1. Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us.

Reinforcement spells

Discussion in 'World Building' started by Aldarion, Jul 18, 2019.

  1. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    I had an idea in my world of using spells that are designed to reinforce weapons and armour. However, they would nullify on contact, so that enchanted warhammer hitting enchanted armour would be like normal warhammer and armour. Problem is, that would kinda render said spells useless.

    So the idea I'm playing with at the moment is that spells would only apply to melee weapons. This would render ranged weapons less useful, including gunpowder weapons (which is what I am aiming at). However, using them at city walls would also mean that trebuchets and other ranged artillery would become useless. Which means that mining (as in, digging tunnels), siege towers, battering rams and siege ramps would be the main ways of attacking fortifications.

    Thoughts? Suggestions? Any implications I missed?
     
  2. C. R. Rowenson

    C. R. Rowenson Scribe

    36
    7
    8
    This may seem like an odd question, but are these the implications you want? If you don't like consequences, you might be able to tweak things some more.

    The first thing I think of with your description is the shields from Dune. They protect from bullets but a laser weapon will cause the shield to explode AND the weapon to explode. Maybe you could do something like that? Enchanted armor and arms are rare, but when they collide they both lose the enchantment entirely. This would make this kind of cross encounter costly to both combatants as they are suddenly without their powerful tool.

    Are you just looking to make gunpowder weapons less viable, or are there other things you would like to limit as well?
     
  3. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    C. R. RowensonC. R. Rowenson I am aiming primarily to make gunpowder weapons less viable. Guns and cannon both.
     
  4. Devor

    Devor Fiery Keeper of the Hat Moderator

    7,481
    3,008
    313
    Less Useful isn't the same thing as useless. That's a question of where you choose to draw the line. For example, if the armor is enchanted, does it completely repel the bullet? Do you still feel the "push" and blunt force of the bullet, which can be harmful in itself? Does the enchantment start to wear down and break after a few shots? If it's the armor that's enchanted, what if the bullet somehow manages to hit open skin or a joint or a normal weak point in the normal armor?

    The same kind of thinking would be true of a trebuchet. If the walls are enchanted, couldn't they still shoot *over* the walls? And what if the ammunition in a trebuchet is different enough from a bullet that it could be enchanted one stone at a time? And if they can enchant something as large as a wall, why would there be anything they can't enchant? Or maybe the wall is a special case, reinforced by a big magic crystal that could be targeted separately by like a spy?
     
    Aldarion likes this.
  5. MrNybble

    MrNybble Minstrel

    75
    10
    8
    All this does highly depend on the magic system involved. Weaponizing magic comes with certain pitfalls if not balanced right. If you just want to reduce the use of firearms, there are other ways. Magic can augment things like bows, slings, catapults, etc to have as much if not more hitting power than guns or cannons. There would be little to no need to use, manufacture, or research fire arms when there are far better weapons already available.

    My stories use guns, but they are rare and expensive. Rare because there are better weapons available so they are not made except for bragging purposes. Expensive because the propellant materials are scarce. Also, magic as a few thousand years head start on defending against projectiles making the need to throw objects faster kind of pointless.
     
    Aldarion likes this.
  6. C. R. Rowenson

    C. R. Rowenson Scribe

    36
    7
    8
    What if arrows, bolts, bullets, etc CAN'T be enchanted? Maybe because they need enough material to hold the enchantment (that means daggers might not be enchanted either) the projectiles simply don't have enough metal to hold the magic.

    Or maybe the very act of firing a projectile overloads and destroys the enchantment. Hear me out. If the enchantment is designed to deflect force, then you would not be able to fire an enchanted projectile effectively. The massive increase of kinetic energy would be absorbed by the enchantment (in the case of gunpowder, possibly breaking the enchantment all together) and slowing down the projectile to make it less effective.

    Just some random thoughts. I tend to go more physics-related than some people want to do.
     
  7. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    I like it. Particularly the second idea, about acceleration. And don't worry about physics-related, it is always nice to know the limits.
     
  8. C. R. Rowenson

    C. R. Rowenson Scribe

    36
    7
    8
    DevorDevor I really like the points you made. Even if enchanted armor stops the projectiles from being lethal, they can still hurt and be distracting. In the middle of a battle, that might be enough to give others the edges hey need.

    AldarionAldarion And even if the ammunition for the trebuchet weren't enchanted, could the engine itself be enchanted? If the beams can be strengthened with magic, they would be able to use much heavier counterweights on the siege engines allowing them to hurl bigger projectiles further.
     
  9. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    I don't see why not.
     
  10. C. R. Rowenson

    C. R. Rowenson Scribe

    36
    7
    8
    I think you did a great job thinking through the implications of the enchantments for combat. Have you considered how it would impact other aspects of your world such as construction? If they can enchant the defensive walls, what else can they enchant and how will that change the buildings they make and how they live their lives?
    A lot of this comes down to how rare and difficult it is to enchant something.
     
  11. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    No, not really. Although if spells can be used to enchant construction, then very high towers a la Orthanc from Lord of the Rings become possible, and for civilian construction maybe skyscrapers. Not quite sure about that, though.
     
  12. psychotick

    psychotick Auror

    1,740
    610
    113
    Hi,

    First you've got to think of the practical. Yeah sure, maybe with this magical enchantment I can build a medieval skyscraper, but I'll be damned if I'm going to walk up and down a thousand flights of steps every day!

    As for armour, one of my wizards created a fully suit of enchanted mithril armour that repelled all attacks, as in not only did the armour not bend or break but it also removed the force of the blow. He did the same with a shield and watched as a horde of ogres came screaming at him, hit it with all their fury and then bounced off with broken arms while the shield didn't move. I then gave him a crossbow which reloaded itself with mithril bolts which pierced the ogres' flesh - and ogres have iron bones and flesh that resists even the best cutting steel.

    So yes you can do it - but whats your limitation. Few wizards as in my story? Endless years of training required to cast such spells? Spells don't endure? Or no limits but everyone has it and so there is no technological progress?

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  13. Aldarion

    Aldarion Minstrel

    77
    8
    8
    psychotickpsychotick Everyone has it, so there is no technological progress in ranged weaponry would be my story. Only problem with that is, I have a few nomadic groups and even for state armies, missile weapons play a big role (bows, crossbows and such) since I based tactics etc. on actual history. So either I allow such spells for non-gunpowder ranged weapons, or else completely change tactics, army setups etc.
     
Loading...

Share This Page