Is It Possible To Have a Wizard Organization Without Breaking The Game?

[Strill]

The game has strong assumptions about how difficult it is to acquire wizard spells - players are intended to slog through ruins and tombs to find new spells, or to independently research them as they level up.

Although it would seem reasonable at first to have an organization for wizards to share their findings for mutual benefit, it would also break the game. Players would have access to most or all of the wizard spell list for their level, and if this organization had a standardized notation system, would be able to copy spells from one another at 1/5th the normal cost.

Is there any way to make such an organization work without making a player who is a part of it overpowered?

[hymer]

The organization could have very strict rules about sharing spells. Perhaps it split off from a different organization, which descended into chaos and conflict over the sharing of spells. Or there could be a mystical element (those who know too many spells too fast call down the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing), and you are not allowed to copy more than a few spells. Or the copying is why you get new spells every level. Or there is a tax on the sharing on spells, making access easy but extremely expensive. Or individuals members could be highly suspicious, and unwilling to trade spells. And so on.

[meltodowno]

Or, you just handle it like previous editions - Wizards are prepared to share their research into spells, but asking to copy from their spellbook is a big social faux pas and highly frowned upon.

That way players can 'use the research' to develop their spells, whilst still keeping the theme of a wizard organisation that shares research/theories.

You developed your spells. You sought them out. Nurtured them. Learned every inch of them backwards and forwards - it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to say you put your heart and soul into them .... and someone is asking you to just .... show it to them ?!?!?!

[Strill]

You developed your spells. You sought them out. Nurtured them. Learned every inch of them backwards and forwards - it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to say you put your heart and soul into them .... and someone is asking you to just .... show it to them ?!?!?!

You show me yours and I'll show you mine. :smallwink:

[JellyPooga]

...if this organization had a standardized notation system, would be able to copy spells from one another at 1/5th the normal cost.

Able to, perhaps, whether they actually do is another matter. They might well charge a small fortune for their services; guild fees, entrance fee, overpriced drinks at the bar, tips for the Unseen Service, room charge, library fee (access to each school is a separate fee and the fee increases when accessing "restricted" stacks, i.e. higher level spells), workshop/laboratory hire, stationary costs...by the time you've gone in and scribed a couple of spells on the cheap, you find you've spent several hundred more gold than it would have cost to go to the next town over and research the spell yourself...


Is there any way to make such an organization work without making a player who is a part of it overpowered?

The simple and most dramatic answer, I think, would be to have it be a fractious organisation. Make each Spell School a semi-autonomous sub-organisation, with their own rules of conduct and agendas. Trying to navigate your way around the politics involved places certain restrictions on how easy you can find the spells you want. Cheap to scribe, perhaps, but not easy to actually get your paws on. Some Schools might even ban certain spells considered "morally dubious" or some spells might even be illegal, so whilst the resources are there to be used, you'll have to persuade whoever's in charge to get them.

[Grey Watcher]

Plus, there's other potential limiting factors: maybe the organization is relatively new and hasn't had a chance to amass a sizeable library yet. Maybe their library was recently destroyed and they're in the process of rebuilding. Maybe higher level Wizards area really rare, so their collection has next-to-nothing above 3rd level spells.

Then there's internal hiearchies. Maybe access to the spells is strictly controlled. Yeah, you might have the abilities of a 17th level Wizard, but that doesn't mean squat if your rank within the Wizard's Guild is "Admin Assistant": they're still only going to let you access cantrips until/unless you schmooze your way up to a higher rank.

[Giant2005]

The Organization would need to gain something from having the Wizard join, otherwise it is simple charity work and I just don't see the Wizard-charity-organization being a thing.
So the prospective Wizard that wants to join would have to alerady have some knowledge that the others lacked in order to be accepted, or at least perform some tasks of significance for the organization, or pay a crapload of money.

[Mjolnirbear]

"I hear the Head of Divination got drunk and foretold the arrest of the Head of Enchantment."

"Yeah, he locked himself into Charm Tower and is threatening to melt the brains of anyone who tries to pry him out. Orb Tower is laughing their brains out."

"Seriously? Those schools are worse than the Figments. At least the Shadow Tower keeps its illusions to harmless pranks."

"Meh. As long as they don't piss off the Blasters again i don't care. There are still lightning scars on Shield Tower from the last time."

"Yeah, those guys have no sense of humour..."

[MrConsideration]

Wizards are notoriously paranoid - there's two ways to get a new spell after all.

One: months of arduous and expensive research with no guarantee of success.
Two: 'acquire' the spell-book of another wizard.

Now, once your party Wizards schmoozes with the Magnificent Goblot, Wizard extraordinaire, both of these Wizards know the other Wizard's weaknesses, and what they rely on for defense. If Goblot relies heavily on illusions, a few ghouls in his wardrobe will gives you the pick of his spell-book, his rare tomes and his magic items. If Goblot is all about Evocation, a golem should be able to smash him. If he relies on buffing spells, corner him alone. Any sharing exposes a Wizard to his rivals, and all Wizards are rivals in the final analysis.

So a master Wizard might guard his spellbook, but he'll be open to dealing with a character if he'll just do this one little favour....

The Tales of Wyre Actual Play/story has a really great take on this dynamic - it is incredibly long though!

(Not to mention, even if a PC Wizard acquires lots and lots of spells....he can still only prepare a set amount every day, and without some kind of foreknowledge of what he might encounter he's still picking the same general spells. Knowing you could cast Feather Fall but didn't prepare it is little consolation as you hurtle towards the ground....)

[Giant2005]

Wizards are notoriously paranoid - there's two ways to get a new spell after all.

One: months of arduous and expensive research with no guarantee of success.
Two: 'acquire' the spell-book of another wizard.

Now, once your party Wizards schmoozes with the Magnificent Goblot, Wizard extraordinaire, both of these Wizards know the other Wizard's weaknesses, and what they rely on for defense. If Goblot relies heavily on illusions, a few ghouls in his wardrobe will gives you the pick of his spell-book, his rare tomes and his magic items. If Goblot is all about Evocation, a golem should be able to smash him. If he relies on buffing spells, corner him alone. Any sharing exposes a Wizard to his rivals, and all Wizards are rivals in the final analysis.

So a master Wizard might guard his spellbook, but he'll be open to dealing with a character if he'll just do this one little favour....

The Tales of Wyre Actual Play/story has a really great take on this dynamic - it is incredibly long though!

(Not to mention, even if a PC Wizard acquires lots and lots of spells....he can still only prepare a set amount every day, and without some kind of foreknowledge of what he might encounter he's still picking the same general spells. Knowing you could cast Feather Fall but didn't prepare it is little consolation as you hurtle towards the ground....)

That is pretty cool! Although I think I'd do it the other way - the entire organization is a bit of a front. The Wizards within have united together and combine their power to lure in other Wizards so they can kill the applicants and take their knowledge.

[Milo v3]

Does it really change that much power-wise if they do share their spells openly?

[Doug Lampert]

The game has strong assumptions about how difficult it is to acquire wizard spells - players are intended to slog through ruins and tombs to find new spells, or to independently research them as they level up.

Although it would seem reasonable at first to have an organization for wizards to share their findings for mutual benefit, it would also break the game. Players would have access to most or all of the wizard spell list for their level, and if this organization had a standardized notation system, would be able to copy spells from one another at 1/5th the normal cost.

Is there any way to make such an organization work without making a player who is a part of it overpowered?Personal opinion, there's almost no way it can make the character overpowered unless wizards are already overpowered.

Look through the wizard spell list, pick out the 45th non-cantrip spell you'd take in playing a wizard. That's the best spell a wizard gets from a "you have the whole spell list freely available to copy" campaign that he couldn't get from a "there are no spell-books or scrolls, ever, and you are the only wizard in the world not of chaotic stupid paranoid evil alignment, and just don't ask who even trains apprentice wizards in this world" campaign.

Or imagine you are level 6. You can prepare at most 11 spells and know at least 16. Tell me, how often do you think you'll say "Oh! If only I knew spell X which didn't make my list of 4 best level three spells that I actually learned, then I could prepare it as one of the 11 spells I can prepare out of the 16+ that I have in my book and I could cast it with one of my three slots of that level rather than one of the spells I thought was actually useful".

Not so often I'll bet. You already have more spells in your book, at every character level, than you have slots or can prepare. The book limit matters some if your PCs know what's coming when they prepare spells, it matters some in that the wizard won't have as many rituals available, but it's not a big deal IMAO.

[MrStabby]

Ah you need a militant guild of high level copyright lawyers who hunt down people who copy spells without their original creator's permission.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Council of Eight was in the original Greyhawk campaign. That was a wizard organization. I am not sure that the game is broken, as it's still with us, 40+ years later. \

So, the simple answer to your question is: Yes, it is possible.

Editorial note: the shrill insistence that this, that, or the other "breaks the game" is an annoying feature of this discussion board. Someone here has a sig note that suggests that if you let X break the game ... it's your own darned fault, Mr DM. More people need to take that to heart.

Wizard Organization

Should wizards form a guild, or not?

There is immense role playing potential in a campaign by simply trying to answer that question if you play in a world where magic is scarce, and treated like highly classified information or a trade secret. Each wizard is an individual, and the alignments and motivations vary ... like with real people. Have any of you ever tried to form a group? Forming, storming, norming, performing are the four standard steps, and sometimes you lose people along the way. Sometimes, certain people pick up their toys and go home and the group never gets off of the ground. Other times, the groups form but are dysfunctional.

Knowledge is Power:

That old adage is beautifully personified in the wizard character class. With whom do you build trust relationships in that profession? Did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have a trust relationship?

[KorvinStarmast]

The organization could have very strict rules about sharing spells.
And as we know, everybody follows rules. :smallamused:

Wait a minute, no they don't.

[Demonic Spoon]

OP: If you want to raise the cost from what is printed in the PHB, it's entirely possible that the wizard's organization adds a 'tax' on top of the materials cost for copying spells. Running a wizard's organization isn't cheap, after all.


Aside from that, it should be fine, so long as the other members of the party also get some boon. You are giving the wizard a lot of flexibility, so others should get similar.

[hymer]

And as we know, everybody follows rules. :smallamused:

Wait a minute, no they don't.

If it's the DM's intention that this sticks (and that's what the thread is all about after all), enforcement should be a minor problem. First time the PC tries to cheat, s/he gets ratted out and gets a big fine. Second time and you're out of the guild.

[KorvinStarmast]

If it's the DM's intention that this sticks (and that's what the thread is all about after all), enforcement should be a minor problem. First time the PC tries to cheat, s/he gets ratted out and gets a big fine. Second time and you're out of the guild. Sorry, you seem to confuse "in game" with "meta game." I am referring to in game, in character, and people (NPC's and PC's) behaving like actual people ... real people break rules. How does one find out "in game" that a couple of wizards shared spells with each other?

@demonic spoon:

If you want to raise the cost from what is printed in the PHB, it's entirely possible that the wizard's organization adds a 'tax' on top of the materials cost for copying spells. Running a wizard's organization isn't cheap, after all.
Well said!

[hymer]

How does one find out "in game" that a couple of wizards shared spells with each other?

Same way you find out about rules breaking everywhere else. Someone reports someone, or someone investigates and finds out.
But what does that matter? We're trying to come up with reasons why PC wizards belonging to this organization don't end up with too many spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

Same way you find out about rules breaking everywhere else. Someone reports someone, or someone investigates and finds out.
But what does that matter? We're trying to come up with reasons why PC wizards belonging to this organization don't end up with too many spells.
Go back to trying to get such an organization formed in the first place: rivalry, ego, and power applied in any social group. Politics.

This leads you to "how big can such an organization be" in a low magic world. A lot of stories/folk tales dealing with magicians are based on low magic worlds where apprentices are few, and wizards separated or rare to find in the first place. This would argue that any such organization would be small, like a club or a small guild.

In stories with "magic universities" (I recall Ursala K Leguin's Ged/Earthsea stories as having one) the nature of the world changes to where magic becomes more like tech. If you treat magic as tech, model your organizations on medieval trade guilds, or masonic lodges. Control of knowledge lends power. (A neat treatment of this is found in Paul Witcover's book the Emperor of All Things (http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-Things-Paul-Witcover/dp/0857501593)which centers around a watchmaker's guild in London).

You only get to learn certain things based upon your rank and standing within the organization. Thus, the sharing is limited by the guild's internal norms. You have to earn the right to get access to those spells by doing X in service to the guild.

[Xetheral]

You could simply fluff the spells the wizard gets on leveling as the spells they were able to find in the guild.

Then there are no balance issues at all (so long as all wizard PCs are guild members) although there are some RP implications. If guild wizards share spells freely, it implies that most guild wizards have the same spell list (i.e. whatever the PC picks). That gives the PC added reason to adventure: if he brings back a new spell he'll be very popular. In this scenario, it implies that most guild wizards don't adventure. There could even be a rule that you're *required* to share, which gives the PC a tricky choice if they encounter a spell they'd rather everyone else not know about. This works best in a setting that will only be used for one campaign, since the PC's choices and actions will have a profound affect both on the game world and on future PC wizards.

Alternatively, if the guild doesn't share spells particularly freely, then the two free ones are those they were able to trade, wheedle, steal, or beg for. This has the advantage of not requiring all PC wizards to have the same basic spells.

[SharkForce]

the cost of writing spells in your spellbook is not the same as the cost of persuading a wizard to let you write spells in your spellbook from their (probably backup) spellbook.

in order to progress within the guild and gain access to higher level spells, a character is likely going to have to either perform services worth a lot of money, or just provide a lot of money, or research some rare but useful spells for the guild... because no, they aren't going to give you much (if any) credit for handing them their 27th copy of magic missile. and i don't even necessarily mean a level 9 spell or something like that either... i mean, if you develop new level 1 spells that are not in the rulebooks, and do that a few times, they're likely to give you much more access to their common level 1 spells, because you just expanded their library.

[Sigreid]

Clearly wizards work on highlander rules. They may have temporary friendships and alliances, but in the end there can be only one!

[Ouranos]

Since the main story books are all in Forgotten Realms, I have one words for you regarding Wizard organizations: Harpells.

[kaoskonfety]

State regulations was fun for one nation we set up.

It was illegal to distribute spells to "unlicensed persons" that could:
directly control minds, dealt large AOE damage, could do nothing but kill (and a few similar restrictions, Hold Person was fine-ish, Cloud Kill was very not).

Using such magic in civilized lands was also forbidden. You could with some ease and friends in high places get Modenkinans Magnificent Mansion for use/copying. Fireball was under lock and key. Most of this was enforced by the wizards themselves - gotta keep a good rep or the cushy jobs, tenure, research grants and tax breaks might dry up.

The guild could issue licences, but was a bit tight fisted with them - few murderhobos qualified because you are not in law enforcement, had no real fixed address and would generally have issues getting several fellow academy wizards (studious, serious, responsible persons) to vouch for them (roving monster exterminators).
Sure the Archmage LIKES you... no you may not scribe Power Word: Kill, Gate or Weird... we've got Astral projection if exploration of the outer planes is interesting to you, Power Word: Pain disables your foes just fine and I can get you a licence for Phantasmal Killer - and I swear to the GODS if you misuse this permit I will find you.

[Sigreid]

State regulations was fun for one nation we set up.

It was illegal to distribute spells to "unlicensed persons" that could:
directly control minds, dealt large AOE damage, could do nothing but kill (and a few similar restrictions, Hold Person was fine-ish, Cloud Kill was very not).

Using such magic in civilized lands was also forbidden. You could with some ease and friends in high places get Modenkinans Magnificent Mansion for use/copying. Fireball was under lock and key. Most of this was enforced by the wizards themselves - gotta keep a good rep or the cushy jobs, tenure, research grants and tax breaks might dry up.

The guild could issue licences, but was a bit tight fisted with them - few murderhobos qualified because you are not in law enforcement, had no real fixed address and would generally have issues getting several fellow academy wizards (studious, serious, responsible persons) to vouch for them (roving monster exterminators).
Sure the Archmage LIKES you... no you may not scribe Power Word: Kill, Gate or Weird... we've got Astral projection if exploration of the outer planes is interesting to you, Power Word: Pain disables your foes just fine and I can get you a licence for Phantasmal Killer - and I swear to the GODS if you misuse this permit I will find you.

I have never heard a setup that would do more to make me get cozy with the party thief and fully embrace the murder hobo within.

[obryn]

You developed your spells. You sought them out. Nurtured them. Learned every inch of them backwards and forwards - it wouldn't be a gross exaggeration to say you put your heart and soul into them .... and someone is asking you to just .... show it to them ?!?!?!
I dunno, Open source software developers do this literally all the time. I don't think it's altogether too far-fetched.

[kaoskonfety]

I have never heard a setup that would do more to make me get cozy with the party thief and fully embrace the murder hobo within.

Would have been good times, the party never attempted it, but it would have made quite a session or 3. Most of the "simpler" magic (level 1-3) was just locked up and probably accessible to a mundane thief with more bravery than brains, or some good protection from divinations. The higher powered stuff (level 4-6) would have taken a fairly advanced rogue and wizard to get in to. The big leagues 7+ fell under "its a group of archmages spell-books, possibly over several generations" clause and would be defended by whatever devious madness tickled my fancy that day.

