Meldread;18582210 wrote:
S-blocked becasue it was getting obnoxoious -
My problem with your point of view in regard to wizards is that you are generalizing personality attributes to -all- wizards. Magic in Faerûn seems almost common in a lot of respects, due to the vast number of wizards. I'd argue that at least 1% to 2% of all of Faerûn have some arcane abilities, with the potential of perhaps anywhere from 10% - 15% having the ability to be taught. If we give a rather conservative estimate of population (before 4E) we could say that Faerûn has a population of roughly 100 million people. That means, if 2% are wizards there are two million wizards of varying skill levels running around.
Out of a potential two million wizards you're saying that 98% of them are so paranoid that they are incapable of trusting one another for more than a few moments. (And even if that is true, and only 1% are sane enough to get along, that still leaves twenty-thousand wizards out of two million.)
Which, of course, completely flies in the face of logical reasoning. Your same reasoning could apply to the modern military There are internal rivalries, and sometimes rivals are paired up together. If one rival is wounded, and no one is looking, is a fellow soldier going to shoot his rival in the head? Not likely. Has it happened? Probably but such cases are very rare.
To carry that analogy back into the Realms, there are certainly everyday soldiers who may not get along. Are you saying that they'd never work together because when they aren't looking or are vulnerable that one of their supposed allies is going to cut their throat? Does it happen? Sure, it does. But what are the consequences of those actions? Well if he gets caught then he's going to likely be put to death by his comrades.
The same is true among wizards in a military setting. If you take a wizard and place him or her with other wizards, even if they are rivals (such as within the Zhents), do you think that they are suddenly going to betray each other? Not likely. Even if they hate each others guts. Why? Because they know that those higher up in the organization will find them and kill them for their actions. All actions have consequences, and it's much harder to get away with killing a wizard (as magic can be used to reveal your crimes) than it is for a mundane soldier to kill another soldier.
Has it happened? Sure. How common would it be? Extremely rare.
From my point of view what you are doing is trying to rationalize something that simply doesn't make sense. Because wizards are not really considered in wars in FR, your answer to that is Wizards must therefore all be paranoid sociopaths waiting for the first opportunity to turn on each other. That simply is not the case.
So, presuming those sorts make up 90% of the total arcane casters out there, you're left with 200,000 casters capable of casting spells of 3rd level or higher... spread out over the entirety of Faerun's geographic region... that's not really that much, with most nations being incredibly fortunate to get more than a few hundred of them. And even of those mages, the ones able to toss around spells of increasingly higher level gets smaller and smaller, until you're left with maybe a few score capable of casting 9th level/epic level spells, and that's being generous, I think.
As to their personality type, no, I don't think they're quite that paranoid... Magefair and the like would hardly happen were that the case. I'd disagree with your take on comparing things to a modern military... most of what I've seen of wizards in various writings for the Realms suggests they tend to view themselves as smarter than everyone else, and largely above the law, even to the point that they are a law unto themselves, unless there's a bigger, meaner spellcaster riding herd over them... say someone like Vangey or Manshoon, who also has the benefit of some nasty geasa and such working for him as well, albeit imperfectly. But, we've also seen remarkable arrogance from them as well, so I'd say that a lot of them thought they were smarter than their bosses and that they could indeed get away with it if they were careful enough... considering the attrition rates they seem to have towards the top, at least that I've seen, this seems to hold true with at least the Zhents. The Red Wizards don't seem much better from what I've seen.
And no, I agree that they aren't all paranoid sociopaths. If they were, groups like the War Wizards, the Spellguard, the Watch Wizards, and the like wouldn't exist. My point with them, was that even with them working together, they still aren't particularly efficient in terms of the way they think of the Art as applied to warfare (or anything else really in cooperative terms). They certainly could mass their power, fire off synchronized volleys, create enfilades and mutually supporting interlocked fields of fire... but the problem is they don't know how. That's very alien thinking for most of them... sure, it seems obvious that this stuff could be done to us, with the benefit of modern points of view and ways of thinking, but just consider Marshal Gamelin or Petain against the Blitzkrieg... it just wasn't in their scope of thinking that this sort of stuff was possible, much less that it was heading towards them. Even when faced with proof that it was possible, they still couldn't adapt their thinking fast enough to do anything about it. My point is that the potential is there, but the doctrine and ways of thinking aren't.
Again, drawing from the battle of France and Manstein's spearhead, when it really came down to it, the German tanks weren't really that great in comparison to the British and French types, and one on one, they were actually tending towards the inferior. But... the Germans massed their tanks into entire units, while the British and French, not comprehending the value of their armor truly, diluted the strength of their tanks by spreading them out among the infantry, finally massing them once the shock was over, but doing it too late to make a difference. All the raw materials were there to counter and defeat Germany with relatively high odds of success, but without the doctrine to comprehend the Blitzkrieg, much less counter it, none of their material superiority mattered. The same is true of most wizard organizations I think... tons of potential, lots of ability, but no real ability to use it effectively compared to their potential.
One could even look at it in terms of Tempus and Red Knight. Lots of the older wizards tend to view battle magic in terms of Tempus... individual effort, personal valor, personal might, blah, blah, blah. The idea of Red Knight's tactics and coordination, her whole approach to war ultimately, really haven't caught on with them just yet, and until they do, there's a lot of wasted energy and inefficiency, reducing the effects of magic in combat because the force multipliers of doctrine and coordination just aren't there yet.
Really, all you need is one wizard who is a worshiper of Red Knight, and they'd instantly have the "ah-ha!" moment. Look at Circle Magic. The concept of wizards working together to achieve great things already exists.
Also, while it is true that many wizards would be of low level, we also know that magical items can be created in abundant numbers by groups such as the Red Wizards.
Imagine this scenario: You have a group of fifteen low level wizards. Ignore the fact that they could potentially use spells like fly, let's keep it simple. They are treated as light calvary archers, and as a result are highly maneuverable and specialize in close range hit and run tactics.
Each of those fifteen wizards possess a wand. For simplicity we'll simply assume it's a wand of fireball. However, it could also be a wand of fear or alternatively the types of wands could be mixed up among the wizards.
In battle they'd be focused on assaults on the flanks and rear, while the opposing force is focused upon the main infantry. They'd charge forward to close quickly into range, use a charge of their wand, and then quickly retreat. This would cause a force to either route (especially if fear was used), or fall in toward its center. That in turn would allow the infantry to close in around the opposing force and essentially slaughter them.
Tactics such as the use of a phalanx might prove useful, especially if the terrain is favorable. However, then you have to take into consideration spells such as levitate and fly, allowing the wizard to easily overcome such an obstacle.
The problem, you see, is not that many wizards do not think this way, it is the fact that once it is done successfully you are faced with one or two situations. First, you're either going to have them become so successfully that they have the ability to conquer the majority of Faerûn. Second, you're going to see such tactics spread like wildfire almost immediately. No nation, kingdom, or city-state is going to want to be caught without their own wizards to counter their enemies wizards.
It's a bit like the introduction of gunpowder. Whomever comes up with it first is going to dominate the others.
My problem is that it is so obvious, and the institutions for it to take place already exist, that it is improbable and unlikely that no one has thought of it by now. Let alone the fact that it is not actively being used.
Additionally, this completely ignores the impact of high level wizards. A single high level wizard, if properly equiped and prepared, could take out an entire "normal" army alone.
But almost every army has Wizards, Priests, and/ or other casters of varied classes mixed within their ranks. More recent novels have shown this to be true, but for the most part, they are overlooked when writing. This isn't because they are absent, but is in fact a combination of author ability, and lack of reason to include them.
Not all authors are skilled enough to write elaborate spell battles, so most don't. Even RAS avoids spell duals in most instances, preferring instead to use a few select low levels spells repeatedly, and then killing the caster.
