D&D 5E Discussing Worldbuilding: Why Don't The Mages Take Over The World?

[Crimson Longinus]

So, the fact that I could find artwork of a 30 something professor of magic, who was hired by a magical academy, doesn't tell us how quickly a magical education system could train people to high levels of magic?

But alright, fine, can't use the Strixhaven artwork. How about the Archmage from the MM, am I allowed to use that? Guy looks like he is in his thirties, human, and he has access to the "highest levels" of magic in 9th level spells. Is he also a specialized outlier who we can't use to determine how long it might take someone to learn magic?

What about Rath Modar and Azbara Jos, found them by searching DnD beyond. They are Thayan wizards, high level casters, and they also look middle-aged, not old. And they are still human.

How many "outliers" would I need to find before it becomes obvious that they aren't actually outliers?

I don't think you get what the problem is. Yes, these people are wizards who learned magic. This doesn't tell us anything about how common people who can learn magic like this are. Average age of an astronaut is 34. This doesn't really tell us anything about how hard it is to become an astronaut, only about how fast the people who have an aptitude to begin with can do it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Proficiency in the Arcana skill takes "10 workweeks" or 50 days. according to Xanathar's, minus a number of days equal to Int mod*5. That is also the same amount of time given for learning Medicine.

So yes, according to the rules of the game, it is a few weeks of intensive training to get started. Teaching magic itself could take longer, but we are talking the span of a few years, not the span of decades.



Which is fine. The point of this thread is to discuss ideas. I think my main problem though is that saying magic is difficult or impossible to learn flies directly in the face of what DnD itself is telling us. Magic isn't hard to learn, many of the magical classes DON'T need to learn anything.

So while you can run a world where magic is impossible for other people to learn, and therefore there are only a small handful of casters in the entire world... that just isn't how DnD presents itself anymore.

You are mistaken. The Xanathar's training rules are for tool proficiencies and languages, not skill proficiency. You can't learn a new skill using downtime. Also, just because a PC can use those rules to learn a new tool or skill in that time, doesn't mean anyone can.

Saying that magic is difficult or impossible to learn is not flying in the face of what D&D is telling us. If you look at the 1e and 2e DMGs, they explicitly state that classed characters are a tiny fraction of the total population. Spellcasters were rare even among classed characters.

All the class rules are telling us is what a player character looks like. And whether you use an array or 4d6, player characters will typically have significantly higher starting ability scores than NPCs. Which strongly implies that PCs are exceptionally talented people, who also had access to the right opportunities.

I see the question of why the farmer doesn't learn magic to be akin to asking why someone working a minimum wage job doesn't just earn a competitive wage by starting their own business. While that isn't impossible, it isn't the norm. While it isn't impossible, it certainly isn't easy, and it definitely isn't guaranteed to be a successful endeavor.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why would I assume the apprentice is an outlier? The bandit isn't an outlier. The guard isn't an outlier. The wolf isn't an outlier. Why would the apprentice mage be an outlier? Let alone a MASSIVE OUTLIER?

And, yes, I used the art from Strixhaven. Most of the art from Monsters of the Multiverse for the various wizards depicts people like gnomes and elves. Despite the fact that those statblocks are completely universal, if I brought them up, people would say that "in reality" any human with that statblock would be a wizened old man, and only the fact that they are of another race makes them appear young. Strixhaven had artwork of human mages.

I guess I could have used the Archmage from the MM, but I didn't think about it in time. I assume you have some problem with me referencing a DnD sourcebook using DnD art for a discussion about DnD? We see the same pattern with the Dragonborn bard in the Monsters of the Multiverse, but you wanted wizards specifically,

....

Because nine years old. That's why. Children do not generally get advanced educations. And everyone agrees, the fluff of the wizard indicates it requires an advanced education just to get started. That the Wizard is the fantasy equivalent of a doctor, lawyer, theologian, or other "professional" degree.

And yes, I do have a problem with you using a Magic the Gathering-based supplement. Y'know, a world where literal children can become godlike world-shaking spellcasters and, in particular, referencing a fantasy wizard college that intentionally blurs the line between the medieval fantasy of D&D proper and attending college IRL.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I assume that the noble statblock as it appears in the monster manual is how it appears in the monster manual. Is this some sort of criticism? Should I have deciced to make up, say, a 5th level fighter to compare with instead? Oh... I did. Gave the hp too. Did you need me to calculate out different levels or different hit dice numbers?



Any mundane security the noble or fighter had, the wizard would have. There is zero reason to think that just because a king learns a few spells that their castle and guards are ripped away by the forces of plot. If the assassin could get to the wizard, they could get to the fighter or noble. If the security of the castle is enough to stop the assassin, then it stops the assassin in both cases.



The assassin in the MM is already a 7th or 8th level character, more powerful than the 5th level spellcaster I'm proposing. Unless you think that 5th level characters are so terrifying that the assassins would jump to 13th or 14th level to compensate?

And you are again, correct, in the vast majority of cases the personal abilities of the ruler don't mean anything. In the minority of cases, the ruler who is less personally capable dies. More capable rulers are less likely to die. Magic makes you more capable, ergo, magical rulers would die less often. Therefore, rulers would prefer to be magical, to extend their own chances of survival.

I don't assume every noble is exactly the same as the sample from the book, assassin is a general term. If an assassin gets past the guards of a king, I assume they'll be prepared to take out your wizard. Rulers don't die by the bucket load because they have the state to protect them, even if the ruler is killed the odds of getting away are minimal. The odds of being assassinated is incredibly low for most nobles. If there's a .05% chance of being assassinated changing the odds to .01% doesn't really mean much.

