Belac93
2017-12-23, 10:07 PM
Inspired by this:
Wizards as generalists. If wizardry is an academic "science," it will show similar effects to modern scientific research. Mainly high levels of specialization.
Let's use, as an example, my training. I have a PhD in Physics. Does that mean I can sit down and talk expertly about any arbitrary bit of physics? Nope, not a chance unless it's in my sub-sub-field (calculating collision cross-sections at medium-low energies (100 eV - 15 keV) between small molecules). I can do/discuss basic physics (high-school level) across the board without thinking, medium level (upper-division college) with some effort and some areas better than others (curse you optics), and can only really contribute to research in my sub-sub field. Even attending a talk by someone who is in a related, but not identical sub-sub-field (electron structure theory, for example) is difficult and I'll get about 50% at best.
What does this mean for wizards? I figure any trained wizard can learn just about any low-level spell (using D&D terms, something like levels 1-3). Medium level (levels 4-6-ish) spells require specialization--a specialist pyromancer isn't going to be casting those subtle mind-control or undead-creation spells very easily. High level spells (7-9-ish) are super tightly specialized. Not even by school, but by sub-sub field. It's not "I can cast wish and true polymorph and...", it's "I can cast wish to replicate that specific type of spell or create that type of effect." And researching new spells should only be possible to do in a tight area of expertise.
A third pet peeve is the infallible expert. Experts fail relevant tasks commonly. The ultra-vast majority of research projects come to absolute naught (and were often fundamentally flawed from the get go). Just because you're an "expert" smith, if you're doing something complex ('hard'), especially under time/resource/other pressure or stress. Think of disarming a bomb. You may be an expert who can do this all day long in practice, but out in the field where one slip may cause it to blow up, the chances for failure are appreciable. That's why bomb disposal, in particular, often just isolates and detonates such packages in place, without trying to actually disarm the mechanisms. Too failure prone, with too much risk.
My idea so far:
Sand Mages
Shifters: Mages who transform into columns of flying sand
Shapers: Mages who control clouds of sand
Summoners: Mages who call/quell sandstorms
Slinkers: Mages who disguise themselves against the sand
Stuffers: Mages who partially turn into sand to burrow or slip into cracks
This could be done with a ton of other things, too.
So, any ideas?
Wizards as generalists. If wizardry is an academic "science," it will show similar effects to modern scientific research. Mainly high levels of specialization.
Let's use, as an example, my training. I have a PhD in Physics. Does that mean I can sit down and talk expertly about any arbitrary bit of physics? Nope, not a chance unless it's in my sub-sub-field (calculating collision cross-sections at medium-low energies (100 eV - 15 keV) between small molecules). I can do/discuss basic physics (high-school level) across the board without thinking, medium level (upper-division college) with some effort and some areas better than others (curse you optics), and can only really contribute to research in my sub-sub field. Even attending a talk by someone who is in a related, but not identical sub-sub-field (electron structure theory, for example) is difficult and I'll get about 50% at best.
What does this mean for wizards? I figure any trained wizard can learn just about any low-level spell (using D&D terms, something like levels 1-3). Medium level (levels 4-6-ish) spells require specialization--a specialist pyromancer isn't going to be casting those subtle mind-control or undead-creation spells very easily. High level spells (7-9-ish) are super tightly specialized. Not even by school, but by sub-sub field. It's not "I can cast wish and true polymorph and...", it's "I can cast wish to replicate that specific type of spell or create that type of effect." And researching new spells should only be possible to do in a tight area of expertise.
A third pet peeve is the infallible expert. Experts fail relevant tasks commonly. The ultra-vast majority of research projects come to absolute naught (and were often fundamentally flawed from the get go). Just because you're an "expert" smith, if you're doing something complex ('hard'), especially under time/resource/other pressure or stress. Think of disarming a bomb. You may be an expert who can do this all day long in practice, but out in the field where one slip may cause it to blow up, the chances for failure are appreciable. That's why bomb disposal, in particular, often just isolates and detonates such packages in place, without trying to actually disarm the mechanisms. Too failure prone, with too much risk.
My idea so far:
Sand Mages
Shifters: Mages who transform into columns of flying sand
Shapers: Mages who control clouds of sand
Summoners: Mages who call/quell sandstorms
Slinkers: Mages who disguise themselves against the sand
Stuffers: Mages who partially turn into sand to burrow or slip into cracks
This could be done with a ton of other things, too.
So, any ideas?