Castles, are they useful in a high magic fantasy setting like D&D 3.5?

[Fouredged Sword]

There would be design changes, A because of new threats, but also B, because some things are now cheap enough to be feasible.

Walls likely would have iron bars or spikes sticking out at a 45 or 90 degree angle along all outer walls at least 5 ft. This would prevent most climbers from just walking up your walls, serving much the same as barbed wire on chain linked.

Every defended position would be roofed in non-flammable material, likely stone or metal roofing. This protects you from anything that may attempt to land. Most defenders would be behind a full murder hole, getting improved cover and all it's benefits.

Yes, you can climb up the wall, but that just puts you trying to clamber over a sideways wall of bars while a crossbowman grabs a glaive and attempts to trip you off the wall from the murder hole. Even if you climb the wall you just end up on the castle roof with a well barricaded door that prevents easy entry.

The whole foundation of a fortress would rest on solid conjured iron. No digging up though that.

[Hackulator]

The problems with castles, honestly, have very little to do casters. It has more to to with the monsters. In the real life, the only things you had to worry about were other people. So, if there were things your wall didn't protect you against, but they weren't things humans could do (or at least, not do well), then they were good enough.
In real life, the process of scaling a castle's wall is a slow process requiring highly visible (and flammable) equipment, like seige towers and long ladders. Sure, some animals can climb the walls better than humans (like lizards and insects), but they weren't dangerous enough to matter. In DnD, you have strong creatures with climb speeds (which get handed out like candy at higher CRs), or simply creatures that are strong enough to make the Climb checks to scale the wall unassisted, as fast as a human can jog (or faster).
In real life, birds might come and go over your walls, but nothing you can really care about, barring the odd diseased corpse. In DnD, there are things that can fly like an eagle, and kill like a bobcat.
In real life, simply building on top of bedrock was made burrowing a non-issue, because even devoted sappers would take unfeasible amounts of time to dig a tunnel from outside archer range to the other side through solid rock. In DnD, you have creatures that could perform the whole process in less than a minute.

Sure, but you likewise have people with class levels defending the castle. The Castle is just a piece of equipment, and it's effectiveness is greatly affected by who is using it. While the enemies it is trying to stop are more powerful, so are the people defending it.

I agree that it would probably be less effective than in the real world, but not so much so that it's useless.

Also remember that like wizards, monsters might not be as common as you think. It is a common trope that even in high fantasy worlds, much of the world is so mundane that the common people may not even believe in magic or monsters in many places.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I figure some of the issues with casters and monsters can actually be fixed partially by looking at the improvements made to real life fortifications after the middle ages. Some pictures to give an idea about one of the styles you could think about:


(This one is clickable.)
(Yes, that's a proper castle keep and garden integrated into a later style fort.)



One of the most vulnerable parts of a medieval castle is the roof, in later styles the roof often disappears in a dirt mount. A few meters of earth can soften most blows quite a bit. Indoors the quarters are kept small with load bearing walls or pillars at regular intervals. The outer wall often doubles as most of the indoor quarters you need, complete with gun ports both on the out- and the inside, the rest of the buildings can be build as separate earth mounts. The forts are usually only a ground floor with sometimes a basement, and sometimes some form of battlements for defenders on the roof (sometimes just a grassy hill to lie on/behind). Many of these structures were still in use by the time WW2 rolled around, not because it can handle everything a (sort of) modern army can throw at it, but because it can handle most of it. Being safe from personal firearms, mortars, light artillery and most tanks is quite nice, even if bunker buster bombs technically exist. A big trade-off is height. An archer army in particular likes having the high ground, firing out through arrow-slits on or slightly above ground level is not the same as being able to fire at enemies from above, where it's much harder for them to find cover and to return fire. But if it saves you from dragons...

A large moat and a stone portion to the outer walls dug into the ground could help against at least human tunnelers (the kind of burrowers the D&D world has may need to be countered by friendly burrowing forces), and a moat might even help a bit against fliers, as it's easier to see them coming. It also helps against non-flying invisibles, who probably look quite funny waist deep in mud and water.

