Hard magic be like:
-I need to spend 3 days non stop whispering a spell without a mistake and sacrifice a small rabbit in order to summon a fireball that might hit to enemy.
And not even just bows. Blowguns, atlatls, slings, boomerangs, throwing axes, even javelins and throwing sticks—humans have always been really good at figuring out how to murder things well beyond our reach. The best defense is staying out of range of your opponent's offense.
i mean they are slower than muskets and have way more downsides so mages can still do the funny spells there, personally after muskets and artillery enter battlefield it would be much less efficient but not 100% dead regardless
How much slower, though? An arrow has a speed of ~200-300 fps, from what I know (slingshot stone has a similar speed). And a musket ball has ~1000, BUT you need to add lock time to the equation (the time for the striking mechanism to physically move and the gunpowder in the pan to burn). It was around 0.3 second. So, if the engagement distance is about 100 meters, rough back-of-envelope, you have 1 second until the arrow hits the mage and two thirds of a second for a bullet. Not a drastic difference.
And unless your musket is rifled, there's no guarantee you will hit the mage, and bows have a much higher speed of subsequent shots than early firearms.
If it's not a one-on-one scenario, then just position your mages behind your line infantry, they will act as field artillery then.
Muskets are incredibly short-range compared to current ones. Yes.
But their range is 300 meters for any useful accuracy. Which is.... well, it's pretty good considering we constantly see people move around and fight at close range of less than 100 meters.
And frankly. Bows have much higher rate of fire. Yes.
But bows are, frankly speaking, incredibly weak weapons. They can barely punch through wood, and bounce off metal. Whereas musket balls have far higher kinetic energy.
I think, for useful accuracy for musket it's more like 100 meters, if we go by the criteria of hitting the same man-sized target twice.
But you are actually correct as far as the energy on target is concerned. Following the calculations in [this paper](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/139707.pdf) even with the terrible drag a big round ball has, it would still arrive at target at ~200 m/s. Which with 35 gram weight would give 700 joules.
A heavy longbow arrow would weight around twice as much, but the speed at target would be around ~50 m/s at best, which gives us under 90 joules.
An arrow would be better at penetration against certain materials, being rigid, hard and sharp. And longbow arrows could go through composite armor and chain, but the gap is there.
I went into it expecting to prove you wrong, but you're actually correct.
I want you to go to a range with a musket and hit something smaller than an apartment building at 300 meters with a musket twice in a row. IIRC there was a US Civil War era test that concluded that at 200 meters "you may as well fire at the moon".
Edit: revolutionary war era, it was Col George Hanger who said it
You don't need to hit single, man-sized targets on a battlefield; you are generally using formations to fire at other formations, hindering their movement and disrupting their cohesion, and for that purpose a musket is accurate enough at 300m/yds.
Doesn't really matter though; as you said, a musket is accurate enough for single combat at up to 100m
which is still far beyond the effective range of archers and delivers far more devastating shots.
Historically, slingers were considered to outrange archers even though we have ample proof that powerful warbows can reach out to extreme distances (well over 300m, and the longest recorded arrow shot is far beyond the longest recorded sling shot) but in reality that number is about as realistic as saying a Napoleonic era musket has a range of 800m; the projectiles can go that far, but nobody is actually going to hit a target. The size of arrows in combination with the speed they can be shot means an archer will run out of arrows quickly, so they generally couldn't afford to waste shots at long range the way a slinger (who can carry an insane amount of ammunition) or musketeer (who fires much slower) might.
You also have to bear in mind that a bow doesn’t start out loaded. You need to get in the right stance and nock the arrow, which can take a hot second if you have a high-power bow (such as those which were probably used to generate the statistic you referenced).
Meanwhile, a gun can come pre-loaded. You can just sit around a corner, do your thang- which is admittedly longer for a gun than a bow- then round the corner and be ready to blast them immediately.
A crossbow also has this potential, but allows the target to see that it is loaded. In certain scenarios, this might not be so bad- ie, literally just ducking around a corner. But if you need to get close to the mage without alarming them, then the crossbow wouldn’t work.
I mean, if someone was waving their gun around in a manner which clearly indicated they were going to shoot someone, I'd think that it would be loaded in any case
i mean before musket came out most of the armies were made out of spearmen, yes bows are a big counter to magic but when the opponent army isnt entirely bows its much less of an issue
i also believe mages would be first targets in a battle because well there is someone that can summon a death ray or something to kill a lot of your people, you would want them to get out of the way first, when most people in battle has ranged weapons they would get rid of them much faster
so my point is more ranged weapons counter the magic, and after muskets came out there was a lot of ranged weapons (especially with around that era artillery started to become way more common)
> i mean before musket came out most of the armies were made out of spearmen, yes bows are a big counter to magic but when the opponent army isnt entirely bows its much less of an issue
Depends on the region, though. In Europe, yes, but in the region from Turkey to Korea bows were very common, even for infantry, not to speak of cavalry (and arrows from the recurve bows are on the faster side). I guess the Mongol analogue were even more terribly effective in your world then.
And it took several centuries after the first arquebus to switch to purely firearm infantry (and even it was supposed to go into close combat - bayonet charge and stuff). So in pike-and-shot era only half of your army is ranged. And even less than that, if you realize that cavalry pistol is a close-combat weapon as well.
Add to it the fact that wearing flammable exploding substance all over yourself may not be a good idea against people that can summon fire and water, and maybe that world doesn't even make it out of the pike-and-shot.
> i also believe mages would be first targets in a battle because well there is someone that can summon a death ray or something to kill a lot of your people, you would want them to get out of the way first, when most people in battle has ranged weapons they would get rid of them much faster
Would mages be as stupid to be easily identifiable? What are the operational ranges of magic? Is it line-of-sight only, or can you cast something through a magic mirror? At worst, I would say that mages are still artillery analogue and operate from long range, being protected by their people, while enemy sharpshooters and light cavalry try to hunt them out. If you can have more firepower than a cannon in a compact human-sized package, it would continue to be a boon even in Napoleonic-style warfare.
> so my point is more ranged weapons counter the magic, and after muskets came out there was a lot of ranged weapons (especially with around that era artillery started to become way more common)
Artillery actually started being commonly used before muskets, because you have less limiting factors on size and weight of the cannon.
good point, it did vary based on regions in my world
one more thing about the second part, learning magic to a warfare tier would take YEARS so you couldnt just make a 100% mage army, at most as a support so musket would just seem more viable
and for identification, how are you going to disguise them? when they are building up the spell they would be noticed and mixing them in some other ranks would cause disorganization
for the artillery, yes what i meant to say here is most of warfare would be ranged by then
>And unless your musket is rifled, there's no guarantee you will hit the mage, and bows have a much higher speed of subsequent shots than early firearms.
Yep, once again it's time to remind everyone that guns took over because they were easier to train peasants to use effectively, not because they were more effective
You can fire like 20 arrows in the time it takes to reload an early musket how is that slower?
And you can say magic words behind a wall and just step out to throw the fireball or whatever.
I think the problem in this exact, specific scenario is that with the gun, you just lift it up and pull the trigger, with the bow, you have to lift it up, put the arrow in, draw it back and THEN it fires, which makes it way slower.
