The Prevalence of Spellcasting in D&D Society

[deljzc]

I've been really into world building lately, just writing down all my thoughts on D&D society and I was trying to formulate how prevalent spellcasting would be to not impact society TOO much.

I came up with the following ideas and wanted to see what everyone thought or how society would look:

World Population - 20,000,000 (roughly 17 million human, 3 million demi-human) - let's ignore huminoids for now. A spellcaster is anyone capable of a 1st level spell and/or at-will cantrips.

Clerics 100,000
Wizards 75,000
Druids 25,000
Rangers (2nd level+) 15,000
Bards 15,000
Paladins (2nd level+) 10,000
Sorcerers 10,000
Warlocks 10,000
Misc. 10,000

Total - about 270,000 individuals of which likely about 1% of human population and 2-3% of demihuman population.

Of spellcasters, I have further broken down who can cast 1st through 9th level spells:

1st - 90% - 243,000
2nd - 6% - 16,200
3rd - 2% - 5,400
4th - 1% - 2700
5th - .5% - 1350
6th - .2% - 530
7th - .05% - 135
8th - .02% - 53
9th - .01% - 27

That's rough but on a continent of 20 million people there would only be 27 people that could cast 9th level spells.

Does this seem reasonable to keep magic kind of an "elite" thing and typical of fantasy genres without getting into the "magic everywhere" campaigns?

Has anyone thought about this before?

- del

[elyktsorb]

Technically, wouldn't 1st level spells be 100% since everyone who is a caster with spell slots (as you specified) should be able to cast them? Or is that 10% 1st lvl Rangers and Paladins?

[deljzc]

Technically, wouldn't 1st level spells be 100% since everyone who is a caster with spell slots (as you specified) should be able to cast them? Or is that 10% 1st lvl Rangers and Paladins?

The percentage after the spell level is the HIGHEST spell level you can cast. So the total adds up to 100% (or close enough for this discussion).

[fbelanger]

It’s a nice demographic study, but can it answer basic question
where is the closest caster that can cast raise dead?

[Zetakya]

Real world population of 20 million people was around 2500 BC, for reference. So you can (probably should) increase your numbers somewhat.

World Population at the height of the Roman and Han Chinese Empires was around 165 million.

By the time of the usual medieval world used as an analogy for fantasy worlds (roughly 1066 AD), world population was about 300 million.

[Renvir]

It’s a nice demographic study, but can it answer basic question
where is the closest caster that can cast raise dead?

Raise Dead is a 5th level spell available to Bards, Clerics, and Paladins.
There are 2095 people capable of casting 5th level or higher spells.
Of those 2095 approximately 46% are Bards, Clerics, and Paladins (125000/270000 and ignoring things like class distribution at each level)
Assuming every Bard, Cleric, and Paladin chooses to have Raise Dead prepared and is willing to cast it.
That gives us about 970 people who could cast Raise Dead or 1 in every 20,619 on the continent of 20,000,000.
That means you could expect at least one person in any decently sized town to be able to bring your dead friend back to life.
If only 20% of those capable of casting Raise Dead actually learned the spell/would want to cast it then you would expect at least one person in a city of 100,000 to bring your dead self back to life.

To the OP's question: assuming my numbers above are in the ballpark then in your world death isn't nearly as big of a deal for those with wealth and/or power. Unless the assassination of the queen involved removing her head or vital organs then she'd be returned to working order soon enough. For Average Joe, if he dies then he probably isn't coming back so death still holds for the lower classes. Just one thing to consider.

[Yakmala]

I'd be curious about your assumptions on population level in general.

Of those 20 million, irregardless of magic use, what percentage are zero level commoners? What percentage could be considered level 1? What percentage go beyond that?

[ShikomeKidoMi]

At first I thought 90% of your casters maxing out at level 1 was a bit high, but on reflection it makes sense. That's not just low-level full casters. It's also mid-level Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, and Rangers. And non-casters who took the Magic Initiate feat, too.

I think, in general your numbers work out, though I'm not sure how you reached the class distribution you did (I think I would have made Bards slightly more common than druids).


...To the OP's question: assuming my numbers above are in the ballpark then in your world death isn't nearly as big of a deal for those with wealth and/or power. Unless the assassination of the queen involved removing her head or vital organs then she'd be returned to working order soon enough. For Average Joe, if he dies then he probably isn't coming back so death still holds for the lower classes. Just one thing to consider.
That's how I normally treat things in my campaigns. Rich people can pay to come back to life, assuming their heirs want to fork over the money, which might not be the case. Assassins that are true professionals know this and do things like decapitate their victims and take the head with them when they flee or burn the body if they have enough time. True Resurrection is incredibly rare and the average assassin does not have to worry about it.

