D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[Maxperson]

An apprenticeship itself implies a trade, not a traditional academic education. I could see where you would draw the connection between "education", "study" and "scholar", but that is not how I interpret these and I think those terms are meant to be broader than just an education IMO .... as would be said about someone who is a football player and "studies" film and is a "scholar" of the game which does not necessarily mean a formal education.

Bottom line is I don't interpret scholar and study the same way you do. I don't see this as limiting in terms of play and I see magic itself as an applied field of study for a Wizard, not necessarily an academic one.

I will also note your interpretation would pretty much eliminate Wizards as a viable multiclass option for anyone who was not educated prior to the start of adventuring.

..."likely to come to an ordinary life"... is a stereotype, prefaced by "likely" which by definition means there are exceptions. Further a similar diclaimer about lifestyle could be said for most classes. Saying a Wizard is likely to be a Sage is the same as saying a Wizard is likely to have a low strength or Elves are likely to be thin or Dwarves are likely to have a beard. It is all true in the gameworld, but all meaningless mechanically as I can take my wizard and put all my ASIs into Strength or play a fat Elf (like Mr. Witch from Witchlight) or a clean-shaven Dwarf and be totally within the rules.

The key difference mechanically is a Wizard is "likely" to fit into this Sage mold, where a Paladin MUST have an oath and a Warlock MUST have a pact and patron.

That's a lot of twisting to avoid educated wizards. A scholar is a scholar. You aren't a scholar unless you are educated, formally or informally. And a sage is a learned(educated) man, and I agree that a wizard is as likely to be educated as have low strength. More likely really. And you don't get to lecture in a library without being educated to some degree, formally or informally.

Then there's Xanathar's.

"WIZARDRY REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING. THE KNOWLEDGE of how and why magic works, and our efforts to broaden that understanding, have brought about the key advances in civilization over the centuries."

I mean, that's education.

"The price that wizards pay for their mastery is that most valuable of commodities: time. It takes years of study, instruction , and experimentation to learn how to harness magical energy and carry spells around in one's own mind."

More about the long study time wizards take to educate themselves.

You are correct that there is a disconnect where multiclass wizards are concerned. That disconnect is with allow it at all. They did so in order not to gimp people that wanted to multiclass into wizard as all classes should be able to do so. However, that does not invalidate the explicit call out to how educated wizards are and how long it takes to become one. The most obvious reasoning is that the PC is some sort of wizard savant and achieves the required level of education very quickly, not that education is not a part of the process.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Traditionally, FWIW, D&D magic-users were hermetic types, rather than collegiate types, not schools, but master-apprentice... y'know, like the Sith...

 

[ECMO3]

That's a lot of twisting to avoid educated wizards. A scholar is a scholar. You aren't a scholar unless you are educated, formally or informally.

Here is the definition of scholar:

Specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities

note underlined, that is what I was talking about when I said magic for a wizard was an "applied" field of study.

And a sage is a learned(educated) man, and I agree that a wizard is as likely to be educated as have low strength.

But "likely" being a Sage is NOT the same as "definitely" being a sage.

I can play a Wizard who is a high-strength, low (below 10) intelligence Dwarf sailor and be COMPLETELY within the rules. And on point buy or standard array, such a character can even be viable and with the right choices frankly be above average in all 3 pillars of the game (compared to average characters from other classes).

I can't play a Warlock without a Patron or a Paladin above level 3 without an oath at all.

More likely really. And you don't get to lecture in a library without being educated to some degree, formally or informally.

Sure, but "more likely" not the same as "absolutely required".

Not all Wizards would lecture in a library. Some of them would flat be kicked out and not allowed to even attend the lecture.

Then there's Xanathar's.

"WIZARDRY REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING. THE KNOWLEDGE of how and why magic works,

Agreed. This does not require an education though. It requires understanding and knowledge of how magic works.

and our efforts to broaden that understanding, have brought about the key advances in civilization over the centuries."

Ok, two things here. First this is one place where the rules do not agree with the fiction. Karsus for example destroyed the greatest civilization in the history of Ferun and Szass Tam later tried to do the same (and failed).

Moreover the D&D fantasy worlds are generally primative, ranging from the dark ages to the renaissance depending on how you evaluate them, but it certainly is niether advanced nor modern. So the key "advances in civilization" they talk about here, in fact did not happen in the official game settings and the fantasy world advances a lot slower than the actual real world did historically.

Second, even if you accept this as true when "fantasy history" shows it as false, it uses the word "our" which is a collective. Wizards in general may have brought about these theoretical unnamed advances, but that does not mean Wizards in specific have.

To compare a similar statement: We can say IRL "Capitalist efforts to industrialize and modernize has brought about great wealth and advancement in civilization over the last 200 years" This is undeniably 100% true, yet there are still many, many poor people in the world, to include some capitalists.

