Worlds of Design: Baseline Assumptions of Fantasy RPGs

You can write a set of fantasy role-playing game (FRPG) rules without specifying a setting, but there’s a default setting assumed by virtually every FRPG. Moreover, some rules (e.g. the existence of plate armor, and large horses) imply things about technology and breeding in the setting.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The Basics of FRPG​

All FRPGs start with some assumptions built into the setting, some of them so innocuous that gamers might not even realize they're assumptions to begin with. For example the assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden, even though for thousands of years of history, horses weren’t large enough for riding (the era of war chariots from about 1700-1000 BCE, and the era before that of infantry only).

Familiarity vs. strangeness is an important question for any worldbuilder to answer. What are gamers familiar with? That tends to be the default. J. R. R. Tolkien’s works (Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, etc.) are nearly a default setting for many, as in the dwarves and elves who are quite different from traditional stories of dwarves and elves. You could argue that the default setting is more Tolkien than it is medieval European, but he largely adopted Late Medieval European (1250-1500), so I prefer to refer to that.

The question is, do you want your ruleset, or your campaign setting, to follow the default? An early example of great deviation from the default was the wonderfully different world of Tekumel (Empire of the Petal Throne, and a few novels). A “different” FRPG might posit no monsters at all, perhaps not even elves and dwarves, just a lot of humans, yet never explicitly say so: if you leave out rules for monsters and humanoid races other than humans, you have a different-than-baseline setting, even if you didn't consciously make that decision. But be warned: too much unfamiliarity may make some players uncomfortable.

Are there baseline assumptions for science fiction? There seems to be so much variety, I wouldn’t try to pin it down.

The Baseline​

What ARE the baseline assumptions? In general, they are mostly late medieval (not “Dark Ages” (500-1000) or High Medieval (1000-1250), as FRPGs tend to be magic grafted to later medieval Europe. In no particular order here is a list of categories for baseline assumptions that I’ll discuss specifically:

• Transportation
• Communication
• State of Political Entities
• Commonality of Magic
• Commonality of Adventurers
• Commonality of Monsters
• Length of History and Rate of Change
• Level of Technology
• Warfare and the Military
• Religion
• Demography
• Climate

Transportation​

Wooden sailing vessels, late medieval style. In calm waters such as landlocked seas and lakes, galleys; in wild waters (such as oceans), small sailing vessels. River barges much preferable to poor roads and carts. And are there wonderful roads left by or maintained by an Empire (Rome)? See "Medieval Travel & Scale."

Communication​

Proceeds at the rate of travel, by horse or by ship. In other words, very slow by modern standards. Even as late as 1815, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War of 1812 had ended (in 1814), but before news of the treaty had reached Louisiana from Europe.

State of Political Entities​

Monarchies and lower level independent states (such as Duchies) ruled by “the man in charge” (very rarely, a woman). Nobles. States, not nations (the people rarely care which individual is actually in charge). Castles are so defensible that it’s fairly easy for subordinate nobles to defy their superiors. There are small cities (5-10,000 usually), not really large ones (over 100,000 people).

Commonality of Magic​

Magicians are usually rare, secretive folk. Few people ever see any manifestation of magic. In some cases the church or the government tries to suppress magic. See "The Four Stages of Magic."

Commonality of Adventurers​

Magicians, knights, powerful clerics, all are rare. 1 in 500 people? 1 in 10,000?

Commonality of Monsters​

Human-centric. Monsters are usually individuals rather than large groups. Intelligent monsters are rare. (Here Tolkien’s influence, the great orc/goblin hordes, often overrides European influence.) Undead may be common. Dragons are “legendary.”

Length of History and Rate of Change​

Slow pace of change of technology. Awareness of the greater days of a “universal empire” in the past (such as Rome), now gone. Technology changed much faster in late medieval times, than in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

Level of Technology​

Late medieval, or possibly less. (Late medieval for the technology necessary to make full plate armor, if nothing else.) See "When Technology Changes the Game."

Warfare and the Military​

Wars rarely changed borders much (Late Medieval) - the great migrations have ended. Wars certainly aren’t national wars, the common people are spectators. See "The Fundamental Patterns of War."