A bit of a downside would be that a fort with lower buildings needs to be larger to contain the same amount of useful stuff. This means it's not as easy to cover with teleport wards, alarm spells etc. I does however afford you the luxury of secondary defenses. Invaders in the central yard are not touching anything important yet, and to really cripple your defenses they'll need to go several different ways from there. Battery A can always get more gunpowder from battery D.

It may not look like a nice castle to live in to us, it doesn't really radiate "status" or anything, but in a fantasy world where this is what works against invaders they might see that differently. Who knows, maybe D&D people (or at least the one from "my setting has no real castles"-world) think the Teletubbies are royalty of some sort...

[Necroticplague]

Also remember that like wizards, monsters might not be as common as you think. It is a common trope that even in high fantasy worlds, much of the world is so mundane that the common people may not even believe in magic or monsters in many places.

Under dnds system, this kind of setting raises more questions than it answers. If most people have no magic of any form, they can be trivially wiped out by a shadow ,which are multiplying and completely silent, in the course of a single night. So worlds built under that idiotic trope and dnds system are so ridiculously unstable/unfeasible as to not be worth considering as a valid setting. In addition, many monsters have entries that indicate the would definitely run into people, either due to being some form of raider, large predator in a poor-prey environment, anthropophagic, or simply violently territorial.

[Zanos]

Under dnds system, this kind of setting raises more questions than it answers. If most people have no magic of any form, they can be trivially wiped out by a shadow ,which are multiplying and completely silent, in the course of a single night. So worlds built under that idiotic trope and dnds system are so ridiculously unstable/unfeasible as to not be worth considering as a valid setting. In addition, many monsters have entries that indicate the would definitely run into people, either due to being some form of raider, large predator in a poor-prey environment, anthropophagic, or simply violently territorial.

Isn't that what adventurers are for?

[Necroticplague]

Isn't that what adventurers are for?

Yes, but, following the logic I was responding too, such people would also have to be rare, and thus likely 'too little, too late' when it comes to dealing with (locally) apocalyptic scenarios like this.

[Zanos]

Yes, but, following the logic I was responding too, such people would also have to be rare, and thus likely 'too little, too late' when it comes to dealing with (locally) apocalyptic scenarios like this.

Well, it doesn't take a very high level party to deal with shadows before the problem gets too big. I also think the ecology of most of these apocalyptic monsters is such that they aren't actually going to do that unless another force compels them. Shadows particularly roam the areas of their deaths and IIRC remember some of their lives.

I do agree though that the majority of people aren't going to be so backwater that they don't believe in magic or monsters.

[Hackulator]

Under dnds system, this kind of setting raises more questions than it answers. If most people have no magic of any form, they can be trivially wiped out by a shadow ,which are multiplying and completely silent, in the course of a single night. So worlds built under that idiotic trope and dnds system are so ridiculously unstable/unfeasible as to not be worth considering as a valid setting. In addition, many monsters have entries that indicate the would definitely run into people, either due to being some form of raider, large predator in a poor-prey environment, anthropophagic, or simply violently territorial.

All worlds built under D&Ds system are ridiculous and unfeasible for a myriad of reasons, so I just don't find this particular argument compelling. Even the worlds built under D&Ds system don't actually use D&Ds system if you read most novels set in D&D worlds.

[Necroticplague]

Well, it doesn't take a very high level party to deal with shadows before the problem gets too big.

Depends on what exactly you mean by 'too big'. Sure, you might be able to Teleport adventurers in once they hear about it (heck, they might teleport in of their own accord to loot the place if they hear what happened). But how would they know to Teleport to where the massacre's taking place? Since they're completely silent (incorporeal) and perfectly fine in pitch darkness (darkvision), it's entirely possible for an entire moderately-sized settlement to be wiped out without anyone being the wiser. Sure, a couple months might have others realize they're not sending traders or messengers, and send exterminators, but that doesn't help the villagers who didn't know they needed to enclose themselves in walls at least 15 feet thick without windows or any other hole.

[Bucky]

A castle basically needs two things to be worthwhile defensively.

It needs walls to keep the riffraff out.

And it needs to be an appropriately-challenging dungeon for whoever sneaks past the outer walls.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Two things.