Canon wise, this is easily explained in the relatively comparability of wizards. If battles are won, then the winning side quite likely had the superior numbers, or ability in man and wizard. On the flip side, stalemates might happen when Wizards break even. Even when defeat is inevitable, it is much harder to rout teleporting wizards, than running men.
When you think about it, for every person casting fireball, there is likely one countering with the same, or dispel. who really want's to read. "He cast a fireball, and then it vanished. Seconds later, another went up and disappeared. Within moments the sky was alight with winking lights. Below, nothing happened". it's anti climactic, and counts against sometimes valuable words to add nothing to the tale.
Sorry if I missed the point here. I'll admit I skimmed. :P
-RW
Now if that fireball did hit you might kill mabe 20 men. This does seem powerful but a catapult can sometimes kill that many and more often with little training. Another hinderance is that most wizards are not trained for battle. Most wizards set up shop somewhere and do reserch find lost items and shore up wards in cities.
Another disadvantage wizards do face is that armies know that people have them and do have units trained to kill wizards. A group of 10 men with longbows can take down a wizard with half the time to train them.
Now the main use of wizards in battle is there protection. Sure they have a few attack spell but there main job is to protect the units they are assinged to. The fact of the matter is soilders are the ones who rule the battlefield, and a cleric will find more use as they have a better chance of surviving than a wizard.
Now the fact of the matter is not trust even though that is essintial, there are not enough high level wizards to take over more than a small kingdom or city. Even if they do take over ,and a perfect example is Thay, they have thousands of soilders to keep order.
A wizard might have awe inspiring powers that can kill almost instantly they will still die under a sword like anyone else and easier than that 1 level warrior. The fact of the matter is spellcasting is fine and all but on the battlefield it is classified as support. That is why you will see more clerics than wizards in an army.
I see what you're saying, Stigger. However, I think it is a mistake to go by what the novels portray, as that is a rather narrow focused view. If the Zhents and Red Wizards were really as idiotic as they are portrayed in the novels, then the organizations would have collapsed long ago.
Really, all you need is one wizard who is a worshiper of Red Knight, and they'd instantly have the "ah-ha!" moment. Look at Circle Magic. The concept of wizards working together to achieve great things already exists.
Circle Magic achieves a pretty specific effect, and isn't generally that useful to battlefields unless you're trying to avoid having spells countered and the like... it would be in fact a rather large waste of effort and resources in most circumstances, a bit like bringing a 155mm howitzer to a knife fight.
As to an arcane devotee of Red Knight, I'm sure they do exist. But I'm also pretty sure that they haven't quite gotten to the point where they start seeing their full potential. To go back to that world wars example, during the first world war, artillery wasn't used nearly as effectively as it might have been in a lot of respects, and was largely used as a blunt weapon... during world war two, its doctrinal applications were improved upon to include it during mobile warfare (which in an of itself was considered dead when cavalry was proven supremely vulnerable to the machine gun, even with tanks around by most military thinkers outside of a few) and became much more flexible (read lightweight in a lot of respects) in terms of how it could be used.
At the time it was very cutting edge and considered revolutionary... nowadays, we look back on it as largely simplistic and unrefined. And in 50 years, someone else will be doing the same thing to the tactics and doctrine invented and used today. My point is that military thinking is a relatively slow process, and what seems patently obvious from a modern perspective, requires a very fundamental shift in the way the world is looked at and defined to be properly formulated.
Also, while it is true that many wizards would be of low level, we also know that magical items can be created in abundant numbers by groups such as the Red Wizards.
Imagine this scenario: You have a group of fifteen low level wizards. Ignore the fact that they could potentially use spells like fly, let's keep it simple. They are treated as light calvary archers, and as a result are highly maneuverable and specialize in close range hit and run tactics.
Each of those fifteen wizards possess a wand. For simplicity we'll simply assume it's a wand of fireball. However, it could also be a wand of fear or alternatively the types of wands could be mixed up among the wizards.
You know, one of the reasons those special Hawkwinter horses are so valued is that they don't freak out when spells are cast from their riders... which is something I think that's been overlooked. In order to maintain mobile warfare and the efficacy of your own cavalry, you're gonna have to leash your wizards to keep them from freaking out the horses in a lot of respects. I have a feeling that most rulers just couldn't think of things military without thinking of cavalry... sure, they seem outdated and obsolete in the face of arcane firepower, but for sheer mass mobility, there's no other games in town, and rendering them useless on a battlefield is something I doubt most rulers would do. As strange as it might sound, I have a feeling most would see massed cavalry as considerably more useful than almost any unit of mages... and considerably less expensive and potentially threatening to their own troops.
In battle they'd be focused on assaults on the flanks and rear, while the opposing force is focused upon the main infantry. They'd charge forward to close quickly into range, use a charge of their wand, and then quickly retreat. This would cause a force to either route (especially if fear was used), or fall in toward its center. That in turn would allow the infantry to close in around the opposing force and essentially slaughter them.
Tactics such as the use of a phalanx might prove useful, especially if the terrain is favorable. However, then you have to take into consideration spells such as levitate and fly, allowing the wizard to easily overcome such an obstacle.
Unless of course the opposing infantry decided to disperse instead to limit the efficacy of those area attacks... with something like a phalanx though, a simple Stinking Cloud or Cloud of Bewilderment could nullify any advantages it posed. And the same could be done to you... leading me towards the conclusion that mages left out of combat is possibly intentional, rather like an arms race that no one really is all that interested in getting into, probably even the wizards themselves for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is leaving themselves vulnerable once they were out of spells to a bunch of fearful soldiers who might decide they were too dangerous to allow to leave the battlefield.
Of course, it could also have something to do with the historical precedent of the Rotting Wars as well, a situation most would be rather desperate to avoid I'm sure.
The problem, you see, is not that many wizards do not think this way, it is the fact that once it is done successfully you are faced with one or two situations. First, you're either going to have them become so successfully that they have the ability to conquer the majority of Faerûn. Second, you're going to see such tactics spread like wildfire almost immediately. No nation, kingdom, or city-state is going to want to be caught without their own wizards to counter their enemies wizards.
It's a bit like the introduction of gunpowder. Whomever comes up with it first is going to dominate the others.
Again, leading to the ever-escalating and very uncertain situation of a magical arms race... a sitauation that would probably bankrupt most nations and make spellcasters very hated, something I suspect many of them would like to avoid. Toss in the time consuming issues of manuever/counter-maneuver that would come into play, and it becomes a very negative game for most wizards to engage in.
Add in the potential devastation and disruption to trade that would come from large-scale magical warfare, and you only have a recipe for disaster. Which would rather postulate the existance of something of a magical cold war going on in a lot of respects, where it becomes more like a shadow war going on in the background rather than something fought on battlefields. An arcane version of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine so to speak.
My problem is that it is so obvious, and the institutions for it to take place already exist, that it is improbable and unlikely that no one has thought of it by now. Let alone the fact that it is not actively being used.
Additionally, this completely ignores the impact of high level wizards. A single high level wizard, if properly equiped and prepared, could take out an entire "normal" army alone.
Which could be the entire reason it hasn't happened really... if one views spellcasters as the tactical nukes of the Realms, with archmages being the ICBM's.
Though Red Wizard and Elven Avenger raise good points as well. I'd probably toss in economic cost as well being another potential reason in and of itself.
As for the situation with horses, I can't imagine any military making active use of horses that are not trained for war. Warhorses are not only bred for temperament, but also trained for it as well. If you have a normal, standard warhorse that doesn't go crazy when you're in the middle of battle, it's likely that the same horse is suitable for a wizard. Even if not, there is no reason it cannot be trained to be, UNLESS it is a stated fact in the setting that all animals go berserk when magic is used nearby. I am not aware that such is the case, however.
Even so, you still have wizards who can fly and what not. Most of the arguments made by Red Wizard and ElvenAvenger are negated by the introduction of wands. I find it highly unlikely that most wizards are going to place themselves in a situation in which they expend all their spells in a relative short amount of time and leave themselves vulnerable. When that happens it is normally an act of last resort.
