Who are Howard and Leiber?

[S'mon]

Take a look at your 2e PHB. Requirement for playing a wizard= Intelligence of 9.

:\ THAT IS FOR PCs!!! LIKE I SAID, ONLY WITH 3e did the PC-generation rules become of general application for everyone.

 

[S'mon]

The double standard of PC's to everyone else is at the heart of this discussion. Earlier editions didn't match the mechanics to the worlds they developed.

The mechanics of the 1e & 2e Player's Handbook were for generating PCs, and PC-like NPCs. They were not, and were not intended, to be for generating non-PC-like NPCs, such as the general population.

There is nothing wrong about this as a design decision IMO. The opposite approach - that per the rules everyone can be a Wizard, say - causes far more illogicality for most settings.

 

[S'mon]

But let's go with this 1% figure for a second. The population of Germany in the 1300's was around 14 million people. That translates to 140 000 classed citizens. Figure a fairly even distribution of classes, which, considering the requirements for any given base class - Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue - are pretty much identical, isn't a bad assumption, that gives us about 14 000 mages and 14 000 clerics. Roughly. Now, if the political power of that area could conscript/hire 10% of those, he's got 1400 mages and clerics to play with at any given time. Granted, most of those would be low level, 5th or less, but, then again, there are many low level spells which would make household magic very useful. Given a few decades, it wouldn't be difficult for a nation to build up a vast store of magical knowledge and whatnot. And this is the logical conclusion of a completely arbitrary 1% figure.

I'm not sure what the problem here is - a vast, strong strong unitary state (nothing like the actual Holy Roman Empire, more like late-medieval Spain ca the Armada) that commands 1400 wizards & 1400 clerics, 10% of all wizards & clerics in the domain, has vast magical power. That's pretty much a tautology.

Most fantasy kingdoms are actually more Tolkienesque, which means they resemble the kingdoms of dark ages England, with a few hundred thousand citizens and not directly controlling 10% of the population of warriors, priests etc - more like 1%. Say population 140,000 for something like dark ages Sussex (or Rohan), that's 1,400 classed characters. Per the Greyhawk or 1e DMG, about 20% of those are spellcasters of all types, or 280 spellcasters, of whom maybe 1-2% are in the personal guard of the king - probably just a court wizard, an apprentice, and a chaplain with a couple lesser clerics.

 

[Hussar]

Really? Most campaigns are Tolkienesque? What's the population of Waterdeep? Isn't Waterdeep considered a pretty base campaign setting. Granted, I believe Greyhawk the city is under the 100 k mark but, then again, IIRC, there are areas of Greyhawk with much higher populations.

The problem with the numbers you are using is they make absolutely no logical sense. Or, rather, they only make sense if you refuse to apply the PHB to the general population. The only reason that you don't is because, if you do, you wind up with ridiculous numbers. I'll agree with that.

Even using your own numbers, it simply doesn't work. Or rather, it ONLY works if you play in a very sparsely populated area and concentrate on humans. Why would only 1-2% of the spellcaster types work for the king? If I'm the king, I've got lots of money, I'm going to make sure that I am going to hire as many spellcasters as I can. It makes perfect sense for me to do so. It actually makes no sense for me to allow spellcasters in my kingdom that are not under my direct control. How many kingdoms would allow private citizens to wander around with the equivalent of tactical nuclear weaponry?

The logical upshot of the existence of spellcasters is guilds. Those guilds would be forced to work with the existing political system, or the existing powers would see them as a threat and eliminate them as fast as possible. A wandering mage is an incredible threat to a kingdom. Never mind a bloody cleric or druid. Even Dragonlance took a stab at this in saying that all mages had to belong to the Order and would be hunted down if they didn't.

Looking at your own numbers, that's about 250 spellcasters wandering the kingdom without any link to the king other than citizenship. No king in his right mind would allow this. The clerics have the protection of their churches, and since churches exist as political bodies, the king would have a fair bit of influence there. But wizards don't have any ties. A rogue wizard in a kingdom would become a major threat. It makes no sense for the king to not actively recruit and/or kill wizards. Even clerics and druids would be actively recruited, simply for the benefit of having their abilities to rely on.

Imagine what I could do with a hundred wizards. That's a whole bunch of power. It doesn't really matter whether it's 100 or 1000, any king who wants to keep his kingdom is going to have to actively court these people or these people will take away his kingdom.

That's one example of the logical extentions that get ignored by earlier campaign settings that are starting to be addressed in later ones. And these things are starting to be addressed in fantasy literature as well. They all result from the idea that magic is stable and functional. The second you want to have a spell casting class in a fantasy game, you have these issues.

 

[S'mon]

Really? Most campaigns are Tolkienesque? What's the population of Waterdeep? Isn't Waterdeep considered a pretty base campaign setting.

