D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[Ixal]

Another problem (if you consider it one), most people while calling for a pseudo-medieveal base have no idea what medieval even means.

Most off what people think as medieval is either a complete entertainment industry invention or at best very late medieveal era, but more often than not rennaisance era.

The stereotypical knight (paladin) in armor? Not medieval. Medieval knights did not wear plate armor, ect.
If D&D and FR were really to use the medieval era as base it would look totally different from how it does now.

 

[reelo]

Another problem (if you consider it one), most people while calling for a pseudo-medieveal base have no idea what medieval even means.

Most off what people think as medieval is either a complete entertainment industry invention or at best very late medieveal era, but more often than not rennaisance era.

The stereotypical knight (paladin) in armor? Not medieval. Medieval knights did not wear plate armor, ect.
If D&D and FR were really to use the medieval era as base it would look totally different from how it does now.

I'm well enough versed in history to know all this, if that's what you mean. I have no qualms excising plate armor from a setting and upgrading other types of armor to a higher AC. For a high-medieval game I'd probably have brigandine as heavy armor, chainmail as medium and padded as light. I'd also make polearms, warhammers (historic ones!) and maces a lot more common. For an early-medieval/viking/norman/saxon/franks type game, I'd have chainmail be heavy armor, scale as medium and padded as light, and make spears, axes and seaxes the main weapons.

 

[Maxperson]

my homebrew settings (I hate the FR) has similar things, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 or 2 high level casters at most, and they are all named important in the setting. I was not suggesting everyone could be a 5th level wizard... but a 1st or 2nd

is this anywhere in the actual 5e game? I thought that sorcerers were born and wizards learned?

It's not really stated in the game for or against. Wizards are learned, but it doesn't say that just anyone can learn. Sorcerers are born, but very few are born that way.

That said, the game does say that the default assumption for settings is that spellcasters are relatively rare and that a backwater village may not have seen any true magic in a generation.

In a world where anyone can learn magic, I don't see that as reconciling with magic is relatively rare. You'd have schools dedicated to teaching magic and given the power of magic, every noble, merchant or wealthy family and their cousins would be learning magic to gain advantage. That they don't and magic remains relatively rare indicates to me that there's some sort of limiting factor not mentioned.

For my game that limiting factor is that even though magic is learned, you still have to have the talent for it.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, if being even a level 1 wizard, or even just having the equivalent of a level 1 feat that grants some small magic comparable to what elves and gnomes have naturally, requires genius aptitude, such that only the Kobe and Magic Johnson and comparable ballers of magic (and yes, athletes at that level are geniuses just as creatives and scientists at a comparable level are) can even learn the basics, then sure it will be rare.

Given that per the DMG spellcasters are relatively rare and backwater villages may not have seen true magic in a generation, it seems reasonable for the DM to establish that you do require such aptitude.

Every Wizard should be assumed to have invented most of their spells after the first few levels, at that point.

Not necessarily. The DMG also establishes that the default is for magic to be ancient as well, so scrolls and spell books from long dead wizards will still be floating around.

But then in that case, where do Eldritch knights, multiclassed wizards, feat-mages, and people with Ritual Caster fit in the equation?

PCs that go into such things are also the ones born with the aptitude to be a Kobe or Shaq.

 

[Umbran]

I really think that someone with the same body as me, or any other basically able-bodied person, but with the level of interest in basketball or whatever that I’ve always had in linguistics and in systems like complex games and computers, and solid opportunities to regularly practice, would eventually become a competent athlete.

The word "competent" is doing some heavy-lifting there, but isn't well-defined. We all probably have different ideas in our heads about what constitutes "competent". I used the word "professional" intentionally to avoid this ambiguity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The word "competent" is doing some heavy-lifting there, but isn't well-defined. We all probably have different ideas in our heads about what constitutes "competent". I used the word "professional" intentionally to avoid this ambiguity.

It’s not ambiguous. It means having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully.
A competent basketball player is able to contribute to the success of the team rather than being a hindrance.

Can we please not nitpick wording, though? It is absolutely the least interesting avenue of discussion, and I have never seen it add any value whatsoever to a discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Given that per the DMG spellcasters are relatively rare and backwater villages may not have seen true magic in a generation, it seems reasonable for the DM to establish that you do require such aptitude.

It does not seem reasonable, even given that foolish assumption in the DMG (which I’m taking your word for, I find all the worldbuilding stuff in the dmg pretty useless).

Not necessarily. The DMG also establishes that the default is for magic to be ancient as well, so scrolls and spell books from long dead wizards will still be floating around.

Oof and yet be so rare that wizards are rare. Are we supposed to imagine that in the past geniuses were common? I doubt it.

PCs that go into such things are also the ones born with the aptitude to be a Kobe or Shaq.

No. Absolutely not. We aren’t playing a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. There is no assumption I despise more.

 

[Maxperson]

It does not seem reasonable, even given that foolish assumption in the DMG (which I’m taking your word for, I find all the worldbuilding stuff in the dmg pretty useless).

Whether you find it useful or not, that's still the default position of the game. As DM you can either go with it or ignore it, but it is what it is.

Oof and yet be so rare that wizards are rare. Are we supposed to imagine that in the past geniuses were common? I doubt it.

They don't have to be common. Even if there are only 100(1 in a million or less) on the entire planet at any given time, after 20000 years that's a lot of spell books and scrolls.

No. Absolutely not. We aren’t playing a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. There is no assumption I despise more.

Nothing cheesy about it. PCs can choose to be wizards/sorcerers or learn it later + wizards are rare = PCs all just happen to be part of the rare bunch. You don't have to run it that way for your game. I'm just pointing out the defaults.

 

[Baron Opal II]

As I said, people can make up whatever they want.

But I don't think it can be extrapolation. I mean, what difference would the application of curative magic make to the infant mortality rate? And how would that then affect the labour market? And how, in turn, would that affect military policy and related politics? No one can tell.

I would say: we can talk about what consequences we would like to imagine. But we can't talk about working out what the consequences would be.

We certainly can through analogy. The acceptance of handwashing prior to procedures, including delivery. Development of medications, industrial applications, &c. Reading alchemical papyri and texts from the clerical necromantic underground and seeing that a lot of magic was bargaining. You accumulate data, see the patterns, and extrapolate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whether you find it useful or not, that's still the default position of the game. As DM you can either go with it or ignore it, but it is what it is.

They don't have to be common. Even if there are only 100(1 in a million or less) on the entire planet at any given time, after 20000 years that's a lot of spell books and scrolls.

Nothing cheesy about it. PCs can choose to be wizards/sorcerers or learn it later + wizards are rare = PCs all just happen to be part of the rare bunch. You don't have to run it that way for your game. I'm just pointing out the defaults.

That default position makes no sense. It's inconsistent with the insanely magical state of every D&D world.