War Mages - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

War Mages

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
jastermereel
Mar 04, 2011 7:54:57
My incessant posting of threads related to military matters is probably becoming an irritant (I'm a bit obsessive, and this board seems to be a good place for me to discuss these things without weirding out my friends and family), but please entertain me on one more (for now).

I've read many a thread post about the use of magic in warfare on a large scale. Most of the discussions revolve around the use of magicians as combatants, and what the strengths and weaknesses of that are, and how it would affect warfare more generally. Would war still be dominated by melee and mechanical projectile weapons? Would it be almost modern in character?. I have usually taken the latter position, mostly because I had been unable to place war mages into a military context appropriate to the Ancient and Medieval worlds.

Recently, though, I've begun to realize that there is a role that is appropriate to Ancient (moreso) and Medieval armies: the military engineer. The function isn't exactly the same, but what I envision is that instead of building a regiment of war mages who fling fireballs, or interspersing them into the lines as normal combatants, every field army would have a compliment of mages whose sole function is to provide unconventional solutions to military problems for which simple force is either inadequate or overly costly. You're outnumbered? Create the illusion of an army several times the size. The enemy possesses huge numbers of cavalry, but you have no spears with which to counter them? Caste a ritual that muddies the ground over which your opponent has to move. Any number of less conventional (and traditionally regarded as "engineering" solutions in a mundane context) tactics could be employed by the whole army through the use of rituals or summoned creatures.

Opinions?
#2
SteelMirror
Mar 04, 2011 8:19:01 A spellcasting corps of engineers would certainly be an asset to a military force, and in some things would be an extremely effective force multiplier. Rituals that move earth could enhance fortifications or siege operations, ford rivers or other difficult terrain, or be used to cover retreat. Messaging type spells would be invaluable for communications at both the tactical and strategic level. And illusions would obviously have any number of potential applications.

I do question whether most spellcasting NPCs would have access to such a broad range of magical options. I have always considered PC mage classes to be exceptional characters, almost unique in their command of such broad magical powers. In my own head, such arcane power is extremely rare. Most NPC casters will display a talent in one or two areas of the art, while finding it challenging to branch into other applications of arcane power.

In such a case you might find a military spellcasting unit capable of combat medicine, a unit specializing in divinations and counterintelligence, a unit which specializes in interrogations and co-opting prisoners of war, one tasked with using illusions, etc. - but no unit is likely to be proficient at more that one or two of these tasks. Given the high replacement costs of and high demand for these units, no army is likely to field more than a few of them, and it becomes very important in war to know exactly which units your enemy has and what they are capable of. These characters are also obviously high value targets, and would prove tempting to assassins and other means of removing troublesome enemy assets.

And in the end, we shouldn't discount the flashy damage spells entirely. Like any combat innovation, it changes the rules of the game and forces both sides to adjust their tactics accordingly - even if the spells themselves are only rarely cast. I for one would be hesitant to use a massed cavalry charge, or employ densely packed infantry formations, against an enemy potentially capable of dropping devastating AoE attacks. It wouldn't even matter if I had never seen that enemy employ such spells; you plan for what the enemy might be capable of, and it's always a possibility that they were guarding such a threat for a critical moment of carelessness. Thus war would change (even if you don't want warmages to be a constant feature of battlefields in favor of a grittier, lower magic world).
#3
jastermereel
Mar 04, 2011 8:26:39 That's more or less along the lines of what I was thinking. Specifically in the context of Eberron, I always disliked Aundair's Wand Regiments because I thought it was a waste of talent in a society so endowed with magicians. Why have 100 wand users when you can have the same number of ritual casters who can give a commander the option of using ruses against the enemy. Firepower is nice, but the proportion of magic users to non-magic users is probably very, very low, thus making any use of massed war mages a potentially disastrous loss of valuable personnel waiting to happen.
#4
Madfox11
Mar 04, 2011 9:11:51
That's more or less along the lines of what I was thinking. Specifically in the context of Eberron, I always disliked Aundair's Wand Regiments because I thought it was a waste of talent in a society so endowed with magicians. Why have 100 wand users when you can have the same number of ritual casters who can give a commander the option of using ruses against the enemy. Firepower is nice, but the proportion of magic users to non-magic users is probably very, very low, thus making any use of massed war mages a potentially disastrous loss of valuable personnel waiting to happen.

Remember that the existence of the wand unit is in 3E era. It was designed for the magewrights who only knew a few limited tricks which were extremely unlikely to contain spells useful in the capacity you are proposing. Give them a wand though, and they become proficient in whatever spell is in that wand. It doesn't even have to be an attack spell, so in practice such a unit is extremely flexible (or at least compared to regular magewrights). In 4E NPCs could master rituals of a completely different level than the PCs, and instead of attack spells those magewrights are much more likely to know a few useful rituals. Your proposal does indeed work better than the wands in 4E.