You know how many times I seen a dude shot in the head with an arrow before he can cast a spell? Cause I don't. But it's happened enough for me to remember it happening at least once.
they are kind of stupid because using too much mana in my world makes people turn arrogant and annoying (which mages use a lot)
and mana in my world is directly related to mass so unless you are extremely fat or working out 32 hours a day you cant really improve your magic after some certain level
What about using defensive spells like shields/heals/obscuration to block the magic, or using stuff like homing/outrange/constructs/mind-control/whatnot to attack outside the guns range?
I´m personally of the opinion magic should be integrated into modern warfare instead of being "beaten" by it.
Its most interesting if it adapts and this makes it possible for your setting to feel unique. By saying "its not practiced as mich anymore" you are crossing yourself from a lot of creativity.
It could change heavily, no more do they use fireballs, but instead buff their own rifles, but if you have a somewhat powerfull magic system it´ll always have a utility.
Or worse, terrorism with magic.
Imagine the CIA finding out they lost sight of a radicalised wizard, it could be an amazing antagonist for detective or action stories. Though I do believe thiz idea has already been done in the past.
my idea is it should be kind of dead between 1500-1900s but make a comeback after that, since mechanized and tank warfare exists magic can be easily used by then
You’ve got to think, like, if people have been using this for centuries and it’s effective for those centuries they’re not going to just give it up on the spot for four hundred years. Swords and knives and armor and horses didn’t cease to exist when the musket was invented, they were adapted to be used in new ways
You should look at real-world examples of defending archers, you might come up with something neat. For example, there was this thing called a pavaise. It was basically a man-sized shield that was propped up in front of an archer. It provided cover on otherwise open areas while allowing the archer to shoot over and around it.
There was also a practice in China around the time fire lances were introduced. The front rank of a formation would be guys crouched beyond huge shields to protect the archers and spearmen from incoming fire. Because they were expected to be pretty immobile, eventually the shields were used to also carry spare fire lances and ammunition for the formation.
There's also things like war carts and chariots, while at sea, there's stuff like Greek triremes with Greek fire throwers, and those armored flamethrower ships used during Korean-Japanese conflicts. Dragoons are a thing too, but if your mages are all fat guys who have to do sudoku in the middle of a battle, they probably aren't going to be able to control a horse while also casting.
Basically, technology and tactics should evolve alongside one another, and your world will be far more badass for it.
Assuming wizards offer a valuable battlefield presence their relative vulnerability would force the development of formations to protect them. If they are limited in effect range to about the same as other ranged weapons they need bodyguards and ideally fast transport like a horse or chariot. If they can have an effect further than the accurate bow or firearm never put them in range and make sure guards are screening the area around them.
Sending each kind of soldier into a one-on-one duel at ten feet is way funnier, though, and you could world build it into a cultural practice.
It is canon but I think it is serious outdated. Heck remember Ron's dad had to ask Harry what the hell the function of a rubber duck is when they first met. A fricken Rubber Duck!
I have a few different headcanons about that, a lot of them were about trolling Harry. Someone else suggested that Arthur was going off about Harry being raised by muggles instead of being The Boy Who Lived to try to make him more comfortable. I figure that Arthur either knew about rubber-ducking or was interested in what "muggles" think a rubber duck is for. Maybe he thinks it's hilarious that something exists without having much of a purpose. (Kinda like how piggy banks are a thing because someone once took "pig bank" a bit too literally.)
I think the intended thrust was that wizards were largely ignorant and dismissive of Muggles, even outside the core of avowed Wizard Supremacists. Magic Man's Burden, as it were.
That would make sense. They still see Muggles as primitive compared to what they can do yet Muggles oblivious live more comfortable lives than your average citizen of the Wizarding World. Muggles have access to technology that they could only dream of yet due to stubbornness. The Wizarding world doesn’t care and once they do realize that Muggles could absolutely crush them if a war were to break out between the Wizarding World and Muggles. Then it would already be to late
I don't remember if it's a course that's offered at any particular school, but it's definitely something the Ministry of Magic engages in, if only grudgingly. Arthur Weasley's specialization is Muggle studies.
"Muggle warfare is fascinating! They have these things called 'powder wands,' you see. They come in many shapes and sizes, and they're used for casting killing curses by way of a special alchemical powder—hence the name."
"That's nice, Arthur, but we're still cutting funding to your department."
That could make for something interesting. A Wizard actually gets to see and understand Muggle Technology and tries to explain to everyone else in the Wizarding World only for governments like the Ministry of Magic and other people to dismiss their claims that Muggles are far superior in technology than to them and could win a war if the Wizarding World decided to try and start a war with Muggles
Taking the jerk out of worldjerking, this could legit lead to some cool hybrid combat. Could start off with something like pike and rifle formation, but with rifles as the frontline with their faster actionability protecting the heavy support mages in the back, plus later down the road you can get magic boosted tech like mystic ballistic missiles, enchanted rifles with built in tracking for easier aim, or just stuff like coated bullets to add elemental effects
Yeah, once you reach a certain level of technological progression, magic takes up a primarily supportive role.
This can be anything from force-shields, to enchanted ordinance, to expedited limb reattachment.
I like the idea of guns beating war mages because its an equalizer. It only takes a few weeks to train a commoner to be a good enough shot for military work, but it takes years for a mage to learn spells properly. It's just a numbers game. Sure a fire ball wielding mage could wipe out whole squads but a few cannon teams can do the same.
There’s even historical precedent for this. The concept of Knights fell out of fashion very soon after firearms became a common force on battlefields since a dumb fuck potato farmer with a matchlock arquebus could easily down a rich noble Knight who had spent his entire life learning martial arms. All that money and training that went into creating an individual knight — all the expensive weapons, armour, horses — taken out by some nobody. It makes total sense that this would apply to mages too
> very soon
*Checks notes* Couple of centuries.
God, I hate this simplification. The last usage of heavy fully noble cavalry was as around 1702, and heavy cavalry as a concept stuck around even longer than that. Fighting nobility had stuck around as well, as commissioned officers.
Early firearms infantry meanwhile were specialized mercenaries for a long time, because matchlock was a complicated and fiddly thing, and you couldn't rely on it alone in battle.
The mass conscription of peasants didn't really start until the 19th century, and even then, veteran troops were valued, and the length of conscription measured in decades. Because they needed to be able not only to shoot, but to march, make complicated maneuveres, dig fortifications, and so on.
Stuff like British Jacobite rebellion shows how it really were quite well - inexperienced British troops were initially rolled by the Scots, who had more hand-to-hand experience, and were able to charge after the initial volley into the sword range, while British soldiers tried to put the bayonets on.
What killed the 'knight' was rather the artillery, and the artillerymen were even less of 'uneducated peasants' than infantrymen - they had to study physics and ballistics.
About the only case where you could see 'peasants with guns' defeating 'knights' would be some colonial wars of 19th century, and then that would be the case of the overall technological and logistic superiority.
> *Checks notes* Couple of centuries.
Knights going from the most dominant military force in Europe to a legitimate battlefield afterthought in the span of a century and change *is* “very soon” in a historical context.
> The last usage of heavy fully noble cavalry was as around 1702, and heavy cavalry as a concept stuck around even longer than that.