Religion​

What we’re used to in later medieval times is a universal monotheistic church (Catholicism), though with foreign churches of different stripe (Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist). But in games, more often the setting seems to derive from older, pantheon-based, religions.

Demography​

Density of population is low. Depends on whether the local area is frontier or settled. Cities are population sinks (high mortality rates). There may be stories of a Great Plague (later-1340s and onward in Europe).

Climate​

Temperate medieval European (more often, English (governed by the Gulf Stream)), with fairly cool summers so that full armor is not impossibly hot. (Imagine wearing full armor when the average summer high is 91 degrees F, as in northern Florida.) But winters are much less severe than in the northern USA. (Modern European climate is currently getting much warmer than in late medieval times.)

Your Turn: Do you see the default setting as different that what I’ve summarized?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Chaosmancer I really have no energy to deal with your wall of texts anymore. Your argument is nonsensical and incoherent. You think that because a PC can choose something it must be easy to learn in the setting whilst same time dismissing the clear rule example of a typical noble existing in the rules. Somehow your bizarre conjecture should have more weight than a clear example of how the nobles are actually depicted by the rules.

If you want to have a setting where most NPCs are at least level three spellcasters go for it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Then how do you justify any baseline? If we approach the baseline of DnD with the idea that there are no rules, nothing concrete to base our ideas on, then how can we say anything?

You're discussing how NPCs become wizards. Not how many level x spell slots a level y wizard has. The baseline is set by the setting creator according to how common they want NPC wizards to be in the setting.

But you hit the nail on the head, those people aren't using spellcasting rules, because they aren't spellcasters.

They are able to cast spells. They don't have wizard levels or spells slots, but they are still spellcasters. A magewright might need expensive components and cast as a ritual. A wandslinger might need their arcane focus. They serve as an illustration that even in a setting where magic and magic schools/guilds are common, and learnable by many people, actually being able to become a wizard is very rare.

Since we are using Eberron, I'll pull out my Exploring Eberron book. In it there is a section on Magewrights, people who have learned to use magic. They can, potentially, learn the cantrip Aundair's Silent Sanctum, which creates a 5 ft bubble that muffles all sound going in and coming out, making it harder to hear.

If a magewright has learned that cantrip, and they cast it, does it work? Yes. Does it create a 5 ft bubble? Yes. If they cast it again does it work? Yes. Does it create a 5 ft bubble? Yes.

Maybe the local smith gets divine inspiration and does an act of magic once, and that is special, but if I go before Jaela Daran and she casts a spell in Flamekeep, it works. She knows what she can do, she knows how it works, she knows what is required for it to work. Magic isn't mysterious and unknowable. Casting a spell like cure wounds does not sometimes work sometimes not, sometimes create healing energy, sometimes rot flesh, sometimes require a 1st level spell slot, sometimes require a 5th level spell slot.

You would have to either fundamentally rewrite the DnD magic system, or completely divorce the mechanics from the story. And I mean completely, Clerics should be terrified to attempt to heal someone on the verge of death, because they have no idea what they are doing, if it will work, or if they will make things worse.

And fundamentally, that is not how DnD magic is presented. Not to the players, not by the NPCs.

Unless I've missed something, no one is discussing a spell not following the rules for that spell when it is cast. The discussion seems to be around how easy it is for an NPC to learn to cast it or become a wizard.

This sounds like you are agreeing with me.

I'm pointing out that even in a culture where magic is regularly studied by the nobility, in a relatively wide-magic setting, the majority are simply unable to become wizards or warlocks.

Now compare Eberron with FR, where spellcasters seem almost as common, but are almost all PC classes (or the NPC equivalent). So there are a lot of Wizards around.
Both settings use exactly the same rules. The scarcity of Wizards in Eberron and the plethora of them in Forgotten Realms are purely world-building decisions.

Its like the proportion of high-level (or high-CR) people in the setting. In Eberron, most professional soldiers have 11 hp. The army might be bulked out by levies with 4hp.
In a different setting, as you suggest, you might have even the guards outside a local thieves guild having 31hp.
Both settings operate under the same rules. It is purely a world-building decision.