[Zetakya]

It would not be beyond the realms of imagination to presume that assassins would be likely to have poisons or alchemical elixirs to prevent resurrection from working.

[JackPhoenix]

Per your definition, rangers and paladins don't qualify as spellcasters, as they don't get cantrips.

Yuan-ti, level 3+ tieflings, drow and some other races are, regardless of class.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Even with those numbers this would be a high magic world in my thinking.

Having that many casters changes every part of society.

War you have to plan for that druid who can call down lightning every 6 seconds for 10 minutes. Even better there are a lot of those spread out. So your army needs to prepare for that. Preemptive assassination being the ideal way. So then on the defensive end you have to hide those people so they can't be assassinated.

Dominate person: if you know that there are 5 people walking around your kingdom who can turn your most trusted ally against you then you have to plan for that.

Sending is gonna be a godsend and every single person who could afford it would have at least 1 of these people nearby. There would be meetings so that they could make new contacts in secure locations.

Think about what the United States could do with a single person who can unerringly teleport themselves 500 feet past any security checkpoint.

The more people with magic the higher the risk to any hostile action therefore more planning both defensively and offensively.

[Dark.Revenant]

There are approximately 45,000 Christian churches in the USA, which has a population over 327 million. Given that not every temple would have a NPC Priest as its leader, but that not every place of worship in the USA is a Christian church, let's just use this ratio as-is. This makes for about 0.014% of the population being the equivalent of a D&D NPC Priest, described as "the spiritual leaders of temples and shrines [who] often hold positions of influence in their communities." For NPC Acolytes, the total number of clergy in the USA is about 430,000, making it around 0.13% of the population.

The OP's percentages are about 0.5% for clerics in general, and 0.02% of the population being clerics able to cast 3rd level spells or better (like NPC Priests).

Basically, in a setting where every single temple is run by divine spellcasters, the OP's numbers are pretty close to what they ought to be. Consider that there would be more clergymen in a medieval setting than in a modern setting, after all. If the OP is wrong in any regard, it would be that 90% of casters remain 1st-level casters in this scenario. The majority, I think, would eventually graduate out of 1st level spells. It's more likely that people would stop at cantrips and never learn proper 1st-level casting (except maybe 1/LR, as per the Magic Initiate feat); once you clear that hurdle to full casting, you wouldn't just call it quits on your career.

[HappyDaze]

Real world population of 20 million people was around 2500 BC, for reference. So you can (probably should) increase your numbers somewhat.

World Population at the height of the Roman and Han Chinese Empires was around 165 million.

By the time of the usual medieval world used as an analogy for fantasy worlds (roughly 1066 AD), world population was about 300 million.

Does 20 million include goblinoids, orcs, giants, trolls, bullywugs, kobolds, etc.? Cuz in D&D worlds, those take up some of the living space that the "civilized" (PC-appropriate) types otherwise would. Plus, there are just a lot more mega-predators in the typical D&D world that will keep populations low (not that the people seem capable of adapting their building styles around this--way too many maps still show open and largely undefended villages).

[EggKookoo]

That means you could expect at least one person in any decently sized town to be able to bring your dead friend back to life.
If only 20% of those capable of casting Raise Dead actually learned the spell/would want to cast it then you would expect at least one person in a city of 100,000 to bring your dead self back to life.

At 500gp a pop, how often would they be able to afford to?

[deljzc]

The 20 million population is for my CONTINENT. Not the world. Sorry about that. In this case, since I use Greyhawk as my campaign setting, this is for the main areas of the Flanaess (I also make Greyhawk smaller in scale than original to increase population densities to more reasonable numbers).

I would also not consider churches/clergy per capita today. Our population densities are MUCH higher and religion is less likely practiced. Go to any small-town in America and you will see often 4-5 large churches (many now empty) for even a population of 1000 people. Walk historic city tours and churches were EVERYWHERE.

There might also be a "middle class" of spellcasters. Of the 90% that can cast only cantrips/1st level, some might only know 1-2 cantrips and that's it. Maybe one level 1 spell. Even though we don't talk about it, the way we create (or think) of these 250,000 NPC's is not going to exactly match up with PC creation.