You're proposing an incredibly extreme static and unrealistic world. One where the only possible "noble" is the one defined in the book (does that apply to newborns?) with no classes while your wizard noble has HP and defenses. Except it's quite the conundrum. Once the wizard is made a noble doesn't that mean, by your logic, that they are now defined by the noble stat block? After all if they can't be a champion and a noble, they can't be both a wizard and a noble, right?

Have fun defining the rules of every campaign in such static terms. I don't see the point.

 

[TheSword]

By medical doctor, I mean an MD. A fully trained medical doctor.

What you're describing sounds closer to a trained EMT. Which, sure, I believe you can volunteer at a first aid squad at 18. But it's a far cry from being a fully trained MD.

I would say that in game terms of becoming a wizard, this level of training would be more along the lines of having some proficiency in the Arcana skill.

If you believe that magic is something that anyone can do after a few weeks of intensive training, rather than something a talented individual requires years to learn, it kind of makes sense that you believe that a magocracy would be inevitable. Everyone would be a magic user and therefore the leader would also by definition be a MU. Although at that point it's less a magical system of government and simply more of a fully magical society.

If that's the kind of setting that you want to world build, go for it. It's not the type of setting I'm interested in, so I start from different principles in shaping my world (namely, that for most people magic is difficult or even impossible to learn).

I heartily support this. My partner is in medical school. It’s kinda amazing how much knowledge he is learning and how much he had beforehand to be able to absorb as much as he does now.

His aptitude tests were in the top 10% of applicants (not of the population.. of applicants for medical school) and he only got into 1 of his 4 choices of medical school because standards were so high. (The good news is it does only take one though)

I think being a doctor is a good equivalent for being a spellcaster that learns their craft rather than it coming from some natural spark. I.e it’s bloody hard work!

 

[James Gasik]

Are we still going on about our personal interpretations of how long it takes to become a wizard? One of my earlier posts showed canonical evidence that characters can become spellcasters at young ages in previous editions (one from a Spelljammer supplement being all of nine years old!), and 5e has no rules for starting ages (indeed, it has no rules for aging effects at all, as several wild magic sorcerers have found out). Come on, people, there's examples of young spellcasters all over the place in fiction (and I'm not talking about Harry Potter!)- how long it takes to become a member of any character class varies from person to person. The old man with a long beard is a stereotype- notice how, even in D&D art, male spellcasters are pictured this way often, but female spellcasters are not.

It doesn't help that sometimes D&D books contradict themselves on this matter, showing that individual writers have their own opinions- 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook says that apprentices younger than 20 are unusual, but then TSR 9549 College of Wizardry states:

Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this subject, but you're not going to find a hard rule that says "you must be this tall to ride this ride" with regards to arcane magic use. And if we're just arguing that one person's opinion is somehow more or less valid than another's, this conversation will never go anywhere of substance.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Are we still going on about our personal interpretations of how long it takes to become a wizard? One of my earlier posts showed canonical evidence that characters can become spellcasters at young ages in previous editions (one from a Spelljammer supplement being all of nine years old!), and 5e has no rules for starting ages (indeed, it has no rules for aging effects at all, as several wild magic sorcerers have found out). Come on, people, there's examples of young spellcasters all over the place in fiction (and I'm not talking about Harry Potter!)- how long it takes to become a member of any character class varies from person to person. The old man with a long beard is a stereotype- notice how, even in D&D art, male spellcasters are pictured this way often, but female spellcasters are not.

It doesn't help that sometimes D&D books contradict themselves on this matter, showing that individual writers have their own opinions- 2e's Complete Wizard's Handbook says that apprentices younger than 20 are unusual, but then TSR 9549 College of Wizardry states:

View attachment 262560
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this subject, but you're not going to find a hard rule that says "you must be this tall to ride this ride" with regards to arcane magic use. And if we're just arguing that one person's opinion is somehow more or less valid than another's, this conversation will never go anywhere of substance.

Precisely. It's equally valid to decide that magic is difficult to learn for even talented individuals and requires many years of dedicated study, as it is to choose for it to be something that anyone can pick up after a few weeks of training. You can find some evidence to support either position, but D&D (particularly in more recent editions) largely leaves that answer open to the DM.

 

[ad_hoc]

There are tales of kingdoms ruled by Wizards and the like but they always inevitably fall to ruin.

Turns out regular bureaucracy and a distrust of arcane magic results in the longest standing civilizations.

 

[Voadam]

There are tales of kingdoms ruled by Wizards and the like but they always inevitably fall to ruin.

All kingdoms inevitably fall to ruin.

Turns out regular bureaucracy and a distrust of arcane magic results in the longest standing civilizations.

Can you give some examples? Thay and Rashemen in the Forgotten Realms seem to have stuck around.
In 3e Thay had been around for over four centuries under magocratic rule by the Red Wizards.

Rashemen under their rule by the Witches of Rashemen had been going for over 5,000 years.

 

[Fanaelialae]

All kingdoms inevitably fall to ruin.

Can you give some examples? Thay and Rashemen in the Forgotten Realms seem to have stuck around.
In 3e Thay had been around for over four centuries under magocratic rule by the Red Wizards.

Rashemen under their rule by the Witches of Rashemen had been going for over 5,000 years.

I agree that magocracies aren't any more (or less) likely to fail vs other types of kingdoms.

However, I think magocracies do seem to have something of a tendency to fall in spectacular fashion.

For example, the Priest King of Istar brought the Cataclysm down upon Krynn.

The Dragon Kings of Athas helped usher in the current state of affairs, of a world on its last legs.

And while it hasn't resulted in catastrophe yet, on Mystara mages in Glantri harness the power of what they call the "Radiance", the continued use of which will not only drain all magic from Mystara permanently, but could also result in an explosion that would wipe Glantri off the map!