Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

That is a question a few players had for me. In a situation where folks start at close range they felt that a mage (Magery 3 limit, no innate attack) would have trouble vs. a weapon master. Or even a turtled tank with stacked armor.

A mage will not have the same amount of points available to put into physical stats that a non-mage would. As this determines Speed, it means the mage has to survive until his turn. This could mean 4 attacks from a dual-wielding weapon master.

And of course there is the fatigue issue...the warrior could be slashing long after the mage has used up his fatigue....

How would one go about making a mage that could fare well in such situations? (We’d be using GURPS Magic and the main rules.)
Thanks!

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

You don't win by going with your opponents strengths, so

A) prepare in advance, and

B) Play to your own strengths.

GURPS Magic has so many relatively easy to reach spells that let you screw up melee fighters that it's not even funny anymore. Levitation, for one.

Sure, if your mage get surprised by a melee fighter at close combat range, and the fighter has the initiative, the mage is screwed.

Edit: But sure, in that same situation almost anybody else would be screwed too. Say you have a knight who normally wears an enchanted plate and wields a magic poll-axe being surprised unarmed and unarmoured while walking in his dress gown from his mistresses bedroom to his own by a fighter in full kit at a melee range. Who is more likely to win that encounter?

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

The mage should learn Blink and buy Blocking Mastery (Blink) [1] and Body Sense at a decent level. Now he can use Blink to dodge the first attack and hopefully get out of reach of the next attack. Then cast Flight, unleash your best spells (which you already prepared with Delay of course) like Ethereal Body or Steelwraith to be immune to attacks, and start hitting the fighter with save-or-die spells, lightning, creations, or whatever suits your fancy. Hopefully you have ER and power stone/power item for energy.

I will say that by limiting the mage to Magery 3 but not limiting the fighter’s ability to buy WM, Dual Weapon Attack, and Extra Attack 2 (which he’ll need to deliver those four attacks), you’ve stacked the deck in the fighter’s favor. Let the mage buy Magery 6 or even 10.
But even so, I think a mage built on equal points has a chance with the right spells.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

A lot, and I mean a lot of this depends on whether or not the mage sees this coming and has a round or two to do something about it.

However, the premise sounds like things have gone really wrong and the wizard has to survive a round before they can act and I suppose retreat.

The stereotypical wizard has a staff, so learn how to use that sucker. +2 to parry rolls is fantastic, and use the defend-and-retreat option liberally. There's also no reason for a mage not to learn other weapon skills too, so a parrying dagger and rapier or similar fencing weapon is also very strong on defense (boo flails) in general. As someone pointed out, there is a selection of blocking spells that can be cast out of turn in order to survive an encounter. Iron arm is great, Blink, Blocking, Fumble, etc.

I doubt fatigue will matter much in the one round. Either the mage is gassed out in which case they're doomed, or they have enough to do something about the incoming attacks. No matter what the situation will be different when/if the mage gets to act even if that action is just to run away because they successfully parried. An armored knight who's burned all their FP on extra effort is just as bad off as the drained mage so <shrug>.

Really the thing to do is plan for the likely disaster, not the worst case situation. A dual-wielding weapon master isn't exactly the front line mook or light skirmisher that might slip by the other party members focusing on more important targets. Learn enough defensive things to reliably defend against a mook with 1-2 attacks. If that weapon master gets you, you're gonna get got.

Personally I'd go pretty mundane with my defenses. A handful of skill points in a defensive weapon, staff or fencing blade, and paying attention to positioning so that I have the option to defend and retreat. Doesn't cost fatigue and can often be incorporated into the magical equipment a wizard carries. Staff certainly, and you could definitely do something like embed a powerstone in a sword pommel and so forth.
I shy away a little bit from blocking spells, they are very useful but quite costly and dependent on the colleges you take. If you have easy access to Blink, fantastic, but an elementalist might have to prioritize something else.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Away from my books atm, but the Body Control college has some good stuff in it - Deathtouch if you're just looking for close quarter damage, Rooted Foot if you're looking to get some distance (just running away is a viable strategy).

But yeah, in general going up against a close quarter specialist in close quarters will not end well for you.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Oh, yeah,

Reflexed Teleport to get away, or Reflexed Teleport Other to remove the fighter 100 yards up in the air, or into a conveniently located nearby volcano.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

In general, the mage losing here is Working As Intended; mages generally have a lot wider range of options than warriors, so they should lose when forced into a situation that fits the specialization of a warrior. Honestly, my main problem here is that the mage has a chance of winning.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

"Winning" in this context probably means surviving/escaping without being killed or disabled.

