Equipping a battlefield mage vs. a knight

[Quasqueton]

A paragraph in the Complete Warrior prompted me to look up and compare the prices of supplying a mounted knight and a mounted mage.

********************

Knight

armor
full plate armor = 1,500gp (half-plate = 600)
heavy steel shield = 20gp (wood = 7)

weapons
longsword = 15gp
lance = 10gp

mount
heavy warhorse = 400gp
military saddle = 60gp

Total = 2,005 (1092)

********************

Mage

armor
scroll of mage armor = 25gp
scroll of shield = 25gp

weapons
4 scrolls of fireball = 1,500gp

mount
light warhorse = 150gp
military saddle = 60gp

Total = 1760gp
245gp less than the knight.

********************

Can we assume the cost of paying the equal-level individuals would be the same?

If they are both 6th level, (fighter/paladin and wizard/sorcerer), then the mage gets another 1-4 fireballs beyond the scrolls.

Would a king be better off hiring mages for his ranks instead of knights? Who would win in an engagement between a squad of knights vs. a squad of mages (say 10 persons in a squad) meeting on a standard battlefield?

Quasqueton

 

[KingOfChaos]

The problem with the wizard vs. the knights is the wizards are going to need a way to keep the knights off of them so they can cast spells. This is usually why most parties have a 'meat shield' character that allows the spellcasters to cast with a little protection.

Now, if the wizards have enough time to all cast a fireball, then the 60d6 points of fire damage could easily decimate the rank of knights if they don't have fire resistance of some kind.

However, if I was the king in question, I would most likely want 5 wizards and 5 knights rather than an extreme in both. That way you have spell and sword protecting you.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

In a stand-up fight the squad of mages would probably win.

Assuming it is equally difficult to be a 6th level wizard as it would be to become a 6th level fighter, I think that wizards would be an obvious choice.

However:

* 100 1st level commoners would be much more ... well ... common. Give those guys all a light crossbow and a dagger and they'll have a much easier time against the low hit-point wizards.

* the mage armor spell and scroll will eventually expire. In a war, it would be sad to be on a battlefield with no armor.

* fireball would be devestating on a battlefield. But again, there's only so many times it can be cast. If I faced an army of spellcasters, I would have my troops spread out. It has historically always been a bad idea to bunch up in the presence of artillery (what your wizards essentially are) and I would not care to repeat the mistake.

* It costs, money, time, and experience points to make a scroll. Making armor just costs money and time. You're putting a drain (however small) on your scroll makers but your blacksmiths can keep going as long as the metal holds out.


.... but, again, the big issue is how easy it is to become a 1st level spellcaster in your campaign.

 

[Epametheus]

A wizard unit will annihilate the first wave.

The second wave is gonna be a problem, though.

The mounted "knights" will probably be in half-plate or even splint, which drastically cuts down on the costs of fielding them.

Wizards probably aren't common enough to field mass units and mass produce scrolls. It's more likely that the wizards will be scattered all over the fields, some softening up units with area spells and others watching out for enemy wizards. They'll help, but enemy soldiers that want to live are gonna be gunning for the mages.

A L17 wizard will probably have more of an impact on the battlefield than a L17 fighter, though the L17 fighter certainly can't be dismissed.

 

[Quasqueton]

Who would win in an engagement between a squad of knights vs. a squad of mages (say 10 persons in a squad) meeting on a standard battlefield?

I probably should have asked which would be more effective/useful/strategicly valueable on the battlefield.

Quasqueton

 

[Maerdwyn]

Even if the battle itself would be won only with mages, the cost of such an army will quickly outpace the cost of a more conventional force, assuming that the war lasts more than just one battle.

When you by your knights armor and weapons, they have armor and weapons for as many battles as they remain living. After the battle involving your mages, your going to need to continue re-investing in the fireball scrolls.


Also, your mage-army only works if it has surprise. If the opponent knows he's facing only mages, then there is no need to equip their army in the same way - why spend money on heavy armor, if they are only going to be facing attacks than bypass armor?

If attacking a power that already has a heavily armored army, the second time you try it your enemy is going to have a (very cheap) army of mercenaries (goblins, maybe?), armed with clubs and staffs, and convinced (rightly or wrongly, bepending on your enemy's scruples) that the high priest has cast "mass resist fire" upon them. If the mages don't waste their fireballs on the goblins, the mages might still get overwhelmed. At the very least, the goblins will pester them such that casting additional spells will be very difficult when the knights start charging in next.

If the mages do blow their fireballs on the goblins, then the knights will wipe the mages out, and should do so to the last man, knowing that they won't be able to hire another group of mercenaries to lead a charge against the surviving mages when they return.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You use mages and knights in different ways.

You use knights for long, drawn out combats where you simply need to pummel large enemy forces into submission.

However, you use mages similar to today's special forces - you plan out the attack carefully, attack the enemy's weakest link with devastating force, and then you let the mages fade away again. Sure, they can't do that more than once or twice a day - but if you plan things right, they don't have to do this more often anyway.

In general, however, mages are great for fluid engagements - but less so for patrols or garrison duty. If they can prepare for the engagement, they are devastating. If they are caught unawares, they are toast.

 

[hong]

The ninjae would win, with the pirates coming a distant third.


Hong "with the USS Enterprise somewhere in between" Ooi

 

[S'mon]

I notice the mage cost totally ignores the cost of his spellbook.