Ratio of wizards in a population?

[Treebore]

So, 1 in 5,000. At 50% progression:

1 in 10,000 level 2+
1 in 20,000 level 3+
1 in 40,000 level 4+
1 in 80,000 level 5+

That seems a bit lower than the environment presented in most D&D adventures, and obviously much less than the magic-drenched 3e setting assumptions (10% of the population are adventurers?!)

I don't know, I haven't pulled out my 3E DMG to look up its recommended break downs. Plus I quoted only what would be wizards. Fighters were 44% of 1 in 1,000. Which doesn't make sense to me. That says to me that for every two fighters you have there is 1 wizard.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

One approach that I've used in the past is to treat an army like a village/town/city of comparable size, and then use the 3E DMG demographics - except that I replace a lot of the commoners, etc with warriors (more or less, depending on how well trained the bulk of the army is).

That gives a pretty quick and easy to use answer. I'd have to go back to those rules to see what the exact result is for your question...

Generally speaking, I assume that wizards have pretty esoteric and diverse agendas, and the really talented ones don't involve themselves in politics or wars, as they spend their time studying and searching out knowledge. As a result, wizards in armies are pretty uncommon, and not terribly powerful.

 

[Clavis]

I like a ratio of 1 wizard to every 5,000 non-wizards. Not only should the ability to use magic be rare, I see no reason why the average Wizard should want to share his knowledge easily. If he takes an apprentice, it's because the apprentice is essentially an unpaid servant.

As for Wizards changing the nature of medieval warfare, I don't see it happening. Wizards are not common craftsmen that can be pressed into service. Ordinary nobility should live in constant fear of Wizards, not regard them as a resource to be used. Wizards in general would have contempt for ordinary governments, and the affairs of ordinary people. For the same reason, there should be no "magic shops" open to non-wizards - a Wizard can take what he wants, and has no need to dabble in common commerce. The king who thinks he can command Wizards to do anything would quickly find himself polymorphed into a chicken, or assaulted by summoned demons. In such a situation, all the rules of medieval warfare still apply. An army would really only face magic on the battlefield when a Wizard is commanding the opposing army himself.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Turns out Alzrius link appraoches the issue from the same angle I was using - except with a lot more detail.

 

[Roman]

So, 1 in 5,000. At 50% progression:

1 in 10,000 level 2+
1 in 20,000 level 3+
1 in 40,000 level 4+
1 in 80,000 level 5+

That seems a bit lower than the environment presented in most D&D adventures, and obviously much less than the magic-drenched 3e setting assumptions (10% of the population are adventurers?!)

The 10% assumption first made an appearance in 2E AD&D I believe. I remember it in the High Level Campaigns DM Option book. Indeed, the same book also had the 50% progression assumption.

 

[Arkhandus]

If using the guidelines in the 3.x DMGs, even a metropolis of over 25,000 adult residents would only have about 4 wizards of roughly 14th-level, 8 of 7th-level, 16 of 3rd-level, and 32 of 1st-level. And an equal number of sorcerers. Combined, that's 0.0048 percent of the population. But of course, only a total of 24 mages capable of casting Fireballs or similarly-devastating spells, so 0.00096 percent of the population is actually useful to a war effort (the remainder of the mages are barely equivalent to green-recruit archers, with just a little bit more tactical ability but far less firepower).

And even assuming you could somehow convince/force all 24 of those mages to fight for you in the war, they'd probably be nullified to some extent by the enemy force's recruited mages. Each side's mages would probably spend half their time counterspelling, and only a few spells would actually get through. So I don't think having mages around in the world would significantly impact the tactics and the development of castles.

Any given opposing force may have a similar number of mages to counter the other force's magic. Clerics and druids are even less likely to participate, aside from the few dedicated to war gods or similar, and the rest might just help out with healing the wounded and supplying food/water to the soldiers, if they help out at all. And trying to force recruitment of casters can result in high casualties for the military when those casters really don't want to fight that war/risk themselves in it.

The vast majority of combat would be handled by warriors, while casters would be fairly busy making sure the opposing force's casters don't destroy their warriors or their fortifications (or most importantly of all, the mages themselves, since they will generally put their own lives first). The casters would not only have to deal with each other, but with the opposing force's archers; and if an enemy mage is casting Magic Weapon on their archers' arrows, then even a Protection from Arrows spell won't save the poor mages from being perforated.

I think the only significant difference would be that troops would start out in spread-out skirmish formations until the enemy casters were found and busied by the allied casters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You could also look to hints from RW demographics.

How many people are there with advanced degrees- Masters or Doctorates- per 100k people in a 1st world culture? In a 3rd world/developing nation's populace?

Exact numbers also vary per subculture. For instance, I know that in the black subculture of the USA- my people- we have a lower than average % of college attendance and graduation. In addition, of those who graduate, only 1 in 300 or so go into engineering or hard sciences, 1 in 450 or so go into law school, and maybe 1 in 650 go to med school.

In a fantasy world, that might translate into subcultural/racial differences in preferring one kind of arcane mastery over another- shadowcaster vs artificer vs sorcerer vs wizard, etc.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Fourth edition puts an entirely different dynamic on this question. For one thing, a much greater percentage of the population may be able to cast Rituals than are "wizards" (or clerics) in the class sense. For another, wizards have a much smaller supply of big killing spells per battle, and those spells tend to be much shorter range and smaller area.

I would expect to see a lot much Ritual casters (perhaps as many as 1 in 50) than wizards.

 

[joethelawyer]

thanks for all the good answers guys. this really changed my perception on a lot of things.

 

[Orius]

War is unpleasant, messy, you have to spend your time with stupid levy soldiers, take orders from noble born officers --most of whom are your intellectual inferiors!-- march in the cold rain, trudge through the mud, rise at dawn and spend long hours waiting only to then experience a few minutes of horrible, terrible fear as the hounds of war are finally unleashed.

While you are out in the field you are not studying, not increasing your knowledge of the mystical forces of the universe. Your commanders will only see you as a 'boom stick' or a 'chicken entrail reader'. The food is generally bad, the pay negligable, and the company smelly and unrefined. Glory will go to the soldiers and the knights... few people lavish praise upon the mysterious wizard who called forth supernatural powers to bring about the victory.

True, but there are also wizards who may use their powers to gain political might, and who won't hesitate to resort to warfare to achieve their ends. Those wizards won't be experiencing the same conditions as the regular grunts, more likely they'll be in command or at least offered the priveledges of a ranking officer. So they'll probably be riding a horse, sleeping in a large tent or pavilion some distance back from the front, and dining well. Course any apprentices they drag along to do the grunt magic work will probably not have it so well, but it builds character.

The 10% assumption first made an appearance in 2E AD&D I believe. I remember it in the High Level Campaigns DM Option book. Indeed, the same book also had the 50% progression assumption.

Yes, and the numbers were also in the World Builder's Guidebook as well. That 10% is all PC classes, with wizards being around 1 in every 100 or 200 of the population.