Why not wizards as battlefield bombers?

[delta]

As I play with classic D&D-style wargaming, there's a potential wizard combo that bothers me quite a bit. It seems like it would be fairly straightforward to have a wizard flying over a conventional army, raining destruction down on it, and the conventional army would be helpless to respond. This seems both unbalanced, and contrary to action we normally see in pulp fiction and the like. So I'm kind of looking for some obvious in-game rationale in the rules as written for why this isn't a common event.

Here's one way this can happen:

- Cast fly
- Carry a wand of fireballs

This is a well-known item and a spell of the 3rd level. If you're, say, 12th level, then the fly spell lasts at least 12 turns (2 hours by the book). The fireball range is beyond any conventional missile, so the wizard can stay 24" overhead, rain fire down wherever they wish, and can't be touched by the conventional army. (For extra security add protection from normal missiles, which also lasts 12 turns.)

Here's a second suggested strategy:

- Cast fly
- Cast invisibility
- Cast non-attacking spells in support of an allied army (control weather, move earth, hallucinatory terrain, conjure elemental, etc.)

In this case, the wizard would be getting a lot of value and seemingly not even be detectable by a conventional army. (There are probably other combos, but these two strike me as the most obvious and troubling.)

Normally I think of wizards as being unlikely to appear on a battlefield due to personal danger to their self. But in these cases it seems like there'd be effectively no danger against a conventional army.

Note that coincidentally, the wizards in Chainmail automatically are protected from missiles and have unlimited fireballs, but the fly spell does not appear there as an option (although levitate does).

So, for the pulp flavor in my game, I'd prefer some compelling tactical reason why wizards don't do this. Any thoughts, or some rule-based limitation I'm not seeing in the case of conventional-army-vs-wizards?

A non-preferred answer would be "the other army needs its own wizard" (or the like), because it effectively capitulates on the issue that conventional armies would be helpless against a standard D&D wizard. Is there any better near-rules-based response?

Now, Vol-3 has a ground-to-air missile fire rule (p. 27) where a catapult can fire a load of stones at an aerial target in a "shotgun effect", so perhaps that provides a conventional counter for armies of normal men (and you better have one or more of those most of the time). But it still seems to fail against the second strategy with the invisible wizard. Are there other options?

[premmy]

- Big flying predators love wizard meat. They can also smell invisible wizards, since predators often have an excellent sense of smell.

- You don't think the enemy has a bunch of snipers in the undergrowth on the outskirts of the battlefield with magical crossbows that outrange your fireball. You don't think such magical crossbows exist. But you don't know they don't, and you don't know the enemy doesn't have snipers equipped with them. Are you really willing to bet your life?

- Magican non-proliferation policies. The wizarding world at large recognizes that once ONE wizard starts raining down fireballs on a battle from the air, every emperor, king, theocrat, dictator and duke will want one of their own to maintain parity. That in itself would mean more and more wizards getting suckered into CAS / interception duties by promises of high pay. Which, in turn, means that the magical community would be spending a lot of time and resources on training wizards only for them to get stupid and get killed in the petty battles of political buffons. Therefore, the magical community at large has formulated and is enforcing a strict ban on practices deemed likely to cause a proliferation. You want to play B-17 for King Muggle's army? You can, sure. But understand that it gets you on a blacklist. Nobody will ever sell you a spell, a potion, a magical item or an arcane service ever again, because if they did, then they too would end up on the same blacklist.

[rhialto]

Aug 17, 2023 15:49:43 GMT -6 delta said:

So, for the pulp flavor in my game, I'd prefer some compelling tactical reason why wizards don't do this. Any thoughts, or some rule-based limitation I'm not seeing in the case of conventional-army-vs-wizards?

A non-preferred answer would be "the other army needs its own wizard" (or the like), because it effectively capitulates on the issue that conventional armies would be helpless against a standard D&D wizard. Is there any better near-rules-based response?

My first response is that this tactic fails the pulp flavor test, but assuming that this is an acceptable gaming tactic (which I think it is): the only rule-based limitations I can see are another wizard being assumed on the other side (your non-preferred answer, but from a gamist perspective I'd assume: if you can conceive it, so can others) or the charges running out on the wand. Otherwise, no answer: this hypothetical wizard could conquer all.

[Zenopus]

With respect to the first scenario (flying wizard/wand of fire balls), it gives one side a high-powered magic item but then the other side nothing of equivalent strength. It seems you could construct a similar unbalanced scenario by giving only one side a pack of hippogriffs able to drop bombs (using the bombing rules in Vol 3).

I also note that the Vol 3 section on Ground-to-Air attacks also mentions a "tension-type" of light catapult that can fire darts doing 2d6 damage into the air, including straight up, to "the maximum range of such catapults", which in Chainmail is 30" for light catapults, so longer than the range for fireball. I think if such aerial attacks were common, these types of catapults would also be common.

