What makes a Wizard?

[Grundy]

Is it just training (which is how I read it)? If so, why are wizards rare? 45% of the population qualifies, if they have the gold to train, and just being able to cast prestidigitation 3x/day and unseen servant 1x/day seems like good enough reason to do it, on a practical level.

[Aerodynamik]

I think it's a combination of the gold costs to get the supplies, finding a teacher, etc. and the fact that it takes years to learn how to cast even the simplest spells. Magic is not something you can just learn in your free time.

[Coidzor]

Depends upon the setting. Most of them, IIRC, are something like 1 parts talent, 7 parts study, 8 parts lunches.

[Urpriest]

Why are there so few String Theorists? Or, to propose something actually useful, why can so few people program?

[Flickerdart]

Most people don't realize that they can go to Bard Camp for two weeks, and then multiclass into Wizard later.

[lesser_minion]

You need a wizard to train you, and wizards are rare. With Cha 8, wizards who can explain themselves well enough to successfully teach wizardry are going to be even rarer, and it's generally implied that, for whatever reason, wizards will only ever take a half-dozen apprentices at most -- again, if they can muster the communication skills to train an apprentice at all.

Note that for at least some races and cultures, the answer might be "they do". RotW implies that Every elf with Int 11 or higher may have been taught to cast 1st-level arcane spells as a wizard, for example. Presumably, the reason an elf fighter doesn't get to cast spells is because they just haven't done so for so long that they barely remember how to do it.

[Kalmageddon]

Why are there so few String Theorists? Or, to propose something actually useful, why can so few people program?

This is probably a good analogy.

[Urpriest]

You need a wizard to train you, and wizards are rare. With Cha 8, wizards who can explain themselves well enough to successfully teach wizardry are going to be even rarer, and it's generally implied that, for whatever reason, wizards will only ever take a half-dozen apprentices at most -- again, if they can muster the communication skills to train an apprentice at all.


This is also part of my String Theorist analogy.:smalltongue:

[Radar]

Most people don't realize that they can go to Bard Camp for two weeks, and then multiclass into Wizard later.
Heh, the next time I'll make a wizard (PC or NPC), he'll have a black orb on top of his staff with infinity symbol on round, white background.

[darksolitaire]

Wizardry has lots of implied traditions only hinted in phb. They are trained either in academies, or by older wizard. Academy requires tuition, and older wizard requires servitude. So, you're either rich to begin with or serve some old, eccentric geezer for years...assuming that the wizard wants to take an apprentice in the first place.:smallamused: Wizardry is also likened to an art, which is not something everyone is capable of. All of us can write, but can all of us write a book? And from those who can, how many can become actual writers?

...As for myself, I'd prefer the master-apprentice deal over academy any time.

"Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

[Ormur]

For my setting it's because getting any kind of education is pretty expensive, especially when you're being taught a very complex field by highly paid specialists. "Why did I become a teacher when I could be off conquering the world" is something I imagine exasperated wizard academy teachers frequently say.

Also I don't think they accept just any schmuck that can learn first level spells. Even if most wizards will never cast high level spells it's probably expected that they should eventually have the potential to do so, "int 14 and below need not apply".

So basically only the really smart kids of the wealthy are likely to become wizards.

[Calanon]

"Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

The Rule of Two obviously doesn't apply in this situation since theres obviously more then when Wizard in the galaxy at any given moment :smallconfused:

...Personally I prefer Darth Krayts Rule of One. "One to Rule, The rest to serve."

But i enjoy the ideas of Sorcerer/Wizard-Kings/Queens ruling entire nations of Sorcerer/Wizards craving his/her power :smallamused:

[Blisstake]

Why are there so few String Theorists? Or, to propose something actually useful, why can so few people program?

Actually, I don't quite agree with this analogy.

Specializing in programming or string theory is useful, but it doesn't have such an obvious impact as magic. While programming could be handy, it doesn't allow me to alter reality in order to suit it better to my needs. I could also decide to specialize in, say, neuroscience to be an approximately equal carreer choice. Magic, on the otherhand, is far more noticeable and rewarding than specializing in some other pursuit.

If studying String Theory could cause you to manipulate your environment at will, I imagine we'd see a lot more String Theorists.

[hymer]

Programmers don't get into as many wacky jams as a wizard does; it may be more alluring to become a wizard, but a sensible individual would probably settle for programming over wizardry, unless given a specific reason to want to alter reality.
Convincing another programmer to teach you is also a lot less tricky, since a wizard should worry that his apprentice isn't going to end up, you know, breaking the world beyond repair. A surprising amount of them seem to want to, and some just don't care that much if it happens by accident.

[Dr_S]

I like the programming example (not so much the string theory one because the every day uses of understanding high level physics are a tad limited, not to say they aren't valuable, but you don't go applying chaos theory, quantum theory, etc. to every day things)

However programming is a perfect balance of tedious, and difficult but has a huge real world benefit. However aside from the exceptionally talented, most programmers even then never really do anything fundamentally special. Napster guy was likely a PC Wizard.

Once you have magic available to you it's probably one of those things you can't imagine living without, so another analogy might be that pretend getting a driver's license involved having a 4-year degree, and required some sort of physical or mental test that generally denied %55 of applicants from "car driving school" The benefit is great, but the cost is such that it is not clear the benefits out way the costs.

There is also the bit where Wizards tend to have a bit of an ego. 45% of them may be capable of casting spells with enough training, but a Wizard won't take anyone on as an apprentice, they're likely to only take on students who show some sort of talent or ridiculous work ethic. Like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, pretend that was set in a Wizard academy instead of a college and pretend that graduate students failed out much more frequently.

[Captain Six]

Remember that every day spent studying is another day without a paycheck. While becoming a wizard is an incredible career choice in the long run the problem is that people don't eat in the long run, they eat every day. You'd either need to be from a noble family with enough money to not only pay a teacher but cover the losses of the student not spending that time working or become an apprentice which is usually a one-on-one deal.

Second wizardry in an NPCs eyes is kind of a dead-end deal. For much of the 50% of the population who can learn it can only cast cantrips. Assuming average folk run on the non-elite array all the high level stuff that PCs assume wizards will eventually be doing is right out of the question. Even then there is no way to measure intelligence until you reach the point you can no longer cast higher level spells. Between the idiots that think they're brilliant, the clever folk who are sharp enough to realize how little they know and the people who have high wisdom/charisma but low intelligence, word of mouth is going to have a very, VERY skewed idea of what kind of smarts a person needs to become a wizard.

Finally the effort/pay-off ratio isn't really that good when you think about it, at least at the low levels most NPCs are going to stick around. It takes just as much effort for a player to say "I walk up the hill" as it does to say "I rest for eight hours", I know I've seen a lot of characters make things much harder on themselves because the task in question is easier to say or involves less tedious rolls. NPCs see a very different world than players tend to. Wizardry is a ton of work, requiring mental focus and precision beyond all reason. For what? A standard action worth of minor reality manipulation? Does that actually sound fun? For some people yes and those are the types who pursue wizardry. For most others expecting to live a humble life spending that time learning how to butcher is a much easier option. With more bacon.

~~

This is, of course, setting dependent. Wizard education could mirror education in the real world. Belonging to the higher classes in the middle ages to the modern age where a college degree is practically expected.

[Torq]

Someone said that half the population qualifies for learning magic, which I think may be over-simplifying. That implies that if you pick a person at random, they're just as likely to have and INT score of 8 as the are 18.

The truth in real life - as well as any campaign I run - is that the intelligence distribution is more likely to resemble a bell curve than a straight line. So, even though there are plenty of people with 11 INT, those first level spells just don't come as easily to them as those with 15-18 INT who are much rarer. So, the 11 INTers might give a college try, and then decide that magic just isn't for them.

[Blisstake]

Someone said that half the population qualifies for learning magic, which I think may be over-simplifying. That implies that if you pick a person at random, they're just as likely to have and INT score of 8 as the are 18.

No it doesn't. It implies that half the people have 11+ intelligence, which is true, regardless if each is an equal chance for each score, or the distribution more resembles a bell curve :smallconfused:

[Torq]

No it doesn't. It implies that half the people have 11+ intelligence, which is true, regardless if each is an equal chance for each score, or the distribution more resembles a bell curve :smallconfused:

Ok. Yes. That's true. But see the second half of my statement. What kind of Wizard has an INT score of 11? Magic will come easier to those rarer individuals with a 15-18 INT.

[deuxhero]

Lust for gold? Power? Or perhaps they were they just born with a heart full of Wizardry.

[Coidzor]

Remember that every day spent studying is another day without a paycheck.

Indeed, sadly the concept of night school is an alien one, despite craftsmen and tradespeople being confined to 8 hour work days due to the usual interpretation of the crafting rules.

Though at least apprentices generally skip this one, trading their labor for some measure of room, board, and training.


Second wizardry in an NPCs eyes is kind of a dead-end deal. For much of the 50% of the population who can learn it can only cast cantrips.

Well, actually, an 11 is the most common score, last I checked, so that's 1st level spells right there, with room for 2nd level spells if they get to 4 HD.


Assuming average folk run on the non-elite array all the high level stuff that PCs assume wizards will eventually be doing is right out of the question.

Well...13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 means that if one of the two high stats is in intelligence, they've got a bonus 1st level spell and can learn up to 2nd or 3rd level spells, which is the most that most people's NPCs could dream of anyway, as a fairly popular trend is to limit non-exceptional NPCs to about 6th level. And even the 11 Int wizard can afford a +2 stat boosting item eventually, which puts 3rd level spells in his grasp.


Even then there is no way to measure intelligence until you reach the point you can no longer cast higher level spells.

Probably over-extrapolating there.


Finally the effort/pay-off ratio isn't really that good when you think about it

Well, that depends on a lot of factors we don't really have access to.

However, once you're got a 1st level wizard, that wizard's potential earning power is 10-20 gp for their first level spells each day and 15 gp for their cantrips, again, per day. And that's for a non-elven generalist. Elven generalists and specialists/focused specialists have greater potential earning power in raw spells per day.

Compare that with the 3 silver pieces that a trained hireling would get and the 3 skills for making a living; Perform, Profession, and Craft. A 1st level character would get about 7 or 7.5 gp a week from profession or using the craft skill as their livelihood (15/2 from taking 10+4 ranks+1ability) unless they've managed to invest in MW tools in which case they make 8 or 8.5 gp a week. That same character would be able to routinely make a 15 check for 1d10 sp a day, which averages about 5.5 sp a day or 38.5 sp a week (3 gp 8 sp 5 cp) (taking 10+4ranks+1 ability).

So that's about 25-35 gp a day, 175 to 245 gp a week. And they can do this on top of having a day job.

It's a long term investment that takes a long time to pay off, depending upon what one's opportunity cost and real cost of becoming a wizard was, but it has a lot of potential for a comfortable life.


Ok. Yes. That's true. But see the second half of my statement. What kind of Wizard has an INT score of 11? Magic will come easier to those rarer individuals with a 15-18 INT.

Alright, so you misunderstood what someone else was saying. This seems to have been cleared up, yes? So what's the problem?

The raw ability to cast spells at all is given by having 10 + X in the relevant ability score where X is the spell level.

[Mystify]

Sure, the potential payoff is huge... but even taking the subset of the population with the mental stats to qualify, how many will get past level 4? Sure, you can do some tricks, but you won;t even get up to fireball. You also have to spend a n hour preparing spells in order to cast 5 spells and 4 cantrips a day. That is the vast majority of wizards. Is that really worth the effort? Now consider that most people aren't adventurers. How much magic do you need?
For most people, the option is not "Do I work on the farm, or go study and become a level 20 god", it is "Do I work on the farm, or spend the next few decades of my life dedicated to magic and be able to cast 5 spells a day".
And then on top of that, just because your int is 15 does not mean you are suited to being a wizard. Taking the programming analogy, I have a friend who has an int that is easily in the upper teens. He find programming a very difficult thing to grasp because he views the world in a different way. I am well-suited to programming and find it very easy. Our int is not that different, but I make a much better programmer than he does.

[Blisstake]

Sure, the potential payoff is huge... but even taking the subset of the population with the mental stats to qualify, how many will get past level 4? Sure, you can do some tricks, but you won;t even get up to fireball. You also have to spend a n hour preparing spells in order to cast 5 spells and 4 cantrips a day. That is the vast majority of wizards. Is that really worth the effort?

Assuming Coidzor's math is correct, I would say that's absolutely worth the effort.

[hex0]

Can't you just go to a library and read? (Sorry, I'm a librarian.) :smallamused:

[Shadowknight12]

My spellcasters are not rare in the slightest. Since I run with the general assumption that magic trumps everything (linear warriors, quadratic wizards and the like), I simply make it commonly known that this is the case. NPCs of up to level 4 or 5 have a very homogeneous class distribution, but those who rise higher realise that they won't make it very far without magic, and so multiclass asap. Some even retrain their old levels of fighter, monk and the like into more spellcaster levels.

I also don't use NPC classes. If I wouldn't consider being a Commoner for a single nanosecond, I can't really imagine anyone else doing so either. I wager that even the simplest, least ambitious farmer would take fighter or rogue before commoner or warrior. Aristocrats would take ANYTHING but Aristocrat.

So yeah, that's basically how I run things. In fact, wizards are the go-to class for anyone who isn't born with innate magical/psionic talent, isn't keen on religion or spiritual bullcrap, hates crafting and shies away from morally questionable magic.

[Mystify]

Assuming Coidzor's math is correct, I would say that's absolutely worth the effort.
assuming you can actually sell the spells for profit. Even as adventures, the main market for selling spells, you almost never go out and buy a first level spell fro ma caster. It does no good to stock a store with top of the line jewlerly if nobody in the area can afford it. Just looking through the level 1 spells I don't see anything that would be in demand.

[Urpriest]

Indeed, sadly the concept of night school is an alien one, despite craftsmen and tradespeople being confined to 8 hour work days due to the usual interpretation of the crafting rules.


It's a bit hard to get a Ph.D. from night school, and that's not just because of institutional requirements.

[Coidzor]

Assuming Coidzor's math is correct, I would say that's absolutely worth the effort.