"The price that wizards pay for their mastery is that most valuable of commodities: time. It takes years of study, instruction , and experimentation to learn how to harness magical energy and carry spells around in one's own mind."

Study, instruction and experimentation are fundamentally different than education. Experimentation is a bit of an outlier to start with because the Scientific method is generally associated with the modern era, but study and instruction are not the same as education. Again I point to apprenticeships and to trades.

You are correct that there is a disconnect where multiclass wizards are concerned. That disconnect is with allow it at all. They did so in order not to gimp people that wanted to multiclass into wizard as all classes should be able to do so. However, that does not invalidate the explicit call out to how educated wizards are and how long it takes to become one. The most obvious reasoning is that the PC is some sort of wizard savant and achieves the required level of education very quickly, not that education is not a part of the process.

I do not see it as explcit as you do. I think you are inferring a lot here, a lot more than is actually stated as rules. If Wizards had to actually be educated, I think the rules would actually say that and not beat around the bush on it.

 

[Maxperson]

Here is the definition of scholar:

Specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities

note underlined, that is what I was talking about when I said magic for a wizard was an "applied" field of study.

A specialist in a branch of study is not only educated, he's HIGHLY educated.

But "likely" being a Sage is NOT the same as "definitely" being a sage.

It demonstrates the education that is inherent to the class.

I can play a Wizard who is a high-strength, low (below 10) intelligence Dwarf sailor and be COMPLETELY within the rules. And on point buy or standard array, such a character can even be viable and with the right choices frankly be above average in all 3 pillars of the game (compared to average characters from other classes).

I've known some really dumb people with college degrees.

I can't play a Warlock without a Patron or a Paladin above level 3 without an oath at all.

Apples and oranges. Apples to apples would be, "You can't play a wizard without a spellbook." Not effectively anyway.

Agreed. This does not require an education though. It requires understanding and knowledge of how magic works.

That's education! Formal or informal, wizards are highly educated in how magic works.

Ok, two things here. First this is one place where the rules do not agree with the fiction. Karsus for example destroyed the greatest civilization in the history of Ferun and Szass Tam later tried to do the same (and failed).

Those don't matter. That's like saying that failed attempts at aviation didn't help advance aviation knowledge. Despite those BBEGs, magic still propelled the Realms forward.

Moreover the D&D fantasy worlds are generally primative, ranging from the dark ages to the renaissance depending on how you evaluate them, but it certainly is niether advanced nor modern. So the key "advances in civilization" they talk about here, in fact did not happen in the official game settings and the fantasy world advances a lot slower than the actual real world did historically.

"Key advances" =/= modern tech. "Key advances" = the advances used to get whatever setting to the point that it is at.

Second, even if you accept this as true when "fantasy history" shows it as false, it uses the word "our" which is a collective. Wizards in general may have brought about these theoretical unnamed advances, but that does not mean Wizards in specific have.

The section is talking about the class and the knowledges that wizards(all of them have).

Study, instruction and experimentation are fundamentally different than education. Experimentation is a bit of an outlier to start with because the Scientific method is generally associated with the modern era, but study and instruction are not the same as education. Again I point to apprenticeships and to trades.

There's a word for wizards who don't learn(aren't educated in) how to cast magic. It's sorcerer. If you are a wizard, you are highly educated, because you had to be highly educated in magic in order to learn how cast it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, is the disagreement here, well, some wizards go to college, but some go to technical school for their education, therefore being "educated" is not a defining wizard thing?

...let me just refresh my memory of the 5e wizard for a moment....

Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion

So you could play a 5e wizard with no Knowledge skills? Just, say, Insight & Investigation?

 

[nevin]

lmao. I think the cognitive disconnect for many is you have the Dragon slayer wizard archetype where the wizard is trained by his master and then you have the Jack Vance/Harry Potter Archetypes where the wizard goes to school and actually gets taught in a scholastic environment. Niether is wrong but DND doesn't really support the background for either. The wizard really has never had it's place in the game ever defined past "person who solves the problems non magical people can't"

 

[ECMO3]

A specialist in a branch of study is not only educated, he's HIGHLY educated.

Not true. Being a specialist and being educated are not at all the same thing.

Lebron James is a specialist in Basketball and did not even attend college. A typical automotive technician at a dealership is likewise a specialist, but is not "highly" educated.

It demonstrates the education that is inherent to the class.

No it absolutley does not. It actually demostrates the exact opposite, that an education is common to the class and "likely" among members of the class, which explicitly means it is not universal.

I've known some really dumb people with college degrees.

Suer and they are all "highly educated"!

That doesn't make them a specialist at anything

Apples and oranges. Apples to apples would be, "You can't play a wizard without a spellbook." Not effectively anyway.

You are absolutely right a Wizard does effectively need a spellbook, but this has very few thematic implications.

A Spellbook does not have a major thematic element to it as requiring a patron does, adherence to an oath does or the requirement to have an education would if there was such a requirement (which there isn't).

That's education! Formal or informal, wizards are highly educated in how magic works.