Thanks for the feedback. After I was going to establish some of this data, I was going to tackle what "warfare" looks like in my D&D campaign and how to integrate this level of magic proclivity (or explain why it is or isn't used). Obviously that's "big concept" thinking but helps me wrap my head around the world my PC's are growing up in.

[deljzc]

Even with those numbers this would be a high magic world in my thinking.

Having that many casters changes every part of society.

War you have to plan for that druid who can call down lightning every 6 seconds for 10 minutes. Even better there are a lot of those spread out. So your army needs to prepare for that. Preemptive assassination being the ideal way. So then on the defensive end you have to hide those people so they can't be assassinated.

Dominate person: if you know that there are 5 people walking around your kingdom who can turn your most trusted ally against you then you have to plan for that.

Sending is gonna be a godsend and every single person who could afford it would have at least 1 of these people nearby. There would be meetings so that they could make new contacts in secure locations.

Think about what the United States could do with a single person who can unerringly teleport themselves 500 feet past any security checkpoint.

The more people with magic the higher the risk to any hostile action therefore more planning both defensively and offensively.

Well, obviously, that's what makes D&D, D&D and not our world. Magic exists to do things outside physical and natural restrictions.

There is the thought that spellcasters are often weeded out of society early for training (think Jedi Order). And part of that training includes Hippocratic Oath type thinking. That magic is NOT to be used for grand social disorder. That there are restrictions for magic use in warfare against armies of commoners. And possibly severe repercussions from STRONGER spellcasters against those that break some of these oaths. Not to say evil spellcasters won't break the rules, but that would be when good/neutral spellcasters get involved and primarily deal with spellcaster vs. spellcaster warfare.

Another thought is that in this environment country vs. country warfare is almost non-existent. With more abundance of resources, less disease and plague (via good magic), less maternity death, less childhood death - everything is fundementally different than the Middle Ages on Earth.

The REAL threat to society is not warmongering kings fighting over resources but of OUTSIDE forces of inherent evil around the borders of civilization. Huminoids and monsters are the threat. And the whole creation of armor, weapons, castles, fighting techniques, etc. is not an evolution of war, but of evolution vs. the WILD. Thus human/demi-human culture is often allied against this threat (even through nationalities and races) instead of against each other.

Using magic in these types of defensive maneuvers and expanse into the Wild seems justified.

[Democratus]

This is a great topic. For each game world it hinges on how 'high magic' the world is.

Back in AD&D games, our basic assumption was that a kingdom of 200,000 would have several hedge wizards and minor casters - but maybe a single wizard able to cast Fireball (level 5).

A cleric who could cast Raise Dead was probably the head of an entire nation's church - or a legendary saint.

With this background, the PCs are amazing heroes - world class in power and influence.

On the other hand, you could have a fantasy world where every other hermit you meet in the woods is an Archdruid, floating castles are made by artisans in every kingdom, and every noble has a cleric in his pocket to guarantee that his children only inherit after death by old age.

With this background, the PCs (and adventurers in general) are nothing unusual from a power perspective. And even remote villages may not bat an eye when an adventuring party comes rolling in with glowing swords and flying mounts.

The setting determines the numbers.

[deljzc]

I don't want a "high magic" world, which is why I threw some numbers against the wall and see what people think.

In my example maybe only 1500 people can cast Raise Dead and there are only 30 people (on the continent) - of ALL CLASSES - that can cast 9th level spells.

That seems pretty rare to me. Am I making cantrip/1st level spell access TOO great? I could easily lower those numbers while keeping most of the 2nd level+ alone.

[Keravath]

One thing to consider is that in any world with magic, there will be few if any mundane rulers. Over time, there is a risk that rulers will be supplanted by much more individually powerful spellcasters. There is less risk of that in this version of D&D than in previous ones since level 20 characters aren't usually capable of defeating entire armies though there are strategies that some could use to come close.

If magic is uncommon enough and personality distributions are typical, there is a very good chance that enough of these more powerful folks are selfish, greedy, self centered, could care less about the weaker folks - we have enough of these in our own society that the wealthy can be distrusted by large parts of the population and their power is only granted through the use of money not through individual power - in D&D the individual's power that will also likely result in significant wealth.

So, high level spell casters are likely to be powerful, wealthy and distrusted. There will be altruists and other parts of the elite willing to help others but it is still likely to result in a highly stratified society. There may be entire countries where the distrust of magic users is so large that any but perhaps the occasional hedge witch are killed on sight to reduce the threats to everyone else.