Sorry, just realized I forgot to add in links. You can check my math yourselves fairly easily using only the SRD. Using the business rules in... DMG2 was it(?), that might provide some fodder for further comparison, though I would be unsure of what businesses would be available to a 1st level character. One could do a comparison similar to that one essay that was written back in the 70s or 80s comparing investing the cost of a college education in a liquor store and the difference in financial standing between the small business owner and recent college graduate at graduation, one year down the line, 5, and then 10 years down the road from there(IIRC), but that would require knowing what the cost of the wizardly education was and what the cost of starting or buying any given business was.

The only place where there's really wiggle room as I see it is in what kind of check a 1st level NPC can consistently make while taking 10. 4 ranks is practically a given for someone who is in a position to make a choice between becoming a wizard or being a commoner/expert. Putting one or two of the highest stats in the relevant ability score likewise seems reasonable, but with the constraints of the non-elite array, that only gives a +1 to whichever check they're using. Which puts them at a +5 to their check, or hitting a DC 15 consistently by taking 10, which is more likely/probable to me than them risking a low roll, and I believe as an indicator of average earning power works quite well. Their max earning power for a week would still be 12 or 12.5 gp, so even if we instead compare maximum income per week, it's still a significant gulf.

A MW tool or instrument is +2 to their check, which doesn't mean much to the performer, as he still needs a 13+ to make the next bracket of income for a performer, but still risks failing to make money at all unless he can find a way to get another +2 so his check becomes +9 instead of +7, and for the characters using profession and craft, a +2 to the check translates into an extra 1 gp a week.

Even at a 25+ from an 18 or 20 with a +7, the character with perform is going to make an average of 3.5 gp a day from the perform and with a 15% chance of producing a performance of that quality, seems unlikely to end up under a noble's patronage until it's higher level and can consistently pull off such a result, such as by, say, a level 4 character with 7 ranks, a +2 MW instrument, +2 ability modifier if they started with a 13, so that when they take 10 they get a 21 and will develop a regional reputation, and when aided by two other performers, can consistently impress nobles.

Explanation/scratchwork:I was just going directly from the rules for the craft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm), profession (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/profession.htm), and perform (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/perform.htm)skills. Both profession and craft state that using it as a profession and making a living off of it produces earnings equal to half of the profession or craft check in gold pieces. Perform refers to a table, and the one for a professional troupe is the DC 20, which is outside of most 1st level NPCs grasp as far as what they can make consistently.

It's also theoretically possible for one to make a living as a sage off of one's knowledge skills, IIRC.

Spell prices (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell) are from here, based upon what NPC spellcasters typically charge for their spells. As a level 1 character only has a caster level of 1, he can only have a flat 1x modifier for the price of his spells. As a wizard gets 1 1st level spell and 3 cantrips at 1st level, that's 5*3=15 gp for his cantrips and 1*10=10 gp for his 1st level spell. If he has a 12 or 13 in Int, then he has a bonus 1st level spell per day, so he gets 20 gp for his 2 first level spells. This will only increase as he levels or specializes.

For this purpose I didn't consider Precocious Apprentice's effects, as only wizards with 12 or 13 Int would be able to take the feat and have it be a relevant factor.

Of course, I was going off of non-specialized wizards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) here, but a specialist or 12+ Int wizard will double their 1st level spell earning power and if they're both a specialist and have 12+ Int they'll treble it. By the by, do specialists get an extra cantrip as well? My reading is that they do, which would give them a total potential earnings of 30 gp from 1st level spells and 20 from cantrips at 1st level, so 50 gp a day, 350 a week. For comparison, they could be paid a daily wage of a cure light wounds potion or a weekly wage of a masterwork heavy crossbow or greatsword.

Coincidentally, selling one's spells at half price to a magic-item crafter for the full cost of a +2 int boosting item (4K) gp, would take a 1st level wizard of 11 Int about 320 days. A third level, Int 11, non-specialist wizard who realized he needed it would be able to do so in 67 days, or a little over 2 months, seeing as it's 15*4 = 60 gp for the cantrips 30*2=60 gp for the 1st level spells, so 120 gp a day/2 = 60 gp. So it's not exactly outside of the grasp of a wizard to have made enough and put it into savings to be able to reach the pinnacle of their low level NPC earning potential. Especially as this is on top of the ability of a wizard to hold down a day job or be a business owner.

How long does it take someone to save up the scratch to get masterwork tools or to be able to afford a business for themselves?


Sure, the potential payoff is huge... but even taking the subset of the population with the mental stats to qualify, how many will get past level 4?

They don't need to, it's a comfortably middle to upper middle class lifestyle to be a wizard and sell spellcasting services or even run a business with spellcasting bolstering one's ability to do so.

And how many non-wizard NPCs make it past level 4? Level 4 is actually a really good place for a wizard to end, though 5th or 6th would be better, considering that at 4th level they can increase their casting stat and potentially get a bonus spell per day or even gain access to their next level of spells.


Now consider that most people aren't adventurers. How much magic do you need?

I dunno, Eberron seems to need a lot of low-level magic.


For most people, the option is not "Do I work on the farm, or go study and become a level 20 god", it is "Do I work on the farm, or spend the next few decades of my life dedicated to magic and be able to cast 5 spells a day".

That reminds me. I'm AFB right now, does anyone recall what the average time it takes to become a wizard is? I seem to recall it's somewhere between 2 and 8 years after adulthood.


It's a bit hard to get a Ph.D. from night school, and that's not just because of institutional requirements.

And yet, that's the closest equivalent to how much learning an apprentice gets in compared to the grunt labor of being a wizard's indentured servant.

The apprentice certainly isn't having classes every day or nearly every day. Actually, it's quite probable that an apprentice is lucky to get instructed once a week, so it's more akin to taking classes on the weekend.

So, it kinda needs a better rationale than just that, or else you run into problems where you're putting so many arbitrary barriers up in your brain that you're barring the class from your players.

[Urpriest]

And yet, that's the closest equivalent to how much learning an apprentice gets in compared to the grunt labor of being a wizard's indentured servant.

The apprentice certainly isn't having classes every day or nearly every day. Actually, it's quite probable that an apprentice is lucky to get instructed once a week, so it's more akin to taking classes on the weekend.


As a grad student I can tell you that past the first two years or so this is exactly what getting a PhD is like. Browsing this comic should give you a decent picture. (http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php)

[Telonius]

Is it just training (which is how I read it)? If so, why are wizards rare? 45% of the population qualifies, if they have the gold to train, and just being able to cast prestidigitation 3x/day and unseen servant 1x/day seems like good enough reason to do it, on a practical level.

Live wizards are rare.

Adventurers are plentiful, low-level Wizards are (relatively) squishy, spellbooks are valuable loot, and more-powerful (especially Evil) wizards don't like competition.

[dextercorvia]

assuming you can actually sell the spells for profit. Even as adventures, the main market for selling spells, you almost never go out and buy a first level spell fro ma caster. It does no good to stock a store with top of the line jewlerly if nobody in the area can afford it. Just looking through the level 1 spells I don't see anything that would be in demand.

Amanuensis - 0th level spell from the spell compendium.
Identify - 1st level spell from the PHB.
Appraising Touch - 1st level spell from SpC.

Also, somebody has to make all of those CL1 scrolls with minimum ability scores.

[dextercorvia]

Darn forum glitch

[DeltaEmil]

Don't forget all the other level 0-cantrips like Prestidigitation, Detect Poison, Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Mending or Message. Just having these can extremely help a any small-time peasant. Heck, wizards are only commoners with a few minor differences like having at least a good Will save, slightly different skill selection, and wizard's being proficient with all simple weapons (but that one's not so important).

[Grundy]

I guess I was thinking about all the non-adventuring wizard jobs that should be out there- advisor, Senechal, guardsman, hedge wizard, messenger, etc. What noble wouldn't see the advantage of having one on staff? What town, church, other institution, or just wealthy enough individual?
For that matter, assuming a feudal system, what parents wouldn't see the advantage of apprenticing their 2nd or 3rd child to a wizard? It doesn't mean that kid has to go poking around moldy basements his whole life- and so if the kid's in training for another few years, so what? The payoff is huge.

[Coidzor]

Don't forget all the other level 0-cantrips like Prestidigitation, Detect Poison, Detect Magic, Light, Mage Hand, Mending or Message. Just having these can extremely help a any small-time peasant. Heck, wizards are only commoners with a few minor differences like having at least a good Will save, slightly different skill selection, and wizard's being proficient with all simple weapons (but that one's not so important).

It really is rather irrelevant, but, Wizards and Monks are the only two PC classes that I can think of offhand that don't have all simple weapons as something they're proficient with, though, I'll admit, it is much more awkward for the monk, as unarmed strikes are simple weapons. One of the few differences between the sorcerer and wizard chassis, that.


Weapon and Armor Proficiency

Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a wizard’s movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard)

[DeltaEmil]

@ Grundy:

That's the problem if gaming rules claim to represent a fictional world. Then you start thinking about why doesn't a cleric start the shadowpocalypse or the Wraithmageddon, why is there no Tippy-verse magic shield cities that can only be entered by specific magical gates and are self-reliant with food-traps, why would anybody even take the NPC-classes and so on.

In the end, it's only a game, and it wasn't meant to really be like that.

[dextercorvia]

Endure Elements is another one that a merchant would be willing to pay for.

[Troven]

To be a wizard you must have: Money, tutors, brains, the want to destroy the world and that "when only rampant, unchecked stabbing can save you, you nominate yourself as self apointed stabmaster and as your first decree, slay your comades."

[Crasical]

To be a wizard you must have: Money, tutors, brains, the want to destroy the world and that "when only rampant, unchecked stabbing can save you, you nominate yourself as self apointed stabmaster and as your first decree, slay your comades."

...Remind me not to join any adventuring parties with your wizards in them. Even when I'm playing the soul-eating mechanical colossus with an imp commanding it.

[Psyren]

Why are there so few String Theorists? Or, to propose something actually useful, why can so few people program?

I was just coming into this thread with this analogy.


Actually, I don't quite agree with this analogy.

Specializing in programming or string theory is useful, but it doesn't have such an obvious impact as magic.

The impact of programming should be as obvious to anyone who owns a personal computer/smartphone as magic is to anyone in a D&D setting.

[Blisstake]

The impact of programming should be as obvious to anyone who owns a personal computer/smartphone as magic is to anyone in a D&D setting.

Not nearly as much as magic would. Programming is useful, I cannot deny that, but I stand by the statement that magic would be far more valuable to any given person than knowledge of programming.

[Psyren]

Not nearly as much as magic would. Programming is useful, I cannot deny that, but I stand by the statement that magic would be far more valuable to any given person than knowledge of programming.

Certainly, because magic has far broader applications, but that doesn't change the underlying point: programming is universally useful enough that you could easily ask the question "why doesn't everyone learn some basic programming?"

It's the closest analogue we have to wizardry in our world.

[Narren]

Certainly, because magic has far broader applications, but that doesn't change the underlying point: programming is universally useful enough that you could easily ask the question "why doesn't everyone learn some basic programming?"

It's the closest analogue we have to wizardry in our world.

With programming, though, one can reap the benefits in many different ways while having almost no understanding of how that computer or smart phone actually works. I don't have to study for years and years to use this computer.

[Psyren]

With programming, though, one can reap the benefits in many different ways while having almost no understanding of how that computer or smart phone actually works. I don't have to study for years and years to use this computer.

You don't have to know wizardry to be the recipient of a Bull's Strength spell either, or to swing a magic sword, so that still holds true.

You DO however have to study to build your computer from scratch, or to truly understand how it works.

[Troven]

...Remind me not to join any adventuring parties with your wizards in them. Even when I'm playing the soul-eating mechanical colossus with an imp commanding it.
Heh.

Old Man Jenkins: "No you dont worry 'bout that there
loony spell SPFLINER you worry 'bout that lich that will save the world then sell it all to Kronos. And that lawful stupid paladin that kills anything non hu-man. Oh Yeah and that sneaky rouge who *splurt*"
Rouge/Werewolf/wizard/Garou/Vampire/Kindred: " Almost told somone my plans to enslave the world." *looks at you* "Time to clean house."

When your the "loony" Black Mage you learn to never trust your allys, otherise they will sell you to perform ten sexual favors to a gomorian or Cthulhu.

Also note that Jenkins to you is from an actuall pathfinder game were our Dm tried to tell the newist player to ignore me because im freindy and worry bout the other players. He quit after he was framed by the lich despite me telling him to never talk to the lich. :P

[Coidzor]

Real fun group of players you've got there, intentionally giving people a bad first impression of the game and its players like that.

[Troven]

Real fun group of players you've got there, intentionally giving people a bad first impression of the game and its players like that.

Oh no, this was 100% RP no dice rolls, and no use of the system, bu we told him after sorry that he should keep playing though, and that we will have the lich rain it in, the lich did as we switched to deadlands and the newbie had fun. But we did corrupt him so now he will play evil or act as assisstant to the lawful stupid paladin or assisstant to the lich, keeping me close as a meat shield.

[Acanous]

I'd say what makes a wizard is Vancian magic, high knowledge checks, and bags of funny-smelling spell components.

[Mystify]

Amanuensis - 0th level spell from the spell compendium.
Identify - 1st level spell from the PHB.
Appraising Touch - 1st level spell from SpC.

Also, somebody has to make all of those CL1 scrolls with minimum ability scores.

Amanuensis, using spell pricing, is horrendously expensive. You get 2500 words/level, so even a level 4 caster only gets 10,000 words per casting. So a single book probably needs at least 5 castings. So that is probably ~100gp to copy a single book. That is not something you are just going to casually buy.
Identify is only in demand by adventurers, since they are the ones finding magic items, and most of them are capable of identifying their own items. It takes very few level 1 wizards to satisfy the demand for identify.
Appraising touch is only a +10 to appraise, so you would need to be trained in it yourself to get proper use out of it. You would need to have a fairly high quantity of stuff to make it worth paying a wizard. It takes very few wizards to meet the demand.

Your average joe shmoe is not going ot buy any spells. The demand for wizards is less than the demand for doctors. Even though, in our society, you can, if you are intelligent, go into school for a long time, become a doctor, and set up a practice, and even though medical skills are in high demand by the average person, resulting in a very high demand for their services, and even though you can get very high incomes as a doctor, most people are not doctors, and it is considered rare and prestigious to be one. And doctors have far fewer obstacles than wizards. Spellcasting is not in demand by most people. It is a specialty good. There is some demand, but it is met by the low number of scattered wizards. They are not going to have a 60 hour a week schedule satisfying the demands for casting. They are going to get a demand for spells every few months, unless they are specifically highered into an in-demand position.
Even in ebberon, where magic is common, you'd have hard time convincing me they are more common than doctors. Or perhaps engineers.