 

[Minigiant]

No, you are quite egregiously making this error in the bold.

So a n that a party fights a necromancer, the necromancer was born at 11th level?
What?

Supporting evidence is not moving goalposts.

You have claimed that becoming a wizard is such a long and ardrous process that a wizard could not also be trained in politics. I have now presented dozens of wizard guilds that are political actors, meaning that they are both wizards and politicians.

I find it interesting that you want to disregard Ravnica though, because it was built under a different set of assumptions. Because I've been arguing that those settings we keep talking about were built in 2e, under a different set of assumptions than we have in 5e, yet I am supposed to bend the assumptions of DnD towards those second edition versions rather than the modern assumptions. And you wanted me to do so because of the number of settings older than 5e, but since everyone wants to keep claiming that setting is king... well the official settings for DnD 5e are FR, Wildemount, Ravnica, Eberron and Barovia, and that is 4/5 in much higher magic. So, I'm following the majority of setting expectations here, aren't I?

Political actors are not nobles.

Ravinca is different. It is a city plane under a Rennaisance era or later run by 10 magical guilds who are mostly at peace with few major threats but the 10 guilds. It uses the total opposite assumptions of D&D.

Also have you read the 5e DMG. Itstill uses the assumption of a bunch of small cities and large towns ran by martial nobles that defendtheir resource gatherng villages from orc warbands, hobgoblin armies, fiendish cults, undead swarms, and wandering monsters constantly. You have to get that FR, Wildemount, Ravnica, Eberron and Barovia are settings designed to give an experience outside of the norm.

If WOTC were to make a Wild Wild West setting likethe video game Wild Arms, would firearms and shootouts by the baseline assumption of D&D?

If WOTC makes a Cyberpunk or Modern setting, are cars and skyscrapers part of the baseline assumption?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, and if you read my post, I literally called out Dyscalculia as an exception, but as you said this is incredibly rare, you are a math tutor and I'll assume you've tutored hundreds of students over the years. And you've seen it twice.

Twice that I know of. There may well have been dozens more sitting quietly at the back of a class of 32, not letting on how much difficulty they where having. That's why I prefer tutoring.

That's the trouble with putting labels on things. It makes it seem like either/or. You either have it or you don't. Whereas in fact it's just the tip of a normal distribution. One of the crutches that can help people is rote learning of multiplication tables. When I was at school I had real trouble learning multiplication tables. Looking back, I now realise that was because they served no purpose for me. I could work out the answer faster than I could recall it. Most people's brains don't do that - for the vast majority of the population memorising multiplication tables hugely speeds up mental arithmetic. Of course, I had no idea of that as a child, and unfortunately neither did my teachers.

I once had a student who could correctly solve complex equations in an instant. But they could not explain how they arrived at the answer.

My own experience of maths was it was easy easy easy easy hard impossible - when I worked out chaos theory was involved in the unstable simultaneous equations I was using to calculate the distribution of matter in interstellar start formation regions. I couldn't do the maths, so I couldn't prove it, so I had to pursue a different career. When it comes to maths I'm near the top end of the normal distribution, but I'm not at the top!

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer I really have no energy to deal with your wall of texts anymore. Your argument is nonsensical and incoherent. You think that because a PC can choose something it must be easy to learn in the setting whilst same time dismissing the clear rule example of a typical noble existing in the rules. Somehow your bizarre conjecture should have more weight than a clear example of how the nobles are actually depicted by the rules.

If you want to have a setting where most NPCs are at least level three spellcasters go for it.

You do realize that just because you call an argument nonsensical doesn't mean it actually is, right? And clearly it isn't incoherent, because people have been responding.

Now, I'm not dismissing the noble statblock, but it has no bearing on the point I've been trying to make, which I will repeat.

I put forth that the baseline idea that magic is incredibly rare and hard to come by is not really supported by the rest of the game anymore, and that with the other assumptions of the current edition of the game, it would make more sense to see more people like nobles being magic users.

I was then told that was ridiculous, because magic is far too hard to learn and nobles would be old men and unable to rule if they tried that.


And so I debated that point.