However, the number of spell casters in your world is small enough that the impact on war and armies should be limited. One person mention a druid calling down lightning but this has a range of a few hundred feet and would have a negligible effect on an army of 5,000 or 10,000. Even Meteor Swarm would have a negligible effect on an army of 10,000 spread over a large area. Yes, it might break up one wave of an assault on a castle but the caster needs to be able to see all the points they hit. If they are in a castle, they are on the walls and a few archers with sharpshooter out in the mass become a significant risk to any spell caster that shows their face.

However, the OP did not address the frequency in their society of the non-spell casting classes - fighters/rogues/monks - I don't know if the AT and EK were included in the suggested numbers or not. Is military training easier or harder than spellcasting? Are there more or less high level non-magic using classes?

Anyway, once you put in the parameters for your society, the kind of world that could exist falls out fairly naturally depending on which way you want to do it.

One more point, about 1% of the population can use cantrips. This about 1 person in 100. Villages will often have no one capable of using any sort of magic. However, the greatest impact on society and commerce ARE some of the basic cantrips.

Mending is huge. A character with mending can literally fix anything. Armor, weapons, clothes, tack, tables, chairs ... they can do it once every 6 seconds. Is it cheaper to buy new furniture after a bar brawl or call in the local mender? The mender can fix everything in the bar probably in less than an hour. Anyone with the mending cantrip will be rich.

Attack cantrips mean that the person is always armed. They have a weapon even if it can't be seen and since magic use is 1/100, this will be uncommon enough that it won't be expected most of the time. Prestidigitation sets someone up perfectly for a laundry business. "Clothes cleaned, 6 seconds, 1 silver please. You don't even need to take them off!"

--------

However, one caveat in a world with such little magic and leveled characters - the threats have to equally weak. A single orc is far more powerful than a first level character, it can beat several commoners. They breed quickly. Without more capable characters, orcs would over run the world. Most of the other common monsters are similar. Even kobolds and goblins have special abilities and twice the hit points of commoners. If your world is mostly commoners you have to work out why the more powerful humanoid races haven't simply wiped them all out (considering the races are typically evil and are all individually more powerful than commoners). You could decide that they just fight amongst themselves but even then humans and other commoners are irrelevant unless incorporated into one of the evil empires. In addition, the monstrous races can easily also have high level spell casters too (e.g. hobgoblin wizards - both NPCs and PCs).

If you are going to restrict magic and levels to a signfiicant extent you have to really consider the impact this would have on your global world balance and the threats you expect your PCs to face.

[Democratus]

It's a dial that you set to match the world you want.

There's no "correct" answer. :smallsmile:

Just a set of numbers that describes what you want to present to the players.

What you gave in the OP is as good as any other numbers. Go forth and conquer!

[MoiMagnus]

Small note: that means you have roughly as many magic users as knight. (From my Google search, it's seems that a standard esimation of number of knights is between 1% and 5% of the adult males.)

A detail I think you should think about is the effect of spellcasting abilities and life expectancy.
Having an elite of 27 peoples casting 9th level spells is not the same if it's made of near immortal humans with only one new person reaching this level every thousand years, or if at the contrary most peoples reaching that level of power tend to die quickly from their fame and the very dangerous life they live, and it is lineage of mages (either by blood, or by mentor/student) that last for thousand years.

The first one need this elite to (for some reason) be retired from the world. Think the old sage on the top of a mountain, the archimage in its secret library, ... Because a near-immortal person politically active would have far too much influence on your world. He would be a "god-king". While it is easy to justify in case-by-case why this person retired from the world, it is quite difficult to justify why ALL of them retired from the world.

The second one makes this elite a standard "scheming aristocracy", fighting and assassinating each others for their power, without the winner not lasting long enough to significantly change the world before getting eliminated. On one side, a mage with 9th level spells always fearing to be assassinated might be far less willing to use his big spells for petty reasons. On the other side, that kind of world is quite unstable as it can turn into an arm race.

[deljzc]

One thing to consider is that in any world with magic, there will be few if any mundane rulers. Over time, there is a risk that rulers will be supplanted by much more individually powerful spellcasters. There is less risk of that in this version of D&D than in previous ones since level 20 characters aren't usually capable of defeating entire armies though there are strategies that some could use to come close.