[Coidzor]

Well, one of the two of us is grossly misinformed as to the nature of the process of becoming a doctor then, as last I checked, with Doctors they have a system in place to actively discourage people from becoming doctors and succeeding in doing so should they set out to do so. Roll back the clock a paltry number of years and you have intentional decisions made to put a limitation of the number of people allowed to become doctors each year.

So, yeah, "wizards intentionally decide on the whole to keep their numbers thin in order to make sure there's enough work to go around" works as an explanation, a much better one than something vague like "it's hard," even. Problem is, you didn't really establish this directly, you established a motive for why wizards would decide to do this, but you implied the opposite with the way you brought in doctors to start with.

[Mystify]

Well, one of the two of us is grossly misinformed as to the nature of the process of becoming a doctor then, as last I checked, with Doctors they have a system in place to actively discourage people from becoming doctors and succeeding in doing so should they set out to do so. Roll back the clock a paltry number of years and you have intentional decisions made to put a limitation of the number of people allowed to become doctors each year.

So, yeah, "wizards intentionally decide on the whole to keep their numbers thin in order to make sure there's enough work to go around" works as an explanation, a much better one than something vague like "it's hard," even. Problem is, you didn't really establish this directly, you established a motive for why wizards would decide to do this, but you implied the opposite with the way you brought in doctors to start with.
I explained the dynamics. If everyone tried to be wizards, everything would fall apart. An apprenticeship or mage school model, the 2 most common, both naturally limit the number of mages, and ensure that the ones who do become mages are high calibur.
However, even setting aside any hyopothetical system to prevent people from becoming doctors, what percentage of people even try? Its not like 50% of your graduating class goes off to pre-med school to try to be a doctor, and only 1% succeeds, because the system is designed to flunk out most of them and keep them from being doctors. The simple knowledge of how much work it takes, and the fact that it doesn't appeal to everyone, means that a very small number of people even try. Those that do try probably find it their calling. People don't become engineers on a whim, they do it because it appeals to them, they enjoy that kind of activity.

[Infernalbargain]

With programming, though, one can reap the benefits in many different ways while having almost no understanding of how that computer or smart phone actually works. I don't have to study for years and years to use this computer.

That is quite the naive view of programming. I only know rudimentary C++ and I regularly find uses for my knowledge. To give a better idea, the semester-long project for my university's second semester computer science class is to make an Angry Birds clone. Assuming you spend about as many hours out of class doing homework as in class, that comes out to about a 180 hour investment to make multi-million dollar games. Learning to program is not about learning to use something, it is about learning to create something.

[Grundy]

To be a wizard in 3.x isn't inherently dangerous. There aren't any spell failure consequences. UMD yes, spellcasting- at least low level- no. It's all very mechanical, homogenized, and safe. And incredibly powerful to have. The time commitment to learn is there, but once you've got wizard 1, all it takes to keep it up is an hour a day, or whatever. That's a cake walk compared to pretty much anything- farming, masonry, retail, cooking, moving large heavy objects for 1 SP per day...

As far as the programming analogy, that works for me, but it's not broad enough. Magic in D&D replaces all of modern science, more or less. I'd say it's more like getting a BS degree. Tough work, but lots of people can do it. Having one doesn't mean you're doing the same thing as some other grad, but you've got a rudimentary understanding of what that person is up to. And you're most likely around 21-22 when you enter the job market.

[Hyde]

I think you're all missing the obvious explanation.

"A wizard did it"

[Keneth]

I'm pretty sure us programmers are wizards. There's nothing we can't do, as long as it fits on a screen. :smallbiggrin:

[Starshade]

Forgotten Realms 3.5 got Halruaa, where everyone with intelligence 10+ can get a feat giving the possibility to cast daze, dancing lights and mage hand. If you do not intend to be a fulltime wizard, isn't this an relatively good deal for an baker, carpenter or an smith?
I'd assume the big difference between an ordinary D&D country and a high magical one as netheril, would simply be all in a high powered one would possess something equivalent to that spell, pluss an UMD, and in netheril's case, mythal's everywhere.
Comparing to programming is an exellent one, imho. Everyone now CAN learn programming, right? Not all do. I know some simple C++, some basic, and have looked on some others, and isn't a pro. But everyone can learn. To learn it properly, you'd need to use it, study, live it, be it. Wizards do that, and an Engineer do that. If we assume someone teaches cantrips to every elf in an elven country, or some european country started teaching C++ to kids, it would just broaden their horizont, not make everyone pro's. but certainly everyone would benefit from it.

[gkathellar]

Because no one wants to create their own competition, so wizards are loathe to take students.

[TuggyNE]

Amanuensis, using spell pricing, is horrendously expensive. You get 2500 words/level, so even a level 4 caster only gets 10,000 words per casting. So a single book probably needs at least 5 castings. So that is probably ~100gp to copy a single book. That is not something you are just going to casually buy.

Minor point: how much do you suppose it costs to copy that same book without magic? (1 scribe at 3sp/day for about a year costs at least as much, and takes at least a hundred times as long.)

[Mystify]

Minor point: how much do you suppose it costs to copy that same book without magic? (1 scribe at 3sp/day for about a year costs at least as much, and takes at least a hundred times as long.)
I just tried copying a paragraph, and it took me 3:06 to copy 56 words, working at a normal pace. Thats about 18 words a minute, 1083 words an hour, and 8,670 words a day(assuming an 8 hour day). So that is 3 sp for 8,760 words. It takes about 6 days to copy the book, for a total cost of 1.8 gold. Compared to the 100gp for the magical copy. Sure, the magic copy is done faster, but unless you need it quickly, you are better off hiring scribe. You could also hire 6 scribes, have them copy 1/6 of the book, and have it done in 8 hours. If you want many copies, having a team of scribes is much more economical than to try having the wizard cast this spell a million times.
So unless it takes 100 times as long to copy a text as my writing sample indicates, magic is still an extremely expensive option.

[dextercorvia]

Amanuensis, using spell pricing, is horrendously expensive. You get 2500 words/level, so even a level 4 caster only gets 10,000 words per casting. So a single book probably needs at least 5 castings. So that is probably ~100gp to copy a single book. That is not something you are just going to casually buy.
Identify is only in demand by adventurers, since they are the ones finding magic items, and most of them are capable of identifying their own items. It takes very few level 1 wizards to satisfy the demand for identify.
Appraising touch is only a +10 to appraise, so you would need to be trained in it yourself to get proper use out of it. You would need to have a fairly high quantity of stuff to make it worth paying a wizard. It takes very few wizards to meet the demand.

My point is that there are (only a few -- because it is an adventuring game) spells which would have a niche application in society. You could totally make money by copying a book in a day or two, that would normally take a year or whatever.

Likewise, comfort mages could have contracts to proved Endure Elements to various nobles and merchants, who don't want to sweat/freeze each day.

Tell me that there would be no marked for a Silent Image striptease. (with a duration of Concentration, you could even get them to pay by the minute - uh, When a coin in the coffer rings, the clasp of this brazier will spring.)

[dextercorvia]

I just tried copying a paragraph, and it took me 3:06 to copy 56 words, working at a normal pace. Thats about 18 words a minute, 1083 words an hour, and 8,670 words a day(assuming an 8 hour day). So that is 3 sp for 8,760 words. It takes about 6 days to copy the book, for a total cost of 1.8 gold. Compared to the 100gp for the magical copy. Sure, the magic copy is done faster, but unless you need it quickly, you are better off hiring scribe. You could also hire 6 scribes, have them copy 1/6 of the book, and have it done in 8 hours. If you want many copies, having a team of scribes is much more economical than to try having the wizard cast this spell a million times.
So unless it takes 100 times as long to copy a text as my writing sample indicates, magic is still an extremely expensive option.

But is it pretty? Well kerned, embellished, are the lines straight? Did you have to trim the nib, or mix more ink? How long did it take the sheet to dry?

[Mystify]

My point is that there are (only a few -- because it is an adventuring game) spells which would have a niche application in society. You could totally make money by copying a book in a day or two, that would normally take a year or whatever.

Likewise, comfort mages could have contracts to proved Endure Elements to various nobles and merchants, who don't want to sweat/freeze each day.

Tell me that there would be no marked for a Silent Image striptease. (with a duration of Concentration, you could even get them to pay by the minute - uh, When a coin in the coffer rings, the clasp of this brazier will spring.)
It doesn't take a year, it takes a week.

But yes, there are niches for magic. But they are rare, and expensive. I once tried to convert a gp to dollars, and it came out at about 1gp = $100. a copper piece is a dollar, not a penny. Even buying a cantrip costs a few hundred dollars, putting it into very niche applications. The very wealthy can afford spells. Even if a spell was highly applicable to the average person, it would be prohibitively expensive. It requires extremely few wizards to meet all of the demand.

[dextercorvia]

It doesn't take a year, it takes a week.

I think you are drastically underestimating. We have centuries of historical data that says copying a single book of the bible took months, and those are rather thin compared to what we usually think of as a book.

Also, real world economics doesn't really apply to D&D. There is not direct dollar equals gold comparison. Prices are just different. If you base the real value near the copper end, then you end up with a gold piece being thousands of dollars. If instead, you base it on the value of horses/livestock, you end up with a copper being fractions of a cent.

The point is, just based on Endure Elements and Silent Image, there is sufficient reason to think (# of vain rich people) + (#socially awkward dilletantes that fantasize about being with someone, but are too shy to live a real life) is a lower bound for the number of career Wizard1s.

Add to that quick copy shops, emporiums of low level scrolls, fix-it shops, magical engraving, etc.

And then suddenly your financial untenability argument doesn't hold water, because we have created a middle class. Low level Wizards are actually making enough money to buy services from each other, on occasion, meaning they don't have to rely on the largess of the upper class. They are in essence, highly specialized craftsman.

Even if you still believe that the prices aren't reasonable, they can lower their prices considerably, and live quite comfortably. Presumably, some Wizards from the lower classes, do this -- charging full price to the Merchant, Noble, or Adventurer, so that they can do pro bono work in the community.

[Urpriest]

One thing to understand: a Wizard with no contact with other Wizards whatsoever still comes up with two spells every level. Two spells they didn't know how to cast before. Two spells that are replicable by others, not their own idiosyncratic creations but universal truths of the spellcasting system, formulas that would have been the same had any other wizard come up with them. Again, with no interaction with other Wizards.

On the flipside, a Wizard in contact with other Wizards, even daily contact, even to the extent that their every spell is copied from another Wizard's spellbook, will never be able to write using the same notation as another Wizard. No matter what, understanding another Wizard's spellbook requires Read Magic or a Spellcraft check. Spellbooks always have to be deciphered.

Put this together and you start to understand what Wizardry is about. Wizardry is not a technical skill. It's not something everybody with sufficient intelligence can simply pick up. There is a class that represents magic that anyone with sufficient intelligence can pick up. It's called Magewright. Wizards are, one and all, researchers, not engineers. Every Wizard uses their own invented notation to find their own invented spells. Sure they can copy spells from other Wizards, but not in a straightforward, replicable way.

Wizardry may be as applicable as good programming skills, but it is as tough to master as true scientific research. Imagine if in order to become a programmer a person had to get a PhD and you'll start to understand why Wizards are rare.

[Mystify]

I think you are drastically underestimating. We have centuries of historical data that says copying a single book of the bible took months, and those are rather thin compared to what we usually think of as a book.

Also, real world economics doesn't really apply to D&D. There is not direct dollar equals gold comparison. Prices are just different. If you base the real value near the copper end, then you end up with a gold piece being thousands of dollars. If instead, you base it on the value of horses/livestock, you end up with a copper being fractions of a cent.

The point is, just based on Endure Elements and Silent Image, there is sufficient reason to think (# of vain rich people) + (#socially awkward dilletantes that fantasize about being with someone, but are too shy to live a real life) is a lower bound for the number of career Wizard1s.

Add to that quick copy shops, emporiums of low level scrolls, fix-it shops, magical engraving, etc.

And then suddenly your financial untenability argument doesn't hold water, because we have created a middle class. Low level Wizards are actually making enough money to buy services from each other, on occasion, meaning they don't have to rely on the largess of the upper class. They are in essence, highly specialized craftsman.

Even if you still believe that the prices aren't reasonable, they can lower their prices considerably, and live quite comfortably. Presumably, some Wizards from the lower classes, do this -- charging full price to the Merchant, Noble, or Adventurer, so that they can do pro bono work in the community.
D&D gives several points of reference to what the value of coin is. You have weight in gold and wages. The pricing is awckward, but the wages and weight are in pretty good agreement. A gold coin is a considerable amount of money.adventurers are uber-rich. High level adventurers with hundreds of thousands have the economic power of entire nations. Literally. The magic item economy doesn't make a lot of sense.
and wizards don't buy services from each other. They may purchase spells, but they can cast whatever they need.
Endure elements is also a silly example. It costs 10 gp for an endure elements casting. It costs 2000 for a continous item of endure elements. so, in 200 days, less than a year, an item is a better choice than a hired caster. And for the price of a silent image to satisfy your "desired", you could get a real person. If you do want to get books cheaply, a magic item fulfills your needs cheaper in the long run as well.
Most things are either cheaper to do mundanely, or better served by magic items. There should be demand for artificers, not wizards.

But I will also persist with the idea that a very small percentage of the population are actually suited to being a wizard. Sure, any adventurer can multiclass in if they want, but adventurers are already abnormal, and that has more to do with letting the players have the character they want, not duplicating the entry requirements for wizardry. Sorcerers have to be born with it, yet any adventurer could multiclass into sorcerer and just have what it takes.