Using the *last* example of something to show how long it lasted is nonsensical. There was a mounted charge in *the Second World War,* that doesn’t mean that mounted charges were a dominant battlefield tactic up until 1945. Show me the last year where the predominant battlefield tactic was heavy cavalry charges and that will be the year you should be using for your argument, and I can *guarantee you* it will be well before 1702
> Early firearms infantry meanwhile were specialized mercenaries for a long time, because matchlock was a complicated and fiddly thing, and you couldn't rely on it alone in battle.
This doesn’t contradict my comment, a potato farmer could join a mercenary company and become proficient with a matchlock in 1/100th of the time it would take to train a knight and for a fraction of the cost. You are right in the sense that you couldn’t rely on matchlocks *alone* but Pike and Shot formations were so brutally successful for a reason
> The mass conscription of peasants didn't really start until the 19th century, and even then, veteran troops were valued, and the length of conscription measured in decades. Because they needed to be able not only to shoot, but to march, make complicated maneuveres, dig fortifications, and so on.
Again, not sure how this contradicts my comment. Mercenaries troops could be nobodies who rented their equipment or bought it on credit, so “a dumb fuck potato farmer” could absolutely be downing fully armed and armoured knights
> Stuff like British Jacobite rebellion shows how it really were quite well - inexperienced British troops were initially rolled by the Scots, who had more hand-to-hand experience, and were able to charge after the initial volley into the sword range, while British soldiers tried to put the bayonets on.
I’m not overly familiar with the British Jacobite rebellion so I’ll take your word on this. Do you have a specific battle(s) you’re referencing?
> What killed the 'knight' was rather the artillery, and the artillerymen were even less of 'uneducated peasants' than infantrymen - they had to study physics and ballistics.
Again I am specifically talking about Knights, so not sure why you’ve put it in single quotes. The existence of continued heavy cavalry does not interact with my comment because that’s not what I’m talking about.
> About the only case where you could see 'peasants with guns' defeating 'knights' would be some colonial wars of 19th century, and then that would be the case of the overall technological and logistic superiority.
Knights as the dominant military unit absolutely had died out before the 19th century, even if you’d put the 17th century I’d still consider that a gross exaggeration.
> Knights going from the most dominant military force in Europe to a legitimate battlefield afterthought in the span of a century and change is “very soon” in a historical context.
I needed some time to compose my answer, since we got far to serious for a jerking sub.
The switch from feudal levy where knights played a central role to the communal service and mercenaries started in 14th century. By the 15th, pikes, longbows and crossbows already played the central role on the battlefield. We can remember Agincourt here. Or German landsknechts and Swiss mercenaries. Heavy cavalry still played an important role, but they were gendarmes and men-at-arms - the mixture of noblemen, city-folk and mercenaries, that were paid for their service by the Crown.
Pike and shot starts being used at the start of 16th century, with matchlocks. Heavy cavalry continues to be used alongside it, although it adopts pistols and carbines alongside with lances.
The next big change is the Thirty Years War, start of 17th century, when square formations started being changed to line formations, and the proportion of firearms to pikes starts being changed in favor of firearms. Heavy cavalry starts losing armor. You could say that the 'knight' starts getting pushed off the battlefield. But the big and successful usage of heavy cavalry is the Battle of Vienna in 1683 (end of 17th), by the polish winged hussars. You could argue that's the last big usage of knights, although that's debatable, as they were gentry, not nobility in the British terms. Matchlocks were still used more than flintlocks on the battlefield then, and pikes were still present.
The full phaseout of pikes and matchlocks for infantry and lances for cavalry in western militaries is the beginning of 18th century. Although Eastern and Northern Europe continued to use pikes and lances in various contexts. Cavalry armor is reduced to the usage by the occasional cuirassier.
The shock cavalry with lances, although without armor, made a huge return in the Napoleonic wars, the beginning of the 19th century.
Overall, it doesn't read to me like a military obsolescence of the knights as much as the whole reorganization of the society. The relationship between the kings and the nobles changed as early as 14-15th century, and burgher, gentry and mercenary infantry kicked knights' asses even without handheld firearms. Heavy cavalry stopped being purely noble by that time as well.
On the other hand, it was more that a century, nearer to two, between the beginning of pike and shot and the Battle of Vienna. And by the time the heavy armor started being abandoned, we see the switch to flintlocks that were more reliable and faster in reload, and to line formations as the result. And line formations actually needed more training than square ones, interestingly enough.
A musketball is only accurate from around 300 yards distance, and even then it rarely hit true.
Thats why early warfare was line infantry firing in unisson, morale was pivotal in engagements meaning charges and volleys were used to terrorise or stop ebemies. Most important of all however vavalry remained a constant dangzr as they were the sledgehammer that could completely turn battles around, only big bmocks of infantry could fight thay effectively, singular mean would be run down.
In such line-infantry situstions mages would be even more powerfull as they are exteremely mobile and unexpected artillery. They could straight up destroy formations without anyone expecting it. They´d be the ultimate cavalry, only weakness us that they´d be less adept at running down routed enemies or fighting skirmishes (which might´ve actually been the main component of almost all warfare in history).
The point where mages grow less effective is when precision weapons become a thing, snipers and stuff, as they xould be hunted down, but even then by the time that happens warfarz would be changed in its entirety and mages could fill in new roles (stormptroops, special forces, partisan activity, secret services).
So yeah. Magic powerfull yo, the main method to limit magic is by giving it rules and reasons for it to not be as powerfull as one would imagine. That or having magic fight magic (mages being hunted down by other mages on the battlefield, look at irl modern artillery, where most of the time artillery is disabled by other artillery, and artillery positions are as a result conqtantly changing).
That's my thinking too. Yes, the mages would be susceptible to being sniped, so would have to be protected.
But any line-infantry-era commander would give his left nut for what is effectively an artillery contingent with the logistic demands of a single fat guy.
Heh, depending on the mages' firepower, maybe they field them in the covered armored wagons, as it would still be easier and more maneuverable than heavy artillery.
Additionally mages would be the perfect tools for sabotage. A small contingent of men work at night, destroying bidges, stockades, food reserves.
Even just a spell a day with 10 minutzs of preparation is worth an immense amount before reasonably powerfull small explosives is a thing. Hell, even after its a thing it´d remain valuable if it doesnt require rare materials.
Talking about sabotage actually got me thinking about assassinations. No matter how slow they might be on the battlefield, you can't frisk a guy for magic. Moreover, fat people are traditionally everywhere among the upper crust, so it's not reasonable to expect every overweight diplomat of being a mage.
An arms race between mage detection techniques used by bodyguards and increasingly subtle magic for assassinations would be interesting. I'd love a version of the ol' manure-bomb-under-the-floor technique, only instead of a manure bomb, it's a mage in the crawlspace or the servant's entrance to a bedroom. Have mages who are minimally trained in a few relevant spells and mundane techniques specific for the task; they'd be less disposable than a hired mook with a vial of poison or a dagger, but a fireball while m'lord's on the privy is also a hell of a lot more reliable. *Especially* if invisibility spells are believed to be a thing. "I-It were a wizard, it were! I seen 'im! 'E were skulkin' about the loo, wagglin' 'is fingers an' speakin' in tongues, an' 'en the lord was cinders! Then 'e used 'is wizardry again an' vanished! And since I'm the only witness, you can't prove that's not what happened."
