Wizard Hypocrisy Towards Sorcerers

[MReav]

Wizards complain about sorcerers not earning their magic, but something struck me. Spellbooks are freaking expensive. Spells cost at least 50 GP per spell level, assuming you've got a friendly wizard letting you copy. And given how much you'll end up screwing up while learning, you're going to end up incurring a lot of expenses over your time figuring out how to cast spells. Which means, the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron. So, the idea that Sorcerers don't earn their magic when the only reason Wizards have magic is because they were rich enough to afford to take a few years to study magic, or because someone else footed the bill is pretty lacking in self-awareness. Unless they were poor/middle class and had to earn every GP that went into their studies (as opposed to doing it on their family's or some sugar-parent's silver), they don't get the right to stick their noses up at sorcerers.

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

I say this because I am doubtful they had anything resembling modern American perception of student loans back then.

[HolyDraconus]

I disagree. The vast majority of wizards begin with being able to study the works of a teacher well enough to emulate them, who then helps them with their first spellbook. The teacher is then able to help the young wizard learn through study before the acolyte commits ink to parchment. Tack in that if anything happened to that spellbook the wizard would need to start over and all that is a rough contrast to the sorcerer who pops a magic boner.

[Fyraltari]

Haley once earn 3D6 gold from scrubbing a shower. I don’t think those spellbooks are as expensive as you are making them to be.

[thereaper]

The bigger issue is the assumption that a Sorceror doesn't "earn" their magic. Just because someone didn't need a spellbook, doesn't mean they didn't earn something.

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic"), given that their magic comes from a spellbook in the same way a Cleric's magic comes from their deity. If the cleric's magic isn't real, then neither is the wizard's. Both receive magic from an external source. In that sense, Sorcerors, Psionic users, and Bards are the only "real" magic practitioners.

Technically, Elan is better at magic than V.

[Fyraltari]

The bigger issue is the assumption that a Sorceror doesn't "earn" their magic. Just because someone didn't need a spellbook, doesn't mean they didn't earn something.

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic"), given that their magic comes from a spellbook in the same way a Cleric's magic comes from their deity. If the cleric's magic isn't real, then neither is the wizard's. Both receive magic from an external source. In that sense, Sorcerors, Psionic users, and Bards are the only "real" magic practitioners.

Technically, Elan is better at magic than V.

As I understand it, the wizard's magic isn't inside the spellbook, per se, the spellbook is just where they write down their spells. They do all the actual magicking when they prepare their spells in the morning and casting a specific spell is just triggering the spell they loaded. So they don't take the magic from anybody or anything but themselves.

Meanwhile the Clerics' spells are prepared by the gods and handed to them.

[Kruploy]

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic")

Honestly, this is pretty dumb.
Divine magic is probably the closest you can get to the realm of true magic.

[The Pilgrim]

the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron.

Or by taking your first level as something else easier, like Bard or Rogue, then multiclassing to Wizard.

[Kruploy]

Or by taking your first level as something else easier, like Bard or Rogue, then multiclassing to Wizard.

Multiclassing? Preposterous.
That is no real Wizard.
Just a dumb faker.

[Jay R]

The attitude is one of earning something with hard work vs. getting it for free (or what looks like free from outside).

Consider a karate master who has spent years working on his technique so that he can break multiple boards with his feet. Imagine how he feels about a large, untrained brute who can do it without training out of sheer strength.

Or consider the person who worked all her life to work her way up in a corporation. On the day she is promoted to Vice President, the boss's son, who's been there for six months, is also promoted to that rank.

[dancrilis]

I suspect a bit of the wizards problem is jealousy - the wizard knows that if they prepare to fight a sorcerer of equal level they have a good shot at winning, possible a very good shot if they know a decent bit about the sorcerer's abilities, but they also know that for all their supposed mastery of arcane magic if they meet a sorcerer of equal level without preparation for that specific encounter that the sorcerer will likely win and even with preparation for the encounter they have a decent chance of losing.