[Grundy]

Any adventurer could multiclass into any class, and assuming they have the stats, cast those spells. Perhaps I've focused too much on wizard, when what I mean is book magic, regardless of class. Sorcerers have some innate whatever- bloodline, whatever. Clerics and Druids have devotion to deity/nature. Magic-users have just training, so far as I can tell. Obviously the DM sets the table, but it's funny to me that magic-users are rare. You'd think there would be one in every military unit and guild hall, just for message

[Copper]

Well, how many people in the world have PhDs? (Answer: around 3%)
The way I see it, honing your magic ability just to become a 1st level wizard takes tons and tons of time and effort, not to mention money. The truth is, people are just lazy. Or maybe not lazy exactly, but don't want to go through that much work to become a wizard when it may not have a direct benefit on their current life. Again, I see it like a PhD. Tons of energy and time involved studying and learning and not everyone wants to do that. It's that simple.

[dextercorvia]

Endure elements is also a silly example. It costs 10 gp for an endure elements casting. It costs 2000 for a continous item of endure elements. so, in 200 days, less than a year, an item is a better choice than a hired caster.

Protip: If you have to bring custom items into a discussion to make your point, you have already lost.


And for the price of a silent image to satisfy your "desired", you could get a real person.

Human trafficking carries moral implications that not everyone is prepared to overlook. Also, does your purchased toy actually look anything like what you desire?

[Mystify]

Any adventurer could multiclass into any class, and assuming they have the stats, cast those spells. Perhaps I've focused too much on wizard, when what I mean is book magic, regardless of class. Sorcerers have some innate whatever- bloodline, whatever. Clerics and Druids have devotion to deity/nature. Magic-users have just training, so far as I can tell. Obviously the DM sets the table, but it's funny to me that magic-users are rare. You'd think there would be one in every military unit and guild hall, just for message

The freedom to multiclass is about freedom for the players to play the character they want, not a statement on how easy it is for an adventurer to be a wizard. By that logic, anyone could be a sorcererer, even though the fluff clearly states that it is rare and you must be born with the innate talent. As a player, you can dictate that your character has that innate talent, just as you can dictate everything else. That does not mean anyone could just choose to be a sorcerer.

[Mystify]

Protip: If you have to bring custom items into a discussion to make your point, you have already lost.

Why? They are a clear part of the system.


Human trafficking carries moral implications that not everyone is prepared to overlook. Also, does your purchased toy actually look anything like what you desire?
I never said it had to be a permanent acquisition.

[Jeraa]

Protip: If you have to bring custom items into a discussion to make your point, you have already lost.


Then he uses an Enduring Amulet (Magic Item Compendium, page 97) which also has a continuous Endure Elements effect, and is actually cheaper at 1,500gp. Plus, it can grant fire and cold resistance for a round.

An Orb of Environmental Adaptation (page 167, same book) can grant an Endure Elements effect to an entire group for 2,000gp, but only functions for 7 days before shutting off for 7 days, after which it can be used again. Two of those cost 4,000gp, but protects the entire group instead of each individual having to buy their own item.

A least Crystal of Adaptation (same book again, page 24) also provides a continuous Endure Elements effect, costs 500gold. It just needs to be attached to a suit of masterwork armor.


Human trafficking carries moral implications that not everyone is prepared to overlook. Also, does your purchased toy actually look anything like what you desire?

Probably not. But Silent Image can only produce what is basically a moving picture. "The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature." No texture - there is nothing there to touch. And once you did try to touch it, your interact with it and it could very well disappear. Silent Image is horrible for creating a "companion".

And its not a purchased toy... just a rented one.

[Ormur]

Well, how many people in the world have PhDs? (Answer: around 3%)

Those numbers are pretty far off. After googling I see where you might have gotten that figure from but according to the US census for 2010 slightly less than 1% of the total population has a PhD or it's equivalent. Including professional degrees (many of which are closer to being masters degrees) you might get it up to 3%.

That's still a percentage of the US population, not the world's and the US is one of the most educated countries in the world. I'd guess the actual figure for the whole world is closer to 0,1%.

As little sense as that may make most D&D setting are depicted as being pretty medieval and in the absence of public education it's not unreasonable to assume the proportion of people with PhD equivalent education would be more like 0,01%.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Urpriest
Why are there so few String Theorists?

Unlike magic, string theory involves a great deal of hand-waving to no visible effect. :smalltongue:

And I've been waiting to see Ph.D. Comics show up in the Playground. For those who haven't had the experience, be advised there is some comic exaggeration involved. But I guarantee you every panel, every single panel, is exactly how it feels.

(Especially the travel reimbursements.)




Originally Posted by gkathellar
Because no one wants to create their own competition, so wizards are loath to take students.

But wizards will want worthy students, suitable vessels to receive the benefits of a lifetime's study of the arts arcane. Knowledge craves its own perpetuation, and hefty ego plays a role as well. So they'll be extremely selective as to who, exactly, they take on as apprentices.

I would expect there would be many more intelligent and capable young aspirants, from all walks of life, than would ever find a position with a local mage. In societies where most people live their entire lives within a few miles of where they were born, simply finding an appropriate teacher--to say nothing of introductions and a good first impression--would be a major challenge in itself.

[Grundy]

@Mystify
Dipping into a class is a well-established tactic. Just because the initial training for Wizard takes an extra d6 years, that doesn't mean you're somehow cheating to do it. And I'm not the one who suggested multiclassing into sorcerer. I'm just wondering why wizards are rare.
At least concerning the starting ages, wiz1 matches up much more closely to a BA. 17-27 yrs, typically 21.5 years.
Also, there are lots and lots of benefits to silent image that you can't get from hiring a pro. That's patently obvious, even IRL. Otherwise, there would be a pro on every corner, and the internet wouldn't exist would have no porn.

@gkathellar
Not all wizards will see students as competition- many would see them as alllies/minions/friends. The best answer to the question "What if I train my employee apprentice and he leaves and becomes my competitor?" is "What if you don't train your employee apprentice and he never leaves?" And if you don't ever get an apprentice, then you have to do all the annoying grunt work yourself- sweeping up, making lunch, getting spell components, dealing with pesky adventurers...

[Mystify]

@Mystify
Dipping into a class is a well-established tactic. Just because the initial training for Wizard takes an extra d6 years, that doesn't mean you're somehow cheating to do it. And I'm not the one who suggested multiclassing into sorcerer. I'm just wondering why wizards are rare.
At least concerning the starting ages, wiz1 matches up much more closely to a BA. 17-27 yrs, typically 21.5 years.
Also, there are lots and lots of benefits to silent image that you can't get from hiring a pro. That's patently obvious, even IRL. Otherwise, there would be a pro on every corner, and the internet wouldn't exist would have no porn.
I'm saying the rules for character building are not an reflection on the ease of getting the skills. I brought up sorcerer since it very clearly demonstrates the discrepancy.

And starting age may line up with BA, but you start an apprenticeship a lot earlier than you start college, and doing schooling instead is not a given. Instead of a public school with a broad study followed by a few years in college with a focus on your degree, you have school-> college purely studying magic. That is more in line with getting a PhD than a bachelors. Which raises another point; many families wouldn't be able to afford to send kids off to become wizards. They would keep their kids at home to work the farm.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mystify
Instead of a public school with a broad study followed by a few years in college with a focus on your degree, you have school-> college purely studying magic. That is more in line with getting a PhD than a bachelors.

Not sure if I follow this distinction; I expect there would be just as much breadth in a course of magical study as any other field. Illusion vs. evocation, for instance, would probably involve very different fundamentals. (I usually play divine casters, though, so I could be wrong. :smallbiggrin:)

I would also suggest that the Ph.D. might not be the best analogy here, again because magic covers so many subdisciplines. A Master's might be a closer match for a starting wizard, since it gives you a taste of the discipline in (hopefully) a much shorter time, and leaves open the option of whether to pursue more advanced work.

[Grundy]

Typical apprenticeships started in the tween years- 10 to 13. But the formal education process for a BA starts at age 3, these days. That's a 19 year apprenticeship.
Admittedly, wizards would be disproportionately rich kids. But that's because there would be such a big advantage to having a wizard in the family, so the rich families would pay big bucks for the apprenticeship. Which brings up the main reason I think there would be a lot of wizards in the DnD world. Everybody with enough swing would want their own private wizard. And not just any wizard, or even any highly qualified wizard. They would want their own trustworthy wizard. That means family, in the end. Kids, or siblings. So that means lots of wizards.
Plus, taking on an apprentice is a good way to make money. Ask any university.

[dextercorvia]

Probably not. But Silent Image can only produce what is basically a moving picture. "The illusion does not create sound, smell, texture, or temperature." No texture - there is nothing there to touch. And once you did try to touch it, your interact with it and it could very well disappear. Silent Image is horrible for creating a "companion".

And its not a purchased toy... just a rented one.

I never suggested it for a companion, but that some people would be perfectly happy buying an image.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Grundy
Typical apprenticeships started in the tween years- 10 to 13. But the formal education process for a BA starts at age 3, these days. That's a 19 year apprenticeship.

Couple of points on this. First, I think you may be comparing different kinds of education. An apprenticeship is generally geared towards mastering a single profession, or at least providing the skills to be a competent journeyman. A college education (if that's what you mean by a BA) is almost the complete opposite: a broad-based education that, ideally, can be applied to any number of professions.

Second, you seem to be assuming that because an apprenticeship started at the ages you mention, there was no education beforehand. I don't think that's really a fair assumption. Many medieval English guilds refused to take apprentices who couldn't read or write, so clearly there was schooling earlier on.


Originally Posted by Grundy
But that's because there would be such a big advantage to having a wizard in the family, so the rich families would pay big bucks for the apprenticeship. Which brings up the main reason I think there would be a lot of wizards in the DnD world....

I've highlighted another assumption: "the" DnD world. Thing is, there isn't just one, and I think a lot of your points--which are fine in themselves--are really dependent on each particular world, not to mention the various societies within each world. In some societies, certainly, there might be a culture of wealthy families cultivating a tradition of magical education, and supporting it with their patronage: essentially private magical tutoring for the upper classes. Other societies wouldn't. I could easily see this in a major urban center like Waterdeep, but there probably wouldn't be the same opportunities in more agricultural regions, with far less wealth and a diffuse population.

[Mystify]

Not sure if I follow this distinction; I expect there would be just as much breadth in a course of magical study as any other field. Illusion vs. evocation, for instance, would probably involve very different fundamentals. (I usually play divine casters, though, so I could be wrong. :smallbiggrin:)

I would also suggest that the Ph.D. might not be the best analogy here, again because magic covers so many subdisciplines. A Master's might be a closer match for a starting wizard, since it gives you a taste of the discipline in (hopefully) a much shorter time, and leaves open the option of whether to pursue more advanced work.
Actually, the breadth of magic reinforces my point. This is not one class out of 6 in high school, which you go into more depth in college. This is ALL of your classes at school. It consumes a lot of time in dedicated study. Then you also consider how many skills a wizard has. Arcana and spellcraft, probably concentration, are part and parcel of wizard training. knowledge( planes) also comes under their training, Then they have knowledge(any), which might not have anything to do with their magical training, so they are picking up things on the side, simply due to the high intelligence and thirst for knowledge that wizard-types have. There is a TON of education involved, and it starts much earlier than college would in our society.

[Dr_S]

the higher the degree in traditional education the more specific the area of study.

I.E. - High School Degree is a generic everything degree
B.A. Narrows down to your major
Masters/PhD - focused on a specific aspect of your major.

Someone getting a PhD in magic wouldn't be studying "Magic" but rather would be studying "the effects of a transportation spell on organic non-living material" or something like that. Most likely an argument could be made that they were studying a specific school, but "Magic" is FAR too broad a category for a PhD to be applied to it. (As the son/Step-son of 3 people with PhD's I have discussed what getting a PhD entails even if I likely never will)

I still argue that the computer programming analogy is the best because with a BA you may study a few other things (electives genEd) but you still have a focus and your upper division classes are all related to that focus.

After 1 semester (a couple months) you've learned the basic tools, with a couple hours time you can pump out things like "calculate the area of a circle" or "count all unique occurrences of the characters in a file and print them to a new file" and after that semester, the time and energy you put into these programs defeats the point of even having them because you could accomplish these tasks faster by mundane means. (*gasp* cantrips?)

Then when you're a junior or senior, instead of hours to program "area of a circle" it takes you under half an hour and you can write the whole program bug free in your sleep, however the assignments you're working on range from building games to building operating systems to designing learning software that teaches itself how to beat a game, etc. Just like how a higher level wizard requires the same amount of time to prepare more spells, meaning lower level spells take less time than they used to, and more complex spells are available to them.

From there you could continue on to a master's or phd, but that's like specializing in a school. I.E. Security, AI, HCI, Graphics, etc.

[Grundy]

On education:
I'm not saying that the type of education for wiz1 and a BA are the same, or even similar. I'm saying the time, effort, and Int needed are comparable. And those are the only prerequisites to getting wiz1.

On societal norms:
I agree that creating a wizard seems to require a certain concentration of wealth. And society is up to the DM. But Dnd creates a framework where arcane magic is in high demand. And the bar for wiz1 is low, the rewards are high. Why isn't there a supply?

[gkathellar]

But wizards will want worthy students, suitable vessels to receive the benefits of a lifetime's study of the arts arcane. Knowledge craves its own perpetuation, and hefty ego plays a role as well. So they'll be extremely selective as to who, exactly, they take on as apprentices.

That obviously depends on the wizard in question. But in addition to wanting students worthy of their skills, many wizards (especially powerful or experienced ones) are going to be exceedingly careful about who they pick on the grounds of not wanting to teach competitors. This is why so many East Asian martial arts were only ever taught in full within the head family - you didn't want your student opening up his own school half a block down the street from you and stealing potential customers.

What this all works out to is that many wizards will only take one disciple. Some may take more, but some may never take a disciple. In general, the number of total wizards out there will only increase slowly over a long period of time.


I would expect there would be many more intelligent and capable young aspirants, from all walks of life, than would ever find a position with a local mage. In societies where most people live their entire lives within a few miles of where they were born, simply finding an appropriate teacher--to say nothing of introductions and a good first impression--would be a major challenge in itself.

Almost certainly. And then, on top of that, the teacher would have to decide you were trustworthy enough to be worthy of learning anything.


@gkathellar
Not all wizards will see students as competition- many would see them as alllies/minions/friends. The best answer to the question "What if I train my employee apprentice and he leaves and becomes my competitor?" is "What if you don't train your employee apprentice and he never leaves?" And if you don't ever get an apprentice, then you have to do all the annoying grunt work yourself- sweeping up, making lunch, getting spell components, dealing with pesky adventurers...

