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: 8129168" data-attributes="member: 6801228">And maybe learning Sylvan is impossible, because humans can't speak the magical symbols needed to speak it. We can say anything about learning this or that being so potentially difficult as to be impossible, but you can't base it on anything. And, if it were truly that difficult, more difficult than the most difficult subject matter ever taught by humans to humans in the real world.... then why are there likely 2,000 wizards in a given kingdom in DnD? (Based on a population of the entire kingdom being 400,000... which was the population of the city of ancient Rome, so I feel that is fairly astronomically low, and the accepted 3.5 rule of 0.5% of a population being wizards)There are statistically a fair number of wizards, so that means we really can't expect that magic is truly this art that is nearly impossibly difficult to learn.ShockYou mean in the real world people had the option to use real magic to warp the very fabric of reality and we chose not to use it? More seriously, do you think they trusted the illiterate commoner, or do you think they sent it back to the more expensive tailor to have him fix it? I'm betting it was the latter, don't you think?  That is really missing the forest because of one very specific tree. I used that cantrip as an easy example. How about these? The ability to kill at a distance with no weapon. The ability to never be disarmed. The ability to have secret conversations with zero chance of eavesdroppers. The ability to increase the damage of those martial weapons people love so much. And these are just cantrips from the top of my head, the equivalent of learning to cook eggs before going to start making cakes and pastries. They would really be shooting for first level spells. I am not unable to accept the subjectivity of it, but my point that logically nobles would seek to learn magic was practically met with ridicule. It was treated like I was somehow altering the game and making wild claims. But, notice that the majority of this discussion has focused on the rules of 2e and 3.5, not 5e. Because when we move the discussion to 5e, suddenly we are told things change. As in, the baseline assumption of the game might have changed. Things have shifted closer to the model I'm describing, but people are acting like I'm just rambling with no basis in anything. And if the game has shifted, sure, we can still play the old way, but we should ask, if it is the old way, what has changed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why are the assumptions of Modern DnD not the assumptions of DnD? Is Modern DnD not DnD? If not, what is it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sure, settings change everything. Settings can break all the rules. But the rules set a pretty clear dichotomy by RAW. Wizards are taught magic. Sorcerers are born Magical. Warlocks make deals to be given magic. If you change it so that Wizards have to be born magical, then your setting happens. Sorcerers are just stronger wizards who never bothered to train, or Wizards are weak sorcerers who needed additional help to harness their talents. But you have broken down the divide presented in the book. Just like if you made it that all Wizards had to make deals with demons, suddenly we are asking, why is the deal the wizard made to get his magic different than the Warlock's deal? You can do it, but you are certainly changing the assumptions of the game if you do.</blockquote>

Verification