[Corey]

If it's meant to be all THAT hard to learn spells, what's the point of the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation?

[Slipperychicken]

I think it's fine, and here's how I think it should work:


Wizard-guild has a library of spells, not used by any particular wizard. Each spell is stored and loaned out separately. This removes the risk of a malicious wizard stealing or damaging someone's spellbook during copying.
Guild-wizards can pay a fee each time they want to copy a spell, which also covers the normal scribing costs. This is a major source of fund-raising for the guild. Non-guild wizards using this service pay a much greater fee.
Wizards are incentivized to contribute new spells to the library with "credit" and prestige. Credit can be used to buy spells and components from the guild. Prestige is useful for both moving up in the hierarchy, and getting other wizards to help you out once in a while.
Guild-wizards have "spellbook insurance", whereby they can get replacement spells at a greatly discounted rate (or even free) if they lose their spellbooks. This can mean owing a lot of hours/services to the guild, depending on how many spells they get this way. Wizards may also store backup-spellbooks at a guild-house.
Guild credit can also be earned doing services like quests, community services (such as putting Continual Flames in public areas to light them), or just putting in hours assisting with research or scribing backup-spells for the guild's library.
Wherever a wizard would normally earn credit, he may elect to receive a direct payment instead, although this is a smaller amount.
The wizard guild is used for other miscellaneous purposes: collective bargaining to ensure steady work and better labor standards for members, lobbying for less-restrictive laws concerning magic, free room and board when staying at a guild-house, and of course easier networking between wizards. The last one is not to underestimated; the ability to quickly find a powerful well-learned wizard can be a great boon in many quests.
The guild does, of course, charge its members both normal monthly dues, and takes a small cut from jobs they find in the guild's jurisdiction. You didn't think this was all free, did you?


Basically, a guild should have your back. It's a pillar of stability and a safety net in troubled times. You might chafe a little at having to forfeit 8% of your share of a quest reward, but the benefits of membership are undeniable.

[Doug Lampert]

If it's meant to be all THAT hard to learn spells, what's the point of the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation?

The wizard limit to X spells is almost entirely fluff.

Seriously, make a wizard, and see how many spells you'd actually prepare aren't in your book from what you get for free.

Magpie players will waste enormous time and resources getting every spell in existence in their book. Then cast nothing at level 3 but fireball, haste, fly, and dispel magic.
MAYBE they prepare Protection from Energy if they know they're going to face a dragon, but more likely the cleric covers that.

If spell access is supposed to be a significant limit, then where's the hard rule in the PHB that you can only have one wizard in the party? Because whatever the excuse for NPC wizards not sharing, I seriously doubt it would apply if I and my wife made a married couple of wizards who were adventuring together.

Double spells WOOT!! Ultimate unbalancing power! Unballanced power TWICE, since there are two of us. Double WOOT!!!! WOOT!!!!!!

Really? Seriously?

I've asked multiple times in multiple threads for an actual LIST of spells you'd want, with more spells on the list than you get for free, and an explanation of how this makes you noticeably stronger than just having the spells you get for free given that you get FAR more spells than you can prepare.

Not a hint of an answer have I seen.

People saying "spell X is overpowered" are told, "well, that's just because you let them have as many spells as they want." No. That's because spell X is overpowered, which means the non-idiot wizard's player took X as one of the MANY spells they get to choose for free as part of a class feature that the rule-book gives them.

[Bohrdumb]

I think the perception that it would be cheaper is an incorrect assumption to make.

You could spend the next year of your life researching a spell, or you could pay me a bunch of gold to get it in a week. I've got a stranglehold on a very limited market and if we find out other wizards are selling spells for cheaper well then we'll kill them to set an example.

Consider us the Researchers In All things Arcana, or RIAA for short.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've got a stranglehold on a very limited market and if we find out other wizards are selling spells for cheaper well then we'll kill them to set an example.

Consider us the Researchers In All things Arcana, or RIAA for short.
While it would be RIATA your dig at RIAA was muchly appreciated. :smallbiggrin: (My daughter has had some less than fun dealings with RIAA.)

RIATA makes for an interesting acronym as metaphor. A riata(reata) is what vaqueros used to lasso horses, and is the root word for "lariat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lariat)" in cowboy parlance ... that which cowboys use to lasso horse.

riata - a long noosed rope used to catch animals. lariat, reata, lasso. running noose, slip noose, noose - a loop formed in a cord or rope by means of a slipknot; it binds tighter as the cord or rope is pulled.
http://www.doublediamondhalters.com/images/lariat2.jpg

[Vogonjeltz]

The game has strong assumptions about how difficult it is to acquire wizard spells - players are intended to slog through ruins and tombs to find new spells, or to independently research them as they level up.

Although it would seem reasonable at first to have an organization for wizards to share their findings for mutual benefit, it would also break the game. Players would have access to most or all of the wizard spell list for their level, and if this organization had a standardized notation system, would be able to copy spells from one another at 1/5th the normal cost.

Is there any way to make such an organization work without making a player who is a part of it overpowered?

Just because the wizards associate, and perhaps even collaborate, does not mean that they're just willy nilly giving away secrets to each other.

I'd also advise that having a share annotation isn't really possible; The system of notation is particular to each wizard because it's easy for each wizard to comprehend their own particular style. Yes, you can come up with a piglatin system that each is capable of learning, but they'll never be fluent the same way they are with their own homegrown annotation that is used for their spell books.


Look through the wizard spell list, pick out the 45th non-cantrip spell you'd take in playing a wizard. That's the best spell a wizard gets from a "you have the whole spell list freely available to copy" campaign that he couldn't get from a "there are no spell-books or scrolls, ever, and you are the only wizard in the world not of chaotic stupid paranoid evil alignment, and just don't ask who even trains apprentice wizards in this world" campaign.

Or imagine you are level 6. You can prepare at most 11 spells and know at least 16. Tell me, how often do you think you'll say "Oh! If only I knew spell X which didn't make my list of 4 best level three spells that I actually learned, then I could prepare it as one of the 11 spells I can prepare out of the 16+ that I have in my book and I could cast it with one of my three slots of that level rather than one of the spells I thought was actually useful".

Not so often I'll bet. You already have more spells in your book, at every character level, than you have slots or can prepare. The book limit matters some if your PCs know what's coming when they prepare spells, it matters some in that the wizard won't have as many rituals available, but it's not a big deal IMAO.

Good points, any given wizard already has the spells they are actually interested in. Everything else is kind of extraneous.

[obryn]

First off, I think "No, that would break the game" is a perfectly fine excuse for restricting stuff like this.


Just because the wizards associate, and perhaps even collaborate, does not mean that they're just willy nilly giving away secrets to each other.
The point is that these wouldn't be secrets. See: Open-source software programming. All it takes is a group of like-minded and idealistic wizards. Heck - just one wizard putting up the fantasy version of WikiSpells. :smallbiggrin:


I'd also advise that having a share annotation isn't really possible; The system of notation is particular to each wizard because it's easy for each wizard to comprehend their own particular style. Yes, you can come up with a piglatin system that each is capable of learning, but they'll never be fluent the same way they are with their own homegrown annotation that is used for their spell books.
And yet wizards can learn spells from other wizards' spellbooks or from scrolls. So I'd say such a 'share' annotation already exists.

[KorvinStarmast]

First off, I think "No, that would break the game" is a perfectly fine excuse for restricting stuff like this.
Except that it doesn't break the game, and nobody has shown their work on why they think it does. Unsupported assertions don't make sense in support of anything.

[mig el pig]

The point is that these wouldn't be secrets. See: Open-source software programming. All it takes is a group of like-minded and idealistic wizards. Heck - just one wizard putting up the fantasy version of WikiSpells.

If he allows anonymous editing there's bound to go something wrong.

[VoxRationis]

I'd also advise that having a share annotation isn't really possible; The system of notation is particular to each wizard because it's easy for each wizard to comprehend their own particular style. Yes, you can come up with a piglatin system that each is capable of learning, but they'll never be fluent the same way they are with their own homegrown annotation that is used for their spell books.


Why not? Chemists and physicists and biologists all use standardized notations for their realms of study. It's just a matter of getting used to it, either through learning it during training or practice later on. At the very least, it should be possible for a single school of magic to have standardized notation.

[SharkForce]

Why not? Chemists and physicists and biologists all use standardized notations for their realms of study. It's just a matter of getting used to it, either through learning it during training or practice later on. At the very least, it should be possible for a single school of magic to have standardized notation.

that depends. maybe magic isn't the same for everyone. maybe magic actually doesn't work quite the same for me as it works for you. maybe when you cast the spell it takes different inflections, or a slightly faster rate, or something. maybe the components I use are slightly different than the ones you use, and I need to experiment with a few dozen iterations of them while using up expensive reagents that help me narrow down which specific breed of spider I need, or a blade of grass from a specific town, or maybe I need ashes from a tree that was struck by lightning while you can get the spell to work only with the ashes of a maple tree grown at the top of a waterfall that is no less than 30 feet high, simply because there are slightly different variations for you.

maybe a spell isn't written so much as it is drawn, and the drawing needs to be custom-designed for your own mind.

whatever the reason, not everyone can write the spell the same way.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why not? Chemists and physicists and biologists all use standardized notations for their realms of study. It's just a matter of getting used to it, either through learning it during training or practice later on. At the very least, it should be possible for a single school of magic to have standardized notation.
That may be true now, in an advanced world driven by the Enlightenment movement that synthesized a heck of a lot of old knowledge and accelerated the additions to the Body of Knowledge over the past few centuries, but ....

Consider a thousand years ago. Was notation standardized then? No.

Consider 1500 years ago. Was the use of numerals standardized? (No)

Consider 2000 years ago. Was notation standard then?

Consider the English language 250 years ago. Was spelling standardized? No!

Consider the languages used in Italy 200 years ago. Was it standardized? No! (FWIW, there were hundreds of dialects. When I was last in Italy, 1990's, while there is a pretty standard Italian language there were also 30 different dialects still in use).

There are plenty of models to show local variations in practice without too much distance between peoples.

Apply that to magic, in a non Enlightenment, non industrial world. The variability could be immense.

Heck, and for one last item ... maybe the scroll is written in a different language. If I pick up a textbook written in Gujarati or Tagalog, I'm going to need some help to understand and transcribe its contents to where I can use it. :smallwink:

[twas_Brillig]

I'm in the camp that it probably doesn't break things, but providing a story-based restriction makes for some interesting story potential.

If I have a resource (knowledge of a spell) that people are willing to pay for, there's some interesting optimization in how much I should charge for that service. After all, then you'll be able to charge the same rate (or less!) for people to copy that spell from you, and then those people can share the spell and so on. And even if you aren't inclined to spend time and effort to share the spell with other people, what happens when you die or take on an apprentice? It'd be in my best interests to charge a substantial fee (not necessarily in money), or to contractually and/or magically restrict how you share things.

Maybe the average wizard isn't so interested in average adventurer. Maybe colleges of mages are mostly devoted to advancing the theoretical limits of magic, and most spells they know can only be cast as part of a ritual at best. Maybe most spells only work at particular locations, require expensive components and dangerous costs, and mostly do the magical equivalent of a particle collider--academically interesting, but not immediately practical. Maybe people are interested in improving crop gain, or curing arthritis, or extracting mithril from demon bile. Maybe wizards are caught up in trying to reproduce magic items, or maintaining the Duke's collection of enchanted tin soldiers (1:12 scale).

Maybe most spells are simply slight variations on each other, syntactically and stylistically distinct but not different in any meaningful mechanical way. Sure, you can copy Galf's Acid Arrow and Mendicant's Modest Motel. As suggested earlier, developing and recovering significant advances to the Art are likely to be very exciting, for those with the right temperament.

Maybe work within a Wizard's Circle resembles the rites of mystics in our own history. A lot of ritual, but not Ritual. Black robes, chants, hazing, politics. Not truly a path the magical power, but an excellent networking opportunity.

Maybe wizards are actually really terrible at keeping notes, and the average research journal is about as legible as chickenscratch (versus scrolls, where they use their very best handwriting--or make the apprentice transcribe). Maybe they just haven't mastered Dewey's Decimal System and have terrible library etiquette, hiding books "for later".

[Kryx]

I've asked multiple times in multiple threads for an actual LIST of spells you'd want, with more spells on the list than you get for free, and an explanation of how this makes you noticeably stronger than just having the spells you get for free given that you get FAR more spells than you can prepare.
So I presume you follow the same logic for known casters like Sorc, bard, and warlock?

Versatility is a flat increase in power. Unless you're giving those classes an infinite spells known list your argument is quite moot (sure, limit their prepared to be same as wiz).

It really boggles my mind how people can be so casual about such a large buff to the best arcane caster and yet so resistant to menial buffs to less versatile and less powerful classes like Sorcerer. (Storm Sorc bonus spells for example)

[VoxRationis]

That may be true now, in an advanced world driven by the Enlightenment movement that synthesized a heck of a lot of old knowledge and accelerated the additions to the Body of Knowledge over the past few centuries, but ....

Consider a thousand years ago. Was notation standardized then? No.

Consider 1500 years ago. Was the use of numerals standardized? (No)

Consider 2000 years ago. Was notation standard then?

Consider the English language 250 years ago. Was spelling standardized? No!

There are plenty of models to show local variations in practice without too much distance between peoples.

Apply that to magic, in a non Enlightenment, non industrial world. The variability could be immense.


Oh no, don't get me wrong—I understand the societal lack of standardization which informs the default idiosyncratic notation as noted in the rules. But in the circumstance that you have an organization of people working together to further the advancement of a science or art, it is not unreasonable for the organization to develop a common notation, at least for use among themselves.

[MaxWilson]

Personal opinion, there's almost no way it can make the character overpowered unless wizards are already overpowered.

Look through the wizard spell list, pick out the 45th non-cantrip spell you'd take in playing a wizard. That's the best spell a wizard gets from a "you have the whole spell list freely available to copy" campaign that he couldn't get from a "there are no spell-books or scrolls, ever, and you are the only wizard in the world not of chaotic stupid paranoid evil alignment, and just don't ask who even trains apprentice wizards in this world" campaign.

Or imagine you are level 6. You can prepare at most 11 spells and know at least 16. Tell me, how often do you think you'll say "Oh! If only I knew spell X which didn't make my list of 4 best level three spells that I actually learned, then I could prepare it as one of the 11 spells I can prepare out of the 16+ that I have in my book and I could cast it with one of my three slots of that level rather than one of the spells I thought was actually useful".

Not so often I'll bet. You already have more spells in your book, at every character level, than you have slots or can prepare. The book limit matters some if your PCs know what's coming when they prepare spells, it matters some in that the wizard won't have as many rituals available, but it's not a big deal IMAO.

This analysis overlooks the fact that the wizard only gets 4 spells at his highest spell slot level, which usually means he only gets 4 spells of each level, period. When I make a wizard, choosing spells known is agonizingly difficult. "I just turned 9th level. Do I want Planar Binding and Conjure Elemental for brute force? But Wall of Force is top-notch tactically. And Seeming and Scrying are terrific too." That's five spells right there, and I only get two of them. The choices I make at spell selection time shape my strategic and tactical options in the future. With unlimited spell selection, that all goes out the window and I can have everything.

So, it's not the "45th non-cantrip spell" you're getting. It might be the #5 7th level spell on your list, and the wizard spell list is broad enough that #5 is probably still really painful to miss out on.

[SharkForce]

So I presume you follow the same logic for known casters like Sorc, bard, and warlock?

Versatility is a flat increase in power. Unless you're giving those classes an infinite spells known list your argument is quite moot (sure, limit their prepared to be same as wiz).

It really boggles my mind how people can be so casual about such a large buff to the best arcane caster and yet so resistant to menial buffs to less versatile and less powerful classes like Sorcerer. (Storm Sorc bonus spells for example)

it isn't "giving" them anything. they already have the class feature. being able to pay for spell knowledge has been in every edition except 4th, and even then it was there for rituals.

that said, I actually am also totally ok with sorcerer buffs, and think that if they are to be competitive with other casters, they kinda need them because the limitations they face are so harsh, and the one cool ability they get (metamagic) is simply not strong enough to compensate for the restrictions (which as you've noted elsewhere, WotC seems to be backing away from).

on the flip side, sorcerers are weaker than most casters, but are fairly close to the middle of the general power scale imo. but, as noted many times elsewhere, I'm in favour of resolving that by strengthening the lower end rather than reducing the power of the high end.

(also, I don't think there is a general resistance to buffing sorcerers... I see lots of people come on these forums asking for advice building a favoured soul or similar, and I don't see a lot of people objecting to it. I *will* say that favoured soul is just straight-up better than any core sorcerer archetype, as is stormborn, but I don't think favoured soul or stormborn makes sorcerer too strong... I just think it makes the core options for sorcerer look really, really bad in comparison).

[Sigreid]

I think a wizard organization would work better if using an idea I posted once another thread. The gist of it is that spell books aren't clean like a Betty Crocker cook book, but wizards are like scientists working with the science of their world and a spell book is more like a research journal.