Absolutely. Wizards will take students, but they'll take few students, because not everyone can be trusted not to kill you in your sleep once you've finished teaching them.

[Mystify]

the higher the degree in traditional education the more specific the area of study.

I.E. - High School Degree is a generic everything degree
B.A. Narrows down to your major
Masters/PhD - focused on a specific aspect of your major.

Someone getting a PhD in magic wouldn't be studying "Magic" but rather would be studying "the effects of a transportation spell on organic non-living material" or something like that. Most likely an argument could be made that they were studying a specific school, but "Magic" is FAR too broad a category for a PhD to be applied to it. (As the son/Step-son of 3 people with PhD's I have discussed what getting a PhD entails even if I likely never will)

I still argue that the computer programming analogy is the best because with a BA you may study a few other things (electives genEd) but you still have a focus and your upper division classes are all related to that focus.

After 1 semester (a couple months) you've learned the basic tools, with a couple hours time you can pump out things like "calculate the area of a circle" or "count all unique occurrences of the characters in a file and print them to a new file" and after that semester, the time and energy you put into these programs defeats the point of even having them because you could accomplish these tasks faster by mundane means. (*gasp* cantrips?)

Then when you're a junior or senior, instead of hours to program "area of a circle" it takes you under half an hour and you can write the whole program bug free in your sleep, however the assignments you're working on range from building games to building operating systems to designing learning software that teaches itself how to beat a game, etc. Just like how a higher level wizard requires the same amount of time to prepare more spells, meaning lower level spells take less time than they used to, and more complex spells are available to them.

From there you could continue on to a master's or phd, but that's like specializing in a school. I.E. Security, AI, HCI, Graphics, etc.
As grundy says, the comparison is not about how focused the study is, but how much time it takes.


On education:
I'm not saying that the type of education for wiz1 and a BA are the same, or even similar. I'm saying the time, effort, and Int needed are comparable. And those are the only prerequisites to getting wiz1.

On societal norms:
I agree that creating a wizard seems to require a certain concentration of wealth. And society is up to the DM. But Dnd creates a framework where arcane magic is in high demand. And the bar for wiz1 is low, the rewards are high. Why isn't there a supply?
There is a supply.
"In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn’t guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells."
Every small town has a good chance of having a 1st level caster. There are enough wizards around to do things. But that is enough spellcasters to meet the ability of people to pay for spells. Its not like there are 100 spellcasters in the entire world. They are a very low percentage of the population, but that still leaves enough to put spellcasters in small towns. A small town in D&D terms is 901-2000 people. So .1% of people being spellcasters is enough to satisfy those figures. Considering the low level of education in a typical medieval setting, that seems perfectly reasonable for a PhD equivalency. Though those figures are for any arbitrary spell, so you have to account for some of them being clerics and druids etc, so its probably closer to .5% of the population being spellcasters.
The small town has a wizard of 1-4 level. There may be multiple.
So its not like wizards are unheard of. But it takes relatively few wizards to serve the magic needs of a large population.
For comparison, medical doctors consist of ~.3% of the US population. Medical care is in much, much higher demand than spellcasting would be. A decent sized city probably has several doctors offices with several doctors in it. A decent sized D&D city likewise can support several mages.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Dr_S
Someone getting a PhD in magic wouldn't be studying "Magic" but rather would be studying "the effects of a transportation spell on organic non-living material" or something like that. Most likely an argument could be made that they were studying a specific school, but "Magic" is FAR too broad a category for a PhD to be applied to it.

Well, partly. In a graduate degree, the thesis/dissertation is a work of scholarship focused on an extremely specific question, or group of closely related questions. To work through those questions, though, you'll generally draw from a wide range of material from a variety of other disciplines. Your research topic might involve a specific school, say divination, but you would be looking at theories developed from the other schools as well, plus a range of other information which (you hope) is relevant to your topic. For instance:

Fluctuations of Ethereal Field Values During the Lunar Cycle and Their Application to Lower-Level DivinationsA Master's-level project might be something like your example:

Variable Detection Limits of Organic Materials Using Three Basic Divination SpellsAlso, in either case, you would be frantically writing to every major research library in Khorvaire in hopes of locating some obscure elven treatise with a relevant footnote, while nervously watching the calendar and hoping your advisor would be back from Xen'drik in time for your next committee meeting.

[Dr_S]

As grundy says, the comparison is not about how focused the study is, but how much time it takes.

15 +2d6 (typical starting age for a wizard based on the SRD Averages to roughly the same age range someone would graduate from a BA, the lower end being too soon, and the upper end being 27 which I know a few people (especially in the engineering type degrees) who graduate later because some degrees take longer and others take some time off between highschool and college.

So I think a typical just starting out Wizard LvL 1 is much like a BA grad... Which is consistent with what Grundy was saying as well...

THAT BEING SAID what we typically think of as a Wizard in popular culture acts like a PhD. Take for example the professors in Harry Potter (not the only example, but an example popular enough most people here will get it) Each has considerable magical talent and knowledge, they all specialize in one or 2 more specific areas (potions, divinations, dark arts, etc.) and they tend to have some degree of passion towards that specialization that makes them come across as eccentric at times to those who don't share that passion.

I just had this really funny image of a sitcom about wizards in college, where all the students are adepts and the TA's are low level wizard grad students who're studying to get their school specializations. I also haven't really slept in a while so I might be losing my mind so I'm going to get some sleep and check back in later.

**EDITED to remove factual inaccuracy**

[Urpriest]

15 +2d6 (typical starting age for a wizard based on the SRD Averages to roughly the same age range someone would graduate from a BA, the lower end being too soon, and the upper end being 27 which I know a few people (especially in the engineering type degrees) who graduate later because some degrees take longer and others take some time off between highschool and college.


But you're ignoring the fact that Wizards don't grow up in 20th century America with 8 years of basically wasted high school+college education in largely irrelevant subjects. They're medieval scholars.

Newton was a genius, but his education was mostly typical of his era, even a little slower. He got his degree from Cambridge in 1665 when he was 22. He was already doing research, again not just because he was Newton but because that was the expected age to start doing research.

In a medieval education you get your equivalent of a PhD roughly when a Wizard starts adventuring. It takes a lot of effort, a long apprenticeship, and the ability to take a field that doesn't have a set formalism and methodology and invent one of your own from scratch (again, no two Wizards can ever use the same notation, RAW).

[Dr_S]

Well, partly. In a graduate degree, the thesis/dissertation is a work of scholarship focused on an extremely specific question, or group of closely related questions. To work through those questions, though, you'll generally draw from a wide range of material from a variety of other disciplines. Your research topic might involve a specific school, say divination, but you would be looking at theories developed from the other schools as well, plus a range of other information which (you hope) is relevant to your topic. For instance:

Fluctuations of Ethereal Field Values During the Lunar Cycle and Their Application to Lower-Level DivinationsA Master's-level project might be something like your example:

Variable Detection Limits of Organic Materials Using Three Basic Divination SpellsAlso, in either case, you would be frantically writing to every major research library in Khorvaire in hopes of locating some obscure elven treatise with a relevant footnote, while nervously watching the calendar and hoping your advisor would be back from Xen'drik in time for your next committee meeting.

Yeah I realize this, obviously anecdotes are all I really have to work with, I have no desire to get a doctorate myself except that I like having the nickname "doc" and wouldn't mind if I had a legit reason for it.

However the system you describe suggests that before entering the grad students are wizards prior to picking their focus. So that's not inconsistent with the point I made so much as I over simplified it a bit, which was in part because there is a large amount of variation from field to field and my not wanting to have to get into that. (i.e. my step-mom phD in english has wildly different experiences than my dad phD in physics, to the point where it's surprising their degree is called the same thing)

What mystify seems to be describing is more akin to medical school or law school imo, where based on my understanding from TV you don't really need to pick a specialty until you're basically done. (if at all)

[Mystify]

But you're ignoring the fact that Wizards don't grow up in 20th century America with 8 years of basically wasted high school+college education in largely irrelevant subjects. They're medieval scholars.

Newton was a genius, but his education was mostly typical of his era, even a little slower. He got his degree from Cambridge in 1665 when he was 22. He was already doing research, again not just because he was Newton but because that was the expected age to start doing research.

In a medieval education you get your equivalent of a PhD roughly when a Wizard starts adventuring. It takes a lot of effort, a long apprenticeship, and the ability to take a field that doesn't have a set formalism and methodology and invent one of your own from scratch (again, no two Wizards can ever use the same notation, RAW).
Precisely. You can't look at the age in terms of our society and what that represents. Its not an extra 4 years on top of existing education to become a wizard. Its a much longer process, but it starts younger, and replaces the general education we get.

[gkathellar]

15 +2d6 (typical starting age for a wizard based on the SRD Averages to roughly the same age range someone would graduate from a BA, the lower end being too soon, and the upper end being 27 which I know a few people (especially in the engineering type degrees) who graduate later because some degrees take longer and others take some time off between highschool and college.

So I think a typical just starting out Wizard LvL 1 is much like a BA grad... Which is consistent with what Grundy was saying as well...

A wizard probably isn't starting his magical training at 17-18, the way a college student is. Odds are, a 22-year old wizard started when he was 10-14.

Moreover, at least in the conventional master/apprentice relationship, the structure of the education isn't at all comparable. A wizard-in-training is nurturing a thoroughly individual, live-fire skill - one that seems almost impossible to standardize, given that wizards can't even record their spellbooks without personalized ciphers. Every wizard's process is unique to them alone, and every young wizard has to reinvent the wheel to some degree. Sure, a mentor teaches them how and gives them the tools - but the investment is more than just one of time.


Take for example the professors in Harry Potter

Poor comparison. Wizards in the Potter-verse start education at 11, and stop it at 17. That means anyone who wants to go past a 7th-year level of proficiency does it entirely through independent study. Also, Potter-verse wizardry consists of one half natural talent and another half correct wand grip and enunciation. Not really all that similar to D&D wizardry.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mystify
You can't look at the age in terms of our society and what that represents.

Actually I agree with this completely. These comparisons with grad school can be fun, but they can only go so far. Most societies in most game settings have very different expectations of work and life.


Originally Posted by Mystify
Its not an extra 4 years on top of existing education to become a wizard. Its a much longer process, but it starts younger, and replaces the general education we get.

Again, this is a generalization across all game worlds and all societies within those game worlds, which simply won't always hold.

As a simple example, the time it takes to complete an advanced degree depends on the field and the advancement of that field. Jimmy Doolittle completed his Master's in aeronautical science in one year, and his Ph.D. the following year. That was in the "golden age" of aviation, when the field had barely begun. Now, nearly a century later, the same degrees would take many more years to complete. And this is just one field, in one particular century, in one society.

Not to mention just one world. Other worlds, and other societies, will have very different norms.

[Mystify]

Again, this is a generalization across all game worlds and all societies within those game worlds, which simply won't always hold.

As a simple example, the time it takes to complete an advanced degree depends on the field and the advancement of that field. Jimmy Doolittle completed his Master's in aeronautical science in one year, and his Ph.D. the following year. That was in the "golden age" of aviation, when the field had barely begun. Now, nearly a century later, the same degrees would take many more years to complete. And this is just one field, in one particular century, in one society.

Not to mention just one world. Other worlds, and other societies, will have very different norms.
The core question in this thread is "Why aren't there more wizards". This is obviously centered on the default type of world that D&D outlines, where its specifying that its this hard to find a caster of that level, and magic costs this much, etc. If you look at a radically different setting where these assumptions don't hold, then the question looses its meaning as well. You could posit a world where everyone learns wizardry as a normal part of schooling, and that schooling normally lasts until you are 30, but people live till they are 10 centuries old, wish is a requirement for graduation. This world would have no bearing on the question at hand.

[Grundy]

In Dnd, literacy is at modern levels (don't ask me how). So it's not a good comparison to medieval Europe, but there's no implication of an educational system like we have today, either. That's why I'm looking at what we do have laid out- time and native intelligence. It's a much lower bar than a PHD or Masters, even if it is a different experience.
Also, comparing the role of a wizard with the role of a PHD or MD is not very precise. A PHD is typically a researcher or teacher of researchers. An MD's role is covered by a small percentage of what a Cleric or Druid can do. A wizard can boost communication, entertainment, disaster relief/control, covert ops, criminal activity, security, miltary action, and on and on. A better analogy might be as a Lawyer- "The only good lawyer is your lawyer." And if you've got any assets to protect, you'd better have one.
So yeah, in a hamlet or village, where the assets are pretty much the farmers and the farm, one guy will do the trick.
But if you're any kind of power- government, church, guild (and there are a lot of guilds in medieval society), merchant king, crime ring, wealthy individual, wealthy family, whatever- you'd better have some kind of wizard at every node of power, or your ass is grass. The more decentralized the power is, the more true that is.
In most of the official worlds, at least, these are old civilizations that have had a long time to establish many many layers of power. That translates into way more need for wizards than one guy in a thousand. That could be as many as one guy in what? 20, 50?

[Dr_S]

Poor comparison. Wizards in the Potter-verse start education at 11, and stop it at 17. That means anyone who wants to go past a 7th-year level of proficiency does it entirely through independent study. Also, Potter-verse wizardry consists of one half natural talent and another half correct wand grip and enunciation. Not really all that similar to D&D wizardry.

There are SO many reasons why the Potter'verse is nothing like D&D however, you missed the point of that paragraph which was to say that a typical portrayal of a Wizard in popular culture is similar to the real life behavior of PhD recipients. The personality traits that I focused on are NOT unique to Potter'verse Wizards as far as popular portrayal of Wizards are concerned. I feel like you might not have even read any of that paragraph beyond the bit you quoted (which wasn't even a complete sentence)

Now seriously I'm going to try and get an hour or 2 of sleep because I didn't intend to pull an all nighter last night but when I wake up I'll think on (because I'm willing to listen to reason) the other bits more and then respond.

