High-Tech Forces vs. High-Magic Forces

[Alzrius]

For those interested, I wrote a short sidebar that deals with the questions of how this question (high-tech weapons and armor vs. magical weapons and armor) could be easily resolved in a d20 system game.

Looking over the new armors listed here, you may realize that, in terms of statistics, armors from one Progress Level are relatively the same as another. A Vanadium Covering, for example, doesn’t seem that much different than a Neutronite Aegis. However, given that the latter armor was developed in the future from the former, shouldn’t it clearly offer better protection?

In regards to weaponry from previous eras, it does. When weapons from a lower PL than a suit of armor are used against it, the wearer gains DR X/--, where X is the different in their Progress Levels. For example, while wearing a Nanofluidic Suit (PL 8), you would have DR 2/-- against damage from a Laser Pistol (a PL 6 weapon). When a weapon from a certain PL is used against armor from a lower PL, the weapon gains a circumstance bonus to the attack roll equal to the difference between their Progress Levels. For example, someone using a Laser Pistol against a target wearing a Duraplastic Breastplate (PL 5), would have a +1 circumstance bonus to their attack roll.

If you’re using FX in your game, then consider altering the above rules slightly. Magic (or psionics) transcend the limits of the physical universe, and make it possible for even a primitive weapon to penetrate a powerful armor (or for a weak armor to resist a futuristic weapon). When using FX, armors of a higher PL than an attacking weapon gain DR X/magic. Likewise, weapons of a higher PL than the armor they’re attacking do not gain the circumstance bonus to the attack roll if the armor has an enhancement bonus. Fantasy d20 weapons and armor are all Progress Level 2. Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are PL 0.

 

[korjik]

Read the 3.5 SRD or pick up a MM:

Incorporeal Subtype


The assumption obviously is that the modern force has no magic (at least to start; and what they can get is by taking from the enemy). Otherwise it's just a mixed tech/magic force which is trivially superior to either a modern or a magic force.



Korjik, just a style point here but your repetition of "blam" is annoying and does not stand you in good stead.

As for your statements they are clearly false. The mage could easily protect himself from bullets but in any case he wouldn't need to; the greater invisibility means that the moderns would have no idea he's even there.



You are vastly underestimating what high intelligence coupled with divination magic is capable of.



Again, the moderrn force would have no access to blessed ammo, nor would they have any clue that it's what's needed. Apparently neither do you, since devils require silver, not cold iron.

Using d20 modern stats, bombs do a lot less damage than you think.



Obviously a lot depends on the scenario, but you don't seem to even know the rules.

As for snipers vs. high level mages, that's what the contingency spell is for. And assuming he's a member of a a high level party, even blowing his head to bits would only take him out until the others bring him back. Or if he's a lich then he auto-ressurects as many times as he needs to.

As for shooting the clerics, that is obviously BS. The sides are obviously talking to each other at that point. Their magic is real and the moderns would see it. They might think it's of the devil, or they might be convinced and convert - that depends on a lot of factors, but I think a single high level cleric is all you'd need - send him ahead. He speaks the modern language just fine thanks to tongues spells. He gets the lay of the land, asks questions, gets on TV (no problem given that he sure can put on a show), gets tons of followers, soon enough he is running the whole place.

And you have completely missed the point. I never said I was using d20 Modern. What calibrations I use to determine the interaction of has not been determined. Should it be that a contingency spell takes 10 milliseconds to activate, and has a detection range of 5 meters, sniper shots will still kill him. What happens after isnt really relevant to the discussion.

My point is that the interactions between magic and tech are unknowns. For every bit of magico-babble you come up with, I can come up with some techno-babble to counter it. You can keep pushing your ideas, but all that says it that you have decided that magic is better, not that you are right about magic being better.

A few notes:
You are right about the incorporeal, but that just brings up more questions about the nature of magic and technology

Cheap insults are unnecessary. It should have been obvious that I was misremembering a game that has been out of print for a few years.