If magic is uncommon enough and personality distributions are typical, there is a very good chance that enough of these more powerful folks are selfish, greedy, self centered, could care less about the weaker folks - we have enough of these in our own society that the wealthy can be distrusted by large parts of the population and their power is only granted through the use of money not through individual power - in D&D the individual's power that will also likely result in significant wealth.

So, high level spell casters are likely to be powerful, wealthy and distrusted. There will be altruists and other parts of the elite willing to help others but it is still likely to result in a highly stratified society. There may be entire countries where the distrust of magic users is so large that any but perhaps the occasional hedge witch are killed on sight to reduce the threats to everyone else.

However, the number of spell casters in your world is small enough that the impact on war and armies should be limited. One person mention a druid calling down lightning but this has a range of a few hundred feet and would have a negligible effect on an army of 5,000 or 10,000. Even Meteor Swarm would have a negligible effect on an army of 10,000 spread over a large area. Yes, it might break up one wave of an assault on a castle but the caster needs to be able to see all the points they hit. If they are in a castle, they are on the walls and a few archers with sharpshooter out in the mass become a significant risk to any spell caster that shows their face.

However, the OP did not address the frequency in their society of the non-spell casting classes - fighters/rogues/monks - I don't know if the AT and EK were included in the suggested numbers or not. Is military training easier or harder than spellcasting? Are there more or less high level non-magic using classes?

Anyway, once you put in the parameters for your society, the kind of world that could exist falls out fairly naturally depending on which way you want to do it.

One more point, about 1% of the population can use cantrips. This about 1 person in 100. Villages will often have no one capable of using any sort of magic. However, the greatest impact on society and commerce ARE some of the basic cantrips.

Mending is huge. A character with mending can literally fix anything. Armor, weapons, clothes, tack, tables, chairs ... they can do it once every 6 seconds. Is it cheaper to buy new furniture after a bar brawl or call in the local mender? The mender can fix everything in the bar probably in less than an hour. Anyone with the mending cantrip will be rich.

Attack cantrips mean that the person is always armed. They have a weapon even if it can't be seen and since magic use is 1/100, this will be uncommon enough that it won't be expected most of the time. Prestidigitation sets someone up perfectly for a laundry business. "Clothes cleaned, 6 seconds, 1 silver please. You don't even need to take them off!"

--------

However, one caveat in a world with such little magic and leveled characters - the threats have to equally weak. A single orc is far more powerful than a first level character, it can beat several commoners. They breed quickly. Without more capable characters, orcs would over run the world. Most of the other common monsters are similar. Even kobolds and goblins have special abilities and twice the hit points of commoners. If your world is mostly commoners you have to work out why the more powerful humanoid races haven't simply wiped them all out (considering the races are typically evil and are all individually more powerful than commoners). You could decide that they just fight amongst themselves but even then humans and other commoners are irrelevant unless incorporated into one of the evil empires. In addition, the monstrous races can easily also have high level spell casters too (e.g. hobgoblin wizards - both NPCs and PCs).

If you are going to restrict magic and levels to a signfiicant extent you have to really consider the impact this would have on your global world balance and the threats you expect your PCs to face.

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

I don't know if tweaking magical ability to MORE people fixes what you imply in society. I am curious what percentage you think magic would have to exist to avoid impact on those things. I would argue it's impossible.

You are correct, magic-users, by definition are going to be sought out because they can impact society so greatly. The cantrip mechanic (which is much different than original D&D of the 1970's and 80's), certainly changes the "magic in society" discussion. And maybe I am having a hard time imagining it as I get back into D&D using 5e rules.

As far as huminoids; I would think D&D society would evolve to almost be singularly focused against them and the monsters of the world, which is why warfare (outside of pure evil intent) would be rare. If you look at our human history, especially in the Middle Ages, war was almost constant and rarely about pure good/evil ideologies. For D&D society to waste such resources on such things would GREATLY open them up to huminoid and pure evil rampages. It doesn't make sense. Even defenses of towns, cities, would almost all be geared more vs. the huminoid horders than traditional army vs. army warfare. Thankfully, you think it would be rare for huminoids to be organized enough to amass in any great numbers. The in-fighting and nature of their species seems to prevent them from "conquering" humanity and civilization (at least you hope). They are a constant danger, but maybe a danger that is often disorganized and stupid in their tactics.

