you didn't chech it out, look up on dungeon stats in the DMG; my calculations were far from off, actually:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm

"The most common kind of dungeon wall, masonry walls are usually at least 1 foot thick."

"Reinforced Walls
These are masonry walls with iron bars on one or both sides of the wall, or placed within the wall to strengthen it. The hardness of a reinforced wall remains the same, but its hit points are doubled and the Strength check DC to break through it is increased by 10."

"Magically Treated Walls
These walls are stronger than average, with a greater hardness, more hit points, and a higher break DC. Magic can usually double the hardness and hit points and can add up to 20 to the break DC. A magically treated wall also gains a saving throw against spells that could affect it, with the save bonus equaling 2 + one-half the caster level of the magic reinforcing the wall. Creating a magic wall requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat and the expenditure of 1,500 gp for each 10 foot-by-10-foot wall section."

[The Swordgaunt]

Regarding fire damage to stone, I'd say that both points of view is equally right, and equally wrong. Fire has been used throughout the history of engineering to weaken stone. The navvies of the 19th century built large fires against the part of the mountain they were going to mine. It was a painstakingly slow technique, but way faster than working on structurally sound rock.

As for fortifications, most castle walls (in the medieval era) are at least three feet thick, and well defended from above. The fire and pick technique would be extremely dangerous.

I would fear a fireball aimed at the ramparts more, as this would probably kill every last defender on that section of the wall. Now, this could be said to be aqually devastating the other way around. Let me point to one of the golden rules of siegework. The atacker will generally need to outnumber the defender by seven to one. To quote King Henry Longshanks in Braveheart: We have reinforcements, they have not.

To return to the danger of flying creatures, I'll admit that in a BR scenario, this is not among the most common threat. Still, in some parts of the world (the Northern Marches, for instance) this would probably have to be adressed by the would be castellan. Although it's far from a smart-bomb carrying modern strike-fighter, it could still throw unprepared defenders off the wall, quite litterally.

Several problems come to mind when I try to picture medieval warfare in a fantasy setting, and from the responses so far, I'm not alone.

[kgauck]

• I don't apply the rules of science as they are known to the modern world to the game. Fire is not cumbustion, but raw phlogiston. Metal does not conduct electricity. Electricity is a fluid. And on and on.
• My concern is that castle ruins either exist or they don't. Dungeons either exist or they were collapsed long ago by area effect spells. If its too easy to damage what would otherwise be permanent structures with magic, then magic is either vanishingly rare, or these structures are.
• Magic should overcome some obstacles, but I'd rather it be obstacles not already handled by another class. Warfare, combat, and sieges are where fighters should shine. If fighters are standing around waiting for the wizard to do the important business so they can mop up, things are backwards.
• Likewise no mundane inventions will ever be created to rival magical effects. No blackpower bombs, telescopes, or flying machines.
• People have an understanding of the durability of stone, because of the ancient monuments, castles, and ruins that still exist in our own world. But that's also a world where fires in the Parthenon, or a given castle, or during a siege, don't do much against the stone. Change the effect of fire against stone walls to create a fantastic magical effect, and ruins should now show blast damage from fireballs, and any construction subjected to area effect spells is probabaly collapsed.

[ploesch]

In one of the Spelljammer supplements they went into needed detail in building castles that could be defended from 3 dimension.

I will try to see if I can find which book, if anyone is interested. I know I have it, but I haven't cracked an SJ book in years.

Some of the structures were magical, others were simply covered yards and ramparts. Since in a BR campaign your not going to have to worry about 200 ton ships ramming your castle, covered yards and light ballistas would likely be enough.

Magical structures should be very rare in BR campaigns, as should powerful wizards.

[Fizz]

Regarding fire damage to stone, i think we should look at the setting.

This is a world where magic does exist, as well as a lot of warfare. The whole point of castles is to resist and protect armies, people, whatever, from the enemy.

Thus, it would be pretty dumb for the people of the setting to build a castle out of stone, if the stone weren't capable of resisting a known destructive force, namely magic.

To me then, fireballs and other magic ought to be largely ineffective against castle walls. Now, if you can drop that fireball inside the castle walls, well...


-Fizz

[Fizz]

That last statement holds so little water that I cannot even see how you found it valid enough: flaming arrows, a non-magical kind of ammunition, is able to bring down pallisade walls, which was a common type of defence for many centuries, and this is also true for Birthright; likewise, siege weapons are also effective against stone, and, as you are well aware of, catapults, ballistae, trebuchets and more are a major aspect in the battlefield. :P

But pallisade walls are primarily made out of wood. I'm specifically referring to castles made out of stone.

Of course some siege weapons can get through some walls, but not all. Frequently the best way to defeat a castle was to isolate it until supplies ran out.

I mean, there's a reason they kept building castles as defensive fortifications up until gunpowder started becoming commonplace.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

And since when were fireball launching wizards and dragons commonplace in Birthright, since it seems I somehow am missing something here...

[Fizz]

And since when were fireball launching wizards and dragons commonplace in Birthright, since it seems I somehow am missing something here...

Not common, but they would be a serious known threat. So i think they'd build their castles with that threat in mind, in addition to the more mundane threat of regular siege warfare.

-Fizz

[irdeggman]

Not common, but they would be a serious known threat. So i think they'd build their castles with that threat in mind, in addition to the more mundane threat of regular siege warfare.

-Fizz

Let's see there are what 12 cerilian dragons total - and no one has seen an active one since around Deismaar IIRC. How many people would actually "remember" them at all, other than elves?

Which cultures would use fireballs?

Not the Rjurik nor Vos (they hate magic) - so any use there is pretty much non-existant.

Not the elves (unlikely school and fire descriptor to boot)

Not the dwarves (in 2nd ed they couldn't be wizards)

Not the halflings (same in 2nd ed)

Not the goblins (same in 2nd ed)

That leaves Anuirean, Brecht, Khinasi and half-elves.

That is still a decent cultural swath (3/5 of the "human" cultures).

What is the breakdown of those capable of casting true magic?

Less than 150 in all of Cerilia (assumption here is that is not counting elves).

That leaves the number at around 90 or so.

Not that many for so large an area, so how commonly "known" is this threat?

One could go with structures having some sort of natural magic resistance due to the mebhaighl of the land and that castles and similar semi-permanent structures made of pieces of the "land" might carry some of that with them.