When you think you are the master of arcane magic that has to be a bit annoying.

As for hypocrisy perhaps there is a bit of it, but it seems that Wizards have decent organisation for generating new wizards - apprenticeships, colleges, competitions etc this makes sense also as every new wizard is another person out there developing spells that other wizards might learn.
So less hypocrisy and more merely being organised.

[InvisibleBison]

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

More like two weeks.

[dancrilis]

More like two weeks.

That is more for PCs (the universe generally helps them out) for normal people who might be skilled carpenters they get 3sp+ per day (although they might be able to get much more - but whether much more is a 33% increase in wages or a 1000% increase in wages seems left to the DM).
Hireling, Trained.

[Peelee]

Yeah, I'm with dancrilis on the thought that it's envy. Instead of "worked up the corporate ladder only for the CEO's son to get the VP job", I think of it more like "musician who went to music school and studied all sorts of music theory and practiced until their fingers bled can now compose amazing music meets music prodigy who could write operas since they were four years old and effortlessly produces masterpieces."

[InvisibleBison]

That is more for PCs (the universe generally helps them out) for normal people who might be skilled carpenters they get 3sp+ per day (although they might be able to get much more - but whether much more is a 33% increase in wages or a 1000% increase in wages seems left to the DM).
Hireling, Trained.

Where in the rules does it say that NPCs can't use Profession?

[dancrilis]

Where in the rules does it say that NPCs can't use Profession?

NPCs don't use anything they are tools of the DM - the DM can use profession for them if they want but that is not the NPCs choice, and generally costs can assumed to be as given in the equipment section unless the DM changes it (which they are probably not going to do based on the roll of a dice).

[Darth Paul]

I suspect a bit of the wizards problem is jealousy - the wizard knows that if they prepare to fight a sorcerer of equal level they have a good shot at winning, possible a very good shot if they know a decent bit about the sorcerer's abilities, but they also know that for all their supposed mastery of arcane magic if they meet a sorcerer of equal level without preparation for that specific encounter that the sorcerer will likely win.

As we saw in the climax of Start Of Darkness.

I tend to agree with everyone who has said it's the same feeling a great master who has worked all their life gets when confronted with a prodigy to whom the same thing comes effortlessly. It's extremely annoying (I have to say), especially because the world is usually more amazed by the prodigy than by the great master.

I'd like to coin this "Harry Potter Syndrome", because I'm convinced that all the old wizards secretly hated the little punk's guts. I know I do.

[Goblin_Priest]

Wizards complain about sorcerers not earning their magic, but something struck me. Spellbooks are freaking expensive. Spells cost at least 50 GP per spell level, assuming you've got a friendly wizard letting you copy. And given how much you'll end up screwing up while learning, you're going to end up incurring a lot of expenses over your time figuring out how to cast spells. Which means, the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron. So, the idea that Sorcerers don't earn their magic when the only reason Wizards have magic is because they were rich enough to afford to take a few years to study magic, or because someone else footed the bill is pretty lacking in self-awareness. Unless they were poor/middle class and had to earn every GP that went into their studies (as opposed to doing it on their family's or some sugar-parent's silver), they don't get the right to stick their noses up at sorcerers.

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

I say this because I am doubtful they had anything resembling modern American perception of student loans back then.

What!? Privileged people taking offense at seeing lower-born reach their class!? No real world analogies possible here, for sure. ;)

[Jason]

Yeah, I'm with dancrilis on the thought that it's envy. Instead of "worked up the corporate ladder only for the CEO's son to get the VP job", I think of it more like "musician who went to music school and studied all sorts of music theory and practiced until their fingers bled can now compose amazing music meets music prodigy who could write operas since they were four years old and effortlessly produces masterpieces."

Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus, only Salieri never gave away how he really felt to Mozart. He just let it fester and tried to destroy Mozart secretly.