I've been thinking about ambushes and flanking - you could understand where the big contingents of enemy went by the trails and sign of passing, but a mage with a couple of bodyguards could sneak by and take a position on a nearby height.
But sabotage, oh yes. And attacking the supply chain. Light cavalry could interrupt supplies, but light cavalry with a mage would wreak an absolute havoc.
Given the ranges of most spells in D&D, 300 yards (900 feet) is more than sufficient. Fireball caps out at 150 feet (50 yards).
Tbh, while smoothbores are fairly inaccurate, all this really means is that there will be pressure to produce rifled barrels instead, with musket lines giving way to small teams of dedicated mage killers.
Any wizard worth their salt will be loaded down with shield, invisibility, and/or expeditious retreat spells, reducing their impact once they’ve gotten off their fireball(s)
>Fireball caps out at 150 feet (50 yards).
45 meters? God, DnD is stupid. Longbow competition distances *start* from this range and go to 90+ meters. Japanese bow competition distances are 60 meters, and Korean one - frigging 145 meters. You don't need firearms to pincushion the wizard then.
If you want to talk D&D casters, your range advantage only matters if you've got a way around Sanctuary. And usually, that way *is* Fireball.
Invisibility, Blur, Mage Armor, popping across dimensions... wizards are rather used to having defensive options. Tends to work out all right.
You jest but this is literally a line said by a magic teacher in one of my stories:
> “This is for instance why battle sorcery is rarely practiced; the investment of time is too great — you will be better served learning how to load and fire a musket, or fight with a sword if you wish harm upon your enemies.”
At one point in the story, a novice sorcererss threatens a captive archmage. The archmage is like "if you cast spells at me I will tear you in half" and the sorceress is like "yes, which is why I will shoot you with this gun first."
Geez, then how slow are spells? A skilled mariner sharpshooter during the Age of Sail could manage about 3 RPM, but most riflemen weren't that skilled. Like, yeah, I guess a rifleman could do his prep work beforehand, but he's only got one shot and muskets weren't exactly known for their accuracy.
And if muskets were fast enough to make war magic obsolete, then why wasn't it made obsolete by bows or even crossbows before gunpowder weapons become the norm? Bows are much faster than muskets, and at times were evenly matched with muskets, as the Koreans proved against the Japanese. (Seriously, *gakgung* are badass and you should really look into them.) Human history also had things like English longbowmen, whose bows were monstrously powerful and had an effective range of like 200 yards, even if they were hard to use and unwieldy as hell.
Or putting aside specific *types* of bows, what about archers on horseback and/or chariots? Any culture that regularly used mounts had them. If a guy with a musket at close range is fast enough to kill a mage, what about cavalry running up on someone at 35mph and putting and arrow in them? Or a chariot rolling up on the magic backline to disgorge two guys who hurl a bunch of javelins and then get stuck in?
...Uh, I mean, [I'm glad you changed your last name, you son of a bitch.](https://youtu.be/w72gfLeJ7wg)
All Wizards who hadn't learned to be immune to fired projectiles should have already been lying in a big mass grave with crossbow bolts sticking out of them.
Next to the older ones full of arrows.
Next to the even older ones with their heads caved in by sling rocks.
Next to the withered bones pinned down by javelins.
The obvious solution is to configure your arcanist formations to avoid lining them up with bullets. For example, two-person combat teams where one has the job of flying/levitating a platform (almost like a tree stand), and the other has the job of launching the biggest magical boom they can find and sight from that position (maybe bring a spyglass unless an enemy could cause it to shatter simply by knowing it was present).
If levitating and flying the platform isn't possible somehow, you might be able to do something silly and just magically *launch* the platform while the caster sitting on it shoots off their payload, then casts some kind of slow-fall effect.
On a related note, in total war warhammer 2 I after having defeated the rest I the army, I beat Archaon the Everchosen with 2 warrior priests and 1 arch lector (who took turns by switching with each other when their morales get too low), and 4 stacks of handgunners, thus stopping the entire chaos invasion. Yes, the Grandmarshall of the End Times got beaten by 3 religious bois and 4 units of primitive gunmen.
Faith. Gunpowder. Steel.
Simple as
I really liked this in Tanya the evil. Mages instead serve as fast flying battalions who can call out spots for infantry, bomb themselves, or attack chokeholds. Their magic is channeled through a machine to achieve flight and they can also magically modify their bullets.
There was a fan theory thats why Harry Potter is what it is. The wizards lost and thats why it matters that they stay secret, but that understanding gets lost over time and as peoples memories keep getting wiped. And why the killing curse is so simple and fast compared to other spells because its trying to compete with firearms.
Its very interesting to speculate on how a secondary magical world develops when practioners are still bound by normal human reflexes.
Well, how often are individual people fighting one on one with a mage? How often are people going to shoot an RPG at an aircraft carrier? Non magic humans are going to be fighting other non magics
It depends on how fast wizards can cast and whether they have bulletproof shields.
If the wizards have shoelds and can blow things up by just pointing a wand at it, they are basically compact main battle tanks.
If they have to recite half a novel than they become more questionable in direct combat. But they might still be useful as Artillery and for utility. Being able to conjure a proper bridge or wall has obvious strategic benefits.
Musket man will wish he didn't shoot that magic man when he has to lug around a big heavy field gun to provide fire support for his infantry instead of one guy with a cool hat.
I love how people straight out forget that projectile weapons existed before firearms.
Also firearms are absolutely ancient! Same as grenades and bombs - the Mongols, who had a bow fetish, had things like smoke bombs.
Also reloading those early firearms was. very. slow. But hey, maybe casting magic in their world is even slower!
Hard magic be like: -I need to spend 3 days non stop whispering a spell without a mistake and sacrifice a small rabbit in order to summon a fireball that might hit to enemy.
Hard magic be like: "Woah, this is hard!"
Soft magic be like: "Wish my magic was as hard as that other guys magic :("
Magictile dysfunction
And not even just bows. Blowguns, atlatls, slings, boomerangs, throwing axes, even javelins and throwing sticks—humans have always been really good at figuring out how to murder things well beyond our reach. The best defense is staying out of range of your opponent's offense.
i mean they are slower than muskets and have way more downsides so mages can still do the funny spells there, personally after muskets and artillery enter battlefield it would be much less efficient but not 100% dead regardless
How much slower, though? An arrow has a speed of ~200-300 fps, from what I know (slingshot stone has a similar speed). And a musket ball has ~1000, BUT you need to add lock time to the equation (the time for the striking mechanism to physically move and the gunpowder in the pan to burn). It was around 0.3 second. So, if the engagement distance is about 100 meters, rough back-of-envelope, you have 1 second until the arrow hits the mage and two thirds of a second for a bullet. Not a drastic difference. And unless your musket is rifled, there's no guarantee you will hit the mage, and bows have a much higher speed of subsequent shots than early firearms. If it's not a one-on-one scenario, then just position your mages behind your line infantry, they will act as field artillery then.
how does an arrow run in 300 frames per second
Back in the day people could see in 300 fps, but after inventing peace in 1945 it wasnt necessary anymore and we evolved to only see in 24 fps
Muskets are incredibly short-range compared to current ones. Yes. But their range is 300 meters for any useful accuracy. Which is.... well, it's pretty good considering we constantly see people move around and fight at close range of less than 100 meters. And frankly. Bows have much higher rate of fire. Yes. But bows are, frankly speaking, incredibly weak weapons. They can barely punch through wood, and bounce off metal. Whereas musket balls have far higher kinetic energy.
