• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

How common are spellcasters?

Greenfield

Adventurer
The owner of my local game shop has been playing D&D longer than I have (which is saying quite a bit). He often quotes a standard that one person in ten has any real spell casting ability.

I'm not sure if that is some official figure, or what edition it might be from, but it brings up the question: How common is spell casting in your game world?

These days there are three stats you can use as a spell casting foundation. Presuming that NPCs got their numbers on something that resembles a 3D6 distribution, that means that well more than half of the people couldn't do more than a cantrip on any given one of those, but when you consider all three the odds of spell casting potential goes up.

But the actual percentage of people with "the gift" is going to vary. So, how common is it, in your worlds?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Much like with PCs, anyone with high enough mental stats could become a spellcaster. That being said, have you seen the IQ of the average commoner?
 

I'm not sure if that is some official figure, or what edition it might be from, but it brings up the question: How common is spell casting in your game world?

As I recall, that was from the AD&D DMG's sample demographics section.

The real answer, though, is that it varies from campaign to campaign...even those run by the same DM.
 

The demographics of my Furyondy/Shield Lands campaign are based off of the information given in the Dungeon Master's Guide, A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. The MMS: WE took precedence over the DMG, and both took precedence over the LGG.

The total population for the combined region is 1,508,800 people. Of that, 120,704 live in Large Cities (2 of them), Small Cities (3), Large Towns (10), and Small Towns (21). The remainder (1,388,096 people) exists in manors spread out throughout the countryside. The typical manor is roughly the size of a Village; there are 3,085 of them.

Running these numbers through the formula in the DMG results in (approximately):
Urban
Bards - 450; 40 being level 6+
Clerics - 450; 40 being level 6+
Druids - 450; 40 being level 6+
Sorcerers - 300; 25 being level 6+
Wizards - 300; 25 being level 6+

Rural
Bards - 10,000 total; 50%+ 1st level, none higher then 5th level
Clerics - 10,000 total; 50%+ 1st level, none higher then 5th level
Druids - 10,000 total; 50%+ 1st level, none higher then 5th level
Sorcerers - 5,000 total; 50%+ 1st level, none higher than 3rd level
Wizards - 5,000 total; 50%+ 1st level, none higher than 3rd level

Excluding Adepts (assume .05% of the population) there are 41,950 spellcasters in a country of 1,508,800 or, roughly, 2.78% of the population. Of that, 170 are level 6 or higher, roughly .01% of the population.

Note: Clerics also include Archivists and Favored Souls; Sorcerers include Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Warmages. Etc.
 
Last edited:

The owner of my local game shop has been playing D&D longer than I have (which is saying quite a bit). He often quotes a standard that one person in ten has any real spell casting ability.

I'm not sure if that is some official figure, or what edition it might be from, but it brings up the question: How common is spell casting in your game world?

At some level, fairly common. Learning basic Wizardry is roughly equivalent in difficulty to learning a foreign language from a different langauge family as your native tongue, learning to play the piano, and learning to do basic calculus. If a person from our world could manage all three, then chances are he could manage to do a few cantrips at the least. Between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 people could probably be taught some magical ability (depending how much effort you wanted to put into the task), though in practice no more than 1 in 100 are because of the expense and difficulty of learning. Most flame out at a relatively low level of ability and never obtain more than 1st level spells. About 1 in 1000 people go on to become successful practicing magicians, usually obtaining the ability to cast a handful of 3rd level spells. Perhaps as few as one in 100,000 obtain the 5th circle and the rank of Wizard (9th level).

Very high level spellcasting is much more difficult than that. It requires skills roughly equivalent to being able to speak multiple languages from several language families, being able to understand deep theoretical quantum mechanics, and to able to play the piano as a virtuoso. There are only a few people in the world at any given time that can manage such a skill set, and often a generation might pass before a new master arrives on the scene. Were it not for the fact that many of these most powerful individuals find means of prolonging their mortal lives, no more than one or two would exist in the whole world.

Sorcery is something you are born with and which cannot be taught. Sorcerers in my world are generally classified as monsters, and this is often warranted (though some would say its a self-fulfilling prophesy). The percentage of sorcerers out there is supressed by the fact that sorcerers are often executed or murdered (depending on your perspective) at a very young age when their talents first manifest (often as not as toddlers!), and are generally subject to death in many parts of the world whenever their secret is discovered. It's a lucky sorcerer that doesn't manifest his power until adolescence when he has at least something like the emotional and intellectual ability to control it; unfortunately these are often the weaker and more limited sort. Perhaps 1 in 1000 non-fey free people manifest sorcerous ability - fewer than one in 10 though survive to adulthood. Fewer still have it in their blood to manifest truly great power, and many never try for fear of revealing themselves to a hostile world. Still, there is some safety in power and at high levels sorcerers are roughly as common as wizards. Sorcery among fey is of course far more common, being perhaps 1 in 10 individuals and is generally accepted as normal by fey.