[Starbeard]

Several pulpy stories feature an old set of taboos or a constitution of conduct between wizards, the breaking of which will cause the perpetrator no end of strife. The wizards in Jack Vance's Lyonesse operate under some of these sorts of ancient agreements to guarantee that they don't eradicate each other or attach themselves too closely to the political forces of the realm.

That's probably the easiest possible explanation. Wizards follow a type of Geneva Convention, and those who don't immediately accrue the animosity of all wizards everywhere, who will all welcome the chance to reduce their pool of competition.

[Desparil]

Wizards are immune to normal missiles, but any elf, hero, or super-hero can carry enchanted arrows, and for a much cheaper point cost than a wizard. Balrogs are only slightly disadvantaged against wizards on the Fantasy Combat Table and only cost 75% as much; if you go for evenly-matched points and use a warlock or magician instead of a wizard, then the balrog has the advantage. Rocs (or wyverns or griffins) are even cheaper, so despite having a relatively poor chance to kill a wizard individually, a flock of five might do the trick. As in pre-modern aviation in the real world, the most effective means of dealing with bombing raids is to have fighter cover.

Unfortunately, none of the above work against the invisible wizard - for that, the only countermeasures I can see are to have your own wizard or to have a dragon. Or depending upon how you interpret the balrog's immolation ability, it might be ability to fly into the invisible wizard's approximate location and then immolate, even if it can't pinpoint the wizard for melee.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 17, 2023 15:49:43 GMT -6 delta said:

Any thoughts, or some rule-based limitation I'm not seeing in the case of conventional-army-vs-wizards?

CM 3e p30 says: "Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack". In other words, an invisible, aerial wizard would become visible the moment he launched his first fireball.

Flying and/or hovering in the air presumably eliminates any line of sight issues in targeting the Wizard. No more cover from intervening terrain or troops.

GH p14 allows composite bows (and heavy crossbows) 24" range. Assume every hero has one.

M&M p26 says the protection from normal missiles spell is effective against: "only those missiles projected by normal (not above normal) men and/or weapons". So, even normal arrows fired by a D&D-hero (or any above normal figure) defeat it.

UWA p27 imposes critical hits on flying creatures meaning they can be driven off, shot down, or shot dead by a single missile.

CM 3e p32 says: "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person."

By the book then:
1) If a CM-Wizard were disturbed by any attack upon his person (regardless of its success), any spell(s) being maintained would end. Potentially problematic in the case of a fly spell (albeit fly is not an explicitly listed CM spell, but the same applies to levitate and, presumably, any player added/house ruled spell).

2) While the need to be "stationary" is seemingly at odds with zipping along via a fly spell, it could be read to imply that a flying Wizard can do nothing other than maintain the fly spell. In which case, a fly spell would be more or less limited to flying over obstacles and moving around the battlefield at speed; but no fire balling while busy maintaining a fly spell.

3) In CM, invisibility is an innate Wizard feature rather than a spell. However, in D&D-land invisibility is a spell. Merging the two worlds to play fantasy battles, it is conceivable that an invisibility spell would have to be maintained in the same way as a fly spell. In which case it would be impossible to both fly and be invisible simultaneously.

In all, it seems a fairly risky proposition for the wizard, for limited advantage. Effectively, you get one pop-up surprise fireball, then your expensive wizard goes poof.

[Zenopus]

Aug 17, 2023 15:49:43 GMT -6 delta said:

...

Here's a second suggested strategy:

- Cast fly
- Cast invisibility
- Cast non-attacking spells in support of an allied army (control weather, move earth, hallucinatory terrain, conjure elemental, etc.)

In this case, the wizard would getting a lot of value and seemingly not even be detectable by a conventional army. (There are probably other combos, but these two strike me as the most obvious and troubling.)
...

A non-preferred answer would be "the other army needs its own wizard" (or the like), because it effectively capitulates on the issue that conventional armies would be helpless against a standard D&D wizard. Is there any better near-rules-based response?

Now, Vol-3 has a ground-to-air missile fire rule (p. 27) where a catapult can fire a load of stones at an aerial target in a "shotgun effect", so perhaps that provides a conventional counter for armies of normal man (and you better have one or more of those most of the time). But it still seems to fail against the second strategy with the invisible wizard. Are there other options?

Another possible option:
Superheroes in Chainmail and OD&D (at least per the Pixie entry in Vol 2) can see invisible targets, as you yourself recently wrote about.

It seems that a Superhero with the ability to fly (using a mount or magic item) could target a flying invisible wizard. And even if there's no flight available, the Superhero could attach to a unit and direct missile fire at the wizard from the ground.

