Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8127225" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Why do I still need to be trained in weapons and Armor? Assuming mods +0 all aroundMage Armor is the equivalent of a Chain Shirt, doesn't cost Gold to create, and can be donned in a single action unlike the 5 to 10 minutes of medium and heavy armor. If you need that higher AC? The Shield Spell gives you six seconds of Platemail. Again, without needing to spend the money on those items.Maybe you still want to be trained with a Shield, but that is a far cry from being proficient in armors, and instead of focusing on getting a 15 str and high con... you can get a high Int and Dex. A 15 Dex brings base Mage Armor to the equivalent of Half-Plate with Dex +0, and gives you the same protection as Plate and a Shield if you cast Shield.As for weapons, at mod +0 most cantrips are equivalent to a longbow or longsword. Firebolt at that stage is equal in damage to a halberd. And sure, if we assume that +2 Strength from 15 strength to wear plate, then you are dealing just a little bit more with a sword. But, with the spell you have further range, rider effects if you pick a cantrip that has them, and the ability to hurt monsters resistant to non-magical weapons.If you have a Demon invasion, swords are dealing 1/2 damage, but Chill Touch isn't.And, even further, Wizards are trained in simple weapons, and the SCAG cantrips can be paired with those weapons to be even more devastating. Can that assassin or rebel retreat if you hit them with a Booming Blade using your Dagger? Not if they want to live.Now, obviously if you have the chance, both is better, but unless we are saying all nobles are going to get the Fighter Class (which the books tell us not everyone trained in weapons is a fighter) then I'm not seeing any strong advantages of weapons and armor over these spells.Huh? I think you misunderstood my point, because your answer makes no sense. Unless you think the only nobles running their estates are in their 20's and everyone over 30 us retired or dead.My assumptions took place in them studying and ruling their fief at the same time. That's why I said potentially 20 years to get to 3rd level, because they were splitting their time.Unless your assumption is that you need 30 years of dedicated study, with nothing else going on in your life at all, to reach third level in wizardry, then they could easily study and rule at the same time, leading to most ruling nobles being 3rd level wizards.And, if you really think it takes 30 years of doing nothing but sitting in a room studying to reach a third level wizard... then I ask you why a week of adventuring can see a 1st level apprentice become a 3rd level wizard.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, with Sorcerers it is clearly indicated to us that Wizardry is purely about studying. No innate magical spark needed.Which leaves only the difficulty of mastering a science as the hurdle. And, like you said, Nobles learned a lot. They learned foreign languages, history, mathematics, Latin, philosophy, theology, and some even went further pursuing things like alchemy.So, it is not unreasonable to trim some of that down. Learning magic gives you the ability to speak understand other languages, and everyone speaks common anyway, so it is less needed in the DnD worlds. And many of those disciplines Nobles did learn (Theology, Philosphy, Alchemy) would naturally lead into the study of Arcana and Wizardry.Also... no one said they had to be good at wizardry, just that they would likely be trained in it.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The bolded part is an assumption, and a bad one. Even if we assume that training to be a wizard takes 30 years of dedicated study while doing literally nothing else, Bartley #4 is still between 37 and 40, plenty young enough to marry and have kids.And also, who is this Archmage? Do you think he was a peasant before becoming a wizard? What peasant could afford to dedicate their entire life to not working. A peasant family didn't have the resources to support book learning at all, let alone 30 years of it.If we assume that one simply must have the mental capabilities to learn wizardry, and no magic spark is needed, then by default the longer it takes to be a wizard, the more likely it is that nobles are the only ones who have the time and resources to be wizards.Sure, occasionally a mage might find an orphan is seems clever enough to teach and they'd take them in as a foundling, or a family might petition and beg a mage to take in their child, but if you want to insist on three decades of idleness (or a week adventuring) to become a low level wizard, then noble families are the only ones with the resources and time to actually pursue wizardry at all. No one else can afford to sit locked in a room for 30 years with no income, buying expensive books, inks and reagents.</blockquote>

Verification