Why wouldn't Someone Learn Magic...

[Thanee]

It occurs to me that learning magic is like learning another language.

It surely takes a bit more than 1-2 skill points.

Not quite though. If you talk with folks who pretend to use magic today it requires a different mind set, both for everyday life and during the ritual itself.

-fixed-

Bye
Thanee

 

[Storyteller01]

-fixed-

Bye
Thanee

Would appreciate it if you didn't do that.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Neighboring nations will have their own military, or 'mob'. You'd have to explain how, with all the exp, gold, components, etc needed for magic and consant item production, how you're able to maintain a society of all magic users of the same numbers as a non-magic using society, especially without non-casters as a labor force. Unless you're using a force of mainly divine casters, exposure will have a marked effect on your (lower hp) laborers.

The assumptions you are making about a magic using vs magic phobic society are so different from my own that trying to discuss their respective military strengths seems mostly pointless. And it doesn't address the original question of why in a world where there are by default magic users who are accepted, smaller magics aren't used more widely.

 

[Andor]

Neighboring nations will have their own military, or 'mob'. You'd have to explain how, with all the exp, gold, components, etc needed for magic and consant item production, how you're able to maintain a society of all magic users of the same numbers as a non-magic using society, especially without non-casters as a labor force. Unless you're using a force of mainly divine casters, exposure will have a marked effect on your (lower hp) laborers.

At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Where did this idea of all casters come from? And even if your society was all casters how is a d4 Wizard any weaker than a d4 commoner?

Look, the idea is very simple. Take two equal tribes/cities/kingdoms/whatever. One is a book standard D&D society with standard class and wealth distributions and by the book access to magic items. The other is the same size but has no magic. No Bards, No Clerics, No Druids, No Paladins, No Monks, No Rangers, No Wizards, No Sorcerers, No Shadowdancers, nothing with spell casting or a (sp) or (su) class ability. Also no magic items. No +1 swords, No potions, No wands of CLW.

When these two societies come into conflict, how can the 'muggle' society survive without some mechanical advantage to offset the use of magic. No superior terrain, or numbers either, those are mechanical advantages.

We're saying the muggles are doomed, You're argueing in strange directions that have little to do with the discussion.

 

[Storyteller01]

The assumptions you are making about a magic using vs magic phobic society are so different from my own that trying to discuss their respective military strengths seems mostly pointless. And it doesn't address the original question of why in a world where there are by default magic users who are accepted, smaller magics aren't used more widely.

Not looking for a comparison just yet; I'm asking for those who believe magic societies are possible to quantify themselves.

As for why aren't smaller magics used, I'd say its mainly do to the need for training with even the smallest effects. To cast 0 level spells you need to be literate to start, something most poeple in the settings aren't. It's also going to require training (doesn't come cheap)

 

[fusangite]

It seems as thought Storyteller started off making a very good point and has ended up migrating to the outer reaches of the solar system while I was away from my computer. A few thoughts on recent posts, mainly a reiteration of Andor's points:

1. Demographics: As Storyteller correctly pointed out, the RAW, while silent on what social and institutional barriers might exist to becoming a spell caster, speaks clearly on the demography that arises from whatever these unstated barriers are. The overwhelming majority of society is made up of non-casters.

2. Social Hierarchy: It seems absurd to suggest that a society with a significant majority of non-casters would, on the basis of demography alone, cast out spell-casters. For one thing, casters are the only people who can intermediate in communications with divine beings; those with an otherworldly focus are naturally dependent on spell casters for knowing the wishes of the gods and complying with them.

Similarly, spellcasters are over-represented in PC classes. Thus, classes that are twice as powerful per class level (as per the demography sections of the DMG) are naturally going to hold a disproportionate portion of the power in society based on their own ability to exert coercive force.

Another important factor that would contribute to casters being accorded disproportionate power is their monopoly on accelerated healing. Fast healing can only be accomplished by the direct intervention of a caster or through a magic item created by a caster.

Finally, there is the targets per round factor. Whereas a high-level bowman with all possible archery feats might be able to hit four targets per round or a high level melee fighter, eight, high level casters can slay or incapacitate dozens per round through area effect spells. While high-level non-casters are competitive with or better than high-level casters at killing people of commensurable levels, casters are clearly superior at killing people at lower levels.

All this, taken together, means that casters are likely to be over-represented amongst social elites and very difficult to dislodge from their social position.

3. Battle Tactics: This is a no-brainer. Given the properties enumerated above, let's do the comparison Andor suggested of a non-magic using army versus a magic-using army except in this one, the casters for the magic-using army stay back at camp making potions and enchanting weapons.

Who is going to do better on the field? An army of 1000 using mundane weapons with no capacity to heal themselves or an army of 500 equipped with magic weapons and the ability to heal themselves. Now, imagine the army of 500 getting to go back to camp at night and have all their wounds healed while the other army goes back and, with the careful application of the Heal skill, regains 2hp/level/night.

According to the RAW, a 16th level fighter is only equal to a 16th level wizard if arrayed in magical weapons and armour. The gear is part of the balance equation. According to our system's theory of balance, a non-magical society will lose.

 

[fusangite]

Ahem, the RAW isn't everything.