No, Waterdeep, the largest city of the Realms (except Calimport) is not a "pretty base campaign setting", & it has a population ca 200,000 AFAIK. If you look at your DMG you'll see a D&D 'metropolis' is pop 25,000+. Greyhawk, largest known city on Oerth, is ca 60,000. Most campaigns are Tolkienesque in terms of state organisations & population sizes - you very rarely see pop 25 million+ states like 15th century medieval France.

 

[S'mon]

The problem with the numbers you are using is they make absolutely no logical sense. Or, rather, they only make sense if you refuse to apply the PHB to the general population. The only reason that you don't is because, if you do, you wind up with ridiculous numbers. I'll agree with that.

Well you can create a world where everyone's a hero (PC class) if you wish, or you can use the 3e DMG where there are lots of high-level heroes in the cities, or some other demographic more suited to your setting. I have no problem with the idea that the PHB is for generating exceptional individuals and the NPC classes are for everyone else.

 

[S'mon]

Looking at your own numbers, that's about 250 spellcasters wandering the kingdom without any link to the king other than citizenship. No king in his right mind would allow this. The clerics have the protection of their churches, and since churches exist as political bodies, the king would have a fair bit of influence there. But wizards don't have any ties. A rogue wizard in a kingdom would become a major threat. It makes no sense for the king to not actively recruit and/or kill wizards. Even clerics and druids would be actively recruited, simply for the benefit of having their abilities to rely on.

For a late-medieval style setting where states & monarchs are as powerful as you assume, I agree with you - IMC all the wizards, of whom there are several hundred in a population of ca 15 million, are members of wizardly orders, and the main order is pretty much controlled by the king. In a more Tolkienesque early-feudal setting though, the king simply _does not have the power_ to exert this kind of control.

NB re 'early feudal' I am talking about societal organisation; Tolkien had 14th century technology with 8th century social structures. The modern trend in D&D is away from this towards something more like the 16th century sans gunpowder, with powerful cities & states. The more 16th century the setting, the more the State will amass magical & other power to itself and prevent its free use by others. I think we basically agree on this.

 

[S'mon]

That's one example of the logical extentions that get ignored by earlier campaign settings that are starting to be addressed in later ones. And these things are starting to be addressed in fantasy literature as well. They all result from the idea that magic is stable and functional. The second you want to have a spell casting class in a fantasy game, you have these issues.

It can be addressed in other ways though - eg maybe Wizards are far rarer than we're assuming (older settings that lack wizards' guilds often have very very few wizards who aren't adventurers or BBEGs); or maybe magic isn't stable & functional - it's stable and functional for PCs, but most NPCs who try it end up as green goop.

 

[wingsandsword]

Really? Most campaigns are Tolkienesque? What's the population of Waterdeep? Isn't Waterdeep considered a pretty base campaign setting. Granted, I believe Greyhawk the city is under the 100 k mark but, then again, IIRC, there are areas of Greyhawk with much higher populations.

Rome had a population of 1 million by 250 AD, peaking around 320 at 1.5 million.

The 3e FRCS puts the population of Waterdeep at 1.3 million. Thus, it's equivalent to Rome, say, circa 300 AD.

Huge metropolises are not impossible in a fantasy world, and remember that Medieval Europe was the provincial regions of a great empire slowly rebuilding from a huge collapse centuries before.

As for the "1% have a character class" idea from old Basic D&D, I always used the guideline in 2e High Level Campaigns, that 10% of the population reached 1st level, and that half that reached the next higher level, and so on. This means that an 18th level character is one in 1.3 million, a 20th level character is one in five million.

 

[Turjan]

Rome had a population of 1 million by 250 AD, peaking around 320 at 1.5 million.

The 3e FRCS puts the population of Waterdeep at 1.3 million. Thus, it's equivalent to Rome, say, circa 300 AD.

Huge metropolises are not impossible in a fantasy world, and remember that Medieval Europe was the provincial regions of a great empire slowly rebuilding from a huge collapse centuries before.

Rome is actually a good example, and it explains why this size of city is only possible in a vast empire. The problem with big city sizes were food logistics. Rome was fed by ship (via Ostia), mostly from Sicily and Egypt, i.e., it was dependent on overseas resources. Getting enough food into the city by land was not possible at that time. It wasn't really the pillage of the city in the turmoils after the end of the western Roman Empire that brought the city population down, but the inability to feed its inhabitants.

That's probably why the 3e FRCS puts the population of the City of Waterdeep at 132,661 inhabitants, and not at 1.3 millions. The last number includes the rural population of the state of Waterdeep. This is in accordance with the notion that it takes roughly 10 peasants to feed one city dweller.