In most settings, casters are FAIRLY rare. They may not seem rare because in books they are all over the place, but that's a narrative issue. Therefore, the frequency of wizards attacking your castle should not be that high.

This isn't true according to the DMG; you're all but guaranteed a level 13+ caster in a Metropolis.

Edit: In a Metropolis, on average, you are guaranteed at least 4 level 15 Wizards and Sorcerers, and 4 level 16 Clerics and Druids.

Secondly, even if there are a lot of wizards, that means you probably have wizards DEFENDING your castle, who can counter attacking wizards, thus making the base function of the castle against non-casters still very useful.

Maybe, that's only the case if the Wizards want to defend your castle.


On a more general note; flying castles were mentioned earlier, but I think they warrant a closer look. A flying castle is a lot easier to defend, especially if it's in a remote (and high) locale. Sure people can fly/teleport to it, but they have to find it first. This isn't too hard with Divination spells, but at least flying castles are cool.

[Pleh]

If most people have no magic of any form, they can be trivially wiped out by a shadow ,which are multiplying and completely silent, in the course of a single night. So worlds built under that idiotic trope and dnds system are so ridiculously unstable/unfeasible as to not be worth considering as a valid setting.

Eh, if we're in a low power world (and not an already post-apocalyptic one), likely monsters are not in tremendously ample supply. Think like Witcher games. Shadows are undead and likely don't roam far past where they haunt. Just because they could easily turn a whole village overnight doesn't explain why they are so far from their graves or why the turned villagers would bother leaving the village where they were slain.

Likewise with other kinds of monsters. They'll probably stake out a territory and stop expanding, making them only a problem to their immediate neighbors and travelers passing through.

[Necroticplague]

Shadows are undead and likely don't roam far past where they haunt. Just because they could easily turn a whole village overnight doesn't explain why they are so far from their graves or why the turned villagers would bother leaving the village where they were slain.

1. Since people tend to live together, the natural place for undead of all types to form (including shadows), would be inside communities.
2. Yes, they may not leave the village they were spawned in. That's little consolation to the people who live in that village, who are probably all gonna die.

Likewise with other kinds of monsters. They'll probably stake out a territory and stop expanding, making them only a problem to their immediate neighbors and travelers passing through.

Yes, because population growth (and thus, a need to slowly expand territory and control increasing amounts of resources) is a thing that never happens.

[137beth]

I always liked this approach:

I even take it a step further, and notice that the landscape is strewn with castles and dungeons, none of which serve any purpose whatsoever (and are in fact an impediment to your health, given the existence of the earthquake spell). Solution 1: eliminate castles and dungeons. Solution 2: give them a function (in my case, X thickness of stone blocks teleportation and scrying effects).

If you can tie in the mechanics you need with the game world you're looking for, you end up with a better-integrated setting than if you add mechanics with little attention to how they would really influence the setting.

Change the rules to given a reason for castles to exist.

[Zanos]

Depends on what exactly you mean by 'too big'. Sure, you might be able to Teleport adventurers in once they hear about it (heck, they might teleport in of their own accord to loot the place if they hear what happened). But how would they know to Teleport to where the massacre's taking place? Since they're completely silent (incorporeal) and perfectly fine in pitch darkness (darkvision), it's entirely possible for an entire moderately-sized settlement to be wiped out without anyone being the wiser. Sure, a couple months might have others realize they're not sending traders or messengers, and send exterminators, but that doesn't help the villagers who didn't know they needed to enclose themselves in walls at least 15 feet thick without windows or any other hole.

Shadows might be quiet. The screams of the dying are not. A shadow can't even reliably CDG a sleeping person because it's CDG only does 2d6 str damage. That whole village will probably still die, but villages get wiped all the time. "We don't go to Ravenholm" and all that.

Shadows really aren't all that tough either. They have incorporeal advantage, but a low level party knowing they're up against shadows will probably be just fine.

Constructing your entire setting around a very specific rules abuse, in this case spawn chaining, probably isn't a great way to build a setting in any case.

[Hackulator]

Maybe, that's only the case if the Wizards want to defend your castle.