So, for example, you get hold of Fredrick the Flaming's spell book (research). Fredrick is something of an expert on elemental fire (I'm not responsible for any assumptions you made about his last name). His spell book is a collection of notes on his observations and experimentations with elemental fire, probably with diagrams, drawings of stances, and notes in the margin that say things like "Twist this that way to generate a wall of fire". All of his spells are in there, but the reason it's so expensive and time consuming to learn from another wizard's spell book is the spells aren't laid out step by step, but the flows of reasoning that lead to the spells are in there waiting to be deciphered.

The result of this for a Wizard's guild is the guild would be interested in collecting in a library the collected research of its members, but what they are interested in is the research itself to help others expand their own research. Step by step instructions for creating a fire wall are create-able, but to a wizard guild provide far less value than the understanding of elemental fire that led to that process. So yes, the spells are there; but no, they aren't.

[Kryx]

it isn't "giving" them anything. they already have the class feature. being able to pay for spell knowledge has been in every edition except 4th, and even then it was there for rituals.
A 5e Wizard's class feature is to learn more spells. However the default balance is that those spells are limited by what the dm hands out. Opening it up to purchasable and tradeable options is an increase in versatility and power from the default.

That said I do allow a Wizard to purchase scrolls. Scroll/Scribing cost at each level: 1st 50g, 2nd 150g, 3rd 375g, 4th 700g, 5th 1500g, 6th 3000g, 7th 6000g, 8th 12000g, 9th 40000g. I don't allow anything but consumabled to be purchased.



that said, I actually am also totally ok with sorcerer buffs, and think that if they are to be competitive with other casters, they kinda need them because the limitations they face are so harsh, and the one cool ability they get (metamagic) is simply not strong enough to compensate for the restrictions (which as you've noted elsewhere, WotC seems to be backing away from).

I'm in favour of resolving that by strengthening the lower end rather than reducing the power of the high end.
Ya, you and I agree here. My comment was directed at "people" in general who tend to not mind a very powerful wizard, or even buff it to be more powerful, but those same people would often balk at the idea of a competetive Sorcerer.

I was just using it as an example of a mental disconnect between the two.



(also, I don't think there is a general resistance to buffing sorcerers... I see lots of people come on these forums asking for advice building a favoured soul or similar, and I don't see a lot of people objecting to it. I *will* say that favoured soul is just straight-up better than any core sorcerer archetype, as is stormborn, but I don't think favoured soul or stormborn makes sorcerer too strong... I just think it makes the core options for sorcerer look really, really bad in comparison).
If you look at the community as a whole I see many comments about how Favored Soul and Storm Sorc are too strong. It appears on here, reddit, enworld, wizard forums.
Agreed on the core sorc options, which is why I buff them in my Sorcerous Origins thread.

[JackPhoenix]

If you look at the community as a whole I see many comments about how Favored Soul and Storm Sorc are too strong. It appears on here, reddit, enworld, wizard forums.
Agreed on the core sorc options, which is why I buff them in my Sorcerous Origins thread.

I think that's the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees: Favored Soul and Storm Sorc ARE strong, compared to other sorcerous origins, I think people just don't realise the sorcerer is weakest of the full casters and it...well, I hesitate to say "needs", but certainly could use...a buff.

[Strill]

I think that's the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees: Favored Soul and Storm Sorc ARE strong, compared to other sorcerous origins, I think people just don't realise the sorcerer is weakest of the full casters and it...well, I hesitate to say "needs", but certainly could use...a buff.

Yeah, my group let our sorcerer use the Spell Point system in order to add some more flexibility.

[CNagy]

This is an unsanctioned use of magical energy!

Will allowing Wizards an easier time of accessing spells to copy break the game? No. But since spell acquisition is supposed to be a bit harder than it would in a world where such an organization exists, you should replace that diminished difficulty with a new set of hoops to jump through that comes as being part of such an organization.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh no, don't get me wrong—I understand the societal lack of standardization which informs the default idiosyncratic notation as noted in the rules. But in the circumstance that you have an organization of people working together to further the advancement of a science or art, it is not unreasonable for the organization to develop a common notation, at least for use among themselves. Yes, but that group of people need not be larger than a handful, or a few dozen. The other guild/coven/club/lodge nine hundred miles away does things their own way, due to "not invented here" syndrome and "we've always done it this way!" :smallwink: The problem with importing anachronisms back in time is what we are dealing with here. Colleges (and later Universities) when originally begun were not the monstrosities that they are today. They were comparatively modest in plant, in number, and very hard to get into.

If the setting is generally medieval, a very good model is guilds and thus closed to most, secretive, and jealously protective of their trade secrets. However, within a given guild, I'd agree that there would be some standardization.

@Sigreid, nicely put.

[SharkForce]

A 5e Wizard's class feature is to learn more spells. However the default balance is that those spells are limited by what the dm hands out. Opening it up to purchasable and tradeable options is an increase in versatility and power from the default.

That said I do allow a Wizard to purchase scrolls. Scroll/Scribing cost at each level: 1st 50g, 2nd 150g, 3rd 375g, 4th 700g, 5th 1500g, 6th 3000g, 7th 6000g, 8th 12000g, 9th 40000g. I don't allow anything but consumabled to be purchased.

nothing indicates one way or another that it is or is not supposed to be easy to find more spells. however, the fact that every official campaign setting D&D has ever had (that i'm aware of) has allowed for the possibility of learning spells from another wizard without killing them, through every edition, suggests it is very improbable that the edition of D&D that focuses on making the game feel like it used to would change things up so that suddenly nobody is selling spell knowledge at all.

i'm not saying it should be cheap, mind you (spell knowledge has never been cheap). i'm just saying it should be available.

[Kryx]

DMG quote for you:

Unless you decide your campaign works otherwise, most magic items are so rare that they aren't available for purchase. Common items, such as a potion of healing, can be procured from an alchemist, herbalist, or spellcaster. Doing so is rarely as simple as walking into a shop and selecting an item from a shelf. The seller might ask for a service, rather than coin.
In a large city with an academy of magic or a major temple, buying and selling magic items might be possible, at your discretion. If your world includes a large number of adventurers engaged in retrieving ancient magic items, trade in these items might be more common. Even so, it's likely to remain similar to the market for fine art in the real world, with invitation-only auctions and a tendency to attract thieves.
By default they are not purchasable. As it says there you can allow it if you wish.

Though as I said above, I agree.

I do allow a Wizard to purchase scrolls. Scroll/Scribing cost at each level: 1st 50g, 2nd 150g, 3rd 375g, 4th 700g, 5th 1500g, 6th 3000g, 7th 6000g, 8th 12000g, 9th 40000g. I don't allow anything but consumables to be purchased.

[Doug Lampert]

This analysis overlooks the fact that the wizard only gets 4 spells at his highest spell slot level, which usually means he only gets 4 spells of each level, period. When I make a wizard, choosing spells known is agonizingly difficult. "I just turned 9th level. Do I want Planar Binding and Conjure Elemental for brute force? But Wall of Force is top-notch tactically. And Seeming and Scrying are terrific too." That's five spells right there, and I only get two of them.
So, if you take those spells how many will you prepare. Which spell are you NOT taking, and what does it cost you. Because at your example of level 9, you have at most 14 spells prepared, you have 14 slots, and you have ONE fifth level slot at that level! Are you seriously telling me you feel that if your level 9 character had three level 5 spells known, he'd prepare all three? Much less all five if he had five?

You can swap out from day to day, but the gain from that is fairly minimal at most levels, and in fact three of those spells are only useful on adventuring days, if you could have all five there is an excellent chance you would NEVER prepare one of them, even at higher level, because you're just moving the pain of decision from "which do I take" to "which do I prepare".

And to have all 5 you gave up resources, the cost of copying, the time to copy, the membership fees and duties of the organization.

There are three significant limits on a wizard's casting. Slots, spells known, spells prepared.
Spells known is far and a way the least important of these in play, and has a specific rule allowing it to be largely bypassed. It's a mostly fluff restriction. The main gain is in ritual and downtime casting.

If it's intended to be a really significant restriction, why is there no restriction on having multiple PC wizards?

As for the question of whether I'd have a similar attitude toward sorcerers, I'd have no great objection to a sorcerer being able to spend time and money to join an organization that lets him swap out a spell known. Because that's the equivalent. Sorcerer spells known are equivalent to wizard spells prepared, and the preparation limit IS significant.

[Kryx]

As for the question of whether I'd have a similar attitude toward sorcerers, I'd have no great objection to a sorcerer being able to spend time and money to join an organization that lets him swap out a spell known. Because that's the equivalent. Sorcerer spells known are equivalent to wizard spells prepared, and the preparation limit IS significant.
No it's not. 15+10 spells known is no where near equivalent to 44+ spells known with 28 prepared.

Allowing a wizard to expand 44 to 60 or more while only allowing the Sorcerer to "swap" is not equivalent.

[Fighting_Ferret]

There is a lot to say about obtaining spells and wizarding groups. There are spell school and specialists in that school. How would they handle leadership? What knowledge would they share across the board, what would they keep for themselves, their order, or their specialty? How common are higher level wizards? How would non-wizard spell casters be viewed? Just because knowledge is available doesn't mean everyone has access to it. What is the learner's intent? Does it fit in with the master's philosophy of the spells intent/purpose?

There are numerous examples of wizarding groups in fantasy.

The Forgotten Realms has the Red Wizards of THAY, the Witches of Rashemen, the Arcane Brotherhood, and several others.
Dragon Lance has the three orders/robes.
Greyhawk has the circle of eight.

All wizards learn from masters, until they can learn no more from them and must continue on their own road, either conducting research, finding other masters, or acquiring lost knowledge via adventuring in lost civilizations. If a wizarding group did exist, as the DM you would have to develop just how it worked. How is it governed, how does it divide up knowledge, what spells are universal, which are specialities? Would it work like a magical school, or be a bastion of magical knowledge in a world where that knowledge is deemed unsafe, or a checks and balance system where the factions are vying for control.

Either way it won't break your game, but it could be an expression of the world you created.

[MaxWilson]

So, if you take those spells how many will you prepare. Which spell are you NOT taking, and what does it cost you. Because at your example of level 9, you have at most 14 spells prepared, you have 14 slots, and you have ONE fifth level slot at that level! Are you seriously telling me you feel that if your level 9 character had three level 5 spells known, he'd prepare all three? Much less all five if he had five?

You can swap out from day to day, but the gain from that is fairly minimal at most levels, and in fact three of those spells are only useful on adventuring days, if you could have all five there is an excellent chance you would NEVER prepare one of them, even at higher level, because you're just moving the pain of decision from "which do I take" to "which do I prepare".

And to have all 5 you gave up resources, the cost of copying, the time to copy, the membership fees and duties of the organization.

There are three significant limits on a wizard's casting. Slots, spells known, spells prepared.
Spells known is far and a way the least important of these in play, and has a specific rule allowing it to be largely bypassed. It's a mostly fluff restriction. The main gain is in ritual and downtime casting.

If it's intended to be a really significant restriction, why is there no restriction on having multiple PC wizards?

As for the question of whether I'd have a similar attitude toward sorcerers, I'd have no great objection to a sorcerer being able to spend time and money to join an organization that lets him swap out a spell known. Because that's the equivalent. Sorcerer spells known are equivalent to wizard spells prepared, and the preparation limit IS significant.

For one thing, you actually have two fifth level slots due to Arcane Recovery, and if you're playing with spell points (which I do) you can cast about six or seven fifth level spells throughout the whole day.

For another thing, who cares what happens on an "adventuring day"? The whole point of Planar Binding and Scrying is to do things in advance--and crazy preparedness is what wizards are all about, less so in 5E than in AD&D but still to an extent greater than sorcerers. By the time you're 11th level, that Planar Binding is something you cast multiple times before you go dungeon exploring so that you have a small squad of air elementals with you, and then you use Seeming to make sure that all of the PCs in the party (plus your hirelings, and animated skeletons) look completely different than they are: you want the beefy barbarian to look like a wimpy wizard, and the wimpy wizards to look like skinny rogues, and the animated skeletons to look like 7' tall berserker barbarians, so that any countermeasures employed against your party land on the wrong targets. Meanwhile, Scrying is something you use to keep tabs on your enemies and your spy network (plus Sending).

That leaves Wall of Force and Seeming as the spells to prepare on an "adventuring day". And yes, I'd probably prepare both of them (and pre-cast Seeming) before launching any assault. And if there's any chance that the assault might split us up, I'd be wishing really hard that I knew Rary's Telepathic Bond as well.

Furthermore, there's lots of times I don't prepare Polymorph, because as you say spells prepared are a real limitation, and there's lots of times I don't prepare Fly, for the same reason--but I would be very sad if I didn't know either of those spells because then I couldn't use them even in situations where I know they would be perfect. Looking at my various spell configurations, there are some spells that I always keep prepared (Shield, Longstrider, Disguise Self (although if I knew Seeming that would probably get replaced), Fireball, Animate Dead, Dimension Door, Soul Shield). There are others that get swapped out pretty freely. Furthermore, even the ones that I "always" keep prepared would get swapped out more often if I knew more spells to swap them with.

[ChelseaNH]

No it's not. 15+10 spells known is no where near equivalent to 44+ spells known with 28 prepared.

Allowing a wizard to expand 44 to 60 or more while only allowing the Sorcerer to "swap" is not equivalent.

If a wizard knows 60 spells instead of 44, does that change the 28 spells prepared? Knowing more spells is only useful if you know that you're going to encounter a particular niche situation before you prepare spells. How common is that?


Consider the English language 250 years ago. Was spelling standardized? No!

Spelling became more standardized with printing. If everyone learned to read from the same books, everyone learned to spell the same way. So if everyone learns magic from the same source/tradition, they would be much more likely to have a standardized notation. The existence of a guild makes standard notation more likely.

[SharkForce]

DMG quote for you:

By default they are not purchasable. As it says there you can allow it if you wish.

Though as I said above, I agree.

it says that about magic items.

in a few hours and for a much lower cost than making a scroll, i can make a backup spellbook that consists of 1 spell, which i can use repeatedly myself as a backup copy of my spell, or as something which i can sell access to other wizards who may be interested.

for example, if i desire to help someone learn how to cast meteor swarm, and i already know the spell, for 140 gold and 9 hours of work i can make a backup spellbook with just meteor swarm in it.

there is absolutely no need ever to craft a scroll to sell spell knowledge. there never was. it is, in fact, an absolutely awful idea to craft a scroll instead of just making a backup spellbook which is just as useful, or really even more so (there is an explicit arcana check required to learn a spell from a scroll, and whether you succeed or fail the scroll is destroyed. no such check is mentioned for a spellbook, but even if there was you could try over and over anyways).

for learning spells, backup spellbook copies are cheaper, better, faster, reusable, and less valuable to steal than an actual spell scroll. nobody in the world should be using spell scrolls to teach spells (which is not to say that nobody should be making scrolls, mind you; there are tons of spells you don't expect to cast regularly, but which you really want to have ready at a moment's notice just in case, and those are ideal candidates for scrolls in 5e, just as they were in 3.x)

[rollingForInit]

Just because you've got an organisation of Wizards, it doesn't mean that all spells in existence will be available there. This is especially true if they teach newcomers - they'd only be able to pass on the knowledge they themselves have, after all. Also, most wizards in the guild would probably be in the lower levels, 5 and below, and anything above would be experienced or very talanted wizards. This means that there won't be a plethora of new spells to learn. A PC Wizard who joins, pays the dues, does the favours, or whatever, might be able to acquire some new lower level spells, but high level spells would still be very rare. And even then, he'd have to convince the other wizards to actually share the spells. Some might be willing to, without having anything new to share (the PC already has the same spells), some might be willing and the Wizard will learn a few new spells. But other than that? No guarantee that the spells the PC wants are available in the guild, or that those who have them are willing to teach them.

[SharkForce]

again, wizards need money (in large amounts) to do the things they typically want to do. a wizard can certainly earn a living by selling locate object or mending things or whatever, but then they have neither the time nor the money to do what they really want to do: research, pushing the limits of their knowledge, etc.

really, it's pretty believable that sufficiently large donations to the guild will gain you the prestige required within the guild for members to be allowed to teach you spells, and equally so that you can persuade individual members to teach you for sufficiently large payments of gold (the cost will likely depend on the cost of researching spells in your game, which is not specified in any official book afaict).

so long as there are not specific social factors at work, that is; you're not likely to be able to join a guild if you've previously signed on with their hated enemies, or if you are from a nation that is actively at war with the nation the guild is in.

but generally speaking... wizards like having lots of money at least as much as anyone else does.

[KorvinStarmast]

All wizards learn from masters, until they can learn no more from them and must continue on their own road, either conducting research, finding other masters, or acquiring lost knowledge via adventuring in lost civilizations. If a wizarding group did exist, as the DM you would have to develop just how it worked. How is it governed, how does it divide up knowledge, what spells are universal, which are specialities? Would it work like a magical school, or be a bastion of magical knowledge in a world where that knowledge is deemed unsafe, or a checks and balance system where the factions are vying for control.

Either way it won't break your game, but it could be an expression of the world you created.
Great post, many good points and ideas in there for any DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

The existence of a guild makes standard notation more likely.
Locally, sure, which I stated as well. But not necessarily universally.