And since my point was that shifting the presentation makes sense, showing me that the current presentation does not include spellcasting nobles is just telling me what I already know. In fact, you are just restating part of my premise, and presenting it like it shuts down my argument.


And your other point is to just keep telling me that "but player options don't apply to NPCs" which again... what does that leave us with? There are NPC spellcasters, a lot of them, named after the PC versions, and using streamlined abilities. These wizards have to come from somewhere. By the definition of the class, and yes I know they don't officially have the class, but no one else is a Diviner with Portent except a wizard, so I feel safe in saying that the Diviner with the Portent ability is supposed to represent a similar skill set to a wizard.

So, I have an NPC that is supposed to be a streamlined and simplified reflection of a PC, how am I supposed to think about them? Is the Diviner NPC one of the only wizards in the entire kingdom? Well, if I'm playing in an official setting... no. There are massive organizations of NPCs with wizards of all ages, skills, and races. And, they carry similar stories to the PC wizards, similar weight.

I can just make up whatever the heck I want, I know that, I'm a writer and a DM, I know that the setting is my tool to use how I see fit, but if I'm going to be told that my interpretation of the baseline of the game is completely wrong, and then my opponents in this discussion detract me by saying "but there are no rules and it is whatever you want"... then you guys have no position to tell me my interpretation is wrong either.

Since you think it is, you must think there is something beyond DM Fiat to base our world-building on. But it all seems to be from things that either aren't DnD or are decades behind the times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're discussing how NPCs become wizards. Not how many level x spell slots a level y wizard has. The baseline is set by the setting creator according to how common they want NPC wizards to be in the setting.

Then, if we are talking baseline DnD, they are as common as I've been saying. Maybe more common.

They are able to cast spells. They don't have wizard levels or spells slots, but they are still spellcasters. A magewright might need expensive components and cast as a ritual. A wandslinger might need their arcane focus. They serve as an illustration that even in a setting where magic and magic schools/guilds are common, and learnable by many people, actually being able to become a wizard is very rare.

Sorry, my pronoun use was poor.

Magewrights are spellcasters.

The smith who recieves a divine one-time use of magic is not a spellcaster. They aren't using the rules for spellcasters because they are getting a one-time blessing, not spellcasting.

Unless I've missed something, no one is discussing a spell not following the rules for that spell when it is cast. The discussion seems to be around how easy it is for an NPC to learn to cast it or become a wizard.

It is related to the side tangent on "magic should be mysterious, not like technology which is predictable"

DnD magic is predictable. Cast a spell, and the effects of that spell happen. Every time, within the limits we have been told.

I used the magewright example because it is also an explicitly NPC spell. Not meant for player use. Circumventing the inevitable rebuttal of "but PCs use different rules than NPCs"

I'm pointing out that even in a culture where magic is regularly studied by the nobility, in a relatively wide-magic setting, the majority are simply unable to become wizards or warlocks.

Now compare Eberron with FR, where spellcasters seem almost as common, but are almost all PC classes (or the NPC equivalent). So there are a lot of Wizards around.
Both settings use exactly the same rules. The scarcity of Wizards in Eberron and the plethora of them in Forgotten Realms are purely world-building decisions.

Its like the proportion of high-level (or high-CR) people in the setting. In Eberron, most professional soldiers have 11 hp. The army might be bulked out by levies with 4hp.
In a different setting, as you suggest, you might have even the guards outside a local thieves guild having 31hp.
Both settings operate under the same rules. It is purely a world-building decision.

And both settings are more magical than I was told was the "baseline" of DnD. I was told it was nearly impossible to teach cantrips in less than a decade. I was told that unless you are born with the ability to understand magic, you can never learn it.

These are, according to the people I have been debating, the "baseline assumptions of DnD" the core that everyone has agreed to.

Except, for 5th edition? It isn't.

And I show supporting evidence, I reference the most general books I can, and I get told that it is basically fiat, that is basically any decision I want, except that the point I put forth was wrong because it went against the baseline.

Except, every setting so far has been against that baseline. No one has been able to name an official DnD 5e setting that actually follows this baseline. And if nobody is as the baseline, it isn't a baseline.