Bards vary from exceptionally rare to fairly common depending on where you are. In most civilized lands, bardic magic is considered proscribed magic and is classified alongside necromancy, shamanism, diabolism, sorcery, and most enchantment magic as dark arts. Indeed, there are some people that would consider it worse, because its believed to be the last surviving vestige of Art Magic - the worst of all crimes against the universe. In such cases, bards are probably rarer than sorcerers. However, among the Orine tribes in particular, bardic magic has a very strong tradition and no travelling band is without one. The overall numbers here are probably in the range of 1 in 500, but in most human lands its closer to 1 in 10,000.

Clerics are good deal more common than either arcane caster, as the number of clerics depends less on native ability than it does divine ordination. Usually, between 1 in 80 and 1 in 100 persons have some degree of clerical ability and can channel some sort of divine power. In some particularly theocratic and pious areas, it may be as much as 1 in 40. Not only are clerics more numerous, but relative to their number there are somewhat more higher level clerics than Wizards.

My game world doesn't have druids, but it does have shamans. In most areas, Shamans are slightly less common than Clerics. Shamanism requires a somewhat less rare skillset to learn compared to Wizardry, and the traditions are often passed on in secret from parent to child (often but not always through the female line). Attainment of more than 3rd level spells is quite rare though, and very high level shamans are if anything rarer than high level wizards. Partly this is because its practioners seldom attempt or desire to obtain high levels of power, partly this is because the knowledge of how to do so is rare and jealously gaurded, and partly this is because in most areas shamanism is officially illegal and its practicioners subject to being burned at the stake (though this law is often ignored in rural areas save when its deemed necessary). Shamans and clerics are in fairly direct competition with each other, so where one dominates the other suffers. In some wilderness areas, there are virtually no clerics and some shamanistic knowledge will be found in as many as 1 in 40 individuals.
 


Assuming they roll their stats on 3d6 in order no re-rolls, approximately 7 in 8 will have the ability to cast at least 1st level spells in at least one spell-casting class.

However, if we assume a simple decision-making process in which they don't pick a spell-casting class unless that class's casting stat is also their highest stat, this drops to about 38%.

Clearly, there must be setting-specific reasons why casters aren't chosen more often by NPCs.
 

Assuming they roll their stats on 3d6 in order no re-rolls, approximately 7 in 8 will have the ability to cast at least 1st level spells in at least one spell-casting class.

<snip>

Clearly, there must be setting-specific reasons why casters aren't chosen more often by NPCs.

Well, just because you're qualified to do something doesn't mean you'll wind up doing it.

Look at Michael Jordan. His natural physical skills are quite rare, but even so, there must have been about 60,000 human beings born in 1963 with his approximate level of genetic luck. With the demographics of the year, about 3500 of them were born in the USA. But only one actually wound up playing in the NBA.

Worldwide probabilites? Some of them probably died in childhood. Some were killed in battle or due to disease. Some became dock workers. Some became soldiers. Farmers. Police officers. Maybe one or 2 played football or baseball (badly?). Who knows, maybe one is a senior programmer at Oracle?

Why? Because only in Michael Jordan's case was there the convergence of the physical gifts AND the choice AND the opportunity AND the drive to play basketball with the level of drive required to make it to the NBA.

Taking this back to the study of magic, assuming there are thousands of beings who are born with the capability to do master it...but only a few will live past childhood. Of those, only a few will find the mysteries of arcana to be interesting. Only a few of those will have the opportunity to study it. Only a few of those will have the drive to master it.
 


Well, just because you're qualified to do something doesn't mean you'll wind up doing it.
That seems true on the surface, but it's pretty tough to find facts to back this up. Mozart was gifted at birth, genetically. You can argue that it was luck that he ended up in a musical family, but it may have been the presence of music while he was in the womb that allowed him to develop his ability prenatal. So it's hard to know how much of Mozart's environment shaped him to become who he was. What we do know is that he was a child prodigy and that he stayed with music his whole life. In his case, being good at something meant he did exactly that.

Look at Michael Jordan. His natural physical skills are quite rare, but even so, there must have been about 60,000 human beings born in 1963 with his approximate level of genetic luck.

I have no idea where you get that number since there is no way to measure his level of genetic ability, neither in magnitude nor direction.

Because only in Michael Jordan's case was there the convergence of the physical gifts AND the choice AND the opportunity AND the drive to play basketball with the level of drive required to make it to the NBA.
I agree that convergence is the most crucial aspect of paragon's or pinnacles of human achievement. Alexander the Great born today in French Lick, Indiana, would probably not become anything close to what he became. The movie Schindler's List does a nice job of pointing out how circumstance plays a huge role in what any given individual may achieve. Financially, Schindler never arose to the same height after the war (at least according to the movie).

Only a few of those will have the drive to master it.
I find this statement curious. D&D 3.5 does not require any intent to learn new spells, it simply happens as a natural consequence of gaining levels (especially for Sorcs). You gain levels as a natural consequence of killing things. So I'm not sure why "drive" would be a prereq for an NPC (which is what I assume you are talking about) any more than it is for a PC.

In the real world "drive" is a factor because there is no such thing as "leveling up" with regards to any skill or profession. In the real world, one only improves at a task provided one draws the right conclusions. Simply doing a task over and over does not automtically make one better at it (I'm specifically excluding tasks that involve motor skills).

Just find your post curious and would be interested in your explanations.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top