[VoxRationis]

Locally, sure, which I stated as well. But not necessarily universally.

We weren't arguing it would be a universally applied system. But Vogonjeltz (post #34) said a shared notation was impossible on any scale.

[Kryx]

If a wizard knows 60 spells instead of 44, does that change the 28 spells prepared? Knowing more spells is only useful if you know that you're going to encounter a particular niche situation before you prepare spells. How common is that?
No, 28 is always static. In comparison the Sorcerer has 15 to choose and 10 from an origin.

Spells can be changed on a long rest (There is also a 1 minute per spell level discussed, but I think that can only change on a long rest). There are many many cases where that is useful. All throughout D&D's history Wizards have thrived based on the idea that they can prepare what they may need on that day. Examples:

Wizard is going on a boat tomorrow. He prepares Water Breathing and Water Walk.
Wizard is going to fight a Dragon. He prepares Absorb Elements
Wizard is going to camp out in nature that day. He prepares Alarm.
Wizard is going into a volcano. He swaps all his fire spells for spells of other elements.
Wizard is going to new territory. He prepares Tongues/Comprehend Languages
Wizard is going into an enemy city. He prepares Disguise Self
Wizard is going on a mountain side. He prepared Feather Fall just in case he falls.
Wizard is going to fight fiends/celestials. He prepares Protection from Evil and Good.

On and on and on and on. Being able to swap out utility spells is immensely useful. It is what makes the Wizard versatile and the Sorcerer not. Or Tier 1 vs Tier 2 in older terms.

My suggestion isn't really to fix that as there isn't a good way to do so - my suggestion is to be aware of that power and be warry in handing it out so readily to the most powerful caster in the game.




for learning spells, backup spellbook copies are cheaper, better, faster, reusable, and less valuable to steal than an actual spell scroll
Yup, 5e has left a gaping hole in explotability of the backup spellbook. It is meant to be easy to prevent GMs from screwing over players, but if the GM then allows them to sell that the whole system of spells breaks. At that point Wizards should just know every spell. No thx.

The magical properties of a spellbook was discussed a long time ago. I would consider a spellbook magical for detect magic and other purposes.

[MaxWilson]

If a wizard knows 60 spells instead of 44, does that change the 28 spells prepared? Knowing more spells is only useful if you know that you're going to encounter a particular niche situation before you prepare spells. How common is that?

Uh, for a wizard, it should be commonplace. 5E has relaxed a lot of limits on wizards, but they're still designed for players who obsess over preparation and intelligence.

"Here there be Frost Giants. Guess I'd better prepare Hypnotic Pattern."
"Oh look, a cliff adventure. Time for Feather Fall/Fly."
"Oh, we're fighting beholders? I better swap out Fireball for Anti-Magic Shell."
"Mind flayers? Time for Mind Blank."

Etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Uh, for a wizard, it should be commonplace. 5E has relaxed a lot of limits on wizards, but they're still designed for players who obsess over preparation and intelligence.

"Here there be Frost Giants. Guess I'd better prepare Hypnotic Pattern."
"Oh look, a cliff adventure. Time for Feather Fall/Fly."
"Oh, we're fighting beholders? I better swap out Fireball for Anti-Magic Shell."
"Mind flayers? Time for Mind Blank." You might say that their weak point is the unexpected, or a change of plans.

Bruce Lee moment: "Always expect the unexpected!"

As originally posted by Forum Explorer
"Just because the DM lets you break the game, doesn't mean the game is broken." The premise that wizards being organized breaks the game is only supportable if the DM organizing them does so in a way that breaks the game. There are some great ideas on how to avoid that in this thread.

[Kryx]

As originally posted by Forum Explorer The premise that wizards being organized breaks the game is only supportable if the DM organizing them does so in a way that breaks the game. There are some great ideas on how to avoid that in this thread.
Added RP cost for more versatily does nothing to change the mechanics.

Not that it's broken to allow it, but their should be a significant financial cost imo.

[Paeleus]

Not sure if this has been put forward yet, but why not make the Arcane Collective (tm) a secret society of sorts with different levels of initiation depending on class level. The Collective would be broken into schools and the politics between these schools is quest fodder.

There is a head of the Collective, either chosen by a vote or by age/power/knowledge.

Make the Collective's existence public knowledge, but keep the operations and anything else about the organization a secret.

[Kryx]

Not sure if this has been put forward yet, but why not make the Arcane Collective (tm) a secret society of sorts with different levels of initiation depending on class level.
Ya! And they must pay money to reach the next tier or Lord Xenu will not grace them with further knowledge.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Scrolls are originally designed to allow casting without needing to have the spell prepared. A caster with that spell on their spell list and that has the ability to cast the level of spell on the scroll, can use the scroll and cast the spell at it's lowest level, or can be used to inscribe that spell into a wizard's spellbook. Either way the necessary material components for the scroll were used in it's production. There really isn't a need to sell scrolls for wizards to purchase spells, just use the time and money instead to research one. Many wizards might be pleased to trade knowledge for knowledge they don't possess. If you want to sell scrolls in your game, then go for it, but be advised the rulebooks are based around limited magical items and scrolls are magical items with rarity values associated and as such, handed out via DM discretion.

Also of note is that 1 spell book contains 100 pages, and each spell in it takes up 1 page per level. A high level wizard might well be carrying around 3 books to contain all his spells, or might leave them all in a secure place and only carry around a back up with only rituals and necessities, instead relying on his prepared spell slots.

[ChelseaNH]

No, 28 is always static. In comparison the Sorcerer has 15 to choose and 10 from an origin.

I know the number is static; I was asking about the selection. A wizard is going to have certain go-to spells that pretty much always stay prepared because they're useful in a variety of situations. So how many of those 28 spells will actually vary from day to day? Say you have 24 spells that you always have prepared. Now, it's not a matter of 28 choices out of 44 vs 60; it's a matter of 4 choices out of 20 vs 46. How often would you select from the 20 choices vs the extended 26 choices?

More choice always sounds good, but it turns out that people generally find it much harder to make selections when presented with a large number of options.

[Roderick_BR]

Ok, here's some ideas:

a) An organization means you mainly has a place for the fluff needed for wizards to research their spells. When you level up, or study, or whatever you do to gain more spells (didnt reach that part in 5e yet), you simply has access to the labs, libraries, and experienced tutors. The character is not gaining anything for free, or learning extra spells. He is just using a special location instead of camping inside a tiny tent to research his latest finds for new magic. Basically during the group's down time to level up stats, the wizard is coming here to discuss his own research, listen to seminars, learn with other wizards, checking libraries, so he can develop his new things. Just fluffy, really.

b) Access to experienced casters: When the party needs an high level wizard to cast some spell they dont have, they come here.

c) New spells: I dont know exactly what's the cost to get additional spells, but assuming a 3.x approach, wizards could simply purchase new scrolls to add them to his currently list. Here they could pay those professors in a similar way to learn a new spell. Trying to copy it from other wizards is, as was suggested, a bit of taboo, although deals can happen to make it cheaper to gain more spells.

d) Market and guilds: A wizard can find here stores with the stuff wizards may need, new spellbooks, material to write scrolls, make potions, component pouches, etc. Also find out news about expeditions for magic places and the likes.

And, of course, all those would require a fee. Higher level players could even work as tutor themselves during down time to get a little money once in a while.

So, yeah, you can have an organization. Just don't give away stuff for free. A fighter's or rogue's guild wouldn't keep giving out weapons or armor for free, a wizard organization wouldn't either.

[JoeJ]

Even if there is an organization, I would expect the availability - and price - of copied spells to depend significantly on what the spell does. Spells that most wizards won't feel comfortable making available to a total stranger are naturally going to be harder (and consequently more expensive) to get.

Fireball, for example, has the potential to do a lot of harm in the hands of somebody who has bad intentions, or even is simply careless. To get access to that spell you'd have to find a wizard who either knows and trusts you, or is the sort to not care who gets hurt.

Tongues or Water Breathing, although spells of the same level, would be a lot harder to misuse, either deliberately or through carelessness. I would expect they would be much more available, and consequently cheaper.

And Wish? Seriously? How many people know anybody (besides themselves) that they would trust with that power?

[Kryx]

I know the number is static; I was asking about the selection. A wizard is going to have certain go-to spells that pretty much always stay prepared because they're useful in a variety of situations. So how many of those 28 spells will actually vary from day to day? Say you have 24 spells that you always have prepared. Now, it's not a matter of 28 choices out of 44 vs 60; it's a matter of 4 choices out of 20 vs 46. How often would you select from the 20 choices vs the extended 26 choices?
That comparison isn't even close. Firstly 4 is incredibly too small. I would expect around 8/28 to change based on the day. You're assuming a Sorcerer likes all of his Origin spells. In all likelihood he'll use 1/2 to 3/4 of them. Giving the benfit of the doubt lets call it 7/10. Now it's 22 vs 28.

More versatility = more power. You can't pretend that away by saying people people won't take advantage of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

That comparison isn't even close. Firstly 4 is incredibly too small. I would expect around 8/28 to change based on the day. You're assuming a Sorcerer likes all of his Origin spells. In all likelihood he'll use 1/2 to 3/4 of them. Giving the benfit of the doubt lets call it 7/10. Now it's 22 vs 28.

More versatility = more power. You can't pretend that away by saying people people won't take advantage of it.
A reason to keep spell secrets and formulae strictly controlled and tightly held has also to do with public safety. Irresponsible use of magic could cause some serious problems ... so Magic Usesrs who are familiar with arcane magic, its risks, and powers will not wish to share it with anyone they don't think can handle it. That has as much to do with wizards keeping their spells and knowledge close to their vests as anything else. They don't want idiots giving their profession a bad name.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

This is pretty much the opposite of the Wild Magic Sorcerer. You would expect that Wizards and Sorcerers would not tend to see eye to eye, as the origin of their professions seem diametrically opposed.

[Vogonjeltz]

The point is that these wouldn't be secrets. See: Open-source software programming. All it takes is a group of like-minded and idealistic wizards. Heck - just one wizard putting up the fantasy version of WikiSpells.

I wouldn't use that analogy. Spells are more like grandma's secret recipe. Sure, she might, after 40 years, share it with her grandchild. Then again, maybe she jealously guards that secret to the grave.


And yet wizards can learn spells from other wizards' spellbooks or from scrolls. So I'd say such a 'share' annotation already exists.

Yes, with great time and effort they can decipher the spells and translate them into their own notation. Even if they copied an entire book of spells, they'd have to continue spending time and money to translate another book. Every wizard has essentially written spells into their own unique language.


Why not? Chemists and physicists and biologists all use standardized notations for their realms of study. It's just a matter of getting used to it, either through learning it during training or practice later on. At the very least, it should be possible for a single school of magic to have standardized notation.

Magic? :)

I suppose that shared notation is represented by the Arcane Tradition class feature that halves the time and gold cost of copying to a spellbook for the chosen school. And the extent to which wizards are willing to share knowledge and collaborate is represented by the starting spellbook. Anything after that is a hard won personal development.

Plus, even though much of the notation used in modern science is standardized, the actual knowledge is almost always a tightly held secret or protected by law such that other scientists can't just use it even if they were capable of comprehending it. i.e. the pharmaceutical industry.

So that's two possible models for wizard organizations where knowledge is still limited:

1) Vast depository of knowledge is protected by law/profit motive (corporation model)
2) Vast depository of knowledge is restricted by capacity of students (i.e. wizards may not be skilled enough to actually understand spells beyond level 1 which are necessarily more complex)

According to the sidebar on 114 copying the spells requires deciphering the annotation of the author, practicing the spell until you understand the sounds and gestures involved, and then copying the spell itself in an annotation you understand. This all requires time and money even if there's a jointly used annotation.


We weren't arguing it would be a universally applied system. But Vogonjeltz (post #34) said a shared notation was impossible on any scale.

Well, by saying it could be shared we are tacitly saying it's universally applicable even if we only intend it to be applied to members of a specific college. That being said, if we wanted to emulate the idea of a shared annotation I think that could be covered through the concept of the arcane traditions wherein costs and time required are significantly reduced for their specialty.

[SharkForce]

pretty much the only reason for a group of wizards to not wind up ruling the country is that they don't care to do so. realistically speaking, no angry mob is a serious threat once you've got a few people who can even cast shatter, and no organized army is likely to pose a serious threat once you've got a few people who can cast fireball. furthermore, odds are very good that if there is a rampaging spellcaster (of any sort, note that every other type of spellcaster gains their spell knowledge without relying on anyone else, and as such are perfectly capable of causing problems), that same wizard's guild will probably be what stops that spellcaster, and if someone is the sort of person who wants to go around killing people with fireball, I doubt they're going to wait for the guild to teach it to them.

frankly, the guild is most likely involved in stopping far more problems than it causes, simply by the fact that they are a small minority of casters in the first place (again, we have bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and warlocks in addition to wizards... do you *really* think restricting wizards from learning fireball is going to fix much of anything?)

a wizard's guild has enough power to not need to worry about offending people, and frankly for every wizard out there that could cause problems there are 5 other equally problematic non-wizards where you might need to have a fireball available to stop them. certainly, a wizard's guild is unlikely to teach circle of death to trogdor the burninator (known for burninating the countryside, peasants, and thatched-roof cottages), but if they suspect someone is dangerous enough that they can't share spell knowledge with them, their response is not likely to be "oh, we just won't teach them anything", so much as it is likely to be "let's take this guy down completely before he burninates our home". they're relatively unlikely to worry about bad press (again, they have enough power by virtue of having enough firepower to take out an army in a few seconds collectively to not worry about people liking them), and more likely to want to keep their home safe and their friends alive.

[ChelseaNH]

That comparison isn't even close. Firstly 4 is incredibly too small. I would expect around 8/28 to change based on the day. You're assuming a Sorcerer likes all of his Origin spells. In all likelihood he'll use 1/2 to 3/4 of them. Giving the benfit of the doubt lets call it 7/10. Now it's 22 vs 28.

More versatility = more power. You can't pretend that away by saying people people won't take advantage of it.

Actually, I wasn't talking about sorcerors at all, just wizards. 28 prepared spells out of 44 known spells versus 28 prepared spells out of 60 known spells. (Which is a difference of 16, not 26 as I previously used, but I'm multitasking.) So if you have 20 spells you always prepare, that leaves you with 8 choices out of the remaining 24 (out of 44) or 40 (out of 60) spells.

I don't think versatility equates to power. More spell slots = more power; different spells = different power. You could say that having more choices is better, but that also brings higher opportunity costs: by choosing these 8 spells out of 24, you're passing up the opportunity to use the remaining 16 options; by choosing these 8 spells out of 40, you're passing up the opportunity to use the remaining 32 options.

More versatility = more opportunities to be useful IF you know in advance which spells will be useful AND those spells are not part of your normal spell selection. The frequency of those conditions being met is going to vary from game to game and wizard to wizard.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Actually I think there is good reasoning from the Dragonlance novels... Towers of High Sorcery (http://dragonlance.wikia.com/wiki/Towers_of_High_Sorcery)

Basically wizards are capable of great feats of power, but has to rest and recover... during a war against magic, two of the towers were self destructed, destroying most of the surrounding populated areas, a third was lost during the Cataclysm, a fourth was cursed by a black robed wizard and nothing can go near it without the invitation of the master of both past and present, and the last tower is the last bastion of magic in that world.

Different wizards would use different solutions to their problems... but usually the powers balance out, lest magic be chased from the world forever and it's practitioners hunted and tried as heretics and witches.

[VoxRationis]

I wouldn't use that analogy. Spells are more like grandma's secret recipe. Sure, she might, after 40 years, share it with her grandchild. Then again, maybe she jealously guards that secret to the grave.

But many people share their recipes, even those which are exceedingly popular. Many people share recipes even when the recipes aren't done, just to get feedback on how they turn out. Obviously there is a societal model of wizard that keeps magical knowledge to himself, and that's what the default is assumed to be. But that's not how all people work, and not how all kinds of cultures work. Many people believe that knowledge should be shared, at least with their peers if not generally.


Yes, with great time and effort they can decipher the spells and translate them into their own notation. Even if they copied an entire book of spells, they'd have to continue spending time and money to translate another book. Every wizard has essentially written spells into their own unique language.
That stems from the source of the wizardly archetype in fiction, that of the lone sorcerer who hoards magical knowledge for himself, jealously guarding it from rivals, or who is discovering bits and pieces of lost lore (both apply to the wizards of Jack Vance's work, which were highly influential in defining the wizard of D&D). But that's a social characteristic, not something necessary or intrinsic.



Plus, even though much of the notation used in modern science is standardized, the actual knowledge is almost always a tightly held secret or protected by law such that other scientists can't just use it even if they were capable of comprehending it. i.e. the pharmaceutical industry.

Right, which is why I totally can't get a copy of Science and read through the M&M section of a paper to see what they did, the results section to see the data, and the conclusion to see the applicable lesson.


So that's two possible models for wizard organizations where knowledge is still limited:

1) Vast depository of knowledge is protected by law/profit motive (corporation model)
2) Vast depository of knowledge is restricted by capacity of students (i.e. wizards may not be skilled enough to actually understand spells beyond level 1 which are necessarily more complex)

You are pointing out that a closed-source environment can exist and attempting to use that to argue that it must exist, even in cultures that do not resemble those of your example.