Can people be taught magic in a reasonable amount of time while still interacting with the world in meaningful ways? Eberron says yes, Forgotten Realms says yes, Greyhawk says yes, Ravnica says yes, Wildemount says yes.

But the baseline is no?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ravinca is different. It is a city plane under a Rennaisance era or later run by 10 magical guilds who are mostly at peace with few major threats but the 10 guilds. It uses the total opposite assumptions of D&D.

Also have you read the 5e DMG. Itstill uses the assumption of a bunch of small cities and large towns ran by martial nobles that defendtheir resource gatherng villages from orc warbands, hobgoblin armies, fiendish cults, undead swarms, and wandering monsters constantly. You have to get that FR, Wildemount, Ravnica, Eberron and Barovia are settings designed to give an experience outside of the norm.

If WOTC were to make a Wild Wild West setting likethe video game Wild Arms, would firearms and shootouts by the baseline assumption of D&D?

If WOTC makes a Cyberpunk or Modern setting, are cars and skyscrapers part of the baseline assumption?

So... every official setting is moving against the Baseline of DnD. There is no setting that matches the baseline.

At that point, the assumption you have, is not the baseline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twice that I know of. There may well have been dozens more sitting quietly at the back of a class of 32, not letting on how much difficulty they where having. That's why I prefer tutoring.

That's the trouble with putting labels on things. It makes it seem like either/or. You either have it or you don't. Whereas in fact it's just the tip of a normal distribution. One of the crutches that can help people is rote learning of multiplication tables. When I was at school I had real trouble learning multiplication tables. Looking back, I now realise that was because they served no purpose for me. I could work out the answer faster than I could recall it. Most people's brains don't do that - for the vast majority of the population memorising multiplication tables hugely speeds up mental arithmetic. Of course, I had no idea of that as a child, and unfortunately neither did my teachers.

I once had a student who could correctly solve complex equations in an instant. But they could not explain how they arrived at the answer.

My own experience of maths was it was easy easy easy easy hard impossible - when I worked out chaos theory was involved in the unstable simultaneous equations I was using to calculate the distribution of matter in interstellar start formation regions. I couldn't do the maths, so I couldn't prove it, so I had to pursue a different career. When it comes to maths I'm near the top end of the normal distribution, but I'm not at the top!

Right, I don't disagree with any of this.

Except, that 1st level spells are also not the realm of people at the top of the distribution. The people at the top of the distribution are casting 9th level spells.

If I assume a log ten scale (which is ridiculous, but I can do that math faster) the should I assume that cantrips are 10 times harder than equations to calculate the distribution of matter in interstellar start formation regions?

If that is the case, then 9th level spells would be 10 billion times harder.

We, as humans, seem to be on the verge of understanding the fundamental underpinnings of the universe. We are no longer figuring out calculus, but a unified theory of everything.

I think it is far more reasonable to assume our current highest brains are doing with technology what might be comparable to the 3rd level spells, meaning the top of the chart is only a million times harder. And that means that learning cantrips would be... as easy as trigonometry? Maybe basic calculus? Difficult to be sure, but not out of reach for the people who dedicate themselves to figuring it out.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can just make up whatever the heck I want, I know that, I'm a writer and a DM, I know that the setting is my tool to use how I see fit, but if I'm going to be told that my interpretation of the baseline of the game is completely wrong, and then my opponents in this discussion detract me by saying "but there are no rules and it is whatever you want"... then you guys have no position to tell me my interpretation is wrong either.

Since you think it is, you must think there is something beyond DM Fiat to base our world-building on. But it all seems to be from things that either aren't DnD or are decades behind the times.

You're the one who are arguing that your interpretation is supported by the rules. It is not. This doesn't mean that the rules support any other specific interpretation either, they don't, because that's not what the rules are for. This is about the setting fluff and that varies from a setting to setting. Now your interpretation is demonstrably wrong for many existing D&D settings and somewhat less so for some others, albeit universal magical aristocracy seems to be absent in every setting discussed thus far. I really don't understand why you so badly need your personal preferences to be objectively validated. That's not gonna happen.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Then, if we are talking baseline DnD, they are as common as I've been saying. Maybe more common.