In reality, instead of riding horses, if wizards were used in a military setting, you'd see them flying above the battlefield, swooping down to unleash all sorts of hell from wands, and then flying back up again out of range of archers. They would also likely have various arcane protections that would allow them to better dodge arrows... all of which does not take into account spells specifically developed for large battlefields and not skirmish combat.
I would view the expenditure of resources on wands no different than expenditures on siege weapons, or good armor and weapons for soldiers. A handful of well trained and equipped battle wizards easily compensates for hundreds of ordinary soldiers.
A huge part of warfare is discipline and the sheer fact that wizards have the ability to unleash area effecting spells that can break discipline makes them army slayers.
----
My principle point is this: Wizards and their effects on the world were not SERIOUSLY taken into consideration when world building for the Forgotten Realms.
----
Imagine the following scenario. You have a single moderately powerful wizard who has a Mother Cyst and the spells that relate to it. An army is marching through a rocky mountain pass. High up there is our wizard, unseen by the army as they march. Suddenly, the soldiers hear a loud roar coming from the sky. They look up and the entire horizon is a sea of blackness moving quickly toward them. It soon becomes evident that it is not a cloud, but thousands upon thousands of crows each one infected with a necrotic cyst and under the control of a single wizard.
The crows scream loudly as they begin to descend upon the army. They peck at their faces, their horses, anything not covered by metal. Panic spreads quickly through both man and horse alike. As soon as a soldier strikes one crow dead there is another, and another, and another.
Imagine, perhaps, a herd of buffalo, also infected racing down the pass, charging full steam ahead in a stampede, directly toward the soldiers.
Then imagine that this same wizard casts Transmute Rock to Mud on the adjacent rock face, causing a mud slide to fall into the pass. Then imagine once the mud has blocked the passage, the wizard casting Transmute Mud to Rock, to turn it back into rock. Or just imagine the wizard casting Wall of Stone or Wall of Force instead of the transmute spells. In doing this the wizard effectively blocks any retreat by the army, ensuring that they are more-or-less crushed to death by buffalo or pecked to death by crows.
The single wizard could wipe out an entire army in that pass.
Of course, that would be a waste of a perfectly good army. While out on the march the wizard could easily mingle among them unseen while they are at their camp, and infect their commanders / general with the cyst and completely dominate him. Stalling the army by controlling the commander, he could then slowly begin to infect virtually everyone with the cyst, employing the help of already infected members, until he has complete and total control of the entire army.
That is just a sample of what a moderately powerful wizard could potentially do.
All parties involved have usually already come to their own conclusions, and very little can be done to change their minds.
On the other hand, I'm really tempted to do something with that pic I posted earlier... I have a funny concept in mind... :D
For wizards flying and laying seige you must also relize that this can be solved by useing wizards as well or troops on griffions or giant eagels which many armies in FR have. Sure wands are powerful and most wizards would have them. However, said wand could still be dispelled or absorbed.
Now dont get me wrong wizards do have their place on the battlefeild but they wont be the main focus of an army no matter their power. You get enough wizards together you can cause great destruction. However you must relize that FR is a realm of magic and magic creatures. So you might have wizards but the oposing side has dragons. So wizards arnt the dues ex machina people think they would be.
Well I'm not dening the senareio you are playing out. However you need to keep in mind that said army also have there own wizards who can counter the spell.
That's not Stigger's argument. His argument is that wizards have not yet realized that working together would be effective, and thus there are very few groups of wizards who work together in a military like setting.
Go back and read his posts in the thread. :P
This thread evolved out of a discussion in another thread.
Basically, if we want to get to the absolute root of my point of view:
D&D is not a wargame. It is designed to be a skirmish game. The way the game system is designed, particularly how power scales via levels, is not / was not taken into account when world building for FR. If someone were to look at the setting logically, there are many different things that simply would not exist / could not work / does not make sense. The use of wizards and warfare is the context in which this is being argued.
It could just as well be argued that a high-epic Fighter could solo an entire army, provided that he is properly equipped with the right magic items, and that a wizard of near-equal level is not around to fight him.
Contrast the world building for FR in this regard to say, Eberron, which obviously tried to take the D&D system into account.
The issue at hand is not wizards in and of themselves, it is the rules of the gaming system not applying intelligently to the setting. It's a bit like having a physics textbook tell you that gravity makes things float, and the objects are held in the air by invisible strings.
Economic cost is rather irrelevant, considering the fact that if there is an ongoing war in your nation, then trade is already disrupted. That gives an even higher motivation to use wizards - particularly powerful wizards - to end the war quickly.
That depends on how the war is being fought, and to what degree... as well as, most importantly really, what resources the nations have at hand or that they can get their hands on under the circumstances. Its not like you just pop on down to ItemCrafters'R'Us and pick up the stuff to make the wand, or whatever really, from. There's a lot of variables that could be at work there to make one option more attractive than another at different times.
As for the situation with horses, I can't imagine any military making active use of horses that are not trained for war. Warhorses are not only bred for temperament, but also trained for it as well. If you have a normal, standard warhorse that doesn't go crazy when you're in the middle of battle, it's likely that the same horse is suitable for a wizard. Even if not, there is no reason it cannot be trained to be, UNLESS it is a stated fact in the setting that all animals go berserk when magic is used nearby. I am not aware that such is the case, however.
Note I said 'cast from', not cast near. Bit of a difference there. And I didn't say they couldn't be trained to, obviously they can if the various novels featuring war wizards are to be believed, just that the Hawkwinters are much better suited than most. The blue-eyed infravision (was a 2e source obviously) didn't hurt much either.
As to my later points on horses, that was centered more around the idea of machine-gun/artillery versus cavalry that generally ended disastrously for said cavalry.
Even so, you still have wizards who can fly and what not. Most of the arguments made by Red Wizard and ElvenAvenger are negated by the introduction of wands. I find it highly unlikely that most wizards are going to place themselves in a situation in which they expend all their spells in a relative short amount of time and leave themselves vulnerable. When that happens it is normally an act of last resort.
In reality, instead of riding horses, if wizards were used in a military setting, you'd see them flying above the battlefield, swooping down to unleash all sorts of hell from wands, and then flying back up again out of range of archers. They would also likely have various arcane protections that would allow them to better dodge arrows... all of which does not take into account spells specifically developed for large battlefields and not skirmish combat.
Economy of effort says they'd be riding to my mind. With flight, you have the spell to fly, you have the spells to keep you protected, and then you have the offensive spells available. Its much easier to ride the horse and use cavalry or infantry to screen you than to fly around, vulnerable to any dispel magic that gets lobbed your way downing and killing you in relatively short order. Aerial mounts... yeah, I could see that, but not spell driven flight.
I would view the expenditure of resources on wands no different than expenditures on siege weapons, or good armor and weapons for soldiers. A handful of well trained and equipped battle wizards easily compensates for hundreds of ordinary soldiers.
A huge part of warfare is discipline and the sheer fact that wizards have the ability to unleash area effecting spells that can break discipline makes them army slayers.
A lot of what you're saying here depends largely on the priorities of the nation as to what is worth what in terms of expenditures. Certainly the cost is likely similar, but there's also the point that those soldiers can be in more places and in a lot of respects do more useful things (and be willing to do much more plebian, and hence useful) things as well. Some would see the cost as worth it, some wouldn't.
I do agree that they are indeed army slayers though, at least at high levels, or at least potentially could be if they coordinated their efforts better than they seem to.
My principle point is this: Wizards and their effects on the world were not SERIOUSLY taken into consideration when world building for the Forgotten Realms.