Now what gets scary is when you build a wizard (mage knight?) FOR close combat. That could get interesting.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

From a game-design perspective, if two characters of equal point value encounter each other in a situation for which one was explicitly built and the other most certainly was not, the latter character should be in serious trouble - otherwise, something has gone horribly wrong. That said, you could certainly build a mage who is meant to largely fight in melee. He'll want high Staff skill - or Shortsword/Smallsword if using a wand (a baton) or two instead - and possibly an appropriate Weapon Master of his own (if it only works with weapons enchanted with Staff, you may be able to claim a discount). Touch spells delivered by the Staff would be his priority, and if there are good area-effect spells focused on the caster (like a fiery blast or whatever), those would also be worthwhile. Blocking spells are also good, in case your Parry gets overwhelmed by attacks (and perhaps to be able to affect things outside of your turn, like the example of teleporting the attacking fighter away from you). Things that render enemy weapons useless are also worthwhile - I believe there's a Steelwraith spell that makes most metal weapons pass through you harmlessly, while you can still wield a wooden weapon without issue. You may wish to emphasize "save or suck" spells, particularly ones that immobilize the foe if you're using a quarterstaff, as many foes will be stuck using Reach 1 weapons (and the quarterstaff can work at Reach 2). Some degree of ranged capability is needed, of course - and given the way standard magic emphasizes having lots of spells rather than a few at high levels, you're probably better off grabbing appropriate spells than learning how to use a crossbow or whatever.

As for specific spells, I'll leave that to those more well-versed in GURPS Magic.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Essential Wood + Staff on one-handed fighting sticks, plus an appropriate martial art like Escrima, plus your favorite Melee spell -- probably Death Touch. Don't forget Body Control spells like Itch and Spasm. Shield and Armor on top, if you have enough FP or Energy Reserve.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Death Touch is good, I really like the elemental approach so Burning Touch, Shocking Touch, Icy Touch are also good and fun.

If you're armed, then Icy/Flaming/Shocking weapon buffs are great. They're low cost and really boost your weapon damage.

Icy/Flaming/Shocking breath are also good spells because they leave your hands free to wield weapons and do good amounts of damage. A nice surprise, especially if you need to not attack to keep an unbalanced weapon ready to parry.

Body of <Foo> is great to transform yourself into something that's really hardy or hard to hit. Body of Fire and start grappling opponents. Body of Air and rely on the touch spells to carry the day. Body of Stone or Metal and tank all day erry day. Crazy costly but crazy effective.

Save or suck spells are good, but GURPS damage causes a save-or-suck effect in its own right so a direct-damage dealing wizard is not without the ability to stunlock an enemy just by causing major wounds.

All this is really costly, as either the skill side will have to be very narrow to allow for spells, or vice versa. Dungeon Fantasy professions have nice lenses that you can apply to the baseline characters that can cleanly pull off the magicky fighter, or fighty mage.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

There are too many variables here. The first is total point value. At 75 points, I'd expect the mage to do ok. The fighter is only a bit more physically capable and the wizard will probably get off a spell to level things out. At 1500 points, if the wizard had no time to prepare, I'd expect the fighter to go through the wizard in a single round like a buzzsaw.

Second, how specialized are they? Is the wizard totally glass cannon vulnerable or has he spent some points hedging against this eventuality? A few points in weapon skills is a good idea, but not required. Old-world Dragonlance, for instance, would prohibit this. Is the fighter pure dumb brute, or is his will above an 8?

Finally, How much preparation time did they have? For a wizard, a few seconds to cast protective spells could be a life-saver. For a fighter, gearing up could be the thing.

Overall, though, I agree with Varyon. You're setting it up as "if things are tipped in favor of the fighter, will the fighter win?" the answer is probably "yah." On the other hand, if the wizard is not totally built to ignore defense they can probably hold out for a few rounds while calling for help. This seems pretty much in-genre to me. Don't let the orcs get to the wizard. If they do, rescue him quickly.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Armor, and high touch-range attack skills to land touch-range spells.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

In my favored fantasy setting, if you don't have ten minutes to prepare a conditional casting, an automatic pistol is your best friend.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

It depends, what is the budget of the character? Is this a character in the making or already in campaign?