According to the sidebar on 114 copying the spells requires deciphering the annotation of the author, practicing the spell until you understand the sounds and gestures involved, and then copying the spell itself in an annotation you understand. This all requires time and money even if there's a jointly used annotation.

The bolded sections do not apply to a jointly used notation system.


Well, by saying it could be shared we are tacitly saying it's universally applicable even if we only intend it to be applied to members of a specific college.
This is true, but except for you, since for some reason you think shared notation is impossible on principle, the people arguing against shared notation (such as KorvinStarmast) were pointing out that a fragmented quasi-medieval society would be unable to develop such shared notation for social, rather than intrinsic, reasons.

[MaxWilson]

pretty much the only reason for a group of wizards to not wind up ruling the country is that they don't care to do so. realistically speaking, no angry mob is a serious threat once you've got a few people who can even cast shatter, and no organized army is likely to pose a serious threat once you've got a few people who can cast fireball.

One could equally well claim that Fireball (range: 150') is no threat once you have a few dudes with longbows (range: 600'). In a dispersed formation (50' separation), that could easily be 25 guys shooting at you, and each of your Fireballs takes down only one.

5E isn't a great edition for wizard dominance. There are things you can do to rig the game in your favor, but it's not as simple as Fireball = WIN. If you want that experience, switch to Mage: The Ascension or Ars Magica.

-Max


Right, which is why I totally can't get a copy of Science and read through the M&M section of a paper to see what they did, the results section to see the data, and the conclusion to see the applicable lesson.

Can you cite an example of a paper in the pharmaceutical industry where the scientists share their data? I thought health industry data was jealously guarded due to legal issues with personal data and the possibility of de-anonymization. There are other fields of endeavor that seem to be similarly secretive about their raw data, see e.g. climatology. I don't think it's universal to jealously guard data but I don't get the impression that it's extremely rare.

The results section is not the data BTW. It's a particular view of the data. By itself it is insufficient for replication.

[JoeJ]

Spelling became more standardized with printing. If everyone learned to read from the same books, everyone learned to spell the same way. So if everyone learns magic from the same source/tradition, they would be much more likely to have a standardized notation. The existence of a guild makes standard notation more likely.

That's assuming that a standard notation is possible in the first place. It could just as plausibly be the case that there's a personal element in magic that can't be eliminated. So while it's possible with study to puzzle out how to cast a spell from another wizard's notes, it's not possible to just follow their directions and make it work.

This could be fluffed by saying, for example, that it's not specific words and gestures that matter in casting a spell, but the mental activity of the caster who is saying and doing certain things. And just as every wizard's mind is slightly different, so the exact pronunciations and somatic movements associated with a spell vary from individual to individual as well.

[SharkForce]

Actually I think there is good reasoning from the Dragonlance novels... Towers of High Sorcery (http://dragonlance.wikia.com/wiki/Towers_of_High_Sorcery)

Basically wizards are capable of great feats of power, but has to rest and recover... during a war against magic, two of the towers were self destructed, destroying most of the surrounding populated areas, a third was lost during the Cataclysm, a fourth was cursed by a black robed wizard and nothing can go near it without the invitation of the master of both past and present, and the last tower is the last bastion of magic in that world.

Different wizards would use different solutions to their problems... but usually the powers balance out, lest magic be chased from the world forever and it's practitioners hunted and tried as heretics and witches.

wizards in that setting lost pretty much because the authors decided they lost the war, not because it was a reasonable conclusion of the outcome (also because the wizards were basically unwilling to basically kill tens of thousands of civilians if they could avoid it; they could have nuked palanthas first and then told the armies that if they don't leave the wilderness towers alone they'll just destroy the population base that they need if they don't want to starve to death and die of horrible diseases en masse). seriously, have you read what some of the groves surrounding the towers *do*?

there was basically no chance anyone was going to successfully *find* the wayreth tower, let alone assault it. the one in palanthas had no wizards in it for something like 3 centuries and basically nobody even wanted to go near it.

in spite of having a ridiculously huge army of priests, notice that when the wizards got *serious* about fighting, the response was not "no, we're going to win anyways", but rather "oh, you mean you're going to agree to not wipe out our major population centres? well, ok, in that case we'll agree to not get our butts kicked any more than what you just already did purely as a warning to us".

and longbows? really? you're going to try and use spread out longbowmen in urban fighting? good luck with that. I'm sure there's no wizards that can just summon monsters that are immune to nonmagical weapons to go around town slaughtering your individual longbowmen or anything.

you're right, fireball is not an instant solution to every combat. but it *is* the solution to massed assault, and you sure as hell don't want to pick an extended guerilla fight with a bunch of wizards. as badly as direct assault will go, letting them accumulate minions and prepare traps and such is going to go even *worse* if they're not idiots (typically, wizards are not idiots). you do not want to let them have more time to prepare.

[Paeleus]

Ya! And they must pay money to reach the next tier or Lord Xenu will not grace them with further knowledge.

...wait. This has been done before!? Damn you L. Ron.

[SharkForce]

actually, if lord xenu grants the knowledge of how to cast actual D&D spells, that's a pretty fair trade :P

[Strill]

actually, if lord xenu grants the knowledge of how to cast actual D&D spells, that's a pretty fair trade :P

That's seriously what they say they do. They literally have telekinesis practice.

[Milo v3]

In my campaign I was going to have nearly all the spells available on the internet, so even more open then a wizard organization.

[VoxRationis]

That's assuming that a standard notation is possible in the first place. It could just as plausibly be the case that there's a personal element in magic that can't be eliminated. So while it's possible with study to puzzle out how to cast a spell from another wizard's notes, it's not possible to just follow their directions and make it work.

This could be fluffed by saying, for example, that it's not specific words and gestures that matter in casting a spell, but the mental activity of the caster who is saying and doing certain things. And just as every wizard's mind is slightly different, so the exact pronunciations and somatic movements associated with a spell vary from individual to individual as well.

Well, now you're just inventing a new point in order to support your argument. And while much has changed since 3e, that edition had classes which implied a fair amount of interpersonal mental compatibility (the spellthief and the mage of the arcane order), so at least in the past, that argument wouldn't have stood up. Now, nothing like that has shown up in 5e yet, but it hasn't been very long yet.

[Pex]

you're right, fireball is not an instant solution to every combat. but it *is* the solution to massed assault, and you sure as hell don't want to pick an extended guerilla fight with a bunch of wizards. as badly as direct assault will go, letting them accumulate minions and prepare traps and such is going to go even *worse* if they're not idiots (typically, wizards are not idiots). you do not want to let them have more time to prepare.

Of course they are. They only have 10 Intelligence.

[Shining Wrath]

I've got a Great Library run by the High Elves.

There are 9 Keepers, one from each school plus one who handles non-magic tomes (history, nature, religion). To be granted access to the library requires a unanimous vote. The Keepers only allow access to those of good character. It is not unusual for you to have to perform a quest to establish your character. It is not unusual for said quest to align nicely with a Keeper's current area of research. So up to nine quests to obtain materials or information that a low to mid-teens wizard can't get easily on his or her own, i.e., of at least moderate difficulty.

And then you're allowed into the library to achieve one specific goal.

BTW, vacant Keeper positions require the candidates to submit some new research they have completed, often a spell, and all such submissions are the property of the Library. Therefore the Library contains spells not in the PHB. Some of these spells are used in the defense of the library. In other words, every known attempt to gain access to the Library without permission has failed, often painfully, sometimes hilariously.

[Slipperychicken]

pretty much the only reason for a group of wizards to not wind up ruling the country is that they don't care to do so.

They can rule, but they're not sitting on the throne -wizards are smart enough to rule from the shadows. You don't need to be the king when the king is doing what you tell him. It's all the same power, but none of the accountability, none of the time-wasting ceremony, none of the stress, and none of the assassins.

Putting on a crown means painting a gigantic target on your back. People blame you for everything that goes wrong, scorn you if you even slightly deviate from what's expected of a leader, try to kill you when you happen to be in their way, and all your precious downtime gets eaten up by ritualized minutiae of government. That's no life for a wizard, so they get martials to do it for them. After all, the fighter was probably doing whatever the wizard said anyway.


Or did you think that whole "evil advisor" thing was just a meme?

[Alerad]

Don't think about the spells in the PHB as well known and documented. Just because they are in the book doesn't mean they are available freely in your world. Lets say the Organization mainly has Abjuration and Divination spells. Your character comes up with Charm, an unknown and undocumented spell. Would you report it? What if it backfires - "Look, he can hypnotize people!".

Now imagine a scenario where somebody has already developed it but keeps it a secret for personal gain. It would make sense for people to keep 2-3 spellbooks, at least one of them secret.

Real life example - software development. It's the easiest thing to share code (in recent years many developers actually do), yet big companies tend not to.

So back to your question, the Organization won't break the game, but you don't need to give all the spells on a platter just because there is an Organization :smallwink:

[Corey]

I'm in the camp that says acquiring extra spells should be a gold sink, and you should fluff the gold sink as you like.

If there's a particular spell you don't want your wizard to have, the time to worry about that is before he picks his free ones.

[KorvinStarmast]

Of course they are. They only have 10 Intelligence. Cross referencing other threads for a pouch full of win! :smallbiggrin: That got me chuckling.


I'm in the camp that says acquiring extra spells should be a gold sink, and you should fluff the gold sink as you like.

If there's a particular spell you don't want your wizard to have, the time to worry about that is before he picks his free ones. Yep. No free lunch.

[wasgreg]

Can you cite an example of a paper in the pharmaceutical industry where the scientists share their data? I thought health industry data was jealously guarded due to legal issues with personal data and the possibility of de-anonymization. There are other fields of endeavor that seem to be similarly secretive about their raw data, see e.g. climatology. I don't think it's universal to jealously guard data but I don't get the impression that it's extremely rare.

Open Source Cancer Research (http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_bradner_open_source_cancer_research?language=e n) Really interesting stuff on the future of fighting cancer. But basically, these guys found something useful in fighting cancer and sent out mailers to pharm labs with the break down of how it was achieved and offered themselves up for Q&A for those continuing the pursuit. Many of the big pharms are now running drugs thru testing now, as a result of the free research. Agreed, it is an exception and not the rule.

[Fighting_Ferret]

wizards in that setting lost pretty much because the authors decided they lost the war, not because it was a reasonable conclusion of the outcome (also because the wizards were basically unwilling to basically kill tens of thousands of civilians if they could avoid it; they could have nuked palanthas first and then told the armies that if they don't leave the wilderness towers alone they'll just destroy the population base that they need if they don't want to starve to death and die of horrible diseases en masse). seriously, have you read what some of the groves surrounding the towers *do*?

there was basically no chance anyone was going to successfully *find* the wayreth tower, let alone assault it. the one in palanthas had no wizards in it for something like 3 centuries and basically nobody even wanted to go near it.

in spite of having a ridiculously huge army of priests, notice that when the wizards got *serious* about fighting, the response was not "no, we're going to win anyways", but rather "oh, you mean you're going to agree to not wipe out our major population centres? well, ok, in that case we'll agree to not get our butts kicked any more than what you just already did purely as a warning to us".

and longbows? really? you're going to try and use spread out longbowmen in urban fighting? good luck with that. I'm sure there's no wizards that can just summon monsters that are immune to nonmagical weapons to go around town slaughtering your individual longbowmen or anything.

you're right, fireball is not an instant solution to every combat. but it *is* the solution to massed assault, and you sure as hell don't want to pick an extended guerilla fight with a bunch of wizards. as badly as direct assault will go, letting them accumulate minions and prepare traps and such is going to go even *worse* if they're not idiots (typically, wizards are not idiots). you do not want to let them have more time to prepare.

I don't really care to argue with you on the point, I was illustrating one example, not making a case about every possible outcome. But here are few flaws to your own arguments:

The authors willed it, also because wizards weren't willing to kill whole cities worth of people...
Why would all wizards want to go out and kill everyone? Every wizard lost in combat would be a much harder to replace finite resource than common soldiers, not to mention wizards still have others they care about and still need to eat and have other services provided, not to mention most intelligent beings don't like to take life needlessly.

As to longbows vs fireballs...
Fireballs win... but we have to look at the numbers behind this comparison. How many wizards would be high enough level to even have access to fireball? Now how many of those wizards would actually learn that spell? How many of them have the crazy high intelligence to cast it more than once or twice per day? At the expense of what other spells?

You are comparing multiple 5+ level spell casters with abnormally high stats to a level 1 common soldiers with relatively common stats. Now lets say that the common soldiers are all level 5 fighters with archery style and high stats (just making them equal for comparison) and have the support of clerics, also level 5 since there are so many level 5+ NPCs running around. Do you stand by the statement that fireballs trump longbows? Is that even realistic to assume?

[KorvinStarmast]

You are comparing multiple 5+ level spell casters with abnormally high stats to a level 1 common soldiers with relatively common stats. Now lets say that the common soldiers are all level 5 fighters with archery style and high stats (just making them equal for comparison) and have the support of clerics, also level 5 since there are so many level 5+ NPCs running around. Do you stand by the statement that fireballs trump longbows? Is that even realistic to assume? I am not sure that bounded accuracy (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/44826/are-peoples-competencies-really-as-flat-in-dd-5e-as-its-math-suggests)is as well understood as WoTC had hoped.


There is a pretty good explanation of it here. (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/44836/22566)

One of the features of bounded accuracy is that quantity has a quality all its own. The archers, spread out like skirmishers, could very well do enough damage to a wizard using the range of their long bows to either drive him off or kill him.

[SharkForce]

the wizards of high sorcerery are people who have taken a test, the first of which afaict happens at level 4.

so ummm... yes. yes i am talking about an organization of people who largely can cast fireball.

and, quite frankly, many of them can do far more destructive things than a mere fireball. it doesn't take a lot of level 20 wizards to stop an army. frankly, it doesn't even take a lot of level 10 or 12 wizards to stop an army. go read the thread about 3 dracoliches vs an army, and understand that what those dracoliches can do in 5e is chump change.

seriously, in 2nd edition, you could just make yourself immune to nonmagical arrows. they can stack on top of that improved invisibility, where you need high int and 12+ hit dice to even have a chance to figure out where they are, and the only spell that lets you see them is a wizard spell. they can summon creatures that are completely immune to normal weapons, to just march through your army killing whoever they please.

if we start going into things you can do with a really high level wizard, it gets really crazy.

you used the dragonlance setting as a reason why wizards need to fear public opinion. it is not anything remotely close to being a good example of that. it is an example of the authors deciding that something happened, and therefore it happened no matter how absurd it would have been for that to happen. because it would be much more plausible to just say that a bunch of high level wizards dropped cloudkill and death fog all over the approaching army (the wizards should be able to cast several each, there was no concentration requirement at the time) and they all just died without being able to fight back or even run away (cloudkill was instant death, no save, to any low HD creature in the area. death fog was a slow damage spell, but large area, blinded you, and you could only move 1 foot per round... and a 0th level fighter has ~5 HP, so by round 3, if they weren't within 2 feet of the edge of the cloud, they're dead also).

perphaps they're feeling nice and just fire off enough warning shots, then send a message that if the armies don't go back to the hole they crawled out of, that's going to happen tomorrow as well. and the next day. and the next. after the first several thousand are slaughtered with no chance to retaliate, i imagine the rest of them might decide that going on a 20-day march to assault a single tower (out of 5) that has *added* defenses on top of the wizards that occasionally decide to kill them off in droves, and probably also are guarded by hordes of undead that used to be their fellow soldiers (back in the day, animate dead had no limits, you get loyal slaves every time you cast it and no need to refresh control) because there's a bunch of black-robe mages with nothing better to do. not to mention probably golems that you can't hurt, invisible stalkers hunting down your generals, and all kinds of other horrible things.

[KorvinStarmast]

the wizards of high sorcerery are people who have taken a test, the first of which afaict happens at level 4.

so ummm... yes. yes i am talking about an organization of people who largely can cast fireball.

and, quite frankly, many of them can do far more destructive things than a mere fireball. it doesn't take a lot of level 20 wizards to stop an army. frankly, it doesn't even take a lot of level 10 or 12 wizards to stop an army. go read the thread about 3 dracoliches vs an army, and understand that what those dracoliches can do in 5e is chump change.

seriously, in 2nd edition, you could just make yourself immune to nonmagical arrows.
Since we are going back to earlier editions of D&D here, why not go back to the origin in Chainmail? There, wizards emulated Artillery. One artillery battery, well placed and well run, rips to shreds foot soldiers. D&D started as a WAR game, with role playing added on to it when Mr Arneson had an idea ...

This goes back to the point of low magic settings: just how many wizards are there in the world? not many. The thing about OD&D was that the real bugger was in surviving the first few levels. That's a bit of natural selection right there for keeping wizard populations down.

The other is behavioral. Does a wizard benefit from preventing a war, or from participating in a war?