#5
Ogiwan
Mar 04, 2011 9:27:12

My incessant posting of threads related to military matters is probably becoming an irritant (I'm a bit obsessive, and this board seems to be a good place for me to discuss these things without weirding out my friends and family), but please entertain me on one more (for now).

Oh, by all means, keep posting. You bring many worthy things to my mind.

My initial reaction to your suggestion of a sort of "military engineer" was not favorable. My view of engineers is that they do The Two B's: Building or Breaking.

Thinking about it a bit more, though, it does make sense. I came to this conclusion roughly when I finished your OP.

Mages would be too valuble, and too rare, to simply stick in a line unit and have them chuck fireballs or whatever. Like I maintained in the thread where we were discussing what a "Wands" unit does, I feel that they would be organized into units supporting a larger unit; perhaps a company-sized unit supporting a brigade, for example. That sort of distribution, I believe, is roughly what engineers have in modern forces.

The exception, of course, would be the magic-heavy forces of Aundair, who are able to have organic arcane support at low levels. Your suggestion of ritual casters not slinging fireballs, but instead using illusions, conjurations, and so forth to manipulate the battlefield would provide Aundair with its own unique edge.

#6
jastermereel
Mar 04, 2011 9:40:06
My initial reaction to your suggestion of a sort of "military engineer" was not favorable. My view of engineers is that they do The Two B's: Building or Breaking.

That is what engineers do, primarily, which is why I was saying mages would be analogous to them, not exactly them (although a highly educated mage could also serve in a more traditional engineering role). Also, if you twist around the words "build" and "break" a bit you could see how magical spells kind of do that in a metaphysical sense (not that I intend to go crazy into philosophy or anything). The idea flowed primarily from the actual role of Controllers in 4e, which is to manipulate the battlefield. Wizards are Swiss Army-knives, not heavy artillery.

The exception, of course, would be the magic-heavy forces of Aundair, who are able to have organic arcane support at low levels. Your suggestion of ritual casters not slinging fireballs, but instead using illusions, conjurations, and so forth to manipulate the battlefield would provide Aundair with its own unique edge.