Or they were for when the setting was conceived, and perhaps you're viewing them through too modern a lense and in some respects out of context. Just consider the technology available when the Realms were first built... the pace of life, the view gamers had of magic, where they placed their heirarchy of might, and how they tended to view magic as being a fairly scarce commodity... for its era, the Realms was incredibly magic heavy, but it was a conservative, slow, bolt-action rifle with the heavy trigger pull view of magic, not the rapid-fire hair-trigger assault-rifle view of magic we tend to have today.
Trying to reconcile that view from the past with a more modern one isn't really that smart of a thing to do in my book. Personally, my own view is that they should have just reinvented the Realms, chucked the history down a well, and just started over to take full advantage of the modern notions of magic and combat when they launched the 4e Realms, and not even bothered with acknowledging the past in any way shape or form... kind of like the Ultimates series from Marvel.
Imagine the following scenario.
That is just a sample of what a moderately powerful wizard could potentially do.
Mother Cysts... just ick. Just a FYI, I refuse to acknowledge that bit of Libris Mortis as ever having been published. ;)
Sounds a bit... stacked to me. My counter would be sure, they could... but would they even think of doing so? Obviously I'd say no they wouldn't, and I'm gathering you would probably say yes they would, so that leaves us with a bit of an impasse.
What it comes down to for me at this point, is two very different views of the Realms, and to gaming in general really. My preference is to take things within their own context, to not apply modern reasoning and thought to them, and to adapt my style to their context as much as possible... call it simulationist, call it Fred, doesn't matter to me, but that's the way I tend to view things.
I'm guessing that you prefer to apply a more modern outlook to things, and don't really bother with the dated and obsolete way of thinking approach to things that I prefer.
Which is fine for both us really, but it doesn't make for too many agreements on debates like this one. :D
I do agree that they are indeed army slayers though, at least at high levels, or at least potentially could be if they coordinated their efforts better than they seem to.
That was my point. That and to point out that you were wrong about the majority of wizards learning through a mostly master / apprentice relationship. (And out of all the examples I gave I completely forgot about Halruaa. I also didn't mention the Shades.)
But anyway, your quote is more-or-less what I was saying about wizards. Our disagreement then is not that such a thing isn't possible, just that (from your point of view) isn't conceivable to the wizards of Toril.
I disagree, and here is my reasoning: Wizards are supposed to be among the most intelligent people around. There is no reason that they could not have easily put one and one together and figured out that it equaled two. They know that powerful wizards are virtually gods among mortals. If one wizard is that powerful, then two are even more powerful than one. Therefore, if the two coordinate themselves they'd be even more powerful than if they worked separately (although even if they did not work together they'd still almost certainly win).
Players are going to approach the game from that mindset. They are going to play their characters from that mindset. So, to take your point of view, the players are essentially not playing their characters correctly because they are not acting within the context of the times the game is currently set in.
Even from your point of view it doesn't make sense. Your argument would really only make sense if magic were a recent phenomena. It is not. It has been around for thousands of years. Virtually every wizard knows about the wondrous things accomplished by Netheril and likely also knows about the amazing things accomplished by High Elven magic. You are essentially saying that for some reason, for thousands of years, out of the hundreds of thousands of battles fought across Toril, that the most intelligent people around never had a common sense "ah-ha!" moment.
However, even then the argument fails because of examples such as the War Wizards and Red Griffin legion of Thay. From my prospective, you are not looking at things "within their own context", but applying context to something that inherently just doesn't make sense. It's trying to rationalize.
That is my problem with your argument. :P
Now you were saying that PCs arnt playing in charecter. You need to remember that Adventures and PCs are the exception not the norm. I will say this again almost all wizards are not trained for battle or tactics as you might belive. Now the war wizards are an exception. Now if you also look on a wizard is a god at higher levels couldnt the same be said for a Druid? Why arnt Druids going around and takeing over everything like you say. How about a cleric? They can request devestating spells and can heal themselves to boot. How come they arnt takeing over places.
The point is Wizards while powerful in there own right arnt the only fish in the sea. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective in that wizards are the most powerful being on the planet the point is they arnt.
You seem to be misreading what I wrote.
1. I never said that Wizard's didn't have the magic "ah-ha!" moment, Stigger is the one arguing that point. My argument is that they DID.
2. I never said that players weren't playing in character. I was using Stigger's argument to say that, if what he believes is true, then players would in fact be meta-gaming. (Using their knowledge of "modern outlook / lenses / notion / reasoning" (all words Stigger used) to give them an unfair advantage over NPC's who'd lack it.)
3. I am also not arguing that Wizards are the "only fish in the sea." They are merely being used as an example here. However, the difference between a wizard, cleric and druid, is the fact that the wizard has no one to answer to but himself. The druid has various nature related oaths, as well as a deity to serve, and the cleric has a dogma and a deity to serve. In effect, they are both answering to someone more powerful than them, with the capability of cutting them off completely from their power. Wizards do not face such consequences, which is why they lend themselves so well to the arguments I have been making.
That said, I don't really want to touch on everything point for point in this thread, mainly because I'm not that invested in it. This is by no means a cop out, or poking of the fire, just a friendly two cents on the matter.
That said, I'd not mind discussing it in a more real time manner, so if you are curious, bothered, annoyed, angered by this, I'm always on MSN, and I'd be happy to continue this there.
-RW
That was my point. That and to point out that you were wrong about the majority of wizards learning through a mostly master / apprentice relationship. (And out of all the examples I gave I completely forgot about Halruaa. I also didn't mention the Shades.)
Page 92 of the FRCS tells me that I'm not incorrect about the master/apprentice relationship... nowhere in there does it even bring up the idea of large-scale magical academies or schools outside of a few exceptional places, Halruaa and Nimbral being the most obvious.
But anyway, your quote is more-or-less what I was saying about wizards. Our disagreement then is not that such a thing isn't possible, just that (from your point of view) isn't conceivable to the wizards of Toril.
I disagree, and here is my reasoning: Wizards are supposed to be among the most intelligent people around. There is no reason that they could not have easily put one and one together and figured out that it equaled two. They know that powerful wizards are virtually gods among mortals. If one wizard is that powerful, then two are even more powerful than one. Therefore, if the two coordinate themselves they'd be even more powerful than if they worked separately (although even if they did not work together they'd still almost certainly win).
And its that ability to dominate that gives them little incentive to work together or to radically innovate. Why bother? To what end? Nothing out there can challenge you truly, outside of a dragon or another spellcaster... why invite another spellcaster in, let them see all your secrets and tricks, and essentially invite them to stab you in the back? There's just no reason to improve or innovate (towards a more cooperative model anyway) when you're on the top of the food chain and nothing else is really a serious challenge outside of your own group. The fact that the most serious threat you face is from people with the same skill set you have is reason enough not to cooperate and form groups past a certain point... and even then you're looking at the least for potential threats and how best to face them from within that group, so you're never going to truly achieve a cohesive level of cooperation and coordination.
Relatively harmonious groups of mages within that social context are in anything a societal aberration, not the norm.
Players are going to approach the game from that mindset. They are going to play their characters from that mindset. So, to take your point of view, the players are essentially not playing their characters correctly because they are not acting within the context of the times the game is currently set in.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. That's the Role Playing part of the game to my mind... its not just the dressing of the character, its the societal attitudes and perspectives as well. Within that context, the Realms does make sense.
Having said that, I can understand and see how they would make no sense when viewed from a modern perspective and sense of expectations of progress and societal change. It should only take x number of years for x number of changes to occur, since it happened that way here. And that makes sense from a certain point of view. I don't agree with that point of view, obviously, since many of those changes occurred within a particular societal context that demanded those changes to happen, not for their own sake, but because the social order began to fall apart and something new was needed. Prior to that, there was no incentive for radical change (why society remained largely stagnant for a long stretch of time, with changes measured in centuries), and so radical change didn't happen. When the corruption level became obvious to even the lowest peasant, and the essential breakdown and failure of the social framework became unignorable, then we saw large-scale progress. Until that happens on Faerun, which you could probably view the Spellplague as, there's just no reason for that change to happen (yes, I know, ToT, but I see that as more of a reinforcement of the status quo myself).
