High-Tech Forces vs. High-Magic Forces

[Dannyalcatraz]

For another, there are no actual spellcasting <edit> in the modern world

Which is why I asked why this was the case. Because the "Why" 'matters.

If magic doesn't work because our physics are anti-magic, a lack of mana*, or that we don't have the right material components, the invaders may have a "supply line" issue.

If it's because we don't have the right ritual formulations- aka spells- than there is a knowledge gap that can be closed.

If the divine is silent in this world because it is nonexistent, we can't do much about it. If it is silent because it so chooses to be, things could change very rapidly.


* and if our world is magic dead brcause a lack of mana is the issue, a portal to a fantasy world may act like rain in the desert. Think of all the people out there right now casting spells that won't work; singing satanic hymns or talking about Hastur & Cthulhu on message boards or in game stores...and all of a sudden, magic reenters the world...

 

[pippenainteasy]

On the open battlefield, unless they have some deities to back them up, the goblins are toast. However in urban warfare they would dominate.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It isn't strictly compatible with the question in the OP, but read Fables. I want to avoid spoilers, but I can safely say that it is the most thorough treatise on the application of D&D-style magic to principles of modern warfare.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

There's an amazing setting riff thread on rpg.net on this topic, called "Voices From Below and the Long Stairs"

 

[Morrus]

For the question to make sense, you'd have to give both sides equal resources; otherwise it's a no-brainer. So if the modern side gets to invoke tactical nukes (as some have suggested), the magic side should have some very potent artifacts.

It's probably easier to say that neither side has either for some reason. I'd say it's also fair to say the magic side has no Elminsters or equivalent.

I think small arms fire is in the magic's favour - protection from normal missiles is a gamechanger there. I don't know how that scales up to larger missiles, but a modern military is very heavily dependent upon "normal missiles".

The area where the modern side wins unquestionably is air superiority. Even with griffin riders or dragons, the magic side has nothing that can engage a modern fighter jet - either in terms of speed or in terms of engagement range (the fighter jet can attack from miles away). The modern side definitely dominates the air, and that's gonna make a big difference.

I don't know how druids and weather control might help mitigate that.

As others have mentioned, magic can do some stuff that technology simply can't, and won't ever be able to do, being magic and all. The modern side will never be able to match magical invisibity, teleportation, binary protection spells, magical divinations, and the like, although they can try to mitigate the effect of them once they realise what's going on.

Heat metal sounds like it'd be fun against vehicles.

I think the battle would be more even than some folks here do, as long as you assume equal resources. If you stack the resources heavily in favour of one side or the other, then that pretty much decides the outcome.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

That's not true. Think what a Lesser Magic Weapon spell on a sniper rifle could do to magical defences such as Protection from Normal Missiles or Insubstantiality in the 3.5 version.

The basic issue is that everyone on the magic user side who isn't (a) a mage or (b) wielding seriously powerful defensive magical items (a +5 holy avenger just won't cut it) is, to put it simply, an irrelevance. And that includes dragons. So it comes down to small teams of mages and asymmetric warfare.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think small arms fire is in the magic's favour - protection from normal missiles is a gamechanger there. I don't know how that scales up to larger missiles, but a modern military is very heavily dependent upon "normal missiles".

Not terribly well IIRC. In 3.5 it gives protection 10/magic, until it has stopped 10 damage per caster level (max 100). That wouldn't last long against bullets. Even in older editions where protection from normal missiles was absolute, it didn't protect against balista and seige weapons properly. In 3.5 it isn't much of a game changer by the rules.

 

[Umbran]

The basic issue is that everyone on the magic user side who isn't (a) a mage or (b) wielding seriously powerful defensive magical items (a +5 holy avenger just won't cut it) is, to put it simply, an irrelevance.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

In the real world, nobody has magical protections, but somehow soldiers don't just drop dead when someone waves a gun in their general direction. Actually hitting someone who knows enough to duck is actually kind of difficult. While goblinoids and orcs and such aren't the brightest bulbs in the marquee, but they aren't so stone stupid that they don't know to make themselves hard to hit with missiles.

And that horde may well be critters with a whole lot of hit points, for whom a bullet or two (generally the most a real-person takes before being out of the fight) may not be a big deal. Perhaps closing to melee range is not such a problem. And then, modern forces have issues. You cannot spray automatic weapon's fire when the enemy is among your ranks, unless you don't care about killing your own men.

 

[Twichyboy]

Well, considering nukes, we have to remember that 1 in 20 of our nukes that we launch will probably explode in their silos

 

[Morrus]

Not terribly well IIRC. In 3.5 it gives protection 10/magic, until it has stopped 10 damage per caster level (max 100). That wouldn't last long against bullets.

I'm not sure I agree there, unless one is of the school of thought that guns do more damage than swords. A sword in the head is just as bad as a bullet.

That's assuming we're using a D&D rules system. If we're using a more lethal (realistic) system where you die if you get hit by a bullet or a sword, then it changes of course. But we have no idea what changing to that system does to the lethality of D&D spells.

However, you can't choose a system which suddenly makes guns much more lethal but not magic (well, you can, but you're just deciding which outcome you favour at that point and shaping the situation to ensure that).

We're either using D&D, in which a gun is not much more lethal than a sword, or we're using something more realistic in which case we have to adjust magic to fit it. At that point, we're just making stuff up since we have no idea how to adjust D&D spells to reflect a more realistic environment; we're basically just choosing which we want to win.