I actually have started to think of the Aundairians as almost Roman, in that their military magic could hold the same sort of system-wide importance that engineering held in the Roman Army. An Aundairian commander would have the option of engaging much larger forces through the prepared use of magic, allowing Aundair to either compete with the other Nations even though their forces might be smaller, or otherwise divide their forces into smaller units to act in more places at once.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 jastermereel Mar 04, 2011 7:54:57	My incessant posting of threads related to military matters is probably becoming an irritant (I'm a bit obsessive, and this board seems to be a good place for me to discuss these things without weirding out my friends and family), but please entertain me on one more (for now). I've read many a thread post about the use of magic in warfare on a large scale. Most of the discussions revolve around the use of magicians as combatants, and what the strengths and weaknesses of that are, and how it would affect warfare more generally. Would war still be dominated by melee and mechanical projectile weapons? Would it be almost modern in character?. I have usually taken the latter position, mostly because I had been unable to place war mages into a military context appropriate to the Ancient and Medieval worlds. Recently, though, I've begun to realize that there is a role that is appropriate to Ancient (moreso) and Medieval armies: the military engineer. The function isn't exactly the same, but what I envision is that instead of building a regiment of war mages who fling fireballs, or interspersing them into the lines as normal combatants, every field army would have a compliment of mages whose sole function is to provide unconventional solutions to military problems for which simple force is either inadequate or overly costly. You're outnumbered? Create the illusion of an army several times the size. The enemy possesses huge numbers of cavalry, but you have no spears with which to counter them? Caste a ritual that muddies the ground over which your opponent has to move. Any number of less conventional (and traditionally regarded as "engineering" solutions in a mundane context) tactics could be employed by the whole army through the use of rituals or summoned creatures. Opinions?
#2 SteelMirror Mar 04, 2011 8:19:01	A spellcasting corps of engineers would certainly be an asset to a military force, and in some things would be an extremely effective force multiplier. Rituals that move earth could enhance fortifications or siege operations, ford rivers or other difficult terrain, or be used to cover retreat. Messaging type spells would be invaluable for communications at both the tactical and strategic level. And illusions would obviously have any number of potential applications. I do question whether most spellcasting NPCs would have access to such a broad range of magical options. I have always considered PC mage classes to be exceptional characters, almost unique in their command of such broad magical powers. In my own head, such arcane power is extremely rare. Most NPC casters will display a talent in one or two areas of the art, while finding it challenging to branch into other applications of arcane power. In such a case you might find a military spellcasting unit capable of combat medicine, a unit specializing in divinations and counterintelligence, a unit which specializes in interrogations and co-opting prisoners of war, one tasked with using illusions, etc. - but no unit is likely to be proficient at more that one or two of these tasks. Given the high replacement costs of and high demand for these units, no army is likely to field more than a few of them, and it becomes very important in war to know exactly which units your enemy has and what they are capable of. These characters are also obviously high value targets, and would prove tempting to assassins and other means of removing troublesome enemy assets. And in the end, we shouldn't discount the flashy damage spells entirely. Like any combat innovation, it changes the rules of the game and forces both sides to adjust their tactics accordingly - even if the spells themselves are only rarely cast. I for one would be hesitant to use a massed cavalry charge, or employ densely packed infantry formations, against an enemy potentially capable of dropping devastating AoE attacks. It wouldn't even matter if I had never seen that enemy employ such spells; you plan for what the enemy might be capable of, and it's always a possibility that they were guarding such a threat for a critical moment of carelessness. Thus war would change (even if you don't want warmages to be a constant feature of battlefields in favor of a grittier, lower magic world).
#3 jastermereel Mar 04, 2011 8:26:39	That's more or less along the lines of what I was thinking. Specifically in the context of Eberron, I always disliked Aundair's Wand Regiments because I thought it was a waste of talent in a society so endowed with magicians. Why have 100 wand users when you can have the same number of ritual casters who can give a commander the option of using ruses against the enemy. Firepower is nice, but the proportion of magic users to non-magic users is probably very, very low, thus making any use of massed war mages a potentially disastrous loss of valuable personnel waiting to happen.
#4 Madfox11 Mar 04, 2011 9:11:51	That's more or less along the lines of what I was thinking. Specifically in the context of Eberron, I always disliked Aundair's Wand Regiments because I thought it was a waste of talent in a society so endowed with magicians. Why have 100 wand users when you can have the same number of ritual casters who can give a commander the option of using ruses against the enemy. Firepower is nice, but the proportion of magic users to non-magic users is probably very, very low, thus making any use of massed war mages a potentially disastrous loss of valuable personnel waiting to happen. Remember that the existence of the wand unit is in 3E era. It was designed for the magewrights who only knew a few limited tricks which were extremely unlikely to contain spells useful in the capacity you are proposing. Give them a wand though, and they become proficient in whatever spell is in that wand. It doesn't even have to be an attack spell, so in practice such a unit is extremely flexible (or at least compared to regular magewrights). In 4E NPCs could master rituals of a completely different level than the PCs, and instead of attack spells those magewrights are much more likely to know a few useful rituals. Your proposal does indeed work better than the wands in 4E.
#5 Ogiwan Mar 04, 2011 9:27:12	My incessant posting of threads related to military matters is probably becoming an irritant (I'm a bit obsessive, and this board seems to be a good place for me to discuss these things without weirding out my friends and family), but please entertain me on one more (for now). Oh, by all means, keep posting. You bring many worthy things to my mind. My initial reaction to your suggestion of a sort of "military engineer" was not favorable. My view of engineers is that they do The Two B's: Building or Breaking. Thinking about it a bit more, though, it does make sense. I came to this conclusion roughly when I finished your OP. Mages would be too valuble, and too rare, to simply stick in a line unit and have them chuck fireballs or whatever. Like I maintained in the thread where we were discussing what a "Wands" unit does, I feel that they would be organized into units supporting a larger unit; perhaps a company-sized unit supporting a brigade, for example. That sort of distribution, I believe, is roughly what engineers have in modern forces. The exception, of course, would be the magic-heavy forces of Aundair, who are able to have organic arcane support at low levels. Your suggestion of ritual casters not slinging fireballs, but instead using illusions, conjurations, and so forth to manipulate the battlefield would provide Aundair with its own unique edge.
#6 jastermereel Mar 04, 2011 9:40:06	My initial reaction to your suggestion of a sort of "military engineer" was not favorable. My view of engineers is that they do The Two B's: Building or Breaking. That is what engineers do, primarily, which is why I was saying mages would be analogous to them, not exactly them (although a highly educated mage could also serve in a more traditional engineering role). Also, if you twist around the words "build" and "break" a bit you could see how magical spells kind of do that in a metaphysical sense (not that I intend to go crazy into philosophy or anything). The idea flowed primarily from the actual role of Controllers in 4e, which is to manipulate the battlefield. Wizards are Swiss Army-knives, not heavy artillery. The exception, of course, would be the magic-heavy forces of Aundair, who are able to have organic arcane support at low levels. Your suggestion of ritual casters not slinging fireballs, but instead using illusions, conjurations, and so forth to manipulate the battlefield would provide Aundair with its own unique edge. I actually have started to think of the Aundairians as almost Roman, in that their military magic could hold the same sort of system-wide importance that engineering held in the Roman Army. An Aundairian commander would have the option of engaging much larger forces through the prepared use of magic, allowing Aundair to either compete with the other Nations even though their forces might be smaller, or otherwise divide their forces into smaller units to act in more places at once.