[Urpriest]

In Dnd, literacy is at modern levels (don't ask me how). So it's not a good comparison to medieval Europe, but there's no implication of an educational system like we have today, either. That's why I'm looking at what we do have laid out- time and native intelligence. It's a much lower bar than a PHD or Masters, even if it is a different experience.
Also, comparing the role of a wizard with the role of a PHD or MD is not very precise. A PHD is typically a researcher or teacher of researchers. An MD's role is covered by a small percentage of what a Cleric or Druid can do. A wizard can boost communication, entertainment, disaster relief/control, covert ops, criminal activity, security, miltary action, and on and on. A better analogy might be as a Lawyer- "The only good lawyer is your lawyer." And if you've got any assets to protect, you'd better have one.
So yeah, in a hamlet or village, where the assets are pretty much the farmers and the farm, one guy will do the trick.
But if you're any kind of power- government, church, guild (and there are a lot of guilds in medieval society), merchant king, crime ring, wealthy individual, wealthy family, whatever- you'd better have some kind of wizard at every node of power, or your ass is grass. The more decentralized the power is, the more true that is.
In most of the official worlds, at least, these are old civilizations that have had a long time to establish many many layers of power. That translates into way more need for wizards than one guy in a thousand. That could be as many as one guy in what? 20, 50?

Again, every Wizard is a researcher, RAW. Every few weeks an adventuring Wizard independently discovers two new spells, replicable by any other Wizard who cares to study them.

[Mystify]

In Dnd, literacy is at modern levels (don't ask me how). So it's not a good comparison to medieval Europe, but there's no implication of an educational system like we have today, either. That's why I'm looking at what we do have laid out- time and native intelligence. It's a much lower bar than a PHD or Masters, even if it is a different experience.
Also, comparing the role of a wizard with the role of a PHD or MD is not very precise. A PHD is typically a researcher or teacher of researchers. An MD's role is covered by a small percentage of what a Cleric or Druid can do. A wizard can boost communication, entertainment, disaster relief/control, covert ops, criminal activity, security, miltary action, and on and on. A better analogy might be as a Lawyer- "The only good lawyer is your lawyer." And if you've got any assets to protect, you'd better have one.
So yeah, in a hamlet or village, where the assets are pretty much the farmers and the farm, one guy will do the trick.
But if you're any kind of power- government, church, guild (and there are a lot of guilds in medieval society), merchant king, crime ring, wealthy individual, wealthy family, whatever- you'd better have some kind of wizard at every node of power, or your ass is grass. The more decentralized the power is, the more true that is.
In most of the official worlds, at least, these are old civilizations that have had a long time to establish many many layers of power. That translates into way more need for wizards than one guy in a thousand. That could be as many as one guy in what? 20, 50?

one guy in a thousand can easily handle what you need. You have a noble house. They have however many people that are noble. They have countless more serfs beneath them working. They have 1 spellcaster for the entire lot. A single wizard can cover many roles, and handle the needs for many people. If 3 in a thousand is enough for doctors, whom everybody has a direct need for, then that is a perfectly good number for wizards, who most people don't need, and fulfill specialized tasks for people.
You say you need a wizard at every node of power. Every small town has one. That is far more than every node of power. That is every place of even slight note, only known by name by people in the next town over. A center of power has a lot of mages, of a fairly high level. By those same calculations, a Large city probably has 25 wizards, the highest of which are level 12. A 12 level wizard has about 20x as many spells per day as a level 1, and has much more powerful spells. Hence, those higher level wizards can handle a MUCH higher demand than the lower level ones.
Its not like there are only 10 wizards in the entire country. A very low percentage of the population translates to a large number of people. If the US had that same percentage of wizards, we would have a half million wizards. That is not exactly scarce.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mystify
This is obviously centered on the default type of world that D&D outlines...


Which includes elves, who do occasionally live to be a thousand, and yet all the discussion so far has been based entirely on assumptions about human education and human lifespans. If you really want to get at the question of why there aren't more wizards, then we need to account for a race that is virtually immortal by everyday human standards, with an innate aptitude for magical study and a culture of arcane research that extends back tens of thousands of years. That right there might be a short answer to the implicit question you're posing, which is why there aren't more human wizards.

[Mystify]

[/I]

Which includes elves, who do occasionally live to be a thousand, and yet all the discussion so far has been based entirely on assumptions about human education and human lifespans. If you really want to get at the question of why there aren't more wizards, then we need to account for a race that is virtually immortal by everyday human standards, with an innate aptitude for magical study and a culture of arcane research that extends back tens of thousands of years. That right there might be a short answer to the implicit question you're posing, which is why there aren't more human wizards.
As OOTS has pointed out, how D&D handles extended life spans has never really made sense. Elves aren't any less intelligent than humans, but it takes them a lot longer to learn wizardry, then they obviously don't level at the same rate, otherwise an elf that is only 500 years old would be a much higher level than any human could obtain, yet if they are adventuring together they will progress in lockstep... and lets not even get into the implications of elf liches vs. human liches...

[Raimun]

Why every peasant etc. with an intelligence score of 11+ doesn't pick up wizardry? Because their fathers were peasants etc. and their fathers' fathers and so on. They continue the life as it has always been, because they are expected to continue the life that has always been. An agricultural community doesn't support alternative career choices.

Still, there might be some expectional individuals who might decide to study wizardry. They are called PCs.

Also, proper pointy hats are hard to come by.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mystify
Elves aren't any less intelligent than humans, but it takes them a lot longer to learn wizardry...

Is that actually written in the sourcebooks somewhere, or is this just an extrapolation? Because certainly, once they're in a party, they're leveling at the same rate as the rest of the party.

I would say that a lot of the difference involves the respective attitudes towards magic, which I think are sketched out in the PHB. Humans see magic, more often than not, as a means to an end--while the elves see it as an end unto itself, and worthy not only of study but deep veneration and aesthetic appreciation. Not only the practical effect, but also the elegance of a spell's design would be worthy of serious effort.

So, probably the longer apprenticeship of elven mages would involve learning not only the simple framework of the magic itself, but the accumulated wealth of philosophical and aesthetic traditions that have developed over many millennia. Irrelevant to humans, who could barely conceive it, but essential to the full experience of ancient elven culture. Humans stop with what works; elves develop magic that works with delicate, nuanced elegance, that only a studious elven lifetime could ever appreciate.

[Mystify]

Is that actually written in the sourcebooks somewhere, or is this just an extrapolation? Because certainly, once they're in a party, they're leveling at the same rate as the rest of the party.

Its stated in the starting ages.
A human has +2d6 years after adulthood of 15 to be a wizard.
An elf isn't an adult til 110, and they take 10d6 years to be a wizard from that point.

Their subsequent equal progression is also weird, when you realize they will have centuries more time to continue advancing. Even if you state there is a ceiling(level 20m presumably), that just means you should have a ton of elves at level 20, or else that humans never reach it.

And then you add on liches without time limits, and it gets even more absurd.


I would say that a lot of the difference involves the respective attitudes towards magic, which I think are sketched out in the PHB. Humans see magic, more often than not, as a means to an end--while the elves see it as an end unto itself, and worthy not only of study but deep veneration and aesthetic appreciation. Not only the practical effect, but also the elegance of a spell's design would be worthy of serious effort.

So, probably the longer apprenticeship of elven mages would involve learning not only the simple framework of the magic itself, but the accumulated wealth of philosophical and aesthetic traditions that have developed over many millennia. Irrelevant to humans, who could barely conceive it, but essential to the full experience of ancient elven culture. Humans stop with what works; elves develop magic that works with delicate, nuanced elegance, that only a studious elven lifetime could ever appreciate.
Wouldn't that give them some kind of bonus to it then? I guess there is elven generalist, but that is far from a core part of the rules. Taking programming as an alaogy, the person that spends an extra 10 years studying all of the nitty-gritty details of how code works will end up as a much stronger coder. They will have a lot of tricks to make their programs more efficient, more readily recognize obscure errors, etc.

[dextercorvia]

one guy in a thousand can easily handle what you need. You have a noble house. They have however many people that are noble. They have countless more serfs beneath them working. They have 1 spellcaster for the entire lot. A single wizard can cover many roles, and handle the needs for many people. If 3 in a thousand is enough for doctors, whom everybody has a direct need for, then that is a perfectly good number for wizards, who most people don't need, and fulfill specialized tasks for people.
You say you need a wizard at every node of power. Every small town has one. That is far more than every node of power. That is every place of even slight note, only known by name by people in the next town over. A center of power has a lot of mages, of a fairly high level. By those same calculations, a Large city probably has 25 wizards, the highest of which are level 12. A 12 level wizard has about 20x as many spells per day as a level 1, and has much more powerful spells. Hence, those higher level wizards can handle a MUCH higher demand than the lower level ones.
Its not like there are only 10 wizards in the entire country. A very low percentage of the population translates to a large number of people. If the US had that same percentage of wizards, we would have a half million wizards. That is not exactly scarce.


I just wanted to say that I agree with this. I know we disagreed earlier about what constitutes an employable wizard, but I think in general, spellcasters, are about as useful to a fantasy community as a blacksmith, and should be about as common.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mystify
Wouldn't that give them some kind of bonus to it then?

Well, not necessarily a mechanical bonus, since much of their extended study might involve the philosophical dimensions of the arcane arts, or other aspects that wouldn't affect the basic operation of simpler spells.

But the real advantage here is that elven arcanists, almost by definition, would have the cultural benefits of many millennia of dedicated research and study to draw upon. Human societies, which rise and fall within a single elven lifetime, would hardly be able to equal them, and would never attain the same sustained heights of arcane sophistication.

This, in turn, would mean that elven nations would have an overwhelming preeminence in arcane knowledge and training. Going back to the earlier example of wealthy human nobles, who as a class could afford to hire magical tutors for their children: they would probably want to hire the best tutors, who would likely be elves, both from practical qualification and cultural reputation.

Thus elves would not only have a societal advantage to begin with, but they would have a virtual hammerlock on arcane education, and at the very least they could dominate the substance and direction of human magical education. And that's if they're good neighbors.

[gkathellar]

But the real advantage here is that elven arcanists, almost by definition, would have the cultural benefits of many millennia of dedicated research and study to draw upon.

Which is why elves can cast 9th-level spells at ECL 1. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10197586&postcount=9):smallbiggrin:

[Dr_S]

I just wanted to say that I agree with this. I know we disagreed earlier about what constitutes an employable wizard, but I think in general, spellcasters, are about as useful to a fantasy community as a blacksmith, and should be about as common.

I'm not sure I disagree with you on their general value at low levels, but I disagree that they are as common, or that demand is the only factor at play.

Something I haven't seen mentioned in 4 pages is that the general non-magical attitude towards Magic is not always welcoming in a lot of settings. If the non-magical population teaches you at a young age (before you start manifesting powers enough to know that wizardry is possible for you) that Wizards aren't to be trusted, you're a lot less likely to dedicate your life to it. Your parents are not going to send you to be educated, in fact if you are taught magic you'll likely be recruited directly by the Wizard himself and it won't be money that sways him as your parents likely won't pay up. (However free slave until training is over so - Bonus)

Rich families in any setting where arcane magic is distrusted likely donate a child to the church more or less (as many in real life did during the height of the church) if you're not going to inherit that wealth, and you're a male, the church in many ways provides more opportunity for you. Women can marry into rich families at that time, but even then some would join the church. So in many settings I'm guessing that most clerics come from wealth exception being those who oversee the church in a small community without a lot of wealth.

[dextercorvia]

I'm not sure I disagree with you on their general value at low levels, but I disagree that they are as common, or that demand is the only factor at play.

Do note that I switched over to spellcasters in general. I don't think there would be a huge difference to a hamlet whether they have an Adept, Wizard, or Priest faithful enough to cast spells (Cleric). There are other possibilities. A sorcerer without any adventurous bent might have good spells for commerce, or crop production, or something.

[Dr_S]

Do note that I switched over to spellcasters in general. I don't think there would be a huge difference to a hamlet whether they have an Adept, Wizard, or Priest faithful enough to cast spells (Cleric). There are other possibilities. A sorcerer without any adventurous bent might have good spells for commerce, or crop production, or something.

In that case... carry on, nothing to see here.
I'm assuming in many communities Clerics outnumber Wizards and other arcane casters (with bards being the anomaly because it's easier for them to hide their magical nature)

I'll double check the DMG... ... ... and I'm back, so I guess it's not significantly different, aside from rangers and druids when concerning small settlement,

The most common are going to be Rogues and Fighters (not counting commoners)
Then Bards, Clerics, Druids
Followed by almost everyone else
The Paladins at the bottom

to determine the population you do say for every (class) above 1 there are 2 who are half that level. In the DMG's example they use level 5 round up the first time and round down the second time... (note that in both cases "half that level" was 2 levels below so perhaps the sentence meant 2 times as many 2 levels below unless that level is 2? I don't know now that I'm reading it)

Regardless, a 1 level difference no matter which of the 3 interpretations you use (2 level dif, round down, round up) half the time means the same amount and half the time means double the population aproximately (population + 1 * 2) This means that there are on average 50% more clerics and bards than wizards and sorcerers which is not the difference I would have expected, but perhaps the WOTC guys didn't think this rule through.

[Jeraa]

I'm assuming in many communities Clerics outnumber Wizards and other arcane casters (with bards being the anomaly because it's easier for them to hide their magical nature)

I'll double check the DMG(2? I think? it might just be in good old DMG though) and be right biznack.
DMG, page 139. Once you determine the highest level character of a particular class, there are twice that number of half that level. So if the highest level cleric in a community is 8th level, there are 2 4th level, 4 2nd level, and 8 1st level cleric there as well.

Since the die used for clerics (1d6) is bigger then the one used for wizards (1d4), the highest level cleric in the area tends to be more powerful then the highest level wizards, and so there are more lower level clerics then there are low-level wizards.

Clerics do outnumber wizards.

[Dr_S]

yeah I edited that into my post, I don't think that system was as thought out as some of the other rules, I think they wanted it quick and easy as opposed to "representative of the actual populations" and I say that because of the mistake I mentioned above.

[dextercorvia]

yeah I edited that into my post, I don't think that system was as thought out as some of the other rules, I think they wanted it quick and easy as opposed to "representative of the actual populations" and I say that because of the mistake I mentioned above.

I think they reasoned it out based on the traditional fantasy setting, where churches are more social, and therefore the clergy has a larger representation. While the stereotypical Wizard is a loner.