Harry Potter is not that great a wizard in the books. His most notable talents are quidditch and bravery. His friend Hermione is the one who masters spells and potions at a much younger age than anyone else.

[hamishspence]

Harry Potter is not that great a wizard in the books. His most notable talents are quidditch and bravery. His friend Hermione is the one who masters spells and potions at a much younger age than anyone else.

There is the Expecto Patronum spell, which Harry masters before Hermione, but that may be because he was taught it before Hermione.

A point is made of how even fully trained wizards often have trouble with it, and that it's "well beyond OWL (5th year) level" and Harry is taught it in year 3.

However, it's possible that the DADA teachers have been poor at teaching that one in the past, since Harry teaches many of his students to do it in year 5 (and some of them were year 4 students).

Harry learned a few other "past his normal year level" spells in year 4 for the Triwizard Tournament.

[Jason]

There is the Expecto Patronum spell, which Harry masters before Hermione, but that may be because he was taught it before Hermione.

A point is made of how even fully trained wizards often have trouble with it, and that it's "well beyond OWL (5th year) level" and Harry is taught it in year 3.

I would argue that Harry's unusual amount of bravery is largely responsible for his mastery of the Patronus, that and the fact that Lupin is an excellent DADA teacher.
He does work hard on some simple spells, like expeliarmus to the point that he develops a mastery of them. But Hermione is still the prodigy. The only skill that really comes easily to Harry is broomstick flying and Quidditch.

However, it's possible that the DADA teachers have been poor at teaching that one in the past, since Harry teaches many of his students to do it in year 5 (and some of them were year 4 students).

Lupin is the only good Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Harry had during his time at Hogwarts.

Spoiler

Show

Quirrel was sharing his soul and body with Voldemort, Lockheart was a charlatan, "Mad-Eye Moody" was Death Eater Barty Crouch in disguise, Umbridge wasn't interested in teaching Harry anything useful, and Snape despite having real motivation to teach him despised him too much to teach him much.

[hamishspence]

Lupin is the only good Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Harry had during his time at Hogwarts.

Spoiler

Show

Quirrel was sharing his soul and body with Voldemort, Lockheart was a charlatan, "Mad-Eye Moody" was Death Eater Barty Crouch in disguise, Umbridge wasn't interested in teaching Harry anything useful, and Snape despite having real motivation to teach him despised him too much to teach him much.

I would add

Spoiler

Show

Moody/Crouch to the list of good teachers. Horrible person, but very good teacher.

[InvisibleBison]

NPCs don't use anything they are tools of the DM - the DM can use profession for them if they want but that is not the NPCs choice, and generally costs can assumed to be as given in the equipment section unless the DM changes it (which they are probably not going to do based on the roll of a dice).

So if there are two equally skilled carpenters, one of whom is a PC and the other of whom is an NPC, working together on various projects, the PC is going to earn several times as much money as the NPC? What's going on to cause this disparity?

Also, you haven't provided any evidence that NPCs aren't supposed to use the Profession skill, only that the amount of money PCs have to pay to hire them isn't determined by that skill.

[dancrilis]

So if there are two equally skilled carpenters, one of whom is a PC and the other of whom is an NPC, working together on various projects, the PC is going to earn several times as much money as the NPC? What's going on to cause this disparity?

There are two PCs on a job with the same modifer as each other one of them roles a 1 and the other roles an 20 - both do the job and get paid but one of them (assuming no modifiers) gets 5sp and the other gets 10gp.

If an NPC joins them then the NPC get whatever the DM determines - with a base assumption of 3sp as a minimum, if the GM wants to have them roll profession and give them money based on that that is up to the GM, but it is not the base assumption of what a skilled hireling gets.

Also, you haven't provided any evidence that NPCs aren't supposed to use the Profession skill, only that the amount of money PCs have to pay to hire them isn't determined by that skill.

Whether they use it or not is not immediately relevant to the cost of a skilled hireling and therefore not relevant to how long it takes a skill hireling to get the money to buy a spellbook - if you want to use if for your NPCs feel free.