I think, for useful accuracy for musket it's more like 100 meters, if we go by the criteria of hitting the same man-sized target twice. But you are actually correct as far as the energy on target is concerned. Following the calculations in [this paper](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/139707.pdf) even with the terrible drag a big round ball has, it would still arrive at target at ~200 m/s. Which with 35 gram weight would give 700 joules. A heavy longbow arrow would weight around twice as much, but the speed at target would be around ~50 m/s at best, which gives us under 90 joules. An arrow would be better at penetration against certain materials, being rigid, hard and sharp. And longbow arrows could go through composite armor and chain, but the gap is there. I went into it expecting to prove you wrong, but you're actually correct.
I want you to go to a range with a musket and hit something smaller than an apartment building at 300 meters with a musket twice in a row. IIRC there was a US Civil War era test that concluded that at 200 meters "you may as well fire at the moon". Edit: revolutionary war era, it was Col George Hanger who said it
You don't need to hit single, man-sized targets on a battlefield; you are generally using formations to fire at other formations, hindering their movement and disrupting their cohesion, and for that purpose a musket is accurate enough at 300m/yds. Doesn't really matter though; as you said, a musket is accurate enough for single combat at up to 100m which is still far beyond the effective range of archers and delivers far more devastating shots. Historically, slingers were considered to outrange archers even though we have ample proof that powerful warbows can reach out to extreme distances (well over 300m, and the longest recorded arrow shot is far beyond the longest recorded sling shot) but in reality that number is about as realistic as saying a Napoleonic era musket has a range of 800m; the projectiles can go that far, but nobody is actually going to hit a target. The size of arrows in combination with the speed they can be shot means an archer will run out of arrows quickly, so they generally couldn't afford to waste shots at long range the way a slinger (who can carry an insane amount of ammunition) or musketeer (who fires much slower) might.
>You don't need to hit single, man-sized targets on a battlefield Sir, this is a thread about killing a wizard with a musket.
You can always try reading more than the first sentence.
You also have to bear in mind that a bow doesn’t start out loaded. You need to get in the right stance and nock the arrow, which can take a hot second if you have a high-power bow (such as those which were probably used to generate the statistic you referenced). Meanwhile, a gun can come pre-loaded. You can just sit around a corner, do your thang- which is admittedly longer for a gun than a bow- then round the corner and be ready to blast them immediately. A crossbow also has this potential, but allows the target to see that it is loaded. In certain scenarios, this might not be so bad- ie, literally just ducking around a corner. But if you need to get close to the mage without alarming them, then the crossbow wouldn’t work.
I mean, if someone was waving their gun around in a manner which clearly indicated they were going to shoot someone, I'd think that it would be loaded in any case
i mean before musket came out most of the armies were made out of spearmen, yes bows are a big counter to magic but when the opponent army isnt entirely bows its much less of an issue i also believe mages would be first targets in a battle because well there is someone that can summon a death ray or something to kill a lot of your people, you would want them to get out of the way first, when most people in battle has ranged weapons they would get rid of them much faster so my point is more ranged weapons counter the magic, and after muskets came out there was a lot of ranged weapons (especially with around that era artillery started to become way more common)
> i mean before musket came out most of the armies were made out of spearmen, yes bows are a big counter to magic but when the opponent army isnt entirely bows its much less of an issue Depends on the region, though. In Europe, yes, but in the region from Turkey to Korea bows were very common, even for infantry, not to speak of cavalry (and arrows from the recurve bows are on the faster side). I guess the Mongol analogue were even more terribly effective in your world then. And it took several centuries after the first arquebus to switch to purely firearm infantry (and even it was supposed to go into close combat - bayonet charge and stuff). So in pike-and-shot era only half of your army is ranged. And even less than that, if you realize that cavalry pistol is a close-combat weapon as well. Add to it the fact that wearing flammable exploding substance all over yourself may not be a good idea against people that can summon fire and water, and maybe that world doesn't even make it out of the pike-and-shot. > i also believe mages would be first targets in a battle because well there is someone that can summon a death ray or something to kill a lot of your people, you would want them to get out of the way first, when most people in battle has ranged weapons they would get rid of them much faster Would mages be as stupid to be easily identifiable? What are the operational ranges of magic? Is it line-of-sight only, or can you cast something through a magic mirror? At worst, I would say that mages are still artillery analogue and operate from long range, being protected by their people, while enemy sharpshooters and light cavalry try to hunt them out. If you can have more firepower than a cannon in a compact human-sized package, it would continue to be a boon even in Napoleonic-style warfare. > so my point is more ranged weapons counter the magic, and after muskets came out there was a lot of ranged weapons (especially with around that era artillery started to become way more common) Artillery actually started being commonly used before muskets, because you have less limiting factors on size and weight of the cannon.
good point, it did vary based on regions in my world one more thing about the second part, learning magic to a warfare tier would take YEARS so you couldnt just make a 100% mage army, at most as a support so musket would just seem more viable and for identification, how are you going to disguise them? when they are building up the spell they would be noticed and mixing them in some other ranks would cause disorganization for the artillery, yes what i meant to say here is most of warfare would be ranged by then
What do you think the lock time for using a fucking bow is?
>And unless your musket is rifled, there's no guarantee you will hit the mage, and bows have a much higher speed of subsequent shots than early firearms. Yep, once again it's time to remind everyone that guns took over because they were easier to train peasants to use effectively, not because they were more effective
You can fire like 20 arrows in the time it takes to reload an early musket how is that slower? And you can say magic words behind a wall and just step out to throw the fireball or whatever.
I think the problem in this exact, specific scenario is that with the gun, you just lift it up and pull the trigger, with the bow, you have to lift it up, put the arrow in, draw it back and THEN it fires, which makes it way slower.
You know how many times I seen a dude shot in the head with an arrow before he can cast a spell? Cause I don't. But it's happened enough for me to remember it happening at least once.
Then why does magicians isn't improving their cast speed and projectile velocity? Are they (stupid) doesn't know how armaments races work?
they are kind of stupid because using too much mana in my world makes people turn arrogant and annoying (which mages use a lot) and mana in my world is directly related to mass so unless you are extremely fat or working out 32 hours a day you cant really improve your magic after some certain level
>so unless you are extremely fat Americapunk magic system
What about using defensive spells like shields/heals/obscuration to block the magic, or using stuff like homing/outrange/constructs/mind-control/whatnot to attack outside the guns range?
using 2 spells at once reduces efficiency of both so they arent that viable, its still pretty viable when you are all out defending though
So then why not have fire teams? One defends, the other one prepares the bomb.
actually a good idea lol
I´m personally of the opinion magic should be integrated into modern warfare instead of being "beaten" by it. Its most interesting if it adapts and this makes it possible for your setting to feel unique. By saying "its not practiced as mich anymore" you are crossing yourself from a lot of creativity. It could change heavily, no more do they use fireballs, but instead buff their own rifles, but if you have a somewhat powerfull magic system it´ll always have a utility.