Lastly, I would think martial type expertise would be more prevalent that magic use. So defense against the wild would still mainly come from the sword, shield, bow and fortifications. Since even commoners would likely know how to wield a simple shield and axe, the "growth" into martial expertise seems much greater than magic-use, which seems to come from some inherent/divine ability you are either born or not born with.

Just my 2 cents but I am anxious to hear how your world looks (or how you envision it to look).

[deljzc]

I am curious if you think, in your campaign settings, countries are ruled by NPC's of classes (which is the most common way of thinking about it).

In the original World of Greyhawk, Gygax actually listed every political leader and their corresponding class and level.

I had a similar thinking for my campaign but was curious if anyone deviates from this significantly.

[EggKookoo]

I am curious if you think, in your campaign settings, countries are ruled by NPC's of classes (which is the most common way of thinking about it).

In the original World of Greyhawk, Gygax actually listed every political leader and their corresponding class and level.

I had a similar thinking for my campaign but was curious if anyone deviates from this significantly.

I do. In my campaign, there are no class levels applied to any NPCs. The only creature in the entire universe with a PC class is a PC.

[JoeJ]

I do. In my campaign, there are no class levels applied to any NPCs. The only creature in the entire universe with a PC class is a PC.

I pretty much do that as well. Also, characters without a class don't have class spell lists; they have whatever spells they've managed to acquire over their lifetime (i.e. what's on their stat block, modified as necessary to meet the DM's requirements).

[Clistenes]

At first glance, it looks about right... 20 millions is a bit low for a Medieval/Renaissance inspired world, but hey, there are dragons and wyverns and giants and trolls and bugbears and orcs and manticores eating people, so it could be that most of the world is a monster-infested wilderness, humans being concentrated in walled settlements.

But you may have to revise the numbers if you want more high level spellcasters in the kingdom or empire the adventure is happening.

I mean, if that world is the size of our Earth, there probably are hundreds of medium-sized countries, and many more small mini-states. It could easily happen that the most powerful spellcaster in your campaign cannot cast spells above 6th level...

Another factor to take into account: Once you reach 20th level immortality isn't out of your grasp, so there could be quite more high level spellcasters than expected... they just don't die and stay around for a long time...

Also, there are ghosts, vampires, liches, guys with a Rod of Refuge...

EDIT: If those numbers are just for Flanaess, then there should be several high level spellcasters in each country, but not one able to cast 9th levels spells in every country... I guess that would be alright...

[EggKookoo]

I pretty much do that as well. Also, characters without a class don't have class spell lists; they have whatever spells they've managed to acquire over their lifetime (i.e. what's on their stat block, modified as necessary to meet the DM's requirements).

My assumption/visualization/interpretation is that PCs are also basically cobbling together features, spells, and anything else that comes with their class as they go. The predictable class progression is a tool for us at the table, but not something the PC itself can necessarily anticipate. I try very hard to avoid the WoW-like "Hello there, Rogue!" thing.

Most of my PCs have weird dreams or intuitive glimpses of their next level's features. For example, our 1st level druid wildshaped in her sleep during the long rest before everyone hit level 2. And while he never thought to do it, I would have let our party artificer create an infusion at level 1 -- that lasted a whole 3 seconds before self-destructing.

[JoeJ]

My assumption/visualization/interpretation is that PCs are also basically cobbling together features, spells, and anything else that comes with their class as they go. The predictable class progression is a tool for us at the table, but not something the PC itself can necessarily anticipate. I try very hard to avoid the WoW-like "Hello there, Rogue!" thing.

Most of my PCs have weird dreams or intuitive glimpses of their next level's features. For example, our 1st level druid wildshaped in her sleep during the long rest before everyone hit level 2. And while he never thought to do it, I would have let our party artificer create an infusion at level 1 -- that lasted a whole 3 seconds before self-destructing.

I interpret it pretty much the same way. Classes are player tools, the characters don't know anything about them. For things like new spells when gaining a level, the player chooses, but the character is assumed to be taking whatever they were able to find.

I like your idea of foreshadowing; I think I'll try that. The only thing along that line I've done so far is require players to tell me they're going to multiclass at least a full level beforehand, so we can insert a justification for the new abilities into the game (for example, a character might find a spellbook, or have a vision from a deity, or ask somebody to teach them some moves with a sword).

[Keravath]

I am curious if you think, in your campaign settings, countries are ruled by NPC's of classes (which is the most common way of thinking about it).

In the original World of Greyhawk, Gygax actually listed every political leader and their corresponding class and level.