On a more general note; flying castles were mentioned earlier, but I think they warrant a closer look. A flying castle is a lot easier to defend, especially if it's in a remote (and high) locale. Sure people can fly/teleport to it, but they have to find it first. This isn't too hard with Divination spells, but at least flying castles are cool.

I mean, that's a meaningless argument, as it can be applied to anything attacking your castle as well.

As for flying castles, those are basically high level artifacts, so not while clearly better, not really an option.

Constructing your entire setting around a very specific rules abuse, in this case spawn chaining, probably isn't a great way to build a setting in any case.

I actually have run an entire game around the spectre apocalypse idea. Zombie apocalypse but 100 time worse, it was very fun but not something that you can have in every game.

[Necroticplague]

Shadows might be quiet. The screams of the dying are not. A shadow can't even reliably CDG a sleeping person because it's CDG only does 2d6 str damage. That whole village will probably still die, but villages get wiped all the time. "We don't go to Ravenholm" and all that.

The bolded was basically my point. How can you have any kind of setting you expect us to believe lasted for any amount of time when it sets up a scenario in which much of it can be completely wiped out on a regular basis.

Shadows really aren't all that tough either. They have incorporeal advantage, but a low level party knowing they're up against shadows will probably be just fine.

Constructing your entire setting around a very specific rules abuse, in this case spawn chaining, probably isn't a great way to build a setting in any case.

I chose shadows in my example specifically because they were relatively weak creatures. They're near the bottom of the totem pole of 'things that could completely screw over an ill-informed village'. There's much nastier in the world to make 'most people are low-level smucks who have never seen a wizard' an untenable proposal.

[Hackulator]

I chose shadows in my example specifically because they were relatively weak creatures. They're near the bottom of the totem pole of 'things that could completely screw over an ill-informed village'. There's much nastier in the world to make 'most people are low-level smucks who have never seen a wizard' an untenable proposal.

Your argument doesn't stand up, because it world with very few magic users, there are also very few of those monsters.

[Necroticplague]

As for flying castles, those are basically high level artifacts, so not while clearly better, not really an option.

Actually, as per Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, making a stronghold capable of floating is a mere 15k, and making able to fly at 24 miles a day is only 11k. For reference point, replacing your blood with a wierd substance to speed up healing is 182k

[Pleh]

1. Since people tend to live together, the natural place for undead of all types to form (including shadows), would be inside communities.
2. Yes, they may not leave the village they were spawned in. That's little consolation to the people who live in that village, who are probably all gonna die.

Hence why you bury the dead, who might become restless and murder you in your sleep, outside of town in a sanctified catacomb or barrow and you make sure there is some deity worshiped in town so a local cleric is committed to standing on call for village needs. Not only can even a low level cleric stop a Total Village Kill in its tracks, but they can help the village care for their dead properly to prevent them from rising from their graves to begin with.

You basically need a necromancer at this point to desecrate the tombs and raise the bodies and spirits, at which point it's not exactly "lol, all villages are nuked in 3.5".

It's still, "all villages could very easily be nuked if the DM determines in the setting that this happens to be the case and no villages use the resources that could be at their disposal to protect themselves."

Yes, because population growth (and thus, a need to slowly expand territory and control increasing amounts of resources) is a thing that never happens.

Pfffff. Not necessarily. These are fictional societies. By RAW, there are no rules for any village or city growing or shrinking over time. You can replicate that happening by making manual changes as you see fit, but a civilization of Elves, who live so much longer, would likely have a much longer timescale on their expansion than shorter lived races like humans.

But even with humans, expansion of territory (to simulate reality) would take decades (if not even centuries given medieval population growth rates). In that amount of time, the neighboring villages would start to wonder why they haven't heard from the dead village recently. They would start warning travelers if no one ever returned from going into that area. Eventually, Heroes would gain a Quest to find out what happened and, if possible, secure the area so it is safe again.

[Necroticplague]

Your argument doesn't stand up, because it world with very few magic users, there are also very few of those monsters.

Why would that be true? If anything, it seems like there should be an inverse relationship: Without spellcasters (and thus, magic items), then there's not much to check the growth of such creatures.