Don't worry. He's wrong about what the RAW say.

The rules of D&D are meant to help depict adventurers in a fantasy world, and the world that the adventurers encounter, especially the things they do that challenge them and make their lives interesting. The further you move from that model, the less sense that the RAW will make. If you push the demographics, economics, or any other part of the rules for depicting a D&D world too far they won't hold up, because the D&D RAW (or any RAW) is not an absolutely perfect modelling of reality (sorry).

I don't understand what you mean here. It models perfectly the reality that it models. What we are engaged in here is describing what kind of reality the rules model.

The fact that the rules cease to be self-consistent if you radically change parts of them is not evidence that they are structurally flawed. This is evidence that they are, by and large, self-consistent.

The rules are there to help depict the setting of the game, the setting isn't there to help depict what the rules say.

I disagree. If you create a setting that depicts something other than what the rules are saying, you have an incoherent, bad setting, a setting that should be used with some other system of rules.

In a normal D&D setting, the vast majority of people are poor commoners who are barely literate (they might be literate for rules purposes, but they aren't exactly going to be reading fine literature),

You are on strong ground here. The rules say that Barbarians+Commoners=majority. (Actually commoners=majority by themselves.)

because the society and economics of the world means that most people can't afford magical training, magical organizations don't have huge open enrollment public magic schools.

Actually, the rules' silence on why this is makes it a matter for live debate.

The intricacies of career selection of commoners and motivational career psychology of NPC's isn't exactly a part of the RAW because it's not relevant at all to 99% of D&D games.

This is unfortunate. While I agree with you that these things are setting-specific, it remains unfortunate that most setting materials are equally as silent as the main rules on the mechanics of social hierarchy. I think this leads to settings with a less authentic feel as a result.

 

[Storyteller01]

At this point I don't even know what you're talking about. Where did this idea of all casters come from? And even if your society was all casters how is a d4 Wizard any weaker than a d4 commoner?

Look, the idea is very simple. Take two equal tribes/cities/kingdoms/whatever. One is a book standard D&D society with standard class and wealth distributions and by the book access to magic items. The other is the same size but has no magic. No Bards, No Clerics, No Druids, No Paladins, No Monks, No Rangers, No Wizards, No Sorcerers, No Shadowdancers, nothing with spell casting or a (sp) or (su) class ability. Also no magic items. No +1 swords, No potions, No wands of CLW.

When these two societies come into conflict, how can the 'muggle' society survive without some mechanical advantage to offset the use of magic. No superior terrain, or numbers either, those are mechanical advantages.

We're saying the muggles are doomed, You're argueing in strange directions that have little to do with the discussion.

I seem to have mis interpretted the intent then.


Even with this, the muggles aren't doomed by any stretch. Any one of us here can think of harrasment campaign tactics to wear down a caster, especially those that have a limited selection.

Add to that the resources involved. Both nations are equal in resources, just one uses magic, yes?

One protection from arrows potion costs 150 gp. Crafting a one healing potion could cost up to 375 gp. A +1 weapon costs a minimum of 1,000 gp. +1 magic armor is a minimum of 500 gp. Outfitting ONE fighter with these items runs 2,025+, and these are minor enchantments. Casters will need more costly items to be effective (Wizards, sorcerers, and bards will need bracers of armor, rings, cloaks, expensive components, etc. Druids will need enchanted natural armors to keep up with metal armors. The list goes on.).

The magic society will be out numbered by simple legistics. Figuring a fighter takes 300 gp to be outfitted effectively, the non-casters can have 6 fighters outfitted for every one outfitted with minor magic items. You could outfit 3 calvary for roughly the same cost. Money you spend on that flaming sword can buy several seige engines. It isn't the muggles that need a mechanical advantage, it's the casters that require a resource advantage.

 

[Storyteller01]

3. Battle Tactics: This is a no-brainer. Given the properties enumerated above, let's do the comparison Andor suggested of a non-magic using army versus a magic-using army except in this one, the casters for the magic-using army stay back at camp making potions and enchanting weapons.

Who is going to do better on the field? An army of 1000 using mundane weapons with no capacity to heal themselves or an army of 500 equipped with magic weapons and the ability to heal themselves. Now, imagine the army of 500 getting to go back to camp at night and have all their wounds healed while the other army goes back and, with the careful application of the Heal skill, regains 2hp/level/night.

According to the RAW, a 16th level fighter is only equal to a 16th level wizard if arrayed in magical weapons and armour. The gear is part of the balance equation. According to our system's theory of balance, a non-magical society will lose.

that's assuming that 1) all 500 make it back, 2) fighters have the chance to use those potions, given the AoO's involved, 3) that combat doesn't go through the night or that either is using harassments during the evening, and 4) that the mages creating the potions don't run out of materials.

 

[fusangite]

that's assuming that 1) all 500 make it back, 2) fighters have the chance to use those potions, given the AoO's involved, 3) that combat doesn't go through the night or that either is using harassments during the evening, and 4) that the mages creating the potions don't run out of materials.

I'm not assuming any of those things. I'm just assuming rational action. Look, obviously, at this point, no rational argument is going to get through to you. This has turned into one of those arguments with my stepmother who just says "not necessarily" until you pass out and then assumes she has won.