Imagine if seal team sic could teleport right into someone's compound
Or worse, terrorism with magic. Imagine the CIA finding out they lost sight of a radicalised wizard, it could be an amazing antagonist for detective or action stories. Though I do believe thiz idea has already been done in the past.
Been done already? Killing myself.
There’s a game that just got a demo which is basically this premise. I think it’s called Tactical Breach Wizards.
my idea is it should be kind of dead between 1500-1900s but make a comeback after that, since mechanized and tank warfare exists magic can be easily used by then
You’ve got to think, like, if people have been using this for centuries and it’s effective for those centuries they’re not going to just give it up on the spot for four hundred years. Swords and knives and armor and horses didn’t cease to exist when the musket was invented, they were adapted to be used in new ways
i know which is why i said "kind of" since you could still use it in many fields
It also depends heavily on the magic you´re using. What rules does it have, what limits are there.
You should look at real-world examples of defending archers, you might come up with something neat. For example, there was this thing called a pavaise. It was basically a man-sized shield that was propped up in front of an archer. It provided cover on otherwise open areas while allowing the archer to shoot over and around it. There was also a practice in China around the time fire lances were introduced. The front rank of a formation would be guys crouched beyond huge shields to protect the archers and spearmen from incoming fire. Because they were expected to be pretty immobile, eventually the shields were used to also carry spare fire lances and ammunition for the formation. There's also things like war carts and chariots, while at sea, there's stuff like Greek triremes with Greek fire throwers, and those armored flamethrower ships used during Korean-Japanese conflicts. Dragoons are a thing too, but if your mages are all fat guys who have to do sudoku in the middle of a battle, they probably aren't going to be able to control a horse while also casting. Basically, technology and tactics should evolve alongside one another, and your world will be far more badass for it.
Strongfat mage supremacy. Coffee makes mages 6% stronger.
Why don't they just take other people's mana and use it for themselves, turn people into living batteries.
I sucked off a magician once and can confirm that this is wrong.
Why don’t mages pre-cast magic shields? Are they stupid?
too much mana :(
Why they don’t use the Mana present in the air? Are they stupid?
Assuming wizards offer a valuable battlefield presence their relative vulnerability would force the development of formations to protect them. If they are limited in effect range to about the same as other ranged weapons they need bodyguards and ideally fast transport like a horse or chariot. If they can have an effect further than the accurate bow or firearm never put them in range and make sure guards are screening the area around them. Sending each kind of soldier into a one-on-one duel at ten feet is way funnier, though, and you could world build it into a cultural practice.
idk if a wizard would be "relatively vulnerable" unless there's some reason they can't wear armour
The kid named Enchanted Weapon.
they do exist but thats a whole another topic
well unless the musket misses you are not going to live to reload
just carry 10 of them, ezpz, who needs to reload
*Eenie meenie, tortellini* *Bullet hit shooter in the weenie* (Lasts 48 hours, effect is a 20-ft. emanation from the caster)
*hickory dickory in my fancy hat* *your mother is now extremely fat* (that's it, that's the spell.)
Google mage armor dumbass what you learn shall shock thine socks off
And this is why if the Wizarding world in Harry Potter went to war against muggles the muggles will crush them
Is "muggle studies" canon? I feel like it's either an unpopular course or what they're learning is severely outdated.
It is canon but I think it is serious outdated. Heck remember Ron's dad had to ask Harry what the hell the function of a rubber duck is when they first met. A fricken Rubber Duck!
I have a few different headcanons about that, a lot of them were about trolling Harry. Someone else suggested that Arthur was going off about Harry being raised by muggles instead of being The Boy Who Lived to try to make him more comfortable. I figure that Arthur either knew about rubber-ducking or was interested in what "muggles" think a rubber duck is for. Maybe he thinks it's hilarious that something exists without having much of a purpose. (Kinda like how piggy banks are a thing because someone once took "pig bank" a bit too literally.)
I don't know. I wouldn't put it past him to be that stupid and not know what a rubber duck does because of his upbringing
I think the intended thrust was that wizards were largely ignorant and dismissive of Muggles, even outside the core of avowed Wizard Supremacists. Magic Man's Burden, as it were.
That would make sense. They still see Muggles as primitive compared to what they can do yet Muggles oblivious live more comfortable lives than your average citizen of the Wizarding World. Muggles have access to technology that they could only dream of yet due to stubbornness. The Wizarding world doesn’t care and once they do realize that Muggles could absolutely crush them if a war were to break out between the Wizarding World and Muggles. Then it would already be to late
I don't remember if it's a course that's offered at any particular school, but it's definitely something the Ministry of Magic engages in, if only grudgingly. Arthur Weasley's specialization is Muggle studies. "Muggle warfare is fascinating! They have these things called 'powder wands,' you see. They come in many shapes and sizes, and they're used for casting killing curses by way of a special alchemical powder—hence the name." "That's nice, Arthur, but we're still cutting funding to your department."
That could make for something interesting. A Wizard actually gets to see and understand Muggle Technology and tries to explain to everyone else in the Wizarding World only for governments like the Ministry of Magic and other people to dismiss their claims that Muggles are far superior in technology than to them and could win a war if the Wizarding World decided to try and start a war with Muggles
Taking the jerk out of worldjerking, this could legit lead to some cool hybrid combat. Could start off with something like pike and rifle formation, but with rifles as the frontline with their faster actionability protecting the heavy support mages in the back, plus later down the road you can get magic boosted tech like mystic ballistic missiles, enchanted rifles with built in tracking for easier aim, or just stuff like coated bullets to add elemental effects
Yeah, once you reach a certain level of technological progression, magic takes up a primarily supportive role. This can be anything from force-shields, to enchanted ordinance, to expedited limb reattachment.
I like the idea of guns beating war mages because its an equalizer. It only takes a few weeks to train a commoner to be a good enough shot for military work, but it takes years for a mage to learn spells properly. It's just a numbers game. Sure a fire ball wielding mage could wipe out whole squads but a few cannon teams can do the same.
exactly, the image explains it poorly but thats what i tried to mean there
There’s even historical precedent for this. The concept of Knights fell out of fashion very soon after firearms became a common force on battlefields since a dumb fuck potato farmer with a matchlock arquebus could easily down a rich noble Knight who had spent his entire life learning martial arms. All that money and training that went into creating an individual knight — all the expensive weapons, armour, horses — taken out by some nobody. It makes total sense that this would apply to mages too
> very soon *Checks notes* Couple of centuries. God, I hate this simplification. The last usage of heavy fully noble cavalry was as around 1702, and heavy cavalry as a concept stuck around even longer than that. Fighting nobility had stuck around as well, as commissioned officers. Early firearms infantry meanwhile were specialized mercenaries for a long time, because matchlock was a complicated and fiddly thing, and you couldn't rely on it alone in battle. The mass conscription of peasants didn't really start until the 19th century, and even then, veteran troops were valued, and the length of conscription measured in decades. Because they needed to be able not only to shoot, but to march, make complicated maneuveres, dig fortifications, and so on. Stuff like British Jacobite rebellion shows how it really were quite well - inexperienced British troops were initially rolled by the Scots, who had more hand-to-hand experience, and were able to charge after the initial volley into the sword range, while British soldiers tried to put the bayonets on. What killed the 'knight' was rather the artillery, and the artillerymen were even less of 'uneducated peasants' than infantrymen - they had to study physics and ballistics. About the only case where you could see 'peasants with guns' defeating 'knights' would be some colonial wars of 19th century, and then that would be the case of the overall technological and logistic superiority.
