D&D 5E no wizards?

[pukunui]

Hi all,

I thought it might be fun to have a setting where there are no wizards as such, just sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, etc. The idea being that magic use is something you're either born with or gain through a pact with a supernatural entity of some kind (eg. warlocks make pacts with fey and fiends, clerics make pacts with deities, druids make pacts with nature spirits, and maybe bards make pacts with "muses"). It's not something you can learn through rigorous academic study.

That being said, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that, in a world where magic exists, there wouldn't be anyone studying it in an academic (and Intelligence-based) fashion. It's almost like, if you have magic, you have to have wizards too.

Anyone got any thoughts on the subject? Has anyone ever played in or run a game in which there was magic but no academic wizard types? I'm just curious to see if it can be done and, if so, how to go about pulling it off. What are the ramifications of doing it?

For the record, I don't think the wizard class is overpowered, nor am I looking for an excuse to ban them from the table. I'm merely pursuing a train of thought.


Thanks,
Jonathan

 

[Fobok]

Academic study doesn't necessarily have to involve casting magic. If you want a world that has only natural spellcasters, you can still have, perhaps, an order of scholars studying magic.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You can also use sorcerers with a Harry Potter approach: magic is something that you're either born with or cannot practice at all, but formal training from highly organized institutions is enough to create a separation between those who are merely gifted mortals and those who are real spellcasters.

 

[pukunui]

Academic study doesn't necessarily have to involve casting magic. If you want a world that has only natural spellcasters, you can still have, perhaps, an order of scholars studying magic.

True.

You can also use sorcerers with a Harry Potter approach: magic is something that you're either born with or cannot practice at all, but formal training from highly organized institutions is enough to create a separation between those who are merely gifted mortals and those who are real spellcasters.

Isn't that the D&D default assumption as well? Even wizards have some kind of gift, it's just that they get formal training in magic use, whereas a sorcerer is largely self-taught, and a warlock has made a pact with some magical being.

I think what I'm trying to get my head around is the idea that there are no "highly organized institutions" for learning magic. It's all innate, self-taught, and/or pact-based stuff.

 

[MoonSong]

You can have all of the academic study you want, but no amount of study will make you cast spells if that is not the way magic works on the setting, it is similar to for example music, you can investgate, research, and propose ,usical theory al you want, but that is no waranty you'll be able to compose anything.

There are also worlds were there is just no time and resources to dedicate to study arcane arts, if war is a constant concern, the masses are incultured and the elites lack the time to do idle research, specially since magic can be readily obtained by worship of deities or pacts if you don't have it already, there is little reason to invest on it. A noble who wants to have his heirs wield maguic is better-off marrying into a magic bloodline than sending them to wizrard college, which will take away time from learning politics, fighting And administration. Also on a world without wizards, the academy would be populated by scholarly sorcerers instead.

 

[pukunui]

What if I said that you can study magic (Intelligence), but if you want to use magic you have to either a Jedi-like perception of the inherent fabric of the universe (Wisdom) or the ability to manipulate magic through sheer force of will (Charisma); you can't just spout arcane formulae that you've committed to memory and expect anything magical to happen.

Perhaps there can still be arcane formulae, particularly when it comes to rituals, but if you haven't got "the gift", it's all just a jumble of words and recipes that don't really mean anything.

But what are the ramifications of getting rid of the wizard class? I'm a bit worried it might turn Intelligence into the new dump stat. If there are no wizards, should there be no spell scrolls or spellbooks? What about magic item creation?

Is there a way to refluff/redesign the wizard class so it fits in a "no magic through study" setting?

 

[MoonSong]

In short I would say, no, the wizard class is too heavily loaded with scholarly flavor. But this doesn't have to affect the rest of the system, int also interacts with other thing like languages, and in 3.x with skill points, so no, removing wizard is pretty safe. Sorcerers can also produce scrolls and magic items, they are just not assumed to do it by default, and clerics can still produce scrolls and wands of cure light wounds which are to only ones that are really needed, yes spellbooks vanish too, but wizards are the only class who care.

 

[pukunui]

OK cool.

 

[Warskull]

What about having Wizards, but they don't necessarily have magical ability.

Wizardry could be the studying the theory of magic. They do complex calculations and develop new theoretical spells. However, to cast magic one has to have an innate ability to use magic.

So you could have someone be both a Wizard and a Sorcerer (casts and studies magic), a Wizard (studies only cannot cast), or a sorcerer (can cast, but really doesn't understand how it works.)

Think of it as the difference between aeronautical engineers and pilots. The engineer studies the physics and mechanics of flight. He designs devices, but he doesn't fly himself. The Pilot knows how to fly, but doesn't necessarily know exactly all the details of how his plane works and why it is designed the way it is. Sometimes you can have someone who is both.

Wizards can't learn to cast spells, but they can learn about magic..

 

[pukunui]

Yes, I was beginning to think along those lines.