There is no level of prevalence for baseline D&D. They are exactly as common as you want for your setting, distributed however you want. As I aid before: Its like the decision on how many rivers there are in a particular nation.
The rules tell you how fast a boat might travel on a river, but there are no rules about whether there is a river there in the first place. D&D has rules for spells, but there are no rules governing how many NPCs can cast them.

Any attempt to try to extrapolate this from the rules is going to require you to make assumptions outside what is actually covered by the rules.

Sorry, my pronoun use was poor.

Magewrights are spellcasters.

The smith who recieves a divine one-time use of magic is not a spellcaster. They aren't using the rules for spellcasters because they are getting a one-time blessing, not spellcasting.

It is related to the side tangent on "magic should be mysterious, not like technology which is predictable"

DnD magic is predictable. Cast a spell, and the effects of that spell happen. Every time, within the limits we have been told.

I used the magewright example because it is also an explicitly NPC spell. Not meant for player use. Circumventing the inevitable rebuttal of "but PCs use different rules than NPCs"

Indeed. But it also explains why training in magic isn't regarded as a necessity by all noble families, and why people who have learnt to use spells like those aren't the ruling class. Which is the claim I was rebutting.

And both settings are more magical than I was told was the "baseline" of DnD. I was told it was nearly impossible to teach cantrips in less than a decade. I was told that unless you are born with the ability to understand magic, you can never learn it.

From what I read of the debate, I believe the discussion was regarding Wizards rather than "any spellcasting". Which, as has been explained, varies significantly between worlds precisely because there is no baseline.

These are, according to the people I have been debating, the "baseline assumptions of DnD" the core that everyone has agreed to.

Except, for 5th edition? It isn't.

And I show supporting evidence, I reference the most general books I can, and I get told that it is basically fiat, that is basically any decision I want, except that the point I put forth was wrong because it went against the baseline.

Except, every setting so far has been against that baseline. No one has been able to name an official DnD 5e setting that actually follows this baseline. And if nobody is as the baseline, it isn't a baseline.

As far as I can tell, people have been debating your assertion that "x is the baseline" because they feel that there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim rather than because they think the baseline is y.

Can people be taught magic in a reasonable amount of time while still interacting with the world in meaningful ways? Eberron says yes, Forgotten Realms says yes, Greyhawk says yes, Ravnica says yes, Wildemount says yes.

But the baseline is no?

So... every official setting is moving against the Baseline of DnD. There is no setting that matches the baseline.

At that point, the assumption you have, is not the baseline.

Eberron says yes, just not in the manner that you initially appeared to be claiming. Other settings say whatever the setting says.

The baseline is not no. There is no baseline to contradict.

Right, I don't disagree with any of this.

Except, that 1st level spells are also not the realm of people at the top of the distribution. The people at the top of the distribution are casting 9th level spells.

If I assume a log ten scale (which is ridiculous, but I can do that math faster) the should I assume that cantrips are 10 times harder than equations to calculate the distribution of matter in interstellar start formation regions?

If that is the case, then 9th level spells would be 10 billion times harder.

We, as humans, seem to be on the verge of understanding the fundamental underpinnings of the universe. We are no longer figuring out calculus, but a unified theory of everything.

I think it is far more reasonable to assume our current highest brains are doing with technology what might be comparable to the 3rd level spells, meaning the top of the chart is only a million times harder. And that means that learning cantrips would be... as easy as trigonometry? Maybe basic calculus? Difficult to be sure, but not out of reach for the people who dedicate themselves to figuring it out.

If you're really looking to try to extrapolate how hard a cantrip is to learn, and how many people are capable of it for your setting, maybe look to the feats. It may be as easy to learn as having a perfect sense of direction, or being able to accurately recall anything you have seen or heard in the last month, or seeing well in dim light.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're the one who are arguing that your interpretation is supported by the rules. It is not. This doesn't mean that the rules support any other specific interpretation either, they don't, because that's not what the rules are for. This is about the setting fluff and that varies from a setting to setting. Now your interpretation is demonstrably wrong for many existing D&D settings and somewhat less so for some others, albeit universal magical aristocracy seems to be absent in every setting discussed thus far. I really don't understand why you so badly need your personal preferences to be objectively validated. That's not gonna happen.