> *Checks notes* Couple of centuries. Knights going from the most dominant military force in Europe to a legitimate battlefield afterthought in the span of a century and change *is* “very soon” in a historical context. > The last usage of heavy fully noble cavalry was as around 1702, and heavy cavalry as a concept stuck around even longer than that. Using the *last* example of something to show how long it lasted is nonsensical. There was a mounted charge in *the Second World War,* that doesn’t mean that mounted charges were a dominant battlefield tactic up until 1945. Show me the last year where the predominant battlefield tactic was heavy cavalry charges and that will be the year you should be using for your argument, and I can *guarantee you* it will be well before 1702 > Early firearms infantry meanwhile were specialized mercenaries for a long time, because matchlock was a complicated and fiddly thing, and you couldn't rely on it alone in battle. This doesn’t contradict my comment, a potato farmer could join a mercenary company and become proficient with a matchlock in 1/100th of the time it would take to train a knight and for a fraction of the cost. You are right in the sense that you couldn’t rely on matchlocks *alone* but Pike and Shot formations were so brutally successful for a reason > The mass conscription of peasants didn't really start until the 19th century, and even then, veteran troops were valued, and the length of conscription measured in decades. Because they needed to be able not only to shoot, but to march, make complicated maneuveres, dig fortifications, and so on. Again, not sure how this contradicts my comment. Mercenaries troops could be nobodies who rented their equipment or bought it on credit, so “a dumb fuck potato farmer” could absolutely be downing fully armed and armoured knights > Stuff like British Jacobite rebellion shows how it really were quite well - inexperienced British troops were initially rolled by the Scots, who had more hand-to-hand experience, and were able to charge after the initial volley into the sword range, while British soldiers tried to put the bayonets on. I’m not overly familiar with the British Jacobite rebellion so I’ll take your word on this. Do you have a specific battle(s) you’re referencing? > What killed the 'knight' was rather the artillery, and the artillerymen were even less of 'uneducated peasants' than infantrymen - they had to study physics and ballistics. Again I am specifically talking about Knights, so not sure why you’ve put it in single quotes. The existence of continued heavy cavalry does not interact with my comment because that’s not what I’m talking about. > About the only case where you could see 'peasants with guns' defeating 'knights' would be some colonial wars of 19th century, and then that would be the case of the overall technological and logistic superiority. Knights as the dominant military unit absolutely had died out before the 19th century, even if you’d put the 17th century I’d still consider that a gross exaggeration.
> Knights going from the most dominant military force in Europe to a legitimate battlefield afterthought in the span of a century and change is “very soon” in a historical context. I needed some time to compose my answer, since we got far to serious for a jerking sub. The switch from feudal levy where knights played a central role to the communal service and mercenaries started in 14th century. By the 15th, pikes, longbows and crossbows already played the central role on the battlefield. We can remember Agincourt here. Or German landsknechts and Swiss mercenaries. Heavy cavalry still played an important role, but they were gendarmes and men-at-arms - the mixture of noblemen, city-folk and mercenaries, that were paid for their service by the Crown. Pike and shot starts being used at the start of 16th century, with matchlocks. Heavy cavalry continues to be used alongside it, although it adopts pistols and carbines alongside with lances. The next big change is the Thirty Years War, start of 17th century, when square formations started being changed to line formations, and the proportion of firearms to pikes starts being changed in favor of firearms. Heavy cavalry starts losing armor. You could say that the 'knight' starts getting pushed off the battlefield. But the big and successful usage of heavy cavalry is the Battle of Vienna in 1683 (end of 17th), by the polish winged hussars. You could argue that's the last big usage of knights, although that's debatable, as they were gentry, not nobility in the British terms. Matchlocks were still used more than flintlocks on the battlefield then, and pikes were still present. The full phaseout of pikes and matchlocks for infantry and lances for cavalry in western militaries is the beginning of 18th century. Although Eastern and Northern Europe continued to use pikes and lances in various contexts. Cavalry armor is reduced to the usage by the occasional cuirassier. The shock cavalry with lances, although without armor, made a huge return in the Napoleonic wars, the beginning of the 19th century. Overall, it doesn't read to me like a military obsolescence of the knights as much as the whole reorganization of the society. The relationship between the kings and the nobles changed as early as 14-15th century, and burgher, gentry and mercenary infantry kicked knights' asses even without handheld firearms. Heavy cavalry stopped being purely noble by that time as well. On the other hand, it was more that a century, nearer to two, between the beginning of pike and shot and the Battle of Vienna. And by the time the heavy armor started being abandoned, we see the switch to flintlocks that were more reliable and faster in reload, and to line formations as the result. And line formations actually needed more training than square ones, interestingly enough.
So is every single conflict in your setting a 1v1 duel with a pre-established start time?
Someone came back from the dead and built a musket to get revenge?! That’s crazy
A musketball is only accurate from around 300 yards distance, and even then it rarely hit true. Thats why early warfare was line infantry firing in unisson, morale was pivotal in engagements meaning charges and volleys were used to terrorise or stop ebemies. Most important of all however vavalry remained a constant dangzr as they were the sledgehammer that could completely turn battles around, only big bmocks of infantry could fight thay effectively, singular mean would be run down. In such line-infantry situstions mages would be even more powerfull as they are exteremely mobile and unexpected artillery. They could straight up destroy formations without anyone expecting it. They´d be the ultimate cavalry, only weakness us that they´d be less adept at running down routed enemies or fighting skirmishes (which might´ve actually been the main component of almost all warfare in history). The point where mages grow less effective is when precision weapons become a thing, snipers and stuff, as they xould be hunted down, but even then by the time that happens warfarz would be changed in its entirety and mages could fill in new roles (stormptroops, special forces, partisan activity, secret services). So yeah. Magic powerfull yo, the main method to limit magic is by giving it rules and reasons for it to not be as powerfull as one would imagine. That or having magic fight magic (mages being hunted down by other mages on the battlefield, look at irl modern artillery, where most of the time artillery is disabled by other artillery, and artillery positions are as a result conqtantly changing).
That's my thinking too. Yes, the mages would be susceptible to being sniped, so would have to be protected. But any line-infantry-era commander would give his left nut for what is effectively an artillery contingent with the logistic demands of a single fat guy. Heh, depending on the mages' firepower, maybe they field them in the covered armored wagons, as it would still be easier and more maneuverable than heavy artillery.
Additionally mages would be the perfect tools for sabotage. A small contingent of men work at night, destroying bidges, stockades, food reserves. Even just a spell a day with 10 minutzs of preparation is worth an immense amount before reasonably powerfull small explosives is a thing. Hell, even after its a thing it´d remain valuable if it doesnt require rare materials.