Hence why you bury the dead, who might become restless and murder you in your sleep, outside of town in a sanctified catacomb or barrow and you make sure there is some deity worshiped in town so a local cleric is committed to standing on call for village needs. Not only can even a low level cleric stop a Total Village Kill in its tracks, but they can help the village care for their dead properly to prevent them from rising from their graves to begin with.

The setting assumption I was arguing against was one where most people have never even heard of such monsters and magic. If they didn't know these threats existed, how could they be taking steps (which include having available magic, I should point out) to prevent them?

[Fouredged Sword]

Self sustaining cities as a thing did not exist until modern times. Cities had negative population growth. People moved from the country to the city looking for work.

Here you have the inverse. Cities are stable (they have clerics) and the country is dangerous. People move out of the city to repopulate lost farmland and villages due the contant need for food.

[Hackulator]

Why would that be true? If anything, it seems like there should be an inverse relationship: Without spellcasters (and thus, magic items), then there's not much to check the growth of such creatures.

In a low magic world, there aren't a lot of magical creatures. It's not about there needing to be some check on their growth, it's about the fact that there were never many of them and they don't exist anywhere near large population centers.

You're also forgetting that in D&D worlds, there are gods who simply define the world to be the way they want.

[Pleh]

Why would that be true? If anything, it seems like there should be an inverse relationship: Without spellcasters (and thus, magic items), then there's not much to check the growth of such creatures.

The setting assumption I was arguing against was one where most people have never even heard of such monsters and magic. If they didn't know these threats existed, how could they be taking steps (which include having available magic, I should point out) to prevent them?

People would still worship the deities even if they didn't know about magic or monsters, and the deities would still have magic (actually, that would be kinda cool if the local priest whom everyone thought was just a kind, but kooky old man was actually a bit of a retired super hero with magic powers they would not be able to understand).

Having superstitions about proper funeral proceedings is common. Even if they've never seen a monster or believed the dead could walk, they might still culturally be protected by doing the right thing by default. They've never seen a monster because their culture has them doing all the right things without realizing its significance.

I still feel like there is no RAW for monsters experiencing Population Growth. There are rules for setting your civilized population sizes, but not monster expansion.

There is no stat block for how quickly these creatures spread if unchecked. That is something that RAW implies does not happen without interference from either the DM or some NPC with an Agenda.

Any speculation about how inevitable the monster apocalypse would be if it really existed only threatens the lives of innocent catgirls.

EDIT: The default definition of Monsters by RAW is that they have Schrodinger's existence: they do not exist in the world until the DM says that they do. Some of them hypothetically exist somewhere, but it's more of a probabilistic region of existence than actual.

[Florian]

Yes, because population growth (and thus, a need to slowly expand territory and control increasing amounts of resources) is a thing that never happens.

Actually, because the relation between resources and need is different, it might actually be that there will never be need for it.

[Zanos]

The bolded was basically my point. How can you have any kind of setting you expect us to believe lasted for any amount of time when it sets up a scenario in which much of it can be completely wiped out on a regular basis.

I imagine that backwaters out of the way of major cities without real defenses get wiped out, or at least attacked, semi-frequently. Again, saving small villages who don't have any dedicated defenses is what adventurers kind of do for a living at low levels. Larger settlements are going to be safer from anything that isn't a concerted offense.

I chose shadows in my example specifically because they were relatively weak creatures. They're near the bottom of the totem pole of 'things that could completely screw over an ill-informed village'. There's much nastier in the world to make 'most people are low-level smucks who have never seen a wizard' an untenable proposal.

Sure, but D&D kind of goes out of it's way such that higher CR creatures are rather rare. Many of the high CR monsters aren't even on the material plane naturally.

[Bucky]

Can your average black bear hunt and kill a human IRL? Yes. Does it happen often? No. Why? Because black bears are smart enough to recognize that an armed human is very dangerous but not smart enough to tell whether any given human is armed.

Same with D&D villages and monsters in the lower mid CR bracket. The monsters could probably roll into the village and eat everyone, but every time they do so they bet their lives that the village doesn't have any visiting adventurers. So most of them stick to ambushing stragglers who can't call for help.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Castles may or may not make sense depending upon the setting and in many cases depending upon the specific part of the setting.