I like most of the suggestions here, but IMO some require a lot of CP and/or may deviate the mage from specialization, which might be required to shine in a given magic school.

Anyway, the mage could be a fighter that actually infuses his weapons with magic. This is a whole other concept, though.

I pretty much second this.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

If the mage is going anywhere near a battle Reverse Missiles (or even just Missile Shield) is their friend. Five minutes of protection for quite a light cost.

A powered enchantment to put it up for them is even better.

Other than that, get away! or have automatic defences cut in. But Reflex casting is quite a high level spell.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

It depends on the points. If it's say 250, you should be able to make a good battle mage. Both Banestorm and Fantasy have templates for lower point versions. Staffs and touch spells are your friend. You'd have to research casting times, but there should be good options in the Body, Mind, and Movement colleges. Luck could help as well.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Been a while since I was involved in a high-powered magic game, but I'm pretty sure a 1500pt wizard would be nigh-invulnerable. They'd have a dozen protective spells maintained indefinitely to start with, and likely be draped with magic items to boot, then soul jarred for good measure.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Dungeon Fantasy wizards (250pt budget) have access to Blink, Iron Arm, Phase, Command... all those are blocking spells that can get you out of a bad spot, and pretty easy to access at least one or two of them. Plus they've got a decent staff skill (14) that gives them a parry of 10+2 with the staff bonus. Alternate option of the wand/buckler which adds a block option (and good use of the shield spell!)

This does not mean that you'll survive if the MONSTER of physical combat breaks through and gets all up in your face. But it does mean that if an orc, or wolf, or something like that makes an end run around the front line you can hold out for a round or two until help arrives. That's what you should be planning for, and a prudent mage would put a small portion of their spell budget into that kind of contingency.

The total budget for this (assuming a not horrible DX, and maybe you're not playing DF proper but a general adventuring fantasy game) is 8 for the staff, and probably 6-10 for the spells depending on your choice of defense. Max 20 points to not immediately die when pressured. Not to win or defeat the attacker, just survive long enough and well enough for a party member to bail you out. This is a team sport remember, so you're not operating alone. Your job is to not die for a round or two until help arrives.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

I doubt he would be any "more or less" invulnerable than any other 1500pt archetype (excepting of course the every popular "1500pt Lump of Sitting There and Generating Loot for People to Take" character that is so inexplicably beloved) .....

As with anything there is no defense ever conceived that didn't have a weakness. Lets be real, at 1500 points its barely a "wizard" anymore, its more a checklist of advantages and abilities that happens to cast spells while it spins the world and keeps gravity functioning properly.

I think the earlier responders that said some form of "he should lose if the situation is such that he should lose" had it correct.

Some people seem to have the assumption that there should exist a build at any point value where this is no longer true. I would say that is more a limit of imagination or an artificial construct of the individual.

No build should be invulnerable in all situations, otherwise there's no sense in playing anything else, or there is no challenge to play and probably a couple really poorly thought out house rules in play. I would guess that you could come up with an equal point value char to defeat your 1500pt wizard if you gave it some thought and didnt worry about if you would want to play it.

I also suspect that the intended question was probably talking around a more "normal" point value in the 150-300 range, but it was never implicitly stated.

A 75pt "wizard" is pretty disadvantaged vs a fighter built to close combat. At 150-200pts its starts getting interesting but I still think the fighter is slated to win that one because the situation is still to his advantage. At 300+ it starts to get super vague because the overall build of the wizard could contain some pretty hefty mitigation factors in specific conditions (though I still think "generic vs generic" the fighter wins).

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

As others have noted, without specifics to discuss, this kind of thread tends to be "hypothetical" in least.

The things to keep in the back of your mind are:

1) while mages have a lot of spells that can do some pretty interesting things, the biggest issue that faces a mage versus non-mage warrior is that the non-mage warrior (outfitted with a bow for instance), has a better chance of his ranged weapon hitting the mage at 100 yards, than a mage has of hitting the warrior with their spells at 100 yards.

2) every special attack the mage has costs them fatigue points, a finite resource whereas every attack the warrior makes does not.

3) Every spell that the mage casts directly at his opponent, as a whole, tends to have an escape clause involved where the warrior gets a saving roll vs the mage's spell. Not all spells - but a fair number to be sure.

