How many practitioners of arcane magic are running around your setting, that it would make sense to have two distinct lines of progression for them, rather than just saying that the better wizards are higher level?I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between "mage" and "wizard": as long as both are using Intelligence-based casting and spellbooks, they're both in the same line of work. However, I think the PC wizard class represents a particularly intense level of training and experience. I don't see any reason to assume that everybody who can cast a fireball out of a book automatically has the same access to other abilities --
No matter how hard I try, there always seem to be four or fiveHow common are adventurers in your world?
How many practitioners of arcane magic are running around your setting, that it would make sense to have two distinct lines of progression for them, rather than just saying that the better wizards are higher level?
I guess if you're in the Forgotten Realms, maybe.
I feel like this runs into the problem of supposing our world is much like one where there are individuals with the power of an Abrams tank or Apache helicopter. There's no way to know of course: one argument is as good as another. Possibly we need to regard wealth in our world as equivalent to XP in a D&D world. But I digress, my focus is what I believe will work best as our PCs level up.In order to lead an organization, you don't have to be higher level than everyone else in the organization who has adventuring levels. You have to be better at running organizations than everyone else in the organization. You have to be a better politician, a better leader.
There's no reason why the Pope has to be a level 20 adventuring cleric. In fact, being an adventuring cleric ill suits a priest to be Pope. It's far more useful to be skilled in the internal politics of the church. It's infinitely more useful to remain close to the seat of power, where you get to know people, manipulating favor and patronage. Bimbling all over the countryside smiting heathens does precisely zero to improve either skill set.
Same thing with politicians and nobles. Your job isn't to be the best [insert character class here]. Your job is to run [insert political entity here]. You might go off for a bit as a youth to do something carefully calculated to gain you some street cred when it comes time to assume the throne/run for president - in the Real World, that's been military service of some stripe - but you don't specialize in that, necessarily, not to the point you're one of the world's best. You do your bit, wave the flag, show the people you put on your trousers the same way, and then marry someone else almost as important but not quite, pop out some sprogs, and wait for your chance to rule. That's true if your last name is Kennedy, Bush, Saxe-Coburg, or Windsor.
Xanathar is a great case in point. Based on CR he's tier 3, him or one of his predecessors having slain the previous tier 3 incumbent. And he controls one organisation in a larger polity ruled until recently by an epic tier character class individual. Among Xanathar's servants are characters like Shindia, tier 2 Rogue.You don't have to be a 20th level Rogue to run a large city's Thieves Guild. Hell, you don't even have to have any adventuring levels at all! *koffkoffXanatharkoffkoff* You just have to be smarter, better at manipulation, better at long-term and short-term planning, a bunch of skills that adventuring levels not only don't guarantee, but all too often lead you away from. You have to be so scary that other members of your gang are terrified of betraying or trying to supplant you - think El Chapo or Don Corleone.
It sounds like our actual approaches are quite similar. This was the point I was making about "misleading", which ironically seems to have misled If by adventurers we mean individuals with character class levels, then there are lots of adventurers at all tiers. If we mean only those individuals who are actively adventuring, then that is a subset of the former. So, where the post I critiqued says that there are five or fewer tier 4 people, if that is understood to mean that of all the many tier 4 people, only 5 or fewer are adventuring, then that seems to low ball it but fine. If on the other hand it is understood to mean that there are 5 or fewer tier 4 people full stop, then that is misleading. Seeing as we're discussing D&D I feel here it's valid to make the straightforward observation that there are more than 5 epic tier characters in the Forgotten Realms, and a great many more tier 4. Of course, we don't all use Faerun but it stands in stark contradiction to the post I critiqued.In my world-building, lots of people "have" levels in adventuring classes. But that doesn't mean they identify as [class]. It's merely a convenient shorthand for explaining some of their skills and giving those skills in-game mechanics for those times the PCs interact with those NPCs within the game engine.
True adventurers - people who make their living by seeking out danger, loot, and glory - are pretty rare. Mercenaries - people who are prepared to visit violence on other people for money - are common as muck.
Thieves and spies are common. Glamorous, famous cat burglars like Bill Mason are rare.
I say that to show that the lines are blurry. The mercenaries have fighter levels, sure, because it explains and gives mechanics to what they've learned through a life trying to stick sharp things into other people. The thieves and spies have levels, sure, because it explains and gives mechanics to what they do. But they're not really adventurers.
If by adventurers we mean individuals with character class levels, then there are lots of adventurers at all tiers.
As long as it's based on a real difference within the game world, then that's fine. It means that a PC wizard has necessarily had formal training, and didn't just reach themself from a stolen book, but that's not a bad thing.In my world arcane users are approximately one in a thousand, however, perhaps only one in five of them has "formal training".