[DM1991]

Hello,
First time poster, long time DM here. I just had to put my 2Cents in on this thread. Everyone seems to be concerned with the requirements on becoming a wizard, but I think that may be less of a concern than simply stating the obvious in regards to 'human nature'. Once a lowly wizard gets a tad bit of power they are less likely to crave performing small feats for a regular income, or to waste all their hard work on the everyday person's problems. I can easily see a person gaining the simplest of spells and like a kid that just earned his first belt in karate, try to take on the town bully. Wizards may be less common just because the have a high mortality rate, and not just from other wizards, but from poorly summoned monsters, angry village mobs, rival clerics who don't like arcane magic, etc, etc.
If you want to make a career analogy, perhaps the medical field is exactly right. Those wizards with middle skills become GP practitioners, that take care of the minor needs of their community. When something really bad comes along though they have to refer you to a specialist, or the hospital (a higher level wizard, better equipped and access to the latest knowledge & spell research).
Any good wizards would probably have the Yoda syndrome. Always fearful that an apprentice taken on could turn into another Darth Vader. So of course they would be very careful and selective of who they chose. And even if they chose well, an apprentice is just as likely to hurt themselves as others.


.....my 2 cents.

[Grundy]

one guy in a thousand can easily handle what you need. You have a noble house. They have however many people that are noble. They have countless more serfs beneath them working. They have 1 spellcaster for the entire lot.
Sure, that takes care of some country lord, and his village or what have you. But that doesn't cover competing interests, like criminals, merchants, caravaneers, ship owners, guilds, etc.
One in one thousand is 3 times as rare as American doctors, who can only do what they do because they have huge support systems. I'd say you'd need at least one cleric for every 100 people just for medical needs (including dental and eyecare) and no fewer wizards.

[Mystify]

Sure, that takes care of some country lord, and his village or what have you. But that doesn't cover competing interests, like criminals, merchants, caravaneers, ship owners, guilds, etc.
One in one thousand is 3 times as rare as American doctors, who can only do what they do because they have huge support systems. I'd say you'd need at least one cleric for every 100 people just for medical needs (including dental and eyecare) and no fewer wizards.
most people can't afford wizards, so that would be a very generous allotment of wizards. Its not like you go to one every time you stub your toe. You only call upon a cleric for healing if you are deathly ill, or very seriously wounded. For a peasant, a simple cure light wounds spell costs several months of pay.

[demigodus]

DMG, page 139. Once you determine the highest level character of a particular class, there are twice that number of half that level. So if the highest level cleric in a community is 8th level, there are 2 4th level, 4 2nd level, and 8 1st level cleric there as well.

So the number of wizards at lvl x is proportional to 1/x?

Based on that (if there are enough wizards), between 1 in every 71 or 72 wizards will be lvl 20 (assuming that is the cap), so at the rate of every wizard per 1,000 population, you have a lvl 20 wizard for every 72k muggles.

If we just want wizards that can use lvl 9 spells, every congregation of at least 57 will have one, with an average of 1/58.5 (I'm rounding the numbers for finding the minimum to stumble upon one). Over all, 6% of all wizards within a large enough population will have 9th lvl spells.

Seems like a case where there is a very high barrier on entry (only 0.1% of the population is wizards), and easy to just give up (depending on location lvl 1s make up between 100% and 27.8% of the wizard population), but once you get going, you are guaranteed to keep advancing if you just go through the motions (sounds like tenure a bit?)

Personally I really have to say that if there are few wizards, it is hard to become one. Yes, it is relatively easy to advance and accumulate world shattering levels of magical power once you are a wizard, but there is a big chance of failure. Why would the common folk try their hand at wizardry, if the most likely case is being told after 8 years of work that nope, they failed, they can just give up. How many people would go to college, if you needed to complete a PhD, not just an Associates, Bachelors, or Masters, to finish college, and it was publicly known that you had, say, a 10% chance to get a really awesome job (at which point your road to success is paved with gold), and if they aren't in that top 10 of those who tried, then they will only qualify for whatever they qualified for out of high school? Except their friends are ahead by a decades' worth of experience...

[Dr_S]

can you explain how you arrived at 71-72? and the 1 wizard per thousand? (if the 1 wiz per 1000 was from someone else's post I don't think that's consistent with what's printed in the DMG, and I don't think that 71-72 range is right either.

[Mystify]

can you explain how you arrived at 71-72? and the 1 wizard per thousand? (if the 1 wiz per 1000 was from someone else's post I don't think that's consistent with what's printed in the DMG, and I don't think that 71-72 range is right either.
1-1000 was based on the size of a population center needed to have a spellcaster.

[demigodus]

can you explain how you arrived at 71-72? and the 1 wizard per thousand? (if the 1 wiz per 1000 was from someone else's post I don't think that's consistent with what's printed in the DMG, and I don't think that 71-72 range is right either.

For the 71~72, since the number of wizards at level x is proportional to 1/x, for every lvl 20 wizard, there are 20/x wizards at each level (so 1 lvl 20, 2 lvl 10s, 4 lvl 5s, 5 lvl 4s, 10 lvl 2s, 20 lvl 1s, the rest are fractions).

Then, just use some program to sum 20/x from x=1 to x=20. You get 71.9..., or 71 if you round each number before adding it.

The 1 in a thousand was from this post: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12762036&postcount=84

though apparently I misread it (I read it as lvl 1 wizard, rather then able to cast lvl 1 wizard spells). About 2/3rds of wizards capped at lvl 1 spells would be lvl 1 though, and since there is 1 per population of 1k~2k (average 1,500), that still comes out to 1,000. So 2 rounding erros can make an accurate approximation. :smallbiggrin:

[erikun]

can you explain how you arrived at 71-72? and the 1 wizard per thousand? (if the 1 wiz per 1000 was from someone else's post I don't think that's consistent with what's printed in the DMG, and I don't think that 71-72 range is right either.
He's right; I calculate that there would be 1,048,575 wizards of level 1-19 for every single level 20 wizard. It is 131,072 level 1-16 wizards for every 17th level wizard (able to cast 9th level spells).

Based on the math, that means you would need a 100-million population for a single wizard with 9th level spells, and a one billion population for a single 20th level wizard. (Two billion for a single epic-level wizard.)

[demigodus]

He's right; I calculate that there would be 1,048,575 wizards of level 1-19 for every single level 20 wizard. It is 131,072 level 1-16 wizards for every 17th level wizard (able to cast 9th level spells).

Based on the math, that means you would need a 100-million population for a single wizard with 9th level spells, and a one billion population for a single 20th level wizard. (Two billion for a single epic-level wizard.)

Out of curiosity, how did you get those numbers? While they would explain the setting a LOT better then mine would, I'm curious as to the distribution you used, or the method you used to get those numbers.

[erikun]

Out of curiosity, how did you get those numbers? While they would explain the setting a LOT better then mine would, I'm curious as to the distribution you used, or the method you used to get those numbers.
Actually, I think I misread the calculations needed. I was reading it as twice as many characters one level lower, rather than at half the level. I guess that's a good reason not to be posting after midnight.

As for my numbers, it was simply 1 20th level character, 2 19th level characters, 4 18th level, 8 17th level, and so on. This worked out to (2^n)-1 classed characters for a single nth level character of that class, and just multiplied that by 1000 as we assumed that there would be one wizard out of every 1000 people. Although that math ended up being incorrect.


If we are assuming that every classed character has twice as many classed characters at half their level, then we get the one 8th level, two 4th level, four 2nd level, and eight 1st level. That gives us 15 wizards in a community with a single 8th level wizard. It would be 31 wizards at 16th level (1-16th, 2-8th, 4-4th, 8-2nd, 16-1st) and 63 wizards with a 32nd level spellcaster (1-32nd, 2-16th, 4-8th, 8-4th, 16-2nd, 32-1st). Not quite sure where 20th level or 21st level would land, but probably closer to the 31. (1-20th, 2-10th, 4-5th, 8-2nd?, 16-1st?)

If we are still assuming the 1:1000 ratio, then that just gives us the silly value of any town over ~50,000 people having at least one epic-level spellcaster, and likely one of each class. Which may work for Forgotten Realms, but not everywhere is FR.

[Dr_S]

Out of curiosity, how did you get those numbers? While they would explain the setting a LOT better then mine would, I'm curious as to the distribution you used, or the method you used to get those numbers.

you're post ignores cities that don't have a level 20 wizard.

A typical large metropolitan city has 3 high level wizards of 1d6+12 level

the d6 turns to a d8 only in cities with an unusually large wizard population.

So lets say 1 in 5 cities have an unusually high wizard population (because I don't think the DMG specifies and 1 in 5 seems like it'll be easy to math with for our purposes here)

then you're likely to have aproximately one level 20 Wizard per 3 cities with an unusually high wizard population, which pretending we're sampling cities randomly on average you'd need to sample 15 cities to find those 3 which means over 45 population determining wizards per level 20. and on average I think we're looking at about 1/3 of those wizards being 17 or higher. and those are only MAJOR metropolis, for each one of those you have several large cities, several small cities, and many many more smaller population centers.

[Mystify]

That calculation is also misleading. It is for an individual town; a metropolis will not randomly have a 17th level wizard. But the distribution of wizards in a metropolis is not the same as casters overall.
For every metropolis, there are 4 large cities, 10 small cities, 15 large towns, and 20 small towns.
The metropolis has 4 "class stacks", the large city has 3, the small city has 2, and the large town and small town have 1.

So from small towns, there are 70 casters
from large towns, there are 105
from small cities there are 260
from large cities there are 156
And from the metropolis there are 276
for a total of 867 for the 4 casters in a metropolis, one of which is level 16 on average.
And that is assuming there are no casters of any level other than the half levels. Which I am pretty sure is not what the rule states, it is providing sample points along the curve, not saying that those points are the only ones on the curve. That would vastly inflate that figure.
But 1 in 70 is way, way, way too low. 1 in 1000 is low. Of a profession that only .1% of the population can get into, less than .1% of them are 16th level. Actual 9th level casters are even rarer.

For comparison:
"For every 100 people in the community(round down), the community has one full-time guard or soldier."
So there are 10x as many martial guards as spellcasters.

[Mystify]

you're post ignores cities that don't have a level 20 wizard.

A typical large metropolitan city has 3 high level wizards of 1d6+12 level

the d6 turns to a d8 only in cities with an unusually large wizard population.

So lets say 1 in 5 cities have an unusually high wizard population (because I don't think the DMG specifies and 1 in 5 seems like it'll be easy to math with for our purposes here)

then you're likely to have aproximately one level 20 Wizard per 3 cities with an unusually high wizard population, which pretending we're sampling cities randomly on average you'd need to sample 15 cities to find those 3 which means over 45 population determining wizards per level 20. and on average I think we're looking at about 1/3 of those wizards being 17 or higher. and those are only MAJOR metropolis, for each one of those you have several large cities, several small cities, and many many more smaller population centers.
But wizards use a 1d4 for the distribution, not 1d6. And the "where these classes are more common" clause is only for barbarians and monks. a metropolis maxes out at a 16th level wizard from random chance. Hence the line in the spell purchasing rules that "even a large metropolis might not have anyone capable of casting 9th level spells".
9th level casters are so rare as to specifically placed in the setting. They don't just hang around in cities randomly.

[Dr_S]

Ok to get a real world aproximation (this would ignore hermits more or less, which some high level wizards tend to be, but they don't generate population so they should have negligible effect on the overall wizard population) my last post said d6 for wizards but it's 1d4+12 so even less.

page 137 of the dmg for those who'd like to follow along and I'm going to use my 1/5 population centers have a high population of Wizards.
10% of all population centers are classified thorps with populations ranging from 20-80 people (average 50)
20% are hamlets 80-400 people (average 240)
20% villages 400-900 people (average 650)
20% small towns 900-2000 people (average 1450)
15% large towns 2000-5000 people (average 3500)
10% small city 5000-12000 (average 8500)
4% large cities 12000-25000 people (average 18500)
and 1% Metropolis 25000+ people (we'll call that an average of 38500 people because that approximates the pattern)

So if we're looking for a wizard level 17 we will find one in 93.5% (roll 4 times for metropolis) of metropolis with unusually high amounts of wizardry which are (using the number I made up since DMG does not specify 1/5 of metropolis')

So lets pretend every roll comes out average we're looking at
10 * (50) = 100
20 * (240) = 4800
20 * (650) = 13000
20 * (1450) = 29000
15 * (3500) = 52500
10 * (8500) = 85000
4 * (18500) = 74000
1 * (38500) = 38500
__________________
a population of 296900 and 0 chance of a wizard 17+
so we're likely to find one at .95% of wizard favoring metropolis which represents an average of 4 more metropolis without a wizard of that level so approximately 1,562,632 people per wizard of level 17+

calculating the average number of wizards over that population is going to be more time consuming but I can take a crack at it later if someone's really curious.

[Dr_S]

But wizards use a 1d4 for the distribution, not 1d6. And the "where these classes are more common" clause is only for barbarians and monks. a metropolis maxes out at a 16th level wizard from random chance. Hence the line in the spell purchasing rules that "even a large metropolis might not have anyone capable of casting 9th level spells".
9th level casters are so rare as to specifically placed in the setting. They don't just hang around in cities randomly.

I caught the 1d4 bit and corrected that in my next post, but you're right. So ignore all the math in my next post :P a wizard that can cast level 9 spells needs to be specifically inserted by the DM.

[imneuromancer]

Is it just training (which is how I read it)? If so, why are wizards rare? 45% of the population qualifies, if they have the gold to train, and just being able to cast prestidigitation 3x/day and unseen servant 1x/day seems like good enough reason to do it, on a practical level.

In our own world, why aren't there more doctors and lawyers? 45% of the population could qualify, they just need the money to train.

[dextercorvia]

Alright, that table is borked. They thought to include a modifier for more Druids in a Thorp. I get that. But, why is there more likely to be a higher level Druid in a Metropolis than a Wizard?

[gkathellar]

Alright, that table is borked. They thought to include a modifier for more Druids in a Thorp. I get that. But, why is there more likely to be a higher level Druid in a Metropolis than a Wizard?

To save the city people from their sins?

[dextercorvia]

To save the city people from their sins?

There are also, apparently more Druids than Rangers in the world -- so I'm guessing that nature lovers just have a better handle on the tier system than civilized folks.

[Ormur]

There is also nothing about the distribution in non-urban population, although thorps and hamlets hardly qualify as urban, even on a medieval scale.

Judging by the sort of urbanization implied by the city sizes the rural population should be about 90% of the total population.