You are wrong about the blessing tho. Last I checked, there are alot of clerics around, and most people would probably think if a blessing if confronted with a devil.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

Way back at the beginning of the thread, Sepulchrave asked whether goblinoids are covered by the Geneva Conventions. Just thought I'd take a stab at an answer. There are a couple of key questions: are goblinoids "persons" as that term is used in the Geneva Conventions is the big one, but questions like whether the fantasy army is a "Power" and whether it would "accept[] and appl[y] the provisions" of the Geneva Conventions without being a formal "High Contracting Power" also apply.

But as I said, the big one is the meaning of the word "persons," which is, to the best of my knowledge and after very brief research, not defined within the Conventions. I think that's a clearly open question, but there is at least a decent argument that it would apply to other sapients. The Conventions include substantial language designed to avoid the limiting of the concept of "persons" or of the protections to be provided. For example, Art. III (which sets minimum standards for non-international conflicts), specifies: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." The language about "without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria" recurs elsewhere. In context, I think that's clearly designed to say that a power can't say that, for example, Jewish people, or people of African descent, or other historically discriminated groups are not "worthy" of full protection under the Conventions. The next extension, to say that limiting the Convention to protecting humans rather than all persons violates the "any other similar criteria" language, seems pretty sound to me. Of course, that's a qualifier to the word "persons": dogs, horses, and (I presume, although I don't know if it's ever been tested) dolphins and apes aren't persons, and therefore do not receive the protections of the Conventions. And I'm sure that some people would say that goblins are also not "persons," and therefore that distinguishing goblins from humans is not an application of "any other similar criteria" but rather an application of the meaning of the word "persons." But I'm not persuaded: the Conventions are intended to sweep broadly, and are based both on a concept of what sort of behavior is acceptable for modern nations and on a desire to prevent atrocities by the other side. In that context, and in light of the breadth of the language and the desire to prevent exclusions based on individual characteristics, I think the best interpretation would be that "persons" includes non-human persons.

I'm going to leave it at that, because it's a bit of a tangent, and probably boring to most non-lawyers anyway.

 

[mmadsen]

Way back at the beginning of the thread, Sepulchrave asked whether goblinoids are covered by the Geneva Conventions. Just thought I'd take a stab at an answer. There are a couple of key questions: are goblinoids "persons" as that term is used in the Geneva Conventions is the big one, but questions like whether the fantasy army is a "Power" and whether it would "accept[] and appl[y] the provisions" of the Geneva Conventions without being a formal "High Contracting Power" also apply.

Since the "goblins" haven't signed the Geneva Conventions, it's really an issue of whether the various human forces would unilaterally decide to abide by them -- which would presumably depend on how the goblins treated human prisoners, whether they truly gave up when they were given mercy, etc.

If word got out that the goblins were eating prisoners, well, I wouldn't expect the human troops to take too many prisoners themselves.

 

[Stalker0]

Without any calibrations, I would go with the following general assertions:

1) Tech: The superior army
2) Magic: The superior special forces

I am making this assertion on the fact that magic provides for abilities technology currently does not, and allows for superior infiltration, subversion,assassination, and misinformation.

If we continue the standard dnd model that magic use is fairly rare, then the magic army would not have widespread use of magic, and so a technology based army would have a great deal more advanced firepower at their disposal.


So the basics here is a big powerful army vs a small specialized one...who wins?

I would go with the tech army on this one. While special forces can be very effective, they don't singlehandedly win wars without backup. Attrition and logistics start to set in at some point.

Magic users start to get assassinated, tactics are developed to counter them, and you still have a large well supplied army that is devastating your own. Unless magic use could be very quickly replicated (in the timespan of a year or two), then the large army will eventually win out imo.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think both sides would have a huge education barrier, but especially the goblins. Sure, eventually the goblins will use to pull pins out of grenades using magic, but some will die before that happens. Worse for the goblins, we know what a sword or spear is, whereas the goblins would have to learn about guns the hard way. (Of course, afterward they would never use a "green wave" tactic again, but might lose a lot of troops in their first battle.) The modern soldiers might not use the "best" tactics (maybe machine guns are a pretty bad choice against golems), but application of superior firepower will eventually give the moderns an edge.

With modern intel-gaining abilities, the modern soldiers would know more about the goblins than the goblins would know about them. The goblin's main advantage is the lack of belief in magic. If the goblins hide and don't attack immediately, they could learn about their surroundings. They could teleport into commanders' rooms and magically interrogate and/or assassinate them, steal supplies, charm civilians into giving them a ton of info, etc.

There's scaling issues too. Are the modern soldiers using artillery or aircraft? Do the goblins have the prep time necessary to learn about the neighboring world, or perform rituals? Do automated sensors detect invisible goblins? Just how much magic do the goblins have?

I suppose the issues boil down to:

1) How much magic do the goblins have? Lots of weak shamans? A few powerful ones? A mixture?
2) Do they initiate hostilities, or recon first?
3) How quickly does the modern world become aware of them?
4) How many resources can be devoted to fighting the goblin incursion. (It would make a big difference, I think, if the goblins first appeared in Brazil compared to, say, Utah.)

I think the odds are on the modern side, and the goblins would have to do a lot of recon before they can learn enough about modern weaknesses. If the goblins reach this point, and if they have a lot of magic, they can turn the tides and actually win.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is also this unasked, unanswered question: does magic not work here because we don't know what we're doing, or does it not work here because it doesn't/no longer works here?

If it's the former, we get the usual scenario we've been discussing, and it's entirely possible that we correct our mistakes and start using magic ourselves...possibly even including divine magic.

If it's the latter...well, some mystic goblin knights are going to be in for a surprise once they get through the portal...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I assume the moderns simply never discovered magic. They could start to learn it, but a bunch of barely-trained 1st-level wizards and clerics who don't really know magic tactics aren't going to scare an army of rampaging magic-users.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But that's not really satisfying. We have legends of magic, books of spells- Hell- we have people who claim to practice it today- so there has to be more to it than that.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

Since the "goblins" haven't signed the Geneva Conventions, it's really an issue of whether the various human forces would unilaterally decide to abide by them -- which would presumably depend on how the goblins treated human prisoners, whether they truly gave up when they were given mercy, etc.

If word got out that the goblins were eating prisoners, well, I wouldn't expect the human troops to take too many prisoners themselves.

As a practical matter, I think you're likely right. But as a legal matter, that's not right. The Geneva Conventions define several different legal regimes: rules that apply to the treatment of prisoners from a foreign army, rules that apply to the treatment of civilians in a war zone, rules that apply during civil wars, and so forth. One of the categories is rules that apply when dealing with nonsignatories to the Conventions. At a first cut, the rules apply in full force with regard to a nonsignatory "Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." In other words, you're right that it matters whether the goblins obey the Geneva Conventions; if they do, then (assuming they're "persons") then even though they're nonsignatories, the signatories are fully bound. But, even if they don't, some rules protect persons despite the fact that they are not troops/civilians of a Power that is behaving as if it's bound by the Conventions. In particular, Common Article III sets up a baseline of rules that apply regardless of whether the opposing Power abides by the Conventions: in short, humane treatment for all prisoners, specifically excluding murder, torture, etc., requiring that the wounded, sick, etc. be cared for, and requiring some enforcement provisions like giving the Int'l Red Cross access.

Thus, as a technical matter, even if the goblins violate the Geneva Conventions, the legally permissible response is not to retaliate in kind, but rather to prosecute them (through proper trials) for war crimes, after which they can be punished for their violations. As a practical matter, however, I think you might well be right--if the goblins routinely violated human norms of war, it makes it much more likely that either (a) countries would conclude that they are not "persons" in the language of the Conventions or (b) would simply violate the Conventions in response... although maybe not, because most militaries have a strong attachment to some of the basic parts of the Conventions, violations notwithstanding.