Even from your point of view it doesn't make sense. Your argument would really only make sense if magic were a recent phenomena. It is not. It has been around for thousands of years. Virtually every wizard knows about the wondrous things accomplished by Netheril and likely also knows about the amazing things accomplished by High Elven magic. You are essentially saying that for some reason, for thousands of years, out of the hundreds of thousands of battles fought across Toril, that the most intelligent people around never had a common sense "ah-ha!" moment.
Of course they had those "ah-ha!" moments. They just didn't have them in the way you expect them to. Those moments took the form of more personal-level improvements, stuff like the streamlining of metamagic and item creation, the crafting of new spells, new approaches to magic, and new ways of looking at and explaining the Art. As I said before, there was little reason to form cohesive group efforts, and more reason not to.
Even in referring to Netheril, how many view them as mages working harmoniously and peacefully together to achieve something greater? I'd bet not many... Elven High Magic, yeah, true. But how much respect do most folks seem to really have for the elven mindset and perspective? Or is it a case of wanting their secrets, but none of the actual lessons that come from those secrets? I'd say the latter myself...
However, even then the argument fails because of examples such as the War Wizards and Red Griffin legion of Thay. From my prospective, you are not looking at things "within their own context", but applying context to something that inherently just doesn't make sense. It's trying to rationalize.
That is my problem with your argument. :P
As I said, aberrations on a social level. You're speaking of exceptions to the rule, not examples of the norm. Just consider the Griffin legions actual performance record... or did I miss something and not get the memo of Aglarond's or Rasheman's recent conquest by Thay? Its more suprising the experiment hasn't been abandoned really... ;)
We're having a debate over at least several different issues, all closely related, yet distinctly separate.
Page 92 of the FRCS tells me that I'm not incorrect about the master/apprentice relationship... nowhere in there does it even bring up the idea of large-scale magical academies or schools outside of a few exceptional places, Halruaa and Nimbral being the most obvious.
This was (and still is) my claim on wizard training: Most kingdoms / nations / large city-states have at least one prominent magical academy of sorts. They are almost always found within large cities, typically capital cities. In the more rural areas you'll most likely find a lone wizard with one or two (sometimes maybe as many as five) apprentices. HOWEVER, the best training is most likely found at the larger academies.
Here is your claim (as I understand it): Magical academies are rare, and most wizards learn in a traditional master / apprentice relationship.
To be truthful, neither of us can really attest to how many wizards are trained where. There are no hard and fast numbers. However, looking at page 92 of the FRCS, the following paragraph is extremely important.
"This means apprenticeship - a term of service during which the novice serves a master under whatever conditions the two of them agree upon in return for being taught magic. Usually the terms are stipulated in a contract made before a local ruler, mage guild, or temple of Mystra or Azuth."
I am not seeing how page 92 disproves anything that I've said. It seems to back up what I've stated. Let's take Halruaa as an example. There are obviously magical academies there (as we both agreed). Within those academies there are trained wizards who are teachers. Those who are to be trained would be considered apprentices, and they'd likely be trained by one wizard, with perhaps a few lessons from one or two others.
The larger point to be made is that once those apprentices are fully trained, they then almost certainly graduate and become journeymen members of the academy / guild. It likely works this way among the War Wizards, it certainly works this way among the Red Wizards, so on and so forth.
The question then becomes what happens to those wizards once they become full members of the academy / guild. I am willing to concede that some of them likely eventually go their own way, but not the majority of them. Thus, having a close working relationship with members of the academy / guild, also gives us a basis to establish trust. Which counters the argument you made in the beginning of this thread (and your next statement related to it):
They just don't trust each other enough to work in groups for extended periods of time before backstabbing and treachery come into play, at least not without someone who is clearly dominant and utterly ruthless to enforce obedience upon them.
And its that ability to dominate that gives them little incentive to work together or to radically innovate. Why bother? To what end? Nothing out there can challenge you truly, outside of a dragon or another spellcaster... why invite another spellcaster in, let them see all your secrets and tricks, and essentially invite them to stab you in the back? There's just no reason to improve or innovate (towards a more cooperative model anyway) when you're on the top of the food chain and nothing else is really a serious challenge outside of your own group. The fact that the most serious threat you face is from people with the same skill set you have is reason enough not to cooperate and form groups past a certain point... and even then you're looking at the least for potential threats and how best to face them from within that group, so you're never going to truly achieve a cohesive level of cooperation and coordination.
That is not making sense in the context of what I was talking about. I was speaking of truly epic level wizards, who by themselves are virtually gods among mortals. Those types of wizards only make up a small fraction of the number of wizards in Faerûn. A very small and marginalized faction, despite the fact that they are super powerful. And many of them are exactly as you described them, yet many are not. Need I mention the Chosen of Mystra as a prime example? What about Elven High Mages?
The vast majority of wizards on Faerûn are 10th level and under. Many leaders of mage guilds / academies are likely 15th level, barely. A leader could even be 12th level. That is the power scale we are dealing with when speaking of wizards working cooperatively together in a military setting.
In a normal military setting, an extremely powerful wizard really does not NEED to work with anyone else. They can wipe out an entire army alone by themselves. The reason they can do that is because 99.9% of the soldiers they are facing are under level 3... and they're roughly level 20, perhaps 25 or higher. Increase that armies level to be roughly 15th level on average (with level appropriate equipment) and you'd have a completely different outcome, regardless if they had wizards with them or not.
Thus, when I am talking about wizards serving together cooperatively in a military setting, I'm talking about wizards who are of similar level to the soldiers they serve with – between levels 1 and 10 on the upper end. Using the 3E rules, level 5 or 6 is the tipping point, where a character with a PC class really steps out and becomes "heroic" in scope, capable of doing things ordinary folk could not.
It is for the same reason that an epic level fighter can theoretically also solo kill an army – he is facing 1st to 3rd level opponents, with a general most likely being 10th level.
This argument leads us right back to what I said in the previous thread before this one about the root cause of this issue being the way power scales in D&D. So far, absolutely no one has touched the root of the argument, and instead has opted to argue on the peripheral of it.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. That's the Role Playing part of the game to my mind... its not just the dressing of the character, its the societal attitudes and perspectives as well. Within that context, the Realms does make sense.
If that were the case, I wouldn't have much problem with it. We would not be here debating it. Nothing I have seen in the FRCS or any FR product has really addressed the issue head on. My problem with this is, unless it is specifically stated, players -are- going to approach it from a modern stand point.
They are going to do things that, essentially using your argument, that no one else has thought about. It seems fundamentally unfair to the NPC's of the world to have the players operate on one level and them on another. Players will then view the world as I have described it: illogical.
Anyway, I think I've been clear previously on this point.
As I said, aberrations on a social level. You're speaking of exceptions to the rule, not examples of the norm. Just consider the Griffin legions actual performance record... or did I miss something and not get the memo of Aglarond's or Rasheman's recent conquest by Thay? Its more suprising the experiment hasn't been abandoned really...
It's not my fault TSR and WotC screwed over the Red Wizards. :P
I have rarely heard of a novel or anything really that painted a Red Wizard with any actual intelligence. How many times are they going to throw an army against the Watch Wall before it sinks into their stupid heads that such a tactic just isn't going to work? :P
And as for Rashemen, they have ONLY been successful against Thay because the Wychlaran actually work together, despite being vastly out numbered.
Ugh. This is so frustrating. :P
We're having a debate over at least several different issues, all closely related, yet distinctly separate.
Yeah, its getting there... but I'm a sucker for punishment, so here we go again. :evillaugh
This was (and still is) my claim on wizard training: Most kingdoms / nations / large city-states have at least one prominent magical academy of sorts. They are almost always found within large cities, typically capital cities. In the more rural areas you'll most likely find a lone wizard with one or two (sometimes maybe as many as five) apprentices. HOWEVER, the best training is most likely found at the larger academies.
I'd probably agree that the larger academies are where the best training are available... depending on how we're describing academies (more on that later).
Here is your claim (as I understand it): Magical academies are rare, and most wizards learn in a traditional master / apprentice relationship.
In a nutshell, yes.
To be truthful, neither of us can really attest to how many wizards are trained where. There are no hard and fast numbers. However, looking at page 92 of the FRCS, the following paragraph is extremely important.
"This means apprenticeship - a term of service during which the novice serves a master under whatever conditions the two of them agree upon in return for being taught magic. Usually the terms are stipulated in a contract made before a local ruler, mage guild, or temple of Mystra or Azuth."
I am not seeing how page 92 disproves anything that I've said. It seems to back up what I've stated. Let's take Halruaa as an example. There are obviously magical academies there (as we both agreed). Within those academies there are trained wizards who are teachers. Those who are to be trained would be considered apprentices, and they'd likely be trained by one wizard, with perhaps a few lessons from one or two others.
And I'd say I don't see how it doesn't. When I think of the word academy, I tend to think of enrolling in a school (not with a single teacher), with a set curriculum, multiple specialized instructors, and an environment largely free of distraction so that the student can focus upon their studies. At best, the closest thing to academy that that section points towards is multiple masters operating from the same facility, with little changed from the traditional master/apprentice dynamic beyond surroundings.
The larger point to be made is that once those apprentices are fully trained, they then almost certainly graduate and become journeymen members of the academy / guild. It likely works this way among the War Wizards, it certainly works this way among the Red Wizards, so on and so forth.
The question then becomes what happens to those wizards once they become full members of the academy / guild. I am willing to concede that some of them likely eventually go their own way, but not the majority of them. Thus, having a close working relationship with members of the academy / guild, also gives us a basis to establish trust. Which counters the argument you made in the beginning of this thread (and your next statement related to it):
Guild, certainly. Academy... as I said, I don't see one actually existing in an identifiable form, beyond perhaps a shared library. At best, you're looking at proto-academies, but its not quite at a formal effective academic institution level just yet by all appearances, at least not in most places, though I'm sure a few exceptions probably exist, Silverymoon coming to mind most readily.
That is not making sense in the context of what I was talking about. I was speaking of truly epic level wizards, who by themselves are virtually gods among mortals. Those types of wizards only make up a small fraction of the number of wizards in Faerûn. A very small and marginalized faction, despite the fact that they are super powerful. And many of them are exactly as you described them, yet many are not. Need I mention the Chosen of Mystra as a prime example? What about Elven High Mages?
And the Chosen of Mystra often don't pool their efforts in concert in anything but the most direct ways. Certainly they can and have, but generally speaking, they don't. As to Elven High Magi, as I think I said, I don't recall one way or another, they're an exception to an otherwise fairly solid rule. And to be honest, I think it does apply to those mages inclined towards battle-magic, regardless of level.
The vast majority of wizards on Faerûn are 10th level and under. Many leaders of mage guilds / academies are likely 15th level, barely. A leader could even be 12th level. That is the power scale we are dealing with when speaking of wizards working cooperatively together in a military setting.
In a normal military setting, an extremely powerful wizard really does not NEED to work with anyone else. They can wipe out an entire army alone by themselves. The reason they can do that is because 99.9% of the soldiers they are facing are under level 3... and they're roughly level 20, perhaps 25 or higher. Increase that armies level to be roughly 15th level on average (with level appropriate equipment) and you'd have a completely different outcome, regardless if they had wizards with them or not.
Thus, when I am talking about wizards serving together cooperatively in a military setting, I'm talking about wizards who are of similar level to the soldiers they serve with – between levels 1 and 10 on the upper end. Using the 3E rules, level 5 or 6 is the tipping point, where a character with a PC class really steps out and becomes "heroic" in scope, capable of doing things ordinary folk could not.
It is for the same reason that an epic level fighter can theoretically also solo kill an army – he is facing 1st to 3rd level opponents, with a general most likely being 10th level.
This argument leads us right back to what I said in the previous thread before this one about the root cause of this issue being the way power scales in D&D. So far, absolutely no one has touched the root of the argument, and instead has opted to argue on the peripheral of it.
Which brings up the idea of just how many are actually interested in battle magic... much less warfare. Probably not the majority of them I'd say, given their academic inclination... higher percentage among sorcerers of course, but given the egos they seem to have, I could see them more opting for the mercenary route, rather than that of the traditional military heirarchy, as primitive as it may be in Faerun.
So yes, at those low levels, there would be an incentive for cooperation, at least until they were powerful enough to get the hell away from each other. But again, you run up into that wall of doctrinal refinement versus actual potential. Toss in the element of not wanting to be too noticeably better to avoid some larger wizard popping in to destroy you before you become a threat, and the incentive still isn't there by and large. That they could conceivably do so on a theoretical level I don't really argue, I argue that they would on an applicable level.
As to how power scales, I was trying to avoid that issue intentionally actually, to stay away from a "3e magic sux/4e magic sux" line of debate with some of the folks around here.
If that were the case, I wouldn't have much problem with it. We would not be here debating it. Nothing I have seen in the FRCS or any FR product has really addressed the issue head on. My problem with this is, unless it is specifically stated, players -are- going to approach it from a modern stand point.
They are going to do things that, essentially using your argument, that no one else has thought about. It seems fundamentally unfair to the NPC's of the world to have the players operate on one level and them on another. Players will then view the world as I have described it: illogical.
Anyway, I think I've been clear previously on this point.
I see it addressed in most respects in the historical events of the Realms... the idea of it is plastered plain as day all over the place, at least it is to me. I agree its never explicitly stated one way or another, probably quite intentionally. Maybe its just the criteria we're judging things on, but from a social level, I see the presence of magic very much taken into account, not just arcane, but divine as well. Do keep in mind though that I agree on some level, which I'll go into at the bottom there.
It takes things from the previous view of D&D, where magic was a costly and in a lot of respects vaguely untrusted thing, not well understood or comprehended by those outside of the Art. Its not unlike Special Operations Units in the US prior to the establishment of SOCOM... sure we had the capability, but it wasn't employed nearly as well as it could have been, despite having pretty impressive capabilities anyway.
To look at it from a slightly different perspective, consider German commandos during WW2... they were highly effective, brilliant, and capably led. But there weren't standing commando units at all, with parachute and mountain infantry being the closest thing they had. All of those incredibly impressive units, like the ones who took Eban Emael in Belgium, were ad hoc units with personnel just tossed together for a single operation and then sent back to their individual units. It should have been obvious that keeping them together was a good idea, but for whatever reason, some political, it just wasn't done.
Bafflingly stupid to a modern mind, but at the time, it made sense. Which is kind of my point... and why I would have rather had the Realms reinvented for 4e to address that issue most effectively.
It's not my fault TSR and WotC screwed over the Red Wizards. :P
Actually, it is your fault. They did it just to spite you, specifically. Well done you. :P
I have rarely heard of a novel or anything really that painted a Red Wizard with any actual intelligence. How many times are they going to throw an army against the Watch Wall before it sinks into their stupid heads that such a tactic just isn't going to work? :P
And as for Rashemen, they have ONLY been successful against Thay because the Wychlaran actually work together, despite being vastly out numbered.
The way villainry must suffer to maintain the status quo... but that was the way things were done when the setting was first created, certain assumptions on the way the world worked. Naive and hopelessly stupid by todays thinking, but oh well, that was the way things were back then. Much like the lack of standing German commando units, it made sense at the time...
Thank you 4e!!!
Did/does Halruaa have schools of magic? I thougt they did, organized along the actual schools of magic. I may just be thinking of how I pictured it (there is a Feat that seems to imply this). I know Thay had the traditional approach, despite having its Zulkirs organized along school lines.
Now back to my topic....
Thank you 4e!!
Add-in Megolomania, Paranoia, Obssession, etc, etc...
You can see why the longer they live, the more unhinged they become.
Most of them are mad....right now....I remember reading about the novel Netheril where this archwizard named Candlemas travelled into the future to find his once beautiful and very powerful mentor (Lady Polaris) turn into a heaping tub of lard who doesn't do anything but lie down on her bed and whine all day.
Candlemas said something about the limit of mages...And perhaps Polaris was a good example of it..
Larloch as well, Elminster is kinda bonkers too.
Although there are some exceptions to those rules, most long living wizards are always mad/crazy/ if not...then dead.
On another note, I'd prefer to leave the 3e Sux/4e Sux crap out of here, so bugger off with it. :P
Though since you brought it up, mages used to define their own reality. That's been reduced to "everyone's special, so no one is" lately though. :P
Some churches might come close to actually fulfilling the role of an academy. The Chruch of Azuth might have been quite far in the preaching for region scaled spread of magic education right before the Spellplague ruined it all. Mystra's clergy didn't actually condone callous training of the Arts, so she might have deliberatily opposed some academies forming. Azuths clergy have had some serious problems when trying to raise the funds for promoting the Art in expensively warded academic structures.
Wizard training (especially battlemagic) on Toril can be dangerous. I imagine the damage when things can go wrong whith fire and ice falling from the skies. I even think most wizards would consider training a sorcerous apprentice more dangerous. Sorcerers are supsequently usually avoided by teachers of the Art if the societal damage to object isn't too great.
A chance is most apprentice mages are nobleborn children of castellans, who might prefer their child to the proper amount of attention so one on one teaching seems more luctrative for the more greedy teaching wizards in Fearun.
Though since you brought it up, mages used to define their own reality. That's been reduced to "everyone's special, so no one is" lately though. :P
So now you're implying Buddy Pine (aka, Syndrome) is working on the WotC design team? :P
When I think of the word academy, I tend to think of enrolling in a school (not with a single teacher), with a set curriculum, multiple specialized instructors, and an environment largely free of distraction so that the student can focus upon their studies. At best, the closest thing to academy that that section points towards is multiple masters operating from the same facility, with little changed from the traditional master/apprentice dynamic beyond surroundings.
I think that this is where we're having our disconnect. I do not see an academy being like that at all. In fact, I see such methods as counter productive. It's not like High School or College, it's more like Primary School. You have a single teacher (more or less, three at max) who pretty much teaches you everything you need to know. You might occasionally learn something from another teacher (example: art class), but you're still going to have a primary teacher. The school (academy / guild) has a set of standards and things that each student needs to know.
Also, keep in mind, that in the VAST majority of cases people are going to be studying magic from about the age of five or six until the age of 16 (at the very least) BEFORE they can even really cast their first cantrip. Exceptions, of course, being those who are exceptionally talented and/or blessed by the gods in some way. If an adult, age 16 were to suddenly take up the study of magic, he would be 26 years old before he could cast his first cantrip on average. (Pg. 194, FRCS: "Halurrans receive public schooling until at least the age of thirteen. Screening for magical aptitude occurs at age five, and magic-capable students often master cantrips by the time they are fifteen.")
It's not as if you're an adult and enroll in the academy / guild. You're either selected or placed in it. Just like in the Middle Ages when extra children were sometimes shipped off to the church, some children, if they prove capable, may be shipped off to the Wizards academy / guild.
This of course is a generalization. In Halruaa and Silverymoon things are much more formal and open to the general population at large than in other areas. In most places it is largely informal, but should still be viewed as a collaborative effort to create a school and cohesive group. (Example: War Wizards & Red Wizards of Thay)
As to how power scales, I was trying to avoid that issue intentionally actually, to stay away from a "3e magic sux/4e magic sux" line of debate with some of the folks around here.
IMO, it has nothing to do with 3e vs 4e or magic at all, really. It has to do with the underlaying system. While it is true that 4e has helped in regard to toning down the wizard, it was not the sheer power of the wizard that makes them stand out - it was their flexibility. Although it is not often argued, if you put a level 25 Fighter who is properly equipped against an army (which is almost entirely made up of 1st and 2nd level soldiers) he is going to win.
It's the way the leveling scale works and how mass combat against opponents of different power levels that is the problem.
I think that this is where we're having our disconnect. I do not see an academy being like that at all. In fact, I see such methods as counter productive. It's not like High School or College, it's more like Primary School. You have a single teacher (more or less, three at max) who pretty much teaches you everything you need to know. You might occasionally learn something from another teacher (example: art class), but you're still going to have a primary teacher. The school (academy / guild) has a set of standards and things that each student needs to know.
And I would never think of that as an academy. My own view is closer to the way Hogwart's was envisioned in the novels. Anything else is pretty much just an evolutionary step towards actually being an academic institution without quite reaching it yet. Which is not to say they don't have educational value, but they aren't academies quite yet. So yeah, massive disconnect there for both of us.
Also, keep in mind, that in the VAST majority of cases people are going to be studying magic from about the age of five or six until the age of 16 (at the very least) BEFORE they can even really cast their first cantrip. Exceptions, of course, being those who are exceptionally talented and/or blessed by the gods in some way. If an adult, age 16 were to suddenly take up the study of magic, he would be 26 years old before he could cast his first cantrip on average. (Pg. 194, FRCS: "Halurrans receive public schooling until at least the age of thirteen. Screening for magical aptitude occurs at age five, and magic-capable students often master cantrips by the time they are fifteen.")
I honestly have never accepted that convention of D&D... that it takes a huge number of years before you start casting spells. It strikes me as mired in the idea of wizards as hopeless bookworms that really needs to be abandoned.
That it is the case in the Realms I don't dispute, but its an idea that I tend to blame on inefficient teaching methods rather than innate difficulty of the subject matter. That and there's a level of sadistic glee in having a servant at your beck and call that I think is involved, considering the tendency towards growing to hate your master often times. I think it was the relationship and development rate of mages like Shalara Malarkkin under Kappiyan Flurmaster's tutelege that gave me that impression... she was pretty young and very powerful, which seemed to be the case with a lot of his students, and left me with the idea that it was the Master holding the student back artificially more than anything else.
It's not as if you're an adult and enroll in the academy / guild. You're either selected or placed in it. Just like in the Middle Ages when extra children were sometimes shipped off to the church, some children, if they prove capable, may be shipped off to the Wizards academy / guild.
That would imply a level of academic/intelligence proficiency testing that I don't think any place out of Halruaa, and possibly Nimbral, could be said to have. I don't think the educational infrastructure exists much of anywhere else to even being that sort of testing for capability. Generally it struck me as a fairly hit or miss sort of thing, with more luck involved than anything else.
This of course is a generalization. In Halruaa and Silverymoon things are much more formal and open to the general population at large than in other areas. In most places it is largely informal, but should still be viewed as a collaborative effort to create a school and cohesive group. (Example: War Wizards & Red Wizards of Thay)
Ah, Silverymoon... I don't think its been stated that they have that formal a system just yet, but I would agree its fairly plain that their moving in that direction. Had I to make a guess, I'd say it was probably Silverymoon that would develop the first "real" (by my view) academy with The Lady's College, even before Halruaa did.
IMO, it has nothing to do with 3e vs 4e or magic at all, really. It has to do with the underlaying system. While it is true that 4e has helped in regard to toning down the wizard, it was not the sheer power of the wizard that makes them stand out - it was their flexibility. Although it is not often argued, if you put a level 25 Fighter who is properly equipped against an army (which is almost entirely made up of 1st and 2nd level soldiers) he is going to win.
It's the way the leveling scale works and how mass combat against opponents of different power levels that is the problem.