So there is no baseline for DnD at all? The very premise of the OP article is false?

And, I have no idea why you are saying that my interpretation is wrong for "many existing DnD settings" when so far it has been proven right or plausible for every official DnD 5e setting that we have discussed.

So, out of the official settings released by WoTC, which ones have rare magic?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no level of prevalence for baseline D&D. They are exactly as common as you want for your setting, distributed however you want. As I aid before: Its like the decision on how many rivers there are in a particular nation.

The rules tell you how fast a boat might travel on a river, but there are no rules about whether there is a river there in the first place. D&D has rules for spells, but there are no rules governing how many NPCs can cast them.

Any attempt to try to extrapolate this from the rules is going to require you to make assumptions outside what is actually covered by the rules.

So you also believe there is no such thing as a baseline for DnD, disagreeing with the OP article and Minigiant.

Stating as much earlier would have made things a lot clearer. Obviously you aren't going to be convinced of the change in something you don't believe exists in the first place.

Indeed. But it also explains why training in magic isn't regarded as a necessity by all noble families, and why people who have learnt to use spells like those aren't the ruling class. Which is the claim I was rebutting.

Sorry, pronoun use is getting to me again.

Are you trying to say that the possibility of divine aid giving someone powers for a brief moment in time would make nobility see the study of how to harness similiar power in a constant, consistent and teachable manner as a not worth their time?

Or are you trying to say that the industrial revolution style teaching of magic to the commoners for use in assembly line magic (seen only in Eberron) shows that nobility would not seek the greater heights of those lesser powers they use constantly?

Or is it something else?

From what I read of the debate, I believe the discussion was regarding Wizards rather than "any spellcasting". Which, as has been explained, varies significantly between worlds precisely because there is no baseline.

In most settings, definitionally, if you are being taught arcane magic you are a wizard. Hence it is far easier to simply say "wizard" since "spellcaster" is a far far broader term.

As far as I can tell, people have been debating your assertion that "x is the baseline" because they feel that there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim rather than because they think the baseline is y.

Actually, this debate between myself and Minigiant was specifically because he felt the baseline was Y. It is only in these last few posts that you and Crimson Longius seem to have put forth that you disagree with the OP and that you think there is no such thing as Baseline DnD at all.

If you're really looking to try to extrapolate how hard a cantrip is to learn, and how many people are capable of it for your setting, maybe look to the feats. It may be as easy to learn as having a perfect sense of direction, or being able to accurately recall anything you have seen or heard in the last month, or seeing well in dim light.

Or learning how to use a longsword, shortsword, Greatsword and Greatclub in combat

Or learning how to paint, religious studies and general physical fitness

Or how to bar fight using your fists, tables, and chairs

Or how to wear leather armor

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So there is no baseline for DnD at all? The very premise of the OP article is false?

There is some vague consensus about generic fantasy milieu of D&D. But no, there obviously it not some clearly defined or definable baseline.

And, I have no idea why you are saying that my interpretation is wrong for "many existing DnD settings" when so far it has been proven right or plausible for every official DnD 5e setting that we have discussed.

So, out of the official settings released by WoTC, which ones have rare magic?

Magic in most D&D settings is not 'rare' in a sense that people wouldn't know it exist or you couldn't find a person capable of using it if you needed. But the universal magical aristocracies you seem to envision are mostly absent.

But perhaps you should peruse the DMG. It literally has section on this very topic, the place of magic in the setting. It says how commonality of magic varies in different setting, gives some examples and questions to consider when making your own world. So I guess that is as close to the official 'baseline' as we're going to get: the GM to decide how common the magic is.

 

[Minigiant]

So... every official setting is moving against the Baseline of DnD. There is no setting that matches the baseline.

At that point, the assumption you have, is not the baseline.

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Mystara, Birthright, Dragonlance, Nentir Vale... they all match the baseline.

The problem is by definition... the baseline is not good for sales as "nothing happens" as only epic level beings can trutly push the world forward or create new things."

That's why WOTC loves FR. You can make anything and jam it in FR. That's why many people don't like FR. It's a never ending kitchen sink made to incorporate every new idea.