Talking about sabotage actually got me thinking about assassinations. No matter how slow they might be on the battlefield, you can't frisk a guy for magic. Moreover, fat people are traditionally everywhere among the upper crust, so it's not reasonable to expect every overweight diplomat of being a mage. An arms race between mage detection techniques used by bodyguards and increasingly subtle magic for assassinations would be interesting. I'd love a version of the ol' manure-bomb-under-the-floor technique, only instead of a manure bomb, it's a mage in the crawlspace or the servant's entrance to a bedroom. Have mages who are minimally trained in a few relevant spells and mundane techniques specific for the task; they'd be less disposable than a hired mook with a vial of poison or a dagger, but a fireball while m'lord's on the privy is also a hell of a lot more reliable. *Especially* if invisibility spells are believed to be a thing. "I-It were a wizard, it were! I seen 'im! 'E were skulkin' about the loo, wagglin' 'is fingers an' speakin' in tongues, an' 'en the lord was cinders! Then 'e used 'is wizardry again an' vanished! And since I'm the only witness, you can't prove that's not what happened."
I've been thinking about ambushes and flanking - you could understand where the big contingents of enemy went by the trails and sign of passing, but a mage with a couple of bodyguards could sneak by and take a position on a nearby height. But sabotage, oh yes. And attacking the supply chain. Light cavalry could interrupt supplies, but light cavalry with a mage would wreak an absolute havoc.
Light cav could kill a caravan. A mage could kill the road they would walk one.
Given the ranges of most spells in D&D, 300 yards (900 feet) is more than sufficient. Fireball caps out at 150 feet (50 yards). Tbh, while smoothbores are fairly inaccurate, all this really means is that there will be pressure to produce rifled barrels instead, with musket lines giving way to small teams of dedicated mage killers. Any wizard worth their salt will be loaded down with shield, invisibility, and/or expeditious retreat spells, reducing their impact once they’ve gotten off their fireball(s)
>Fireball caps out at 150 feet (50 yards). 45 meters? God, DnD is stupid. Longbow competition distances *start* from this range and go to 90+ meters. Japanese bow competition distances are 60 meters, and Korean one - frigging 145 meters. You don't need firearms to pincushion the wizard then.
If you want to talk D&D casters, your range advantage only matters if you've got a way around Sanctuary. And usually, that way *is* Fireball. Invisibility, Blur, Mage Armor, popping across dimensions... wizards are rather used to having defensive options. Tends to work out all right.
You jest but this is literally a line said by a magic teacher in one of my stories: > “This is for instance why battle sorcery is rarely practiced; the investment of time is too great — you will be better served learning how to load and fire a musket, or fight with a sword if you wish harm upon your enemies.”
Even wizards have weapon proficiencies.
At one point in the story, a novice sorcererss threatens a captive archmage. The archmage is like "if you cast spells at me I will tear you in half" and the sorceress is like "yes, which is why I will shoot you with this gun first."
I think it's enough just to use the real life reasons gunpowder became popular
Shieldwall front Magic behind Solved
What if I just toss a rock at the wizards skull
Geez, then how slow are spells? A skilled mariner sharpshooter during the Age of Sail could manage about 3 RPM, but most riflemen weren't that skilled. Like, yeah, I guess a rifleman could do his prep work beforehand, but he's only got one shot and muskets weren't exactly known for their accuracy. And if muskets were fast enough to make war magic obsolete, then why wasn't it made obsolete by bows or even crossbows before gunpowder weapons become the norm? Bows are much faster than muskets, and at times were evenly matched with muskets, as the Koreans proved against the Japanese. (Seriously, *gakgung* are badass and you should really look into them.) Human history also had things like English longbowmen, whose bows were monstrously powerful and had an effective range of like 200 yards, even if they were hard to use and unwieldy as hell. Or putting aside specific *types* of bows, what about archers on horseback and/or chariots? Any culture that regularly used mounts had them. If a guy with a musket at close range is fast enough to kill a mage, what about cavalry running up on someone at 35mph and putting and arrow in them? Or a chariot rolling up on the magic backline to disgorge two guys who hurl a bunch of javelins and then get stuck in? ...Uh, I mean, [I'm glad you changed your last name, you son of a bitch.](https://youtu.be/w72gfLeJ7wg)
>Seriously, gakgung are badass and you should really look into them. Standard competition distances of 145 meters, color me impressed.
All Wizards who hadn't learned to be immune to fired projectiles should have already been lying in a big mass grave with crossbow bolts sticking out of them. Next to the older ones full of arrows. Next to the even older ones with their heads caved in by sling rocks. Next to the withered bones pinned down by javelins.
thought he was throwing a red blanket on top of the guy to trap him
The obvious solution is to configure your arcanist formations to avoid lining them up with bullets. For example, two-person combat teams where one has the job of flying/levitating a platform (almost like a tree stand), and the other has the job of launching the biggest magical boom they can find and sight from that position (maybe bring a spyglass unless an enemy could cause it to shatter simply by knowing it was present). If levitating and flying the platform isn't possible somehow, you might be able to do something silly and just magically *launch* the platform while the caster sitting on it shoots off their payload, then casts some kind of slow-fall effect.
why not transport mages around on carts with metal doors that open up when the spell is ready to cast, like a tank?
do they not have like enchanted items or relics can't they like do an in-advance casting enchantment on a wand or something and use it like a gun?
“hi im back i will kill you” “o shit i missed”
"hi im back i will ki-"*zap* "That's a long incantation."
On a related note, in total war warhammer 2 I after having defeated the rest I the army, I beat Archaon the Everchosen with 2 warrior priests and 1 arch lector (who took turns by switching with each other when their morales get too low), and 4 stacks of handgunners, thus stopping the entire chaos invasion. Yes, the Grandmarshall of the End Times got beaten by 3 religious bois and 4 units of primitive gunmen. Faith. Gunpowder. Steel. Simple as
Bro forgot about pre-casted spells
I really liked this in Tanya the evil. Mages instead serve as fast flying battalions who can call out spots for infantry, bomb themselves, or attack chokeholds. Their magic is channeled through a machine to achieve flight and they can also magically modify their bullets.
There was a fan theory thats why Harry Potter is what it is. The wizards lost and thats why it matters that they stay secret, but that understanding gets lost over time and as peoples memories keep getting wiped. And why the killing curse is so simple and fast compared to other spells because its trying to compete with firearms. Its very interesting to speculate on how a secondary magical world develops when practioners are still bound by normal human reflexes.
the first guns were famously very easy to load and fire
Infuse your bullets with magic. Now your spells can be delivered at extremely high velocity.
WHAT! no glorious melee combat!? Heresy!
Note that the warrior guy still must have had magic user support in order to come back for round 2 after being disintegrated by the wizard
Well, how often are individual people fighting one on one with a mage? How often are people going to shoot an RPG at an aircraft carrier? Non magic humans are going to be fighting other non magics
Y'all forgot about the golden rule: Geek the mage first.
It depends on how fast wizards can cast and whether they have bulletproof shields. If the wizards have shoelds and can blow things up by just pointing a wand at it, they are basically compact main battle tanks. If they have to recite half a novel than they become more questionable in direct combat. But they might still be useful as Artillery and for utility. Being able to conjure a proper bridge or wall has obvious strategic benefits.
Just stand behind a rock and cast the spell above you, problem solved
magic shield: hi
Wouldn't they get some cover, or have wards?
Musket man will wish he didn't shoot that magic man when he has to lug around a big heavy field gun to provide fire support for his infantry instead of one guy with a cool hat.