Understanding is not the same as education. Those are absolutely different words with very different meanings.

Further, that is not how magic works in the fictional world either.

Those don't matter. That's like saying that failed attempts at aviation didn't help advance aviation knowledge. Despite those BBEGs, magic still propelled the Realms forward.

Some of them didn't. There were early people who attempted to advance aviation who did not advance it at all. Further many of the people who succeeded were not in fact educated.

I am glad you brought up aviation. The greatest pioneers in Aviation were undoubtedly the Wright brothers, inventing not only the airplane, but also the wind tunnel that continbues to be used in airrcraft design today.

Neither Orville or Wilbur Wright went to college, they were not "highly educated" yet they were "specialists" in aerodynamics, the greatest of their time in fact and two of the greatest of all time.

The section is talking about the class and the knowledges that wizards(all of them have).

No as you illustrated with the aviation example, saying Wiards made these unidentified "key advances" is not the same as saying ALL Wizards made advances.

There's a word for wizards who don't learn(aren't educated in) how to cast magic. It's sorcerer.

No the Word is actually Wizard.

Sorcerers spells do not come from knowledge and study, the rules are clear about that.

If you are a wizard, you are highly educated, because you had to be highly educated in magic in order to learn how cast it.

No you do not have to be, you just have to have knowlege and understanding ..... like the Wright brothers did abotu education without being highly educated.

 

[Maxperson]

Not true. Being a specialist and being educated are not at all the same thing.

Lebron James is a specialist in Basketball and did not even attend college. A typical automotive technician at a dealership is likewise a specialist, but is not "highly" educated.



No it absolutley does not. It actually demostrates the exact opposite, that an education is common to the class and "likely" among members of the class, which explicitly means it is not universal.



Suer and they are all "highly educated"!

That doesn't make them a specialist at anything



You are absolutely right a Wizard does effectively need a spellbook, but this has very few thematic implications.

A Spellbook does not have a major thematic element to it as requiring a patron does, adherence to an oath does or the requirement to have an education would if there was such a requirement (which there isn't).





Understanding is not the same as education. Those are absolutely different words with very different meanings.

Further, that is not how magic works in the fictional world either.



Some of them didn't. There were early people who attempted to advance aviation who did not advance it at all. Further many of the people who succeeded were not in fact educated.

I am glad you brought up aviation. The greatest pioneers in Aviation were undoubtedly the Wright brothers, inventing not only the airplane, but also the wind tunnel that continbues to be used in airrcraft design today.

Neither Orville or Wilbur Wright went to college, they were not "highly educated" yet they were "specialists" in aerodynamics, the greatest of their time in fact and two of the greatest of all time.





No as you illustrated with the aviation example, saying Wiards made these unidentified "key advances" is not the same as saying ALL Wizards made advances.



No the Word is actually Wizard.

Sorcerers spells do not come from knowledge and study, the rules are clear about that.



No you do not have to be, you just have to have knowlege and understanding ..... like the Wright brothers did abotu education without being highly educated.

Have you looked at the playtest wizard? It's clear wizard's are educated, either formally or informally, by default.

"LEVEL 2: SCHOLAR
While studying magic, you also specialized in an academic field of study. Choose one of the following skills in which you have proficiency: Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion. You have Expertise in the chosen skill."

 

[tetrasodium]

Have you looked at the playtest wizard? It's clear wizard's are educated, either formally or informally, by default.

"LEVEL 2: SCHOLAR
While studying magic, you also specialized in an academic field of study. Choose one of the following skills in which you have proficiency: Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion. You have Expertise in the chosen skill."

Yea but the group has learned the GM likes using arcana checks for relevant things or mentioned that the group should really have someone with arcana so the rogue bard & ranger took it with expertise on top of their other stuff too. 5e did too much violence to skills for the wizard to still claim any strength or identity there. That especially goes double for the wizard's knowledge & int based ones where there is no longer the space needed to fit the distinction you are trying to mark out.

 

[Maxperson]

Yea but the group has learned the GM likes using arcana checks for relevant things or mentioned that the group should really have someone with arcana so the rogue bard & ranger took it with expertise on top of their other stuff too. 5e did too much violence to skills for the wizard to still claim any strength or identity there. That especially goes double for the wizard's knowledge & int based ones where there is no longer the space needed to fit the distinction you are trying to mark out.

Sure. I'm not saying that mechanically that's the best way to represent it. I'm saying that the wizard is an educated class and that's just one more, very blatant piece of the wizard class that shows it.

Also, if there is a rogue taking arcana, and there's a wizard it's stupid for the rogue to take expertise in arcana if the wizard is going to. Better to spread out the skills in the group that have expertise attached to them than to step on toes. Just like it's not that smart for a wizard to waste a spell pick, memorization slot, and active spell slots on knock when you have a rogue that can just open virtually any door anyway given a few minutes.

Classes can step on toes, but it's counterproductive to do so.