Why did WoTC not go further back, and make researching of finding new spells harder? Playability. Player choice. Any DM who finds Fireball overpowered can certainly make it harder for his PC's to find and copy into their books.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Why are we going back to earlier versions of D&D? I merely used a setting, that while published in 2nd Edition rules, could easily be recreated in any edition, as an example of both a group of wizards creating an 'organization' and at the same time why they didn't rule the world with an iron fist.

If the justification is the DM said they don't, or the author said they don't, then they don't. Fine. What the entire thing was supposed to point out is that wizards are still people and that most people would rather not kill others, even so called evil ones. In that setting, they must pass a test to actually be allowed to study advanced magic that could have dire consequences if used for personal gain. If you want to read it as they just DM/author fiat go ahead, but it makes it more interesting when wizards are part of the world and trying to help the world, instead of destroying it and ruling over the legions of their now re-animated minions. Wealth is nothing with nothing to spend it on, power has no meaning when there is no one to exercise it over, and love loses it's meaning when there is no one to place above yourself.

[KorvinStarmast]

What the entire thing was supposed to point out is that wizards are still people and that most people would rather not kill others, even so called evil ones. In that setting, they must pass a test to actually be allowed to study advanced magic that could have dire consequences if used for personal gain.
This is agreed ... but it all seems to fall apart when perfectly decent wizards are controlled or played by murder-hobo-ish alter egos from our plane of existence. :smallbiggrin:

[Fighting_Ferret]

This is agreed ... but it all seems to fall apart when perfectly decent wizards are controlled or played by murder-hobo-ish alter egos from our plane of existence. :smallbiggrin:

Very True!

[MaxWilson]

Open Source Cancer Research (http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_bradner_open_source_cancer_research?language=e n) Really interesting stuff on the future of fighting cancer. But basically, these guys found something useful in fighting cancer and sent out mailers to pharm labs with the break down of how it was achieved and offered themselves up for Q&A for those continuing the pursuit. Many of the big pharms are now running drugs thru testing now, as a result of the free research. Agreed, it is an exception and not the rule.

That's interesting. It doesn't refute Vogonjeltz's claim from #77 though, because that's not a paper and it doesn't have the data. VoxRationis claimed in #81 that Vogonjeltz is wrong about data in the pharmaceutical industry being tightly-held, and I'm still waiting to see evidence.

But it is interesting, thanks for sharing.

[MaxWilson]

and, quite frankly, many of them can do far more destructive things than a mere fireball. it doesn't take a lot of level 20 wizards to stop an army. frankly, it doesn't even take a lot of level 10 or 12 wizards to stop an army. go read the thread about 3 dracoliches vs an army, and understand that what those dracoliches can do in 5e is chump change.

seriously, in 2nd edition, you could just make yourself immune to nonmagical arrows.

What dragons can do with magic in 5E is largely based on the strength of their actual base chassis, because they're dragons. A Shield spell on an AC 19 dragon with hundreds of HP and a movement rate of 80' flying is rather different than a Shield spell on an AC 13 wizard with fifty HP and movement 40'.

Yes, in AD&D, Protection From Normal Missiles was awesome. That has nothing to do with 5E wizards, who die pretty easily to longbows.

[SharkForce]

Why are we going back to earlier versions of D&D? I merely used a setting, that while published in 2nd Edition rules, could easily be recreated in any edition, as an example of both a group of wizards creating an 'organization' and at the same time why they didn't rule the world with an iron fist.

If the justification is the DM said they don't, or the author said they don't, then they don't. Fine. What the entire thing was supposed to point out is that wizards are still people and that most people would rather not kill others, even so called evil ones. In that setting, they must pass a test to actually be allowed to study advanced magic that could have dire consequences if used for personal gain. If you want to read it as they just DM/author fiat go ahead, but it makes it more interesting when wizards are part of the world and trying to help the world, instead of destroying it and ruling over the legions of their now re-animated minions. Wealth is nothing with nothing to spend it on, power has no meaning when there is no one to exercise it over, and love loses it's meaning when there is no one to place above yourself.

we're talking about earlier editions because that was when the decision to have the wizards lose was made.

but here's the thing: in order for the wizards to be able to choose to go with their principles and not kill a bunch of people, they first had to have the ability to apply overwhelming force to make those armies shut up and sit down, and accept the crumbs they're offering.

we're not talking about killing random people. we're talking about wizards choosing to defend themselves against an army of what are essentially bigots who have decided that they want to commit murder in the first place. it was not a campaign against the black robe wizards, it was a campaign to kill *all* wizards, including the white-robed mages who worship a deity who's teachings include constant vigilance against evil and protecting others.

and while 5th edition is certainly *less* extreme than earlier editions (though again, it is relevant because the decision to have wizards guilds lose a war was made in that environment, not the current one), the difference is definitely there. it doesn't take a lot of times where a sleet storm is cast on the bridge you want to cross by an invisible enemy, or invisible stalkers kidnapping your commanding officers, or your troops being killed in large numbers every time they attempt to march towards their destination, before it starts to become extremely obvious that these are not people you want to pick a fight with. magic is less powerful in 5th than it was in 2nd AD&D, but it still makes a laughingstock of mundane armies, especially when you have a group of wizards working together against you. which you can reasonably expect if you decide to wage war on them just because some other jerk decided to do something you don't like.

there is no point at which a bunch of angry peasants, or guardsmen, have a realistic chance of taking on a wizard's guild and winning in a fight. no sane ruler is going to pick a fight with them. there is no need to fear public opinion. a wizard's guild is about as threatened by a conventional army as you are by a colony of ants.

[RazDelacroix]

Well are they monstrous giant ants? Speaking of the regular ant varieties they still play havoc in situations where we humans are concerned. Fall asleep in the wrong place and WHAM! Colony chow. It is my personal view that wizards, clerics, custodians of strange and eldritch powers; can still be threatened by 'mundane' folk. Advantage of numbers and chances of exceedingly crafty sorts amidst the common folk.

Still, when vigilant and prepared, wizard guilds can DEVASTATE whole nations. Though that's probably bad for their business and will eventually bite them in the rear. Probably when a wizard alongside three or more buddies comes knocking and ask, 'Why did you destroy our hometown?'

[KorvinStarmast]

Well are they monstrous giant ants? Speaking of the regular ant varieties they still play havoc in situations where we humans are concerned. Fall asleep in the wrong place and WHAM! Colony chow. It is my personal view that wizards, clerics, custodians of strange and eldritch powers; can still be threatened by 'mundane' folk. Advantage of numbers and chances of exceedingly crafty sorts amidst the common folk.

Still, when vigilant and prepared, wizard guilds can DEVASTATE whole nations. Though that's probably bad for their business and will eventually bite them in the rear. Probably when a wizard alongside three or more buddies comes knocking and ask, 'Why did you destroy our hometown?'
Or they each send out an Invisible Stalker ... :smalleek:

[SharkForce]

Well are they monstrous giant ants? Speaking of the regular ant varieties they still play havoc in situations where we humans are concerned. Fall asleep in the wrong place and WHAM! Colony chow. It is my personal view that wizards, clerics, custodians of strange and eldritch powers; can still be threatened by 'mundane' folk. Advantage of numbers and chances of exceedingly crafty sorts amidst the common folk.

Still, when vigilant and prepared, wizard guilds can DEVASTATE whole nations. Though that's probably bad for their business and will eventually bite them in the rear. Probably when a wizard alongside three or more buddies comes knocking and ask, 'Why did you destroy our hometown?'

and if the answer is that your hometown attacked them en masse for what someone else did, they'll either stand down or likewise get the crap kicked out of them by the wizard's guild.

i'm not saying that a wizard's guild *will* do these things. if a wizard guild wanted to do those things, they would have already done them. i'm saying that they are fully capable of doing these things, and because of that generally speaking don't need to worry about people trying to do those things. ultimately, if people do manage to actually reach a point where they threaten the guild, they can just retreat someplace where non-wizards cannot follow, and you've still got a (very angry) wizard's guild to deal with.

[Sigreid]

Well are they monstrous giant ants? Speaking of the regular ant varieties they still play havoc in situations where we humans are concerned. Fall asleep in the wrong place and WHAM! Colony chow. It is my personal view that wizards, clerics, custodians of strange and eldritch powers; can still be threatened by 'mundane' folk. Advantage of numbers and chances of exceedingly crafty sorts amidst the common folk.

Still, when vigilant and prepared, wizard guilds can DEVASTATE whole nations. Though that's probably bad for their business and will eventually bite them in the rear. Probably when a wizard alongside three or more buddies comes knocking and ask, 'Why did you destroy our hometown?'

I think the real answer to why wizards wouldn't rule everything is why would they want to? A high level wizard can pretty much do as he pleases since his spells likely give him more than enough ability to earn instant cash (example: summon earth elemental and order it to bring raw gold ore from the nearest mine), and are generally powerful enough that the cost of trying to compel them to do something can quickly out strip the value of anything you can compel them to do (you don't have to fireball people if you start fireballing the kingdom's crops). Add to that that there is a cost for ruling. Ruling requires you to pay attention to governing, treaties, wealth management, land management, foreign relations etc. Generally speaking, the value of ruling is that you are not ruled. If you are already powerful enough to ensure that you are not ruled, why would anyone bother, except for a few rare megalomaniacs.

Heck, if I knew for a fact that I could do as I please provided I don't do something that turns everyone against me, the rest of the world could go to blazes for all I care as long as they leave me and those I care about out of it.

[Vogonjeltz]

But many people share their recipes, even those which are exceedingly popular. Many people share recipes even when the recipes aren't done, just to get feedback on how they turn out. Obviously there is a societal model of wizard that keeps magical knowledge to himself, and that's what the default is assumed to be. But that's not how all people work, and not how all kinds of cultures work. Many people believe that knowledge should be shared, at least with their peers if not generally.

Yes, now that we have the internet people routinely share their recipes on it, and it's exceedingly easy to find a recipe (if not the particular specific recipe you might actually want) online. This of course differs drastically from the preceding centuries in which recipes were typically handed down from person to person much like the oral storytelling tradition. Having published collections of recipe books and such are a truly modern invention.

Secondly, feedback is not necessary for spells, they aren't actually a recipe per se in that the caster either does it right or nothing happens. And that many people like knowledge to be shared is equally discounted in that many people don't want their hard won knowledge to be shared especially when that hard won knowledge is power, which spells most assuredly are.


That stems from the source of the wizardly archetype in fiction, that of the lone sorcerer who hoards magical knowledge for himself, jealously guarding it from rivals, or who is discovering bits and pieces of lost lore (both apply to the wizards of Jack Vance's work, which were highly influential in defining the wizard of D&D). But that's a social characteristic, not something necessary or intrinsic.

Considering how intrinsically dangerous most spells are there's an intrinsic element of risk in sharing that highly dangerous knowledge with anyone who wants it. Humans routinely regulate access to dangerous knowledge precisely because it is dangerous.


Right, which is why I totally can't get a copy of Science and read through the M&M section of a paper to see what they did, the results section to see the data, and the conclusion to see the applicable lesson.

Not if the researchers in question refuse to send their papers to Science, no you totally can't. And this is irrelevent, there's no Magic in D&D to which spell research is submitted. Nor for that matter can you just find a book with trade secrets in it, like the recipe for Coca-Cola.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals


You are pointing out that a closed-source environment can exist and attempting to use that to argue that it must exist, even in cultures that do not resemble those of your example.

Well, technically those must because of the many-worlds, but no, I'm saying those two models fulfill the question requirement of having a Wizard organization where knowledge is still limited. Which is the original question. So...question answered.


The bolded sections do not apply to a jointly used notation system.

So by RAW we know that there's no such thing as a jointly used notation system for magic. Reasons? Because, magic.


This is true, but except for you, since for some reason you think shared notation is impossible on principle, the people arguing against shared notation (such as KorvinStarmast) were pointing out that a fragmented quasi-medieval society would be unable to develop such shared notation for social, rather than intrinsic, reasons.

As I said, magic and the rules of the game prohibit it. So perhaps the reasons are that magic, to be used, must be comprehended in a personal way, like an artistic process. Or since we know that the game regards most magical knowledge as being (re)discovered it could just be a nascent process, both of which do not employ standardization. https://hbr.org/2009/03/when-should-a-process-be-art-not-science

[Corey]

Why don't wizards completely oppress everybody else?

Consciences.
Other wizards.
Gods.
The annoyance of having to defend against many motivated assassins and/or armies.


As noted above -- unless you're a certain kind of person, tyranny isn't all that fun. And if you are that kind of person, are you also the kind who'd be an elite wizard?

The ones to worry about are the pretty-good wizards who are also skilled at politics. Hmm. That could almost be an argument to ...

... Beware of Bards!! :smallbiggrin:

[SharkForce]

oh, i already figured wizards don't rule things because they don't want to rule things.

i'm just countering the position that wizards need to worry about whether people like them or not. whether you like wizards or not, there isn't a whole lot most people can practically speaking do about one powerful wizard. when you make it a full guild, the wizards can pretty much do what they want without caring what people think about them.

[Corey]

there isn't a whole lot most communities of people can practically speaking do about one powerful wizard.

I inserted two bolded words and, in doing so, made your statement false, or at least misleading. And that's the key point.

If nothing else, the community can hire a team of adventurers. There seems to be plenty of those. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

oh, i already figured wizards don't rule things because they don't want to rule things.

i'm just countering the position that wizards need to worry about whether people like them or not. whether you like wizards or not, there isn't a whole lot most people can practically speaking do about one powerful wizard. when you make it a full guild, the wizards can pretty much do what they want without caring what people think about them.

The trick is to not be such a jerk or group of jerks that the general populace feels they have nothing to loose by going for it. Enough people who are angry enough can ruin even a wizard guild's day. But you have to be making them really miserable to get them to the point where anger and desperation over comes fear.

[SharkForce]

I inserted two bolded words and, in doing so, made your statement false, or at least misleading. And that's the key point.

If nothing else, the community can hire a team of adventurers. There seems to be plenty of those. :smallbiggrin:

eh, not really. a team of adventurers vs a bunch of established wizards in an area they've had time and resources to fortify? honestly, my money wouldn't be on the adventurers. i mean, if it was a group of PCs on an adventure, maybe, but that's only because the DM will have a hard time properly running the preparation of potentially dozens of int 18-20 characters with wildly divergent spell lists, different experiences to draw on, and possibly even unique spells available for use, and possibly access to all kinds of magical traps and magic items to help with the defence.

if they are acting in a way that is making you willing to risk that they won't just retaliate in extremely unpleasant ways, perhaps you should consider that if they were the sort of wizards that valued your life highly they probably wouldn't be the sort of wizards that are doing something to make you take your chances on them being nice enough to just leave those nice fortified strongholds they've created.

now, like i said, many wizards (and by extension guilds) will be held in check at least somewhat by the fact that they don't particularly want to kill people and aren't particularly evil. most of them will even be solidly neutral, and will likely have at least some locals that they like, and might even consider friends. they're not likely to decide to cast finger of death on random people to increase the size of their zombie army, or anything like that.

but if the wizard guild in your neighbourhood does do that, you might want to leave (being able to leave is, of course, a whole different matter, since at that point there's a fair chance you live in ravenloft).

[Coidzor]

Spells with legitimate civilian applications are the most easily acquirable as they're the bread and butter of what most guildmages would want to use if they're making a living as non-adventuring wizards.

As spells become increasingly powerful or niche to adventuring concerns, then the source of that spells goes up the hierarchy to people who are busy enough that there's only a limited window of time to learn spells from them or from other adventuring wizards who are briefly on their own downtime between adventures as well and thus are similarly limited in the number of spells they can/will impart.

The background spells that most adventurers wouldn't be interested in are just in the library and are available at-cost to guildmages whose specialization or role within the guild lies in that area and then at an operational mark-up for other guildmages.

Indeed, it would be a convenient way to incorporate renown into Downtime in order to build up renown and standing in the guild to get progressive discounts and increased access to the higher ups or have more of a name in the guild so it's easier for them to approach/find other adventuring type guildmates or arrange for prolonged liaisons with them for exchanges. Or as you gain in renown the wizard gains some spell based upon their chosen school or the school of the higher-up they've gained a boon from.

That's more work for the DM than the default, but it's constructive work instead of micromanaging and finding ways to say "NO, BAD PLAYER!" like the suggestions to just punish the player so that such an organization is and can only be a worse deal than the default rules.


That comparison isn't even close. Firstly 4 is incredibly too small. I would expect around 8/28 to change based on the day. You're assuming a Sorcerer likes all of his Origin spells. In all likelihood he'll use 1/2 to 3/4 of them. Giving the benfit of the doubt lets call it 7/10. Now it's 22 vs 28.

More versatility = more power. You can't pretend that away by saying people people won't take advantage of it.

The question is whether that increase in power and versatility is itself versatile or if it increasingly only would be useful in edge cases or niche situations as they start to take "Well, this could be useful if A, B, C, D, and E are true" spells versus "This spell is just plain useful, I'll always have this prepped unless I have a specific reason to do otherwise" spells.

Not all increases in power are equal. Some are such that each additional factor is the same discrete increase in power as the ones that came before. Some work out so that the subsequent factors boost the power of preceding increases in power as well as being an increase in power in and of itself. Still others don't increase what has come before but past some point, every individual increase is greater than the last and others are the opposite, every increase becomes increasingly marginal as one faces diminishing returns.