[Flickerdart]

There are also, apparently more Druids than Rangers in the world -- so I'm guessing that nature lovers just have a better handle on the tier system that civilized folks.
Bears have a better handle on the tier system, and have learned that Rangers are tastier treats.

[demigodus]

Actually, I think I misread the calculations needed. I was reading it as twice as many characters one level lower, rather than at half the level. I guess that's a good reason not to be posting after midnight.

As for my numbers, it was simply 1 20th level character, 2 19th level characters, 4 18th level, 8 17th level, and so on. This worked out to (2^n)-1 classed characters for a single nth level character of that class, and just multiplied that by 1000 as we assumed that there would be one wizard out of every 1000 people. Although that math ended up being incorrect.


If we are assuming that every classed character has twice as many classed characters at half their level, then we get the one 8th level, two 4th level, four 2nd level, and eight 1st level. That gives us 15 wizards in a community with a single 8th level wizard. It would be 31 wizards at 16th level (1-16th, 2-8th, 4-4th, 8-2nd, 16-1st) and 63 wizards with a 32nd level spellcaster (1-32nd, 2-16th, 4-8th, 8-4th, 16-2nd, 32-1st). Not quite sure where 20th level or 21st level would land, but probably closer to the 31. (1-20th, 2-10th, 4-5th, 8-2nd?, 16-1st?)

If we are still assuming the 1:1000 ratio, then that just gives us the silly value of any town over ~50,000 people having at least one epic-level spellcaster, and likely one of each class. Which may work for Forgotten Realms, but not everywhere is FR.

I assumed for my part, that the numbers would be as continuous as a discrete distribution could be.

So, if there is 1-16th, 2-8th, 4-4th, 8-2nd, 16-ist, there would be between 1 and 2 of each level between 9 and 15, between 2 and 4 of each level between 5 and 7, and between 4 and 8 of lvl 3. Whatever gave the smoothest curve.

I haven't actually looked at the DMG though, so I'm using whatever information people post here in the thread. I'm sure that makes me look like a fool :smalltongue:

[dextercorvia]

I assumed for my part, that the numbers would be as continuous as a discrete distribution could be.

So, if there is 1-16th, 2-8th, 4-4th, 8-2nd, 16-ist, there would be between 1 and 2 of each level between 9 and 15, between 2 and 4 of each level between 5 and 7, and between 4 and 8 of lvl 3. Whatever gave the smoothest curve.

I haven't actually looked at the DMG though, so I'm using whatever information people post here in the thread. I'm sure that makes me look like a fool :smalltongue:

No. In your example, it's just the 16th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st level NPCs. It's very granular.

[MukkTB]

The best description about what happens in a generic RAW world is the Tippyverse.

The core of the problem is this. There are not RAW rules for leveling an NPC. Or a for an NPC child 'coming of age' and selecting their first level. Therefore any interpretation strays into RAI territory. As far as I can tell, NPCs by RAW might not be able to level up. Some people will tell you that NPCs don't get experience.

If one PC beats a dragon he gets a certain amount of experience. Some people would have you believe that he gets the same amount of experience if 4 NPCs are helping him or 99.


Personally I think NPCs should get a share of experience. They should be able to level up. They shouldn't personally get to choose what level their next class is in. It would be determined by their actions in game as interpreted by the DM. They'd need to train under a wizard convincingly to level in wizard. But my feelings are RAI and house rules. This forum deals in RAW. There is no RAW. Therefore this forum is incapable of parsing a truly correct answer. The best you can get is different fluff that DMs use to justify their personal RAI and house rules.

If NPCs got to choose what class they take their next level in with the only effort required being accumulating the necessary XP, there would be a lot of wizards running around. There would also probably be clerics of concepts everywhere. As an NPC I would personally pick up as many levels of druid as I could. Free pet guard/laborer FTW. Why wouldn't you take a level in a tier 1 class? It would be pretty silly.


I'm a programmer. I would like to report my inability to shoot fireballs. Also I can't enchant women with a few words. I can't fly on my own. I can't heal wounds I've taken beyond my bodies natural healing. I'm pretty sure that being a wizard is a much better deal than being a programmer.

I have an uncle with a PHD in chemistry. I'll watch him carefully, and report if he does any of these things.

[technoextreme]

Well, how many people in the world have PhDs? (Answer: around 3%)
The way I see it, honing your magic ability just to become a 1st level wizard takes tons and tons of time and effort, not to mention money. The truth is, people are just lazy. Or maybe not lazy exactly, but don't want to go through that much work to become a wizard when it may not have a direct benefit on their current life. Again, I see it like a PhD. Tons of energy and time involved studying and learning and not everyone wants to do that. It's that simple.
So people who don't get their PHD are just lazy?

[Talionis]

There are no requirements other than high enough intelligence and training.

Thus everyone that can train to be a Wizard will unless the DM fiat's that it won't happen.

Every Wizard is well advised to take on as many apprentices as possible because they increase the services that he can offer in a day. Just like batteries. Even low level wizards with cantrips can provide services that are better done with Magic rather than brute strength.

There would still be enough people in the world incapable of the intellect for Magic to produce the normal labor jobs, but wizards would max out what they have potential for and then they would niche themselves into a job replacing brute strength.

There is no question that this is the logical outcome of the world. Perhaps like the wheel people just haven't figured out the equilibrium yet, but there should be so many Wizards its not funny.

Wizards would specialize in making products that increase intellgence and people would wear them like glasses. They would serve to make even mediocre Wizards strong enough to produce decent spells and give value back to their teachers.

Logic will eventually win out and all worlds will become more like Eberron or worse, with the vast majority of the people some different level of wizard. Doing stuff mere mortals/mundanes can only dream of.

And a sheeple class of mundanes who would be forced to serve their Wizard masters.

[Mystify]

There are no requirements other than high enough intelligence and training.

Thus everyone that can train to be a Wizard will unless the DM fiat's that it won't happen.

Every Wizard is well advised to take on as many apprentices as possible because they increase the services that he can offer in a day. Just like batteries. Even low level wizards with cantrips can provide services that are better done with Magic rather than brute strength.

There would still be enough people in the world incapable of the intellect for Magic to produce the normal labor jobs, but wizards would max out what they have potential for and then they would niche themselves into a job replacing brute strength.

There is no question that this is the logical outcome of the world. Perhaps like the wheel people just haven't figured out the equilibrium yet, but there should be so many Wizards its not funny.

Wizards would specialize in making products that increase intellgence and people would wear them like glasses. They would serve to make even mediocre Wizards strong enough to produce decent spells and give value back to their teachers.

Logic will eventually win out and all worlds will become more like Eberron or worse, with the vast majority of the people some different level of wizard. Doing stuff mere mortals/mundanes can only dream of.

And a sheeple class of mundanes who would be forced to serve their Wizard masters.

I think you overestimate the practical value of low level wizards.

[Psyren]

So people who don't get their PHD are just lazy?

I don't think it's just laziness. But if you find anybody who's (a) smart enough to get a PhD, and (b) hasn't done so yet, and ask them why they haven't, whatever reason they give you (e.g. family commitments, disillusion with the system, aversion to social stigma etc., contentment with current station/education etc.) could apply to intelligent non-wizards just as easily.

[Yahzi]

Your average joe shmoe is not going ot buy any spells. The demand for wizards is less than the demand for doctors..


think you overestimate the practical value of low level wizards.
Sorry, but this is just wrong.

Presdigitation provides:
flavoring, which replaces the spice market
cleaning, which replaces the dry cleaning market
polishing, which replaces dental hygenists

Mending fixes things you can't normally fix on your own. Nobody in your world buys super-glue?

Cure Minor Wounds automatically stabilizes, which means it stops bleeding, which means it counters the single most common cause of fatality from accidents and child-birth.

A medieval peasant's life was drudgery beyond most people's ability to imagine. Magic is more powerful in many ways than technology. People are totally going to buy as much magic as they can get.

The reason there are so few magic users is because in AD&D the rules explicitly stated that only 1% of the population was capable of class advancement. Many leveled NPCs (such as military captains) were described as "incapable of further advancement.'

In other words, the original AD&D was based on the naked genetic superiority of the PCs. Player characters formed a "master race," as it were.

Modern editions dropped this language, but they never dropped the idea. Fundamentally, the rules describe what the players can do; the NPCs aren't even supposed to be wizards or fighters or whatever. They're merely scenery, props for the PCs to fight around, over, or against. 3.0 tried to fix that by making everyone follow the same rules... but they didn't cover over all the cracks. This is one they missed.

[Mystify]

Sorry, but this is just wrong.

Presdigitation provides:
flavoring, which replaces the spice market
cleaning, which replaces the dry cleaning market
polishing, which replaces dental hygenists

Mending fixes things you can't normally fix on your own. Nobody in your world buys super-glue?

Cure Minor Wounds automatically stabilizes, which means it stops bleeding, which means it counters the single most common cause of fatality from accidents and child-birth.

A medieval peasant's life was drudgery beyond most people's ability to imagine. Magic is more powerful in many ways than technology. People are totally going to buy as much magic as they can get.

The reason there are so few magic users is because in AD&D the rules explicitly stated that only 1% of the population was capable of class advancement. Many leveled NPCs (such as military captains) were described as "incapable of further advancement.'

In other words, the original AD&D was based on the naked genetic superiority of the PCs. Player characters formed a "master race," as it were.

Modern editions dropped this language, but they never dropped the idea. Fundamentally, the rules describe what the players can do; the NPCs aren't even supposed to be wizards or fighters or whatever. They're merely scenery, props for the PCs to fight around, over, or against. 3.0 tried to fix that by making everyone follow the same rules... but they didn't cover over all the cracks. This is one they missed.
It would take a few months for a peasant to afford a prestidigitation to spice up their meal. By my estimates, a prestidigitation spell costs $500 to purchase from a spellcaster. Cure minor wounds isn't a wizard spell, thats an argument for clergy. Mending is easily supplanted by darning your socks and bringing the item in to a crafter, who will do it for a fraction of the price. And I don't know about you, but studying for 7 years so I can polish teeth and do laundry seems unappealing. And again, a 1/day prestidigitation item costs 180, the cost of only 36 castings. A magic item to activate which you can then use to clean everything, etc. is much more economically sensible than getting a wizard to cast it every time you need it.

And no mention has even been given to the success rate of learning wizardry. Many people who attempt PhDs fail. People go to college, and drop out. Is spending all of the effort to become a wizard, with the likely outcome of sitting around as a level 1, worth the risk of not being up to snuff and failing out? Selective wizard apprenticeships can reduce that rate by pre-screening candidates, but that only applies if you are being selective in the first place.

[Grundy]

Without dipping into that murky world of Dnd economics too much, I'd advise that while buying a magic item to replicate a single 0- or 1- level spell might be more economically feasible than hiring a mage to cast a spell every single day, it would require less capital, to simply hire a staff wizard. It would also be more flexible, since you'd get all the cantrips and at least 3 1st level spells, even if you hired the wizard equivalent of a dolt.
@Talionis:
This is more or less what I envision, also. Obviously, the upper caste would consist of all casters. There is nothing in Dnd mechanics to stop it. Add in that apprenticeships are expensive, and there is very little in society to stop it.
@Psyren:
There are a lot of reasons to not get a PHD in our society, but the problem with this analogy is that in Dnd, wizards cover pretty much all white-collar skill sets, except sales. If you want to get ahead in Dnd, and you have the very minimal mental capacity needed, you will be a caster. I focus on wizards because of their versatility, and the lack of any prereq except
1) graduating in the top half of your grade school class
2) being willing to put in the amount of work needed for a BA

Looking at the benefits of being a wizard- increased pay, prestige and power, versus the downside of being a non-caster, it's a no-brainer for anyone able to do it. Obviously, in an agrarian society, the majority of people won't have that option. But that should motivate anyone who does get the chance.

[Coidzor]

It would take a few months for a peasant to afford a prestidigitation to spice up their meal. By my estimates, a prestidigitation spell costs $500 to purchase from a spellcaster.

Ok, let's just stop right there. Converting GP into USD? That way madness lies.

[Urpriest]

Ok, let's just stop right there. Converting GP into USD? That way madness lies.

Ok, how about the fact that the average peasant makes 1sp a day? A 0th level spell is 50 days work for a peasant.

[Mystify]

Ok, how about the fact that the average peasant makes 1sp a day? A 0th level spell is 50 days work for a peasant.

And thats not even giving them anything to live off of.

[Flickerdart]

Eh, mechanically you don't need to eat. Or sleep. And really, peasants are probably not the best metric for determining the earnings of the kind of person who buys magic. I recall a thread a few months back where people built craftsmen and professionals, who were comfortably raking in around 30-60gp a week as Expert 1s. These people would have absolutely no trouble saving up for the occasional 0th or 1st level spell.

[Jeraa]

Ok, how about the fact that the average peasant makes 1sp a day? A 0th level spell is 50 days work for a peasant.

The average peasant does not make 1sp per day. Thats untrained laborers (who have no ranks in any craft or profession). Anyone with at least 1 rank in a craft or profession makes half their check result in gold pieces per week. Thats 5.5 gold pieces per week for a single peasant, or 11 gold pieces per week for a husband/wife team. (Children probably aren't fully trained in a profession, so could qualify as untrained laborers, adding 7sp per week to those numbers for each child helping out.)

Commoners have skill points and class skills, same as everyone. (Commoner 1, with an average Int of 10 means 8 skill points, 12 if human. Even with a very low intelligence, they would still gain the minimum of 4 skill points.) Even if its just Profession(Farmer), all commoners would have at least 1 rank in his job of choice.

[Coidzor]

Ok, how about the fact that the average peasant makes 1sp a day? A 0th level spell is 50 days work for a peasant.

Yes, that's much better than converting GP into USD and expecting that to work out well for anyone in the discussion's sanity.

I ain't even blue about that.

[Mystify]

Yes, that's much better than converting GP into USD and expecting that to work out well for anyone in the discussion's sanity.

I ain't even blue about that.

I converted it to USD. I also compared it to a peasants income. Those were two different things.

[Coidzor]

I converted it to USD.

Yes, and that way madness lies. There've been entire threads devoted to the subject that have driven men mad who read all the way through them. And the less said about what happened to the people who wrote out long articles going into the subject, the better. :smalleek: