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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8130992" data-attributes="member: 6802951">There is no level of prevalence for baseline D&D. They are exactly as common as you want for your setting, distributed however you want. As I aid before: Its like the decision on how many rivers there are in a particular nation.The rules tell you how fast a boat might travel on a river, but there are no rules about whether there is a river there in the first place. D&D has rules for spells, but there are no rules governing how many NPCs can cast them.Any attempt to try to extrapolate this from the rules is going to require you to make assumptions outside what is actually covered by the rules.Indeed. But it also explains why training in magic isn't regarded as a necessity by all noble families, and why people who have learnt to use spells like those aren't the ruling class. Which is the claim I was rebutting. From what I read of the debate, I believe the discussion was regarding Wizards rather than "any spellcasting". Which, as has been explained, varies significantly between worlds precisely because there is no baseline. As far as I can tell, people have been debating your assertion that "x is the baseline" because they feel that there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim rather than because they think the baseline is y. Eberron says yes, just not in the manner that you initially appeared to be claiming. Other settings say whatever the setting says. The baseline is not no. There is no baseline to contradict.If you're really looking to try to extrapolate how hard a cantrip is to learn, and how many people are capable of it for your setting, maybe look to the feats. It may be as easy to learn as having a perfect sense of direction, or being able to accurately recall anything you have seen or heard in the last month, or seeing well in dim light.</blockquote>

Verification