[JoeJ]

Well, now you're just inventing a new point in order to support your argument. And while much has changed since 3e, that edition had classes which implied a fair amount of interpersonal mental compatibility (the spellthief and the mage of the arcane order), so at least in the past, that argument wouldn't have stood up. Now, nothing like that has shown up in 5e yet, but it hasn't been very long yet.

It's exactly as "invented" as the idea that spellbooks can use a standardized system of notation. Either interpretation is possible, but the text on p. 114 makes it clear that they don't use a common system, and it's entirely plausible that the reason they don't is that they can't.

What happened in 3e isn't really relevant here, so even if those classes you mention could pick up a random wizard's spellbook and use it to prepare spells, wizards in 5e have no such ability.




oh, i already figured wizards don't rule things because they don't want to rule things.

i'm just countering the position that wizards need to worry about whether people like them or not. whether you like wizards or not, there isn't a whole lot most people can practically speaking do about one powerful wizard. when you make it a full guild, the wizards can pretty much do what they want without caring what people think about them.

Until the chief priest declares a holy crusade to rid the world of that evil guild. The armies march on the wizards' stronghold, under clerical protection, led by a battalion of paladins. And while the wizards are busy trying to shore up their external defenses, the monk and assassin teams sneak in and eliminate them.

The idea of a guild of wizards defying the world assumes that nobody else has class levels. Against armies that include other characters of equally high level, attacking in a coordinated fashion with and in greater numbers, the wizards lose.

[Raimun]

The thing about wizard organizations in most fiction is that they are all utterly useless.

Sure, they're all mysterious and they technically have supernatural powers but they couldn't magic* their way out of a paperbag, let alone a standard D&D-monster encounter. Instead, they do magical... stuff. They practice spells that they can never cast properly. Each one specializes in and masters one cantrip, bonus points if its situational. They brew potions, as long as they only have comical side effects. They learn magical theory that can't applied to anything, including Knowledge-rolls and learning useful spells. They gather information by accidentally eavesdropping and/or stumbling to the scene. Major magical spells are allowed only if they can't solve any real situations. Some might have access to actually powerful magical mojo but only if it is provided by a major magical item that even non-wizards could use just as well. The old head wizard does have actual powers but he's always either away, dead or otherwise incapable of using them or just unwilling for moral/mentor-related/mysterious reasons.

Either the above is the actual case or the wizards still act like it was.

I'd watch Harry Potter movies to get some ideas. :smalltongue:

*Sure, they can eventually solve a given situation but they won't use magic to do it. Instead, they tend to favor solutions that a commoner with an Int of 12 and 10's in all other stats could pull off.

[SharkForce]

It's exactly as "invented" as the idea that spellbooks can use a standardized system of notation. Either interpretation is possible, but the text on p. 114 makes it clear that they don't use a common system, and it's entirely plausible that the reason they don't is that they can't.

What happened in 3e isn't really relevant here, so even if those classes you mention could pick up a random wizard's spellbook and use it to prepare spells, wizards in 5e have no such ability.





Until the chief priest declares a holy crusade to rid the world of that evil guild. The armies march on the wizards' stronghold, under clerical protection, led by a battalion of paladins. And while the wizards are busy trying to shore up their external defenses, the monk and assassin teams sneak in and eliminate them.

The idea of a guild of wizards defying the world assumes that nobody else has class levels. Against armies that include other characters of equally high level, attacking in a coordinated fashion with and in greater numbers, the wizards lose.

well sure, if literally the whole world goes after them, you could probably make them go someplace else. still not likely to kill them though. and you'd be surprised what you can do with sufficient preparation even against monks and assassins.

when you have a whole bunch of wizards with the ability to make magical traps and magic items, and access to a bunch of spell research, it isn't going to be easy to attack them if they aren't holding back.

[KorvinStarmast]

well sure, if literally the whole world goes after them, you could probably make them go someplace else. still not likely to kill them though. and you'd be surprised what you can do with sufficient preparation even against monks and assassins.

when you have a whole bunch of wizards with the ability to make magical traps and magic items, and access to a bunch of spell research, it isn't going to be easy to attack them if they aren't holding back.Presuming that you can get the wizards to agree on anything. People of high intelligence, I have noted, are infamous for not being able to agree with other people -- if you spend much time in academia I think you'll see what I mean. :smallbiggrin: Their prime requisite is INT, not Charisma, and not necessarily wisdom. :smallwink:

To restate what JoeJ pointed out:

The text on p. 114 makes it clear that they don't use a common system, and it's entirely plausible that the reason they don't is that they can't. This is 5th Edition D&D.

What happened in 3e isn't really relevant here. Even if those classes you mention could pick up a random wizard's spellbook and use it to prepare spells, wizards in 5e have no such ability.

[SharkForce]

Presuming that you can get the wizards to agree on anything. People of high intelligence, I have noted, are infamous for not being able to agree with other people -- if you spend much time in academia I think you'll see what I mean. :smallbiggrin: Their prime requisite is INT, not Charisma, and not necessarily wisdom. :smallwink:

well sure, but "we would like to not be killed" is generally speaking going to get some pretty good traction regardless.

[JoeJ]

well sure, if literally the whole world goes after them, you could probably make them go someplace else. still not likely to kill them though. and you'd be surprised what you can do with sufficient preparation even against monks and assassins.

Since this was about a group of wizards deciding to rule, it's quite reasonable that the existing government and religious authorities will bring their full resources to bear against them. Any wizards who manage to survive by fleeing, no doubt with large prices on their heads, are still not ruling.


when you have a whole bunch of wizards with the ability to make magical traps and magic items, and access to a bunch of spell research, it isn't going to be easy to attack them if they aren't holding back.

It isn't going to be easy to defend against an organization of people who can get the gods to intervene on their behalf.

[ChelseaNH]

That's assuming that a standard notation is possible in the first place. It could just as plausibly be the case that there's a personal element in magic that can't be eliminated.

Either way, it's a decision for the DM creating the world. Can you have a wizard organization? If you want to, yes.

"The rules say you can't." The rules say the DM can change the rules.

[MaxWilson]

The funny thing about this thread is the implicit assumption that wizards self-identify primarily with their class ("Wizard") as opposed to, say, their nationality, their religion, or their species.

In real life, do all hackers cooperate to further "hacker" goals, or do the Chinese hackers go after American targets while American hackers try to impress other Americans? From an outsider perspective it seems to be the latter, and you'd expect similar behavior from wizards, since exploits = spells in essence. (Knowledge = power, attacks only get better never worse, etc.)

Might be worth looking into hacker organizational patterns to get an idea of how wizard orgs might function when it comes to spell-sharing.

[SharkForce]

Since this was about a group of wizards deciding to rule, it's quite reasonable that the existing government and religious authorities will bring their full resources to bear against them. Any wizards who manage to survive by fleeing, no doubt with large prices on their heads, are still not ruling.



It isn't going to be easy to defend against an organization of people who can get the gods to intervene on their behalf.

this isn't about the wizards wanting to rule. it's about the wizards guild not giving a crap what the local rulers think, because the wizards have more actual power.

could the wizards take over? probably. but then they would have to spend their time managing the affairs of a country, and frankly they probably didn't spend 10 years apprenticed to some crotchety old man waiting to learn their first cantrip just so that they could spend the rest of their lives administrating a country (if that was their goal, they'd probably "apprentice" themselves, figuratively speaking, to someone else. a powerful noble, an important bureaucrat, a great general, etc).

[JoeJ]

Of course they are. They only have 10 Intelligence.

That's not idiotic, it's average. An idiot wizard with have an intelligence of 3. Personally, I would never allow them to go below 8, however, because if they dump any more they become just too ridiculously overpowered.

[Sigreid]

The funny thing about this thread is the implicit assumption that wizards self-identify primarily with their class ("Wizard") as opposed to, say, their nationality, their religion, or their species.

In real life, do all hackers cooperate to further "hacker" goals, or do the Chinese hackers go after American targets while American hackers try to impress other Americans? From an outsider perspective it seems to be the latter, and you'd expect similar behavior from wizards, since exploits = spells in essence. (Knowledge = power, attacks only get better never worse, etc.)

Might be worth looking into hacker organizational patterns to get an idea of how wizard orgs might function when it comes to spell-sharing.

I think it's more about how others lump wizards together, similar to how any minority tends to all get lumped together and regardless of how an individual feels he has to deal with the consequences of the perceptions of the majority. Very much a realization that because a few wizards are evil or careless, and those are the ones that usually get all the publicity wizards can be painted with the same brush until people get to know them as an individual and they therefore have a somewhat communal defensive stance.

[Temperjoke]

I like world-building stuff! Imagine an organization of magic-users who came together with the shared desire to learn and categorize all the magic in the world. They decided to form a guild, and organized in a location outside a small town (after offering incentives such as an increase in tourism, travelers, protection from hostile forces, taxes, and a large magical resource available locally). The guild welcomes new members who must undergo processing to determine their skill level. The guild requires a monthly fee, either in gold or resources (spell components for example), and that all guild member undertake a magical oath (binding even if their membership lapses) that requires all their research, spellbooks (including backup copies), scrolls, etc. to be donated to the guild upon the member's death. Increasing one's personal rank in the guild can be achieved via testing, donations beyond the nominal fee, providing new spells or information, or even providing extraordinary service on behalf of the guild (saving it from an internal threat, for example *plot idea!*).

Apprentices who do all of their training at the guild hall (not PCs usually), spend a large portion of their time copying deceased member's notes and research into a shared secret language (knowledge of which is magically imparted after guild membership registration has been completed). These tomes are available to members to peruse at the library itself, however, they are not permitted to leave the guildhall. Access is limited based on guild rank (a combination of PC level, donation totals, etc.). The library contains the accumulated knowledge of magic subjects, beyond just spells, it has information on all manner of magical topics from creatures to locations. Finding something particular could take ages in such a vast collection, and that's only in the transcribed section!

The guild elects a leader from the highest echelon of guild members by popular vote. The guild master serves as a figurehead and public speaker for the guild. Directly beneath the guild master is the guild council, again composed of upper members, each representing various aspects of the guild (schools of magic, the library, supplies, teaching, etc.). They serve to balance each other, and the council serves to check the power of the master. At lower levels you have apprentices (people who've come to the guild for training), masters who do the teaching, researchers who use the facilities and resources, librarians who categorize the information, etc.. Around the world, while the guild isn't known for having the most powerful magic-users as members, it is known for providing a solid base of knowledge to students and a good source to find potential prospects from.

Sorry if it's long winded or more detailed, but I get ideas and run with them sometimes. A central guildhall can be a great resource for a campaign, even if a party doesn't have a magic-user in it. A party might need to identify a magic item, or they're searching for a cure to a magical illness. A professional guild would have set fees that they charge for services to members and non-members.

[JoeJ]

Historically, guilds were organized to establish professional standards and uniform prices, regulate the practice of a craft, and reduce competition by requiring guild membership (and therefore permission) to establish a business. A wizards guild of that type would be made up of commercial spellcasters who are competing for business, and would certainly not want to share their spellbooks with each other.

The kind of wizards' organization that would foster open sharing of spells would be more like a university than an actual guild, and would probably be called a college or a fraternity.

[PoeticDwarf]

Many spells, but getting money is very difficult could be possible. In our campaign we have enough of those organisations but the wizard uses all his money to make warforged (another story).

[Temperjoke]

Historically, guilds were organized to establish professional standards and uniform prices, regulate the practice of a craft, and reduce competition by requiring guild membership (and therefore permission) to establish a business. A wizards guild of that type would be made up of commercial spellcasters who are competing for business, and would certainly not want to share their spellbooks with each other.

The kind of wizards' organization that would foster open sharing of spells would be more like a university than an actual guild, and would probably be called a college or a fraternity.

Sorry, I was thinking guild as in MMO guild and not the historical term for the word.

[ChelseaNH]

Historically, guilds were organized to establish professional standards and uniform prices, regulate the practice of a craft, and reduce competition by requiring guild membership (and therefore permission) to establish a business. A wizards guild of that type would be made up of commercial spellcasters who are competing for business, and would certainly not want to share their spellbooks with each other.

While it's in a wizard's interest to have exclusive access to certain spells, it's in the guild's interest to have more spells available in the marketplace. They certainly don't want spells disappearing from the market if a wizard dies. And in the traditional structure, there are apprentices to educate. Something like a licensing fee would encourage the discovery and sharing of spells.

I do think a wizard organization is more likely to have a scholarly background that expands into the commercial side because money is fun. It also seems more likely to be organized if the economy tends to have guilds for other professions.

But given that guilds are essentially licensing organizations, it does raise the question of how a wizard's guild would interact with sorcerors (and now warlocks, which are still strange to me YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN). A guild would be a way to emphasize the 'legitimacy' of wizardly magic over other forms. "We have certifications; how do you know these people can do what they claim?"

[Sigreid]

It occurs to me that this thread has been talking about variations of one kind of wizard's organization, one with a power structure set up to control the flow of information. What about another kind of wizard's guild that is set up like a gentleman's club.

This kind of guild doesn't have laboratories, vast libraries of arcane spells, or strict hierarchies. What it does have is comfortable chairs, thick carpets, a staff of servants both mortal and magical, excellent food, a good library with rare editions of books (both serious and pleasure reading), activity rooms and most importantly, access to other wizards in a relaxed friendly atmosphere. Members are either wizards of considerable skill and repute, or the legacy children of members. Members come to eat, drink, carouse, and discuss topics of interest to it's members. Some of these clubs may have chapter houses in multiple major cities, but certainly not across multiple kingdoms. As part of their services, some may arrange for companionship for their members. The organization doesn't make any effort to control or retain the knowledge of their members, but does provide a place where you can interact with people who are likely to have the knowledge that you need. Membership is expensive, but those invited to join are effectively wealthy nobility. The club may engage in "rituals" that aren't magical, and done for fun and to build camaraderie. Some of the clubs may revel in secret activities that society as a whole frowns on, protected by the wealth and power of its members; though they are careful to not present themselves as a threat to the ruling faction.

With this kind of organization, spells aren't there to be bought, but the people from whom they can be acquired can be accessed and persuaded or bargained with.

[AgentPaper]

This seems fairly simple. Mage towers don't grow on trees, and neither do fancy robes and laboratory equipment. A wizard organization needs money to operate, and the #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be copied. Thus it makes complete sense that they would charge for the right to copy spells out of their library, and charge a lot, to support their extravagent expenses.

And of course, putting a gold value on spells means they have inherent value beyond what they can be used for, so it makes sense that casters would jealously guard any new spells, as a form of wealth. If they ever need cash, then they can sell it to the wizard organization for a large sum. But they will probably want to hold onto it for a while first, selling it directly to other wizards who are willing to pay more for a unique spell they can't get anywhere else.

Spells could be passed down this way through a family as a form of wealth, like a plot of land or magic sword. Imagine Mordenkainen's kids living on a wealthy estate negotiating terms to sell the rights to their fathers spells to fund their lavish lifestyle.

[SharkForce]

the guild could easily give a significant portions of the funds gained from selling the spell to the member who contributed the spell. obviously, they'll take a cut which means you get a bit less gold, but they also handle the entire transaction which means you gain time. and if in addition to gaining some gold it gains you prestige, access to shared guild resources (expensive components that are not consumed for example, or laboratories, guild employees to handle cleaning, security, cooking, lab assistants, animal trainers, etc, better access to consumed spell resources, craftsmen that do sufficiently high quality work for enchanting, and, yes, the ability for you to learn spells from them too).

but most importantly, the guild handling so many of things gains you time. good quality trustworthy employees that can't be easily intimidated or manipulated are a rare resource, and even they would normally take some of your time to manage. when the guild takes over all those duties, it frees up your time to go and do the spell research that you want to do (or to enchant things, or whatever). yes, it comes with costs... but it also means that you don't need to keep a shop open and put up with random people who want their "priceless" family heirlooms mended without a crack (for which they'll pay some tiny amount of money or, more likely, barter) in hopes that someone will come in wanting to buy something big, and it also means that when you're researching after a big sale and another person comes in wanting to buy something big, you don't have to put your research on hold in the middle of a crucial experiment (and especially so that your research doesn't get constantly interrupted by people wanting to buy some minor service that doesn't require a high level mage).

so yeah, a guild might have some drawbacks. it also has some pretty major benefits, and obviously they're going to do their best to make sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. but, as noted... one of the main things they have that they can sell is spell knowledge. and if they're selling it on your behalf, that means that you don't have to take time out of your day to do it.

[JoeJ]

But given that guilds are essentially licensing organizations, it does raise the question of how a wizard's guild would interact with sorcerors (and now warlocks, which are still strange to me YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN). A guild would be a way to emphasize the 'legitimacy' of wizardly magic over other forms. "We have certifications; how do you know these people can do what they claim?"

The easiest way is to simply be inclusive. If you're accepting money for employing magic of any kind you have to belong to either the guild or a recognized temple. No exceptions.