For example, just because castles make sense in the wild coast doesn't mean they make sense in the duchy of Geoff and making sense in the Theocracy of the Pale doesn't mean they make sense in Hepmonaland.

Now once you take castles out of a generic D&Dland and ask if they make sense in a particular setting, things get a whole lot clearer.

Take the Elsir vale from Red Hand of Doom for example. It's a backwater part of thelarger setting. Pre Red Hand, the highest level characters are a 9th level retired abjurer in Prosser, Immerstal the Red 9th level wizard in Brindol, Argathod, a sor10/dragon disciple 2 in Dennovar, Rillor Paln, an 11th level rogue, and a smattering of level 7-8 fighters and clerics.

The setting has a smattering of monsters in the mid tier range. There is a black dragon who is noted as having been defeated previously by Lord jaarmath. There are a few other dragons presumably new to the area or previously willing to mind their own business (due to the red hand). Abiathrax and Utreshimon are the only ones who would have been setting altering though. Regiatrix and the green dragon are not up to destroying even the Drellin's Ferry militia by themselves. The ghostlord is another potentially setting disruptive being but appears to have been uninterested in expansion prior to the red hand's interference.

The rank and file of the red hand gives a good indication of what kind of monsters were previously in the area. A few wyverns, heiracosphynxes, manticores, hill giants. A good number of ogres and lots of goblins and hobgoblins whose abilities largely mirror the human settlements except that it seems that the sorcerers (max lvl 6 so lower than the arcane casters in human civilization) and mindbenders are new institutions set up by the Red Hand and facilitated by the new religion of Tiamat which may have done away with old hobgoblins prejudices against elf magic. There is also at least one small tribe of forest giants though it appears there was another or at least a much larger tribe 50 years ago.

So how useful would castles be in that setting? I think quite useful. The humans and hobgoblins don't have much that would change the real world utility of castles. The castle won't help if Immerstal or Argathos is coming against you but a castle probably wouldn't let a local Baron stand up against Brindol or Dennovar anyway. It's going to be quite useful if you're trying to keep "Baron" Trask of Elsircross from harassing your lands and its pretty darn important if you want your small band of men at arms and peasants to be able to stand off a raiding party of 50 goblins/hobgoblins or a half dozen ogres. Heck, it's still pretty useful against manticores etc if you have some minimal mantlets/roofs on your towers to provide protection from above.

Now, what kind of Castle is going to be around? That's another question. The dwarves traditionally live in underground fortifications. Most of the human communities in the adventure don't have castles (there is one in Brindol). There used to be one in the Witch wood and it is probably what enabled the Vraath family to survive as long as it did. That said if the non-Brindol settlements wanted to build defenses and we're not facing an army as large as the Red Hand's, they could probably get some good mileage out of an old-fashioned wooden motte and Bailey style keep which would be within their means to construct. A stone castle might still be worthwhile for a settlement near a dangerous area though it would be a big investment. (Maybe less so than in real life if they could hire magical help for construction). It wouldn't stop the Red Hand but it would make their lives a lot more secure against the lesser threats that are more typical when all of the monsters in the area aren't politically united.

Making your smaller settlement resistant to all but the biggest threats in the setting (Utreshimon, Abiathrax, the Ghostlord, Brindol, Dennovar, or the United Red Hand) is worthwhile but may or may not be cost-effective.

[Bohandas]

Depends. If it's a setting like Faerun or Eberron where magic is the norm, then no. A setting where most people are muggles, then yes, castles pre-industrial era cannons are useful. Remember, wizards are on both sides of the conflict.

Yes, spells such as Guards and Wards and Antimagic Field and the various wondrous architecture discussed in the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook

[Elder_Basilisk]

I should add that even if castles sometimes make sense there would probably be some changes in security practices among competent guards/defenders. For example, most patrols would probably be accompanied by dogs or other trained animals with scent as a basic defense against invisible creatures. Not a terribly big change in pseudo-medievalism since most castles have a kennel for hunting hounds or some mastiffs fighting over bones beneath the table in the great hall, but integrating them into patrols and every frontier homestead having guard dogs like farmer maggot in Lord of the Rings is a slight change.