I had a similar thinking for my campaign but was curious if anyone deviates from this significantly.

In the world's I build, whatever process that leads to the creation of player characters is not unique because they are players. The only difference between player characters and non-player characters is that player characters are run by players and non-player characters are run by the DM.

Perhaps this is just the definition of an NPC but what it means is that when I build an NPC I have no issue pulling their abilities from player character class templates, monster templates or something I invent. At times the NPCs can appear to "break the rules" in that a player character has no way to obtain the abilities demonstrated by an NPC (without DM intervention) but that is just a side effect of being an NPC.

However, major NPCs in most of my settings will be powerful in some way since otherwise they likely would not be able to achieve the level of power and responsibility needed to fill the role they are playing. A commoner king with 4 hit points is unlikely to remain king for long for example. Does this mean that important NPCs will all have class levels .. no .. but many of them will since the process that creates player characters in the world isn't (in my opinion and the worlds I run) unique to players.

[deljzc]

In the world's I build, whatever process that leads to the creation of player characters is not unique because they are players. The only difference between player characters and non-player characters is that player characters are run by players and non-player characters are run by the DM.

Perhaps this is just the definition of an NPC but what it means is that when I build an NPC I have no issue pulling their abilities from player character class templates, monster templates or something I invent. At times the NPCs can appear to "break the rules" in that a player character has no way to obtain the abilities demonstrated by an NPC (without DM intervention) but that is just a side effect of being an NPC.

However, major NPCs in most of my settings will be powerful in some way since otherwise they likely would not be able to achieve the level of power and responsibility needed to fill the role they are playing. A commoner king with 4 hit points is unlikely to remain king for long for example. Does this mean that important NPCs will all have class levels .. no .. but many of them will since the process that creates player characters in the world isn't (in my opinion and the worlds I run) unique to players.

I kind of feel the same way, although monarchy rule is still such a common trope on fantasy that you explain hereditary power with the common "wealthy kids get "trained" to be classes, even if they were born with 10's across the stat board".

And I agree, when I say spellcasters in the known world, I do not mean how many exact PC-constructed people are in the world divided down the level. I mean a general "how many NPC's can really cast cantrips/1st level spells" or are considered spellcasters as a profession (or former profession) or are EXCEPTIONAL spellcasters that have capabilities to impact societies (if left unchecked).

And then how to I reconcile these numbers with the general D&D adventure setup with characters walking into a village/town/city. I want to make sure I describe the town and it's inhabitants correctly, including the general level of magic use available or just "around".

[Dark.Revenant]

An important thing to note about 5E is that you are at liberty to say an "at-will" ability is actually just "a lot of uses" rather than "every 6 seconds, 24/7". Even if it's as simple a rule as saying an hour of cantrip-casting is as much one can do without risking exhaustion, that will retain the usefulness of mundane tools and working schedules. Mold Earth might be a miracle-worker spell capable of earthworks beyond anything that would have been possible in real life, but it ought not be possible to outdo an entire army equipped with shovels.

Based on your replies, probably the most useful way to come up with numbers is to work backwards from "what you want the players to see". How far ought it be to the nearest caster capable of Raise Dead? Would an average village have a hedge mage? Is there a wizard Illuminati with eyes in every major city? From there, you can use extrapoloation in order to generate demographics.

For instance, if the average larger village does have a spellcaster, but that spellcaster is the local Acolyte or Priest: not capable of Raise Dead but capable of healing wounds and maybe curing disease, then we can extrapolate that there are likely around 50,000 such first-or-higher-level casters in the region, and perhaps half a million men of cloth in total; many of this latter category would be able to manage at least a cantrip. A 1:75 ratio gets our bishops (666 ~675 usually fifth-level casters), and a further 20:1 ratio gets our archbishops or equivalent (30 seventh-level casters, generally one per major population center, depending on number of individual religions). We can assume the leaders of major religions are ninth-level casters; let's say 5 of those are farting around.

Let's suppose arcane magic isn't as trusted, so hedge mages are rarer and won't appear in every village: let's say around one in four, and each would on average have an apprentice, and around half would run a shop of some sort. That makes around 15,000-30,000 individuals with proper wizardly magic of some sort, and maybe another 30,000 who have only learned cantrips.