With over 800 spells in GURPS MAGIC, dicsussing close quarter's combat tends to be something of a minor problem. Are we talking about a purpose built warrior mage? Are we talking about a mage whose "build" is such that he is supposed to be capable of earning an income during down time, be worth the while during adventures, and only rarely be involved in combat? With some spells that take more than a second to cast, and our poor mage is definitely going to suffer some problems within a Close Quarters combat scenario right from the start.

Thus, with all that discussed above - there are so many variables involved - further discussion on this topic is going to be largely a function of generalities that will not really answer the question.

Now - all of the above discusses metagame issues, we're not even getting into the issue of actual tactics and such. For instance - how did the warrior get to within striking range? Was it the result of an ambush in which the mage is surprised? Was it the result of an assault on a position that the mage can't retreat from? Is it a mage with access to Magery 3 spells such as Link/Delay and could have set up a nasty surprise for the inbound warrior? If it wasn't a "hold at all costs" type of scenario, why didn't the mage simply withdraw?

As for builds of mages that take into account various things, I'd likely suggest going with a shield armed mage who wears leather armor as well as carries a spear. He won't stand out as an obvious Mage, will be no better nor worse than an ordinary man with minimal "militia" training with Spear and Shield, and if you get right down to it, being able to cast spells while carrying a shield is a GOOD thing.

Well, 'nuff said by myself on this.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Invulnerable might be overstating it, so let me put it another way. Points for mages using the standard magic system go a lot further than for other characters. A 1500 pt mage could spend 455 pts for IQ20 and Magery 5, a big investment, but every point after that gets them a new spell at skill 22 (or 21). For 1 pt they can have Utter Dome at skill 21 (or 10? points if you count the prereq chain.) In other words, mages can advance much faster than other characters.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Minor nitpick - 20 IQ/Magery 5 would only cost 255 points and give a base spell of 23/22. 455 would be IQ 30/Magery 5 and base 33/32 spells.

I ran a supers game back in 3e and made the mistake of allowing standard mages. Base spells of around 25 and very high Fatigue absolutely wrecked the game.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Very minor nitpick, wouldn't that be IQ 20 minus Will and Per ? I think the rules themselves caution against allowing more than 4 points of difference between IQ and its secondary stats.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

No, you start with IQ 10 so IQ 20 would be 200 points.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

I was reading it as a template :D

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

You're right, of course. Brain fart. And I'd had 255 originally but changed it at the last second in a panic that it was wrong.

So yeah, the first 1000pts could give our mage almost every spell in the book at 23 - allowing casting with no ritual, then use the remaining 500pts for force multiplier advantages like a Fast Regenerating ER Pool and several levels of Compartmentalised Mind (Magic Only).

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

I thought of that, but then his base spell would be in the 30s.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

A skill in a spell of 20+ would make your mage a rapid fire weapon with endless ammo, because he has at least 2 FP free for lightning etc. Not to mention the also free defense spells, even without powerstone, and a mage with several hundert CP will have a big one, he can cast forever. Also he can have several spells ready for every situation prepared with meta spells. He may even don´t need to cast himself just a teleport spell triggered by a emeny attack, with a major healing just to be sure. Then he can prepare for battle and slaughter that fool.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Not to sidetrack this thread, but I have to wonder...

Would anyone even WANT to play a 1500 point character?

If a more normal human being is around 50 to 75 points, and 150 is better than usual, would you really want to be an IQ 20 "Mythic" endowed character?

Would you want to spend time around someone who is so much smarter than you, and knows so much more that even something like Psychology is something they're expert at without really having any of the training that a psychologist undergoes. Think about it - 20-6 = 14. 14 is deemed (per 3e) well trained or Expert (per 4e). Skills at 20+ is deemed Mastery.

so, if anyone wants to answer THIS particular question, you're invited to start a thread "Why I want to play a 1,500 point character". Otherwise, it seems like even discussing a 1,500 point character touches into a realm that few GM's would permit, let alone want in their campaigns.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Uh...supers?
We’ve had fast advancing DF games get to this level as well. It’s ridiculous and over-the-top, and it needs a few house rules to work, but it can be fun to have godlike power where you can take on whole armies, scores of dragons, etc.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

My last 2 cross-dimensional fantasy characters were close to 1000 points, and would eventually have reached 1500. But they were very different campaigns to a plain vanilla dungeon bash.

Re: Mages and CQC (close quarters combat)?
 

Me, I'd like to play a 1500 pt character in the right setting: a plane hopping mage/gadgeteer, in particular.