[AgentPaper]

the guild could easily give a significant portions of the funds gained from selling the spell to the member who contributed the spell. obviously, they'll take a cut which means you get a bit less gold, but they also handle the entire transaction which means you gain time. and if in addition to gaining some gold it gains you prestige, access to shared guild resources (expensive components that are not consumed for example, or laboratories, guild employees to handle cleaning, security, cooking, lab assistants, animal trainers, etc, better access to consumed spell resources, craftsmen that do sufficiently high quality work for enchanting, and, yes, the ability for you to learn spells from them too).

but most importantly, the guild handling so many of things gains you time. good quality trustworthy employees that can't be easily intimidated or manipulated are a rare resource, and even they would normally take some of your time to manage. when the guild takes over all those duties, it frees up your time to go and do the spell research that you want to do (or to enchant things, or whatever). yes, it comes with costs... but it also means that you don't need to keep a shop open and put up with random people who want their "priceless" family heirlooms mended without a crack (for which they'll pay some tiny amount of money or, more likely, barter) in hopes that someone will come in wanting to buy something big, and it also means that when you're researching after a big sale and another person comes in wanting to buy something big, you don't have to put your research on hold in the middle of a crucial experiment (and especially so that your research doesn't get constantly interrupted by people wanting to buy some minor service that doesn't require a high level mage).

so yeah, a guild might have some drawbacks. it also has some pretty major benefits, and obviously they're going to do their best to make sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. but, as noted... one of the main things they have that they can sell is spell knowledge. and if they're selling it on your behalf, that means that you don't have to take time out of your day to do it.

An idealized version of a wizard organization would have all that, sure. But wizards are still people, and like other people, they can be greedy, corrupt, incompetent, vain, arrogant, etc. It's not hard to imagine a society where creating and owning a unique spell is a sign of prestige, where all the great wizard families jealously guard their unique spells not because it's the most profitable or useful thing to do, but because it makes them important, gives them power in the political games that go on in the organization, power that can't be taken away by an archmage who decides they don't want to pay out royalties to some kid just because their grandfather invented a new spell.

[ChelseaNH]

It's not hard to imagine a society where creating and owning a unique spell is a sign of prestige, where all the great wizard families jealously guard their unique spells not because it's the most profitable or useful thing to do, but because it makes them important, gives them power in the political games that go on in the organization, power that can't be taken away by an archmage who decides they don't want to pay out royalties to some kid just because their grandfather invented a new spell.

Of course, great wizarding families run into some of the same problems as great noble families, such as sometimes the heirs are not as talented as their progenitors.

[KorvinStarmast]

What about another kind of wizard's guild that is set up like a gentleman's club.
--snip--
With this kind of organization, spells aren't there to be bought, but the people from whom they can be acquired can be accessed and persuaded or bargained with.
Yep, networking is a tried and true method of learning the important things in life. In any social setting, who you know matters.

[KorvinStarmast]

This seems fairly simple. Mage towers don't grow on trees, and neither do fancy robes and laboratory equipment. A wizard organization needs money to operate, and the #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be copied.
No, I don't think so: that's like giving away source code.
The commodity that can make money is services, for a fee.
Cash flow gets constrained if competition starts selling services for less, eh? :smallwink:

This is well said.

But wizards are still people, and like other people, they can be greedy, corrupt, incompetent, vain, arrogant, etc. It's not hard to imagine a society where creating and owning a unique spell is a sign of prestige, where all the great wizard families jealously guard their unique spells not because it's the most profitable or useful thing to do, but because it makes them important, gives them power in the political games that go on in the organization, power that can't be taken away by an archmage who decides they don't want to pay out royalties to some kid just because their grandfather invented a new spell.


Of course, great wizarding families run into some of the same problems as great noble families, such as sometimes the heirs are not as talented as their progenitors. Also the occasional problems with infertility or utter disinterest in breeding.

[SharkForce]

giving away source code to who? people who stay nearby and start trying to sell their knowledge (except in trade to the guild... which they won't be doing with anything you sold them) either joins the wizards guild or find out why it's not a good idea to make the local wizard's guild angry. people who don't stay nearby aren't competing for the same customers anyways.

one of the few things more scary than a single powerful wizard is an entire organization of wizards, several of which are powerful. once you form a guild, nobody is going to want to get on the bad side of said guild.

[KorvinStarmast]

one of the few things more scary than a single powerful wizard is an entire organization of wizards, several of which are powerful. once you form a guild, nobody is going to want to get on the bad side of said guild. Yeah, just like the UN, if only it was a functional organization. :smalltongue:

1. If a guild has good leadership, and isn't rife with standard human friction, argument, pettiness, and rivalry, sure. Organizations like that are pretty rare, but not completely non existent.

2. If a guild is like an actual trade organization, like a labor union, the internal infighting is often as entertaining as the battles with the outer opponents. (Have some RL experience with the Teamsters from a few decades ago that informs my opinion).

3. So, a guild if well led by a non powerhungry leader would be quite a force to reckon with. Now, how may non power hungry leaders try to become the head of a guild/trade organization?

4. Now, in support of your point: if there were a strong enough reason due to external threat to band together (alliances of convenience are a real thing, see the US/Soviets in WW II) like a rash of "witch hunting" or profound anti wizard sentiment in society a large, then you have a pressing motive to stay organized for the common good ... until that threat is neutralized or mitigated.

Then, it's back to internal squabbling as high intelligence people tend to do.

[Coidzor]

1. If a guild has good leadership, and isn't rife with standard human friction, argument, pettiness, and rivalry, sure. Organizations like that are pretty rare, but not completely non existent.

Having only average leadership and having the standard level of friction and non-cooperativeness wouldn't prevent them from actually cooperating and doing their mojo when necessary. Or make them a group that anyone would want to set aside their differences in order to turn them into several different varieties of newt simultaneously.


2. If a guild is like an actual trade organization, like a labor union, the internal infighting is often as entertaining as the battles with the outer opponents. (Have some RL experience with the Teamsters from a few decades ago that informs my opinion).

So, you're saying that having entertaining infighting completely prevents an organization from reacting to external threats?


3. So, a guild if well led by a non powerhungry leader would be quite a force to reckon with. Now, how may non power hungry leaders try to become the head of a guild/trade organization?

A leader who wanted to increase the power and prestige of himself and the organization would not exactly be something to dismiss, either.


4. Now, in support of your point: if there were a strong enough reason due to external threat to band together (alliances of convenience are a real thing, see the US/Soviets in WW II) like a rash of "witch hunting" or profound anti wizard sentiment in society a large, then you have a pressing motive to stay organized for the common good ... until that threat is neutralized or mitigated.

Then, it's back to internal squabbling as high intelligence people tend to do.

Obviously it's no fun if there's no internal squabbling. It's just also no fun if we just go out of our way to engineer it so that they have so much infighting that it breaks suspension of disbelief that there's still an organization.

[obryn]

I think everyone's missing the fact that it only takes one particularly idealistic freedom-of-information-style Wizard to render this whole question about infighting moot.

You don't need everyone giving away spells. You just need Dave, who believes that knowledge should be available to everyone for free, and who's both learned and powerful enough to do just that.

[SharkForce]

I think everyone's missing the fact that it only takes one particularly idealistic freedom-of-information-style Wizard to render this whole question about infighting moot.

You don't need everyone giving away spells. You just need Dave, who believes that knowledge should be available to everyone for free, and who's both learned and powerful enough to do just that.

and then one day dave wakes up to find out that dozens of bookworms have mysteriously made their way into his library, and the only place he could go to get the spells back that he didn't have prepared at the time hates him.

you'd have to be really powerful to be able to annoy a wizards guild safely. not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen ever, but i very much doubt you're going to find a wizard who will freely give away spell knowledge very often.

[obryn]

and then one day dave wakes up to find out that dozens of bookworms have mysteriously made their way into his library, and the only place he could go to get the spells back that he didn't have prepared at the time hates him.

you'd have to be really powerful to be able to annoy a wizards guild safely. not saying it couldn't or doesn't happen ever, but i very much doubt you're going to find a wizard who will freely give away spell knowledge very often.
Not often, for sure. But like I said, it only takes one idealistic Dave. (And once Dave's knowledge is released into the world, he doesn't need to worry about bookworms. It's the best backup plan ever devised!)

[SharkForce]

Not often, for sure. But like I said, it only takes one idealistic Dave. (And once Dave's knowledge is released into the world, he doesn't need to worry about bookworms. It's the best backup plan ever devised!)

it doesn't only take one. there is no internet in D&D. it takes one in every place that might want to sell spells (or at least, in enough of them that nobody considers paying), and they all also have to continue to research new spells fast enough to keep up with the guilds, and it isn't much of a backup to have your spells scattered all across the world where they are not remotely easy to reach.

[obryn]

it doesn't only take one. there is no internet in D&D. it takes one in every place that might want to sell spells (or at least, in enough of them that nobody considers paying), and they all also have to continue to research new spells fast enough to keep up with the guilds, and it isn't much of a backup to have your spells scattered all across the world where they are not remotely easy to reach.
But Dave's a wizard. (, Harry!)

[SharkForce]

But Dave's a wizard. (, Harry!)

still can't be everywhere at once :P

[obryn]

still can't be everywhere at once :P
Nope! But that means that mundane concerns like 'materials' or 'time' or 'labor' aren't nearly as big an issue!

[SharkForce]

Nope! But that means that mundane concerns like 'materials' or 'time' or 'labor' aren't nearly as big an issue!

if you want to keep up with entire guilds doing research, it means exactly that. your time and labor need to be spent on research, and therefore your ability to generate materials is drastically reduced while your need for materials is drastically increased.

you could make *some* spells widely available in a few areas (at the expense of making a lot of enemies), but no, you aren't going to be replacing wizard's guilds as a source of spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

The original point is that a wizard's organization need not be game breaking, but it could be depending on what the DM lets it get away with. (Obryn, I like your Snowden ref ...)

The other point is how devastating "industrial accidents" would be when it happens in a wizard's guild.
Bophal? A mere scratch. (Union Carbide Plant poisoned thousands)
Chernobyl? A cara accident.
Recent explosion in China, flattened a building? That fertilizer fire in West, Texas? Paltry in comparison.

When wizards have an experiment go wrong ...


the Weave runs amok
elementals pop up all over the place
demons come through gates and go on a rampage, sucking souls
abberations run rampant through your streets
Monstrosities eat your kitty cats, and floss their teeth with the hair of your children .. chaos!


All in all, good fun, and something worthy for the adventurers and murderhoboes to clean up after ... anything for some XP, right? :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

I think everyone's missing the fact that it only takes one particularly idealistic freedom-of-information-style Wizard to render this whole question about infighting moot.

You don't need everyone giving away spells. You just need Dave, who believes that knowledge should be available to everyone for free, and who's both learned and powerful enough to do just that.

A) In a non-internet age universe one idealistic person doesn't have the capacity for dissemination of information like this, it requires an entire enterprise and untold amounts of capital to print this much information (even assuming the printing presss exists and it doesn't have to be laboriously copied by hand...which the rules seem to imply).

B) Spells are the ultimate expression of the adage that knowledge is power. People kill to gain, retain, consolidate, and withhold power. That one idealistic Wizard would be dead before he finished his first volume; courtesy of anyone and everyone who wants to be powerful and doesn't want competition. See: The rest of the wizarding world.


Nope! But that means that mundane concerns like 'materials' or 'time' or 'labor' aren't nearly as big an issue!

Making even a single copy of a first level spell as a scroll to disseminate it would require 4 days of labor and 100 gold. There's no incentive at all to share such things because the costs to the Wizard in terms of time and money become absurdly high.

[KorvinStarmast]

Spells are the ultimate expression of the adage that knowledge is power. People kill to gain, retain, consolidate, and withhold power. That one idealistic Wizard would be dead before he finished his first volume; courtesy of anyone and everyone who wants to be powerful and doesn't want competition. See: The rest of the wizarding world.

Making even a single copy of a first level spell as a scroll to disseminate it would require 4 days of labor and 100 gold. There's no incentive at all to share such things because the costs to the Wizard in terms of time and money become absurdly high.
Nicely put.

[JoeJ]

This seems fairly simple. Mage towers don't grow on trees, and neither do fancy robes and laboratory equipment. A wizard organization needs money to operate, and the #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be copied.

That's not correct. The #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be cast. If you let somebody copy your spell, they pay you once. If you cast it for them, they pay you every time they want to use that spell. A business oriented guild is not going to be selling their own trade secrets.

However, i could see the guild requiring a wizard to contribute one spell to a common library as a condition of being promoted to the rank of master. This requirement only works, though, if warlocks, sorcerers, and bards aren't allowed that rank. That might make an interesting area of conflict within the guild - anyone casting spells for money is required to belong to the guild, but only those with spellbooks can attain the rank of master, which is required for them to set up their own independent business or take an apprentice.

[SharkForce]

That's not correct. The #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be cast. If you let somebody copy your spell, they pay you once. If you cast it for them, they pay you every time they want to use that spell. A business oriented guild is not going to be selling their own trade secrets.

However, i could see the guild requiring a wizard to contribute one spell to a common library as a condition of being promoted to the rank of master. This requirement only works, though, if warlocks, sorcerers, and bards aren't allowed that rank. That might make an interesting area of conflict within the guild - anyone casting spells for money is required to belong to the guild, but only those with spellbooks can attain the rank of master, which is required for them to set up their own independent business or take an apprentice.

unless their plan is to set up shop in some hole in the ground full of monsters, undead, demons, and who knows what else, they're not going to be selling the actual casting of most spells to a typical adventuring wizard.

simply put, the kinds of people who can afford to pay a lot of money are people like adventurers. lords, cities, countries, large business, etc all have money, but that money is largely already spoken for (by which i mean, the money they gain from owning those things generally speaking mostly goes back into those things, either to maintain or grow them).

[Coidzor]

That's not correct. The #1 thing of value they have to offer is spells to be cast. If you let somebody copy your spell, they pay you once. If you cast it for them, they pay you every time they want to use that spell. A business oriented guild is not going to be selling their own trade secrets.

The primary clientele of who purchases castings of spells is not going to be fellow guildmate wizards. :smallconfused:

It's unlikely to be non-guild wizards, either.


However, i could see the guild requiring a wizard to contribute one spell to a common library as a condition of being promoted to the rank of master. This requirement only works, though, if warlocks, sorcerers, and bards aren't allowed that rank. That might make an interesting area of conflict within the guild - anyone casting spells for money is required to belong to the guild, but only those with spellbooks can attain the rank of master, which is required for them to set up their own independent business or take an apprentice.

Or equivalent service or demonstration of magical power would probably easily occur and be proposed if they have any interest in the membership of such non-wizards.

Of course, if non-wizards belong then it's no longer strictly a wizard's organization, but more of a magic-user's.

[Vogonjeltz]

Nicely put.

Thanks!


unless their plan is to set up shop in some hole in the ground full of monsters, undead, demons, and who knows what else, they're not going to be selling the actual casting of most spells to a typical adventuring wizard.

simply put, the kinds of people who can afford to pay a lot of money are people like adventurers. lords, cities, countries, large business, etc all have money, but that money is largely already spoken for (by which i mean, the money they gain from owning those things generally speaking mostly goes back into those things, either to maintain or grow them).

Yeah, but the margins for spellcasting are always going to be better. Scribing scrolls is relatively time-consuming such that it's a huge opportunity cost vis-a-vis spellcasting sales.

So, as rational actors in terms of economic theory, there's no reason to scribe scrolls at all.


Or equivalent service or demonstration of magical power would probably easily occur and be proposed if they have any interest in the membership of such non-wizards.

Of course, if non-wizards belong then it's no longer strictly a wizard's organization, but more of a magic-user's.

I could see the price of admission to a guild being the providing of a spell that the guild does not currently have in its library. i.e. New membership is rare.

[AgentPaper]

Yeah, but the margins for spellcasting are always going to be better. Scribing scrolls is relatively time-consuming such that it's a huge opportunity cost vis-a-vis spellcasting sales.

So, as rational actors in terms of economic theory, there's no reason to scribe scrolls at all.

Scribing scrolls makes sense if you can't find enough work casting spells personally. They'd sell for more than casting services to people who are too far away from you for you to reasonable travel there and cast the spell, but who have someone capable of casting that spell themselves (ie: a low level wizard) in your place.

I could definitely see a healthy market for both casting spells and creating scrolls, but I still think that selling access to the wizard organization's library of spells will be the most lucrative part of their business. Any spellcaster can cast a spell or scribe a scroll, and most requests will be for common spells that most or all wizards have access to.

The real money comes from adventurers and their endless disposable income, and adventuring wizards want, more than anything, spells to add to their spell book. They'll also be more than willing to pay for the convenience of getting all of their spells in one place (the organization) rather than having to track down a bunch of wizards all over the place to get the various spells, even if it would be for a lower cost. A decently high-level adventurer could easily come in and drop thousands to tens of thousands of gold to buy out their library of spells.

Of course, it does depend on the setting as well. If adventurers are meant to be rare, or don't get the huge amounts of treasure that the DMG suggests, then the more mundane, but reliable income from selling spells/scrolls and minor magic items like Decanters of Endless Water will probably be the main source of income for the Wizard Organization, in which case it's probably going to look more like a traditional guild rather than a fantasy wizard organization with a big tower and such.