Per the Fantasy Reference Table, Wraiths, Dragons and Rocs also have the same ability "to detect hidden invisible enemies", and can each fly. This ability is not clearly defined, however, as only the entry for Dragons mentions the ability to see invisible (and only up to 15"), and the entry for Roc indicates that they can see hidden enemies up to 48" but *not* invisible ones. This brings to question whether the ability of Superheroes is also range-limited.

In OD&D, Vol 2, some intelligent swords also have the ability to See Invisible Objects (the 2nd level MU spell "Detect Invisible (Objects)" says that this includes invisible creatures). A sword with Detect Magic might work as well, if interpreted to encompass creatures with a spell cast upon them. Or possibly Detect Evil. Intelligent Swords don't have any indicated range limitation, although one might limit them to an equivalent magic-user spell.

[Red Baron]

The historical analog here is cavalry. In roman battles, the cavalry wings would fight it out, and then the winning cavalry would then engage the other side from the flank or rear and cause a route. In the 10th-15th centuries, a very small contingent of latin-style (french, norman, etc) knights could swing the outcome of a battle.

I'd expect there to be a similar battle in the skies (resembling the cavalry wings engaging). Most castle occupants have fliers - Griffons, Rocs, Balrogs, Wyverns, Chimeras, Gargoyles, Manticoras, Hippogriffs, and Vampires, often with mid-level fighting-men riding them - these all move at 15"-48". The magic-user fly spell speed is only 12". Fighting-men and Magic-users also have a chance for a Magic-user henchman who can cast see invisible, and the fire off killer spells of their own. The winning side would then have free reign to strafe the armies below, if they have sufficient spells and hit-points for it to be worthwhile.

As has been oft pointed-out, this is also why castles/towers have flak-artillery and underground dungeons.

[mgtremaine]

Wizards are OP... Surrendor the field, pay the tribute and then work on hiring Assassins to kill said wizard as he relaxes after the battles.

-Mike

[gristlebottom]

I like the idea of enforcing the "no movement while casting" rule, which I think is from B/X(?) and enforcing it to the extreme. So, like, you must be geostatic in order to cast a spell. 

This takes care of the flying wizard bomber problem, and also greatly helps alleviate the problem that powerful fireball casting Wizards would pose to naval shipping, travel and warfare!

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 9, 2024 22:53:11 GMT -6 gristlebottom said:

I like the idea of enforcing the "no movement while casting" rule, which I think is from B/X(?)

This idea/rule appears at least as far back as Chainmail 2nd Ed. (1972)

[gristlebottom]

Feb 9, 2024 23:43:13 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 9, 2024 22:53:11 GMT -6 gristlebottom said:

I like the idea of enforcing the "no movement while casting" rule, which I think is from B/X(?)

This idea/rule appears at least as far back as Chainmail 2nd Ed. (1972)

Ugh. I was trying to find that rule in my 3rd ed copy but couldn't. Good catch!

[waysoftheearth]

See upthread:

Aug 17, 2023 22:55:44 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

CM 3e p32 says: "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person."

[chicagowiz]

Perhaps another bit - the source material/Appendix N books and the wizards within are usually very self-centered and self-motivated. They seem to want to either work behind the scenes, hire mercenaries/dupe nobles into fighting their battles for them, or interested in preserving their own skins except with the reward is potentially great and aligned with their own interests. Why go through the trouble of fighting a war, when "Wiz'a'ban's Grimiore of Fabulous Power" is finally in my grasp and I can spend the time learning how to bend The Real Power to my will?

That's my take on it, just a thought.

[GRWelsh]

I say that wizards should be able to do this. Yes, it is unbalanced. Yes, there is no way for the mundane troops on the battlefield to stop the wizard or take him out. They have to suffer receiving the fireballs or lightning bolts from above much like they would have to receive the wrath of an angry god. I say let the wizards have their day. They're supposed to be powerful. At times there should be challenges in the game that feel insurmountable, and one side must flee or surrender or start getting really creative...

It's kind of like this when one side has a dragon and the other does not. For most mundane troops, they have no chance against a dragon. I thought this was well displayed in GAME OF THRONES and it was only a fluke that one dragon was taken down with a ballista shot. But you can't rely on that happening. Usually, a single dragon was all it took to wreak complete destruction on the other side. Another example would be an elemental. Most troops can't even hit it since it is only harmed by magic weapons and spells.

[Fearghus]

Feb 10, 2024 2:15:59 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

See upthread:

Aug 17, 2023 22:55:44 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

CM 3e p32 says: "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person."

Spells like charm person, hold person, water breathing, protection from missile, and geas all break once the magic-user that cast them is attacked?

[waysoftheearth]

According to a literal reading of the CM rule, that would appear to be the case.

However, bear in mind that the D&D context didn't yet exist when that rule was written.
It's plausible that EGG later decided there should be spells that don't require the same level of concentration in the D&D context. Might be worthwhile investigating whether the AD&D DMG has anything further to say about it?