A full NPC Mage is another story entirely, and would usually be limited to those individuals with the resources to have a true education—and, among those, usually only those who reach full competence in their latter years. For a population of 20 million, we can rightly assume one major arcane university exists, which might produce, say, a hundred fully-realized spellcasters per annum. If we assume scholars like mages live to about 60 on average and graduate at 25, that makes 3,500 educated wizardly spellcasters in total. The younger of these would usually only have 2nd-level magic, but of the—let's say—50% of them who remain dedicated to magic their whole lives, around 25% (under 450 in total) would be capable of 5th-level spells. Archmagi would be the absolute pinnacle, and I find it thematically appropriate that there should be 8; one for each school of magic.

[EggKookoo]

Perhaps this is just the definition of an NPC but what it means is that when I build an NPC I have no issue pulling their abilities from player character class templates, monster templates or something I invent. At times the NPCs can appear to "break the rules" in that a player character has no way to obtain the abilities demonstrated by an NPC (without DM intervention) but that is just a side effect of being an NPC.

While out getting takeout for dinner tonight, the thought occurred to me that PCs are really specialized NPCs. Rather than viewing NPCs as PCs run by the DM, PCs are NPCs run by players.

What I mean is, from a mechanical perspective, a creature in 5e is a bundle of features and Ability scores. NPCs are whatever features the game designers gave them, or whatever features you give your custom NPCs as the DM. PCs are basically the same thing, with an additional structure around how new features are added (or possibly existing ones evolve) over time. That structure is levels.

Note that even though you can give PC levels to an NPC when making your own creatures, those levels in and of themselves have no impact on the creature's CR. What impacts the creature's CR are the features those levels provide, but you can just give the NPC those features without bothering with the levels. Levels don't determine creature power, they govern creature progression. And typically, only PCs have progression (sidekicks aside).

[Clistenes]

I kind of feel the same way, although monarchy rule is still such a common trope on fantasy that you explain hereditary power with the common "wealthy kids get "trained" to be classes, even if they were born with 10's across the stat board".

Well, wealthy people probably can pay either diviners or professional educators able to find early what are the kids' better stars, so they know if they will make good wizards, bards, clerics or fighters...

Also, a good diet and early training will help the kids develope high stats.

Genetics may play a role too: by giving titles to sucessful people, nobility gets an influx of people with the potential to sire strong children...

And if everything else fails, there is always the option (for the very top of the social hierarchy) of giving them magical items to raise their stats...

[deljzc]

While out getting takeout for dinner tonight, the thought occurred to me that PCs are really specialized NPCs. Rather than viewing NPCs as PCs run by the DM, PCs are NPCs run by players.

What I mean is, from a mechanical perspective, a creature in 5e is a bundle of features and Ability scores. NPCs are whatever features the game designers gave them, or whatever features you give your custom NPCs as the DM. PCs are basically the same thing, with an additional structure around how new features are added (or possibly existing ones evolve) over time. That structure is levels.

Note that even though you can give PC levels to an NPC when making your own creatures, those levels in and of themselves have no impact on the creature's CR. What impacts the creature's CR are the features those levels provide, but you can just give the NPC those features without bothering with the levels. Levels don't determine creature power, they govern creature progression. And typically, only PCs have progression (sidekicks aside).

Yeah, I don't want this exercise to devolve into whether NPC's have PC stats or not. What level spells you can cast is NOT specifically a PC trait. We might think of it in terms of levels (a 3rd level wizard can cast 2nd level spells and a 17th level wizard can cast 9th level spells, etc.) but we can also look at it just as simply as how many NPC's are out there that can actually cast 5th level spells regardless of "level".

In the monster manual there is actually an "archmage" that can cast 9th level spells. I would assume they would be rather rare but that does depend on the level of magic you want in your world.

Again, I threw the numbers out there to see what initial thoughts came to people. Is it grossly too few? Grossly too many? Does it throw off, in any way you think, of the standard D&D civilization we mostly play in (i.e. European Middles ages with maybe a few more advancements in economy and equality)?

Based on most of the replies so far, I think I'm pretty satisfied with where I'm at. I have lowered the number of clerics to 80,000. And the total overall is closer to 250,000 (not 280,000). But that group mostly lowered the 90th percentile and lower. The numbers as you go into 2nd level and above are pretty close.

Now that I've finished this exercise, I need to hash out either a "Hippocratic Oath" on spellcasting during war or hash out my thoughts on what war looks like in general. And flesh out my "how common are magic items", which is a tangent of magical prevalence as well.

All stuff I just can't stop thinking about when I get into D&D (I seem to be much more macro than micro oriented in my campaign settings).