[Peelee]

I'd like to coin this "Harry Potter Syndrome", because I'm convinced that all the old wizards secretly hated the little punk's guts. I know I do.

Not big in the HP fandom, but who was the prodigy in that? Snape, for his uncanny understanding of potions?

Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus, only Salieri never gave away how he really felt to Mozart. He just let it fester and tried to destroy Mozart secretly.

Wasn't Salieri a great fan of and friend to Mozart IRL?

[Dr.Zero]

Haley once earn 3D6 gold from scrubbing a shower. I don’t think those spellbooks are as expensive as you are making them to be.

Those were copper pieces. 2 orders of magnitude of difference.

On the main topic, I agree the usual justification given for the hate sorcerers get is hidden envy for wizards and fear for commoners.

[InvisibleBison]

There are two PCs on a job with the same modifer as each other one of them roles a 1 and the other roles an 20 - both do the job and get paid but one of them (assuming no modifiers) gets 5sp and the other gets 10gp.

If an NPC joins them then the NPC get whatever the DM determines - with a base assumption of 3sp as a minimum, if the GM wants to have them roll profession and give them money based on that that is up to the GM, but it is not the base assumption of what a skilled hireling gets.


Whether they use it or not is not immediately relevant to the cost of a skilled hireling and therefore not relevant to how long it takes a skill hireling to get the money to buy a spellbook - if you want to use if for your NPCs feel free.

Not all NPCs are hirelings, though. The hireling rules are explicitly only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them. Why do you think that they should be expanded to be the default income for all NPCs, as opposed to the Profession skill?

[dancrilis]

Not all NPCs are hirelings, though. The hireling rules are explicitly only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them. Why do you think that they should be expanded to be the default income for all NPCs, as opposed to the Profession skill?

You can have NPCs charge each other more then they charge PCs if you like - but I would not regard it as the default, however can you point out where you see it explicitely mentioned that 'hireling rules are ... only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them'.

[InvisibleBison]

You can have NPCs charge each other more then they charge PCs if you like - but I would not regard it as the default, however can you point out where you see it explicitely mentioned that 'hireling rules are ... only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them'.

I was thinking of the first sentence of the hirelings section on p. 195 of the DMG, but on further examination I think I've pushed my claims a bit beyond what the evidence can support.

On the broader issue of how much do NPCs earn, my opinion is that the rules are a reflection what happens in the game world, and the distinction between PC and NPC doesn't exist in the game world. Thus, PCs and NPCs should use the same rules when doing the same thing.

[Jason]

Wasn't Salieri a great fan of and friend to Mozart IRL?

Yes. IRL there's no reason to think they disliked each other or that Salieri had anything to do with Mozart's death. It sure made a great movie, though. The stage play is great too.

[dancrilis]

I was thinking of the first sentence of the hirelings section on p. 195 of the DMG, but on further examination I think I've pushed my claims a bit beyond what the evidence can support.

After checking it out I am assuming that was a typo and you meant 105 (or we are looking at different books) - but fair enough.

On the broader issue of how much do NPCs earn, my opinion is that the rules are a reflection what happens in the game world, and the distinction between PC and NPC doesn't exist in the game world. Thus, PCs and NPCs should use the same rules when doing the same thing.

I get this - if you wanted to square the two figures you could imagine the following.
Hireling: Full time private employee.
Profession: Contractor.

So effectively a hireling might be employed by 'Carpentry and You' where they gets 2sp (minus tax) a day whether they work or not and the company charge 3sp for the labour - so the carpenter has job security and a steady income but is not making what they would if they were independent.
Meanwhile if you hire a private carpenter you would be paying (1d20+Modifer)/2 gold pieces a week - but they would need to find their own work have no steady income, and competing with 'Carpentry and You' might not be reasonable so they might need to be inventive to remain employed - working for the local graveyard ghouls or other unsavoury characters that 'Carpentry and You' will not deal with due to potential reputational damage.