Ah, gotcha. Wasn't quite thinking of it in those terms, but I'd agree largely, despite thinking that spellcasters didn't need toning down. It is a strange idea that a level 25 anything could mechanically wipe the floor with a kingdom's entire army and come out effectively unscathed, at least according to the RAW.
And I would never think of that as an academy. My own view is closer to the way Hogwart's was envisioned in the novels.
I've never read the Harry Potter novels, or even seen the movies (it just never appealed to me)... so... I can't really comment on that. Although, I'm taking your meaning to imply that it was somewhat like a college education, or perhaps at the very least High School... which, as we've already established, is not how I view it at all.
Academy: "a group of authorities and leaders in a field of scholarship, art, etc., who are often permitted to dictate standards, prescribe methods, and criticize new ideas."
That is more-or-less how I was looking at it. Which is why I kept writing "guild / academy" - as I view the two as somewhat strongly linked together and almost interchangeable with notable exceptions.
I just don't envision learning the Art through multiple teachers as being very helpful. Although I think most groups (such as the War Wizards and Red Wizards) have certain standards and prescribed methods (as the definition speaks of above), and even examine new spells and ideas; I just do not see them as being completely universal across everything. For example, you could have two spells of magic missile, both would work, but one (to a highly trained wizard) would clearly be better than the other. There are different techniques and styles, and personal touches, etc. So in effect each new wizard trained carries on a little bit of their master's teaching in their own techniques and style. This is what I was thinking of when I made my comment about informal vs formal.
If two wizards were to suddenly face one another on the battle field, and were able to examine each others spell casting, and one had been familiar with the others teacher, it should be fairly evident who taught them.
At least, that is the way I always viewed magic. :P It was more like 1/2 art and 1/2 science.
I honestly have never accepted that convention of D&D... that it takes a huge number of years before you start casting spells. It strikes me as mired in the idea of wizards as hopeless bookworms that really needs to be abandoned.
I don't think you need to be a hopeless bookworm to be a wizard, but you do need to study and have a firm grasp of the fundamental principles of the Weave. Doing the things wizards do is not -easy-, and doing it wrong, I believe, could be dangerous to the Wizard and all around him.
I don't doubt that the way magic is taught has a great deal of variance on how fast a student can learn. The same applies to the raw potential, ability and determination of the student. It is the same in real life. I've had teachers who've simply sucked and it was hard to learn anything from, and then I've had other teachers that I've simply clicked with their style and methods and I picked up everything they taught me easily.
Ah, gotcha. Wasn't quite thinking of it in those terms, but I'd agree largely, despite thinking that spellcasters didn't need toning down. It is a strange idea that a level 25 anything could mechanically wipe the floor with a kingdom's entire army and come out effectively unscathed, at least according to the RAW.
It is strange, yes, which is why I keep going back to the fact that D&D is a game designed for skirmishes and not a wargame.
That was the crux of my original post that started this entire debate, in which I was simply using wizards as a prime example.
Essentially, if you take the system as is, without any modifications, and fill it with lots of high level characters you quickly run into a problem. You are essentially creating situations in which armies (as they are currently represented in the setting) are not needed. You could save tons of money by axing them and simply paying high level epic NPC's / PC's to defend your kingdom.
It was also a complaint that at a certain point the entire world begins to break down for the PC's. Eventually, you become so powerful and the rules allow you to do such amazing things as to be something beyond mortal. You could, theoretically, simply drop D&D and play Exalted at that point. You are essentially a quasi-deity.
Of course, I am well aware that it is the DM's role to keep such things in check by providing challenges to the PC's to keep them in check. However, the problem is essentially this: those things that keep the PC's in check had to exist BEFORE the PC's showed up. The setting does not take that into account.
At the heart of things, D&D does what it does rather well. It is a dungeon crawling game. That is not a slam on the system, because I like D&D, and if I want to play a game in which the players are exclusively focused upon adventure and dungeon crawling, D&D is the game I am most likely to choose. However, if I want a game that has rules for political intrigues, or is much more gritty with a less emphasis on magic, or a system that focuses on war between two nations I am likely going to be looking elsewhere.
It was just an observation about the setting. Even though it has included dungeons and such things, it did not take into account the way power scales, and the fact that yes – if I go by the rules and don't homebrew something, an epic level PC group CAN stand against an entire nations army, provided everyone in that army is of a realistic level portrayed by the setting.
So, if you want to boil things down to how I view FR and the best way to get the maximum experience from it - it is to keep players under 12th level. At 12th level they are already more powerful than 99.5% of the ENTIRE planet. Beyond that point, things should begin to shift toward the planes to get the PC's off of Toril. Otherwise, things begin to break down and become more and more skewed toward the PC's.
I think Dragonlance did something similar, after a certain level the PC's were forced off the planet by the gods or something.
Had you come to me eight to ten years ago and asked me about the setting and D&D I likely would have given you a different answer. I am fully aware that many of the things I wrote about to most people may seem small or insignificant. A detail that can be overlooked for the greater enjoyment of the setting and game.
My problem is my expectations changed. D&D was around long before CRPG's and MMORPG's. The fundamental core play of D&D is to kill things, loot their stuff, and gain levels. That is pretty much what a CRPG / MMORPG provides, with the added benefit of being accessible on demand. If I want to kill things, loot their stuff, and gain levels I am very much inclined to play a CRPG / MMORPG.
Sure, there is some things in a tabletop game that cannot be emulated (yet) by a computer game. However, at the end of the day I am still getting 90% of what I could get out of D&D from a computer game.
So, as the years have gone by, my desires and expectations have changed for D&D - and as a result of that - the setting.
The one thing CRPG's / MMORPG's cannot yet provide me is a collaborative story. They cannot give me the freedom a tabletop game can provide me. As a result I have drifted away from D&D toward other systems, which has in turn impacted how I view the setting.
This isn't a knock on D&D - I still like D&D. I think the 4th Edition rules are superior to 3rd Edition in many ways. If I want to play a D&D game it is almost certainly a 4E game, but the -want- to play D&D is far less than it was ever before.
After all, why spend my valuable time prepping for what is either going to amount to a rule-less gaming session (mostly social roleplaying which D&D does not really do well at all compared to other systems), or a session that is basically: kill, loot, level. When instead I can satisfy my appetite for the latter through CRPG's / MMORPG's, and spend my time doing what I enjoy far more in tabletop gaming which is the former... which is almost certainly going to be with another system.
That is more-or-less my mindset when I am approaching these types of issues. I want the setting to conform to my new expectations of it, and it simply struggles at it. It also likely explains why I am fond of the 4E setting for the purposes of gaming.
I think the way pre-4E portrayed mages in Faerun to be ok. Definitely, it could have happened in a different way (such as what Meldread envisaged), but I consider it also possible that they would have remained a largely disorganized, neutral and underutilized force given the circumstances. IMO the setting and society definitely allow for it.
Show
There are a few reasons for that, most of which already posted. The situation of wizards in most societies is a fairly fortunate one. Their services are fairly rare and often sought for, and they can easily win decent amounts of money at little risk and without too much hassle. Many wizards probably just don't feel the need to adopt a different order or cooperate more than they do now. Sure, history shows they can be an awesome force when they do. However, many wizards are also mindful of the other side of the coin: in such organizations the vast majority of wizards would be much more constrained. Chances are, the average lowish-level wizard in the Heartlands has much less constraints than his or her peer in Thay - as long as they don't do anything too outrageous they are left alone. Also, historical wizard-dominated countries tended to have ended badly, particularly for the wizards involved. Sure, wizards are probably taught about the greatness of Netheril - but also about its end and the devastation it wrought (and, most likely, about what happened to wizards caught afterwards). Same for Imaskar. As for the elven high mages... well, those who know more about them probably know about the skeletons in their closets. Thus, a wizard might be taught about Netheril as an example what can achieve and the hubris it can produce.
Using them for war imo involves another problem: as far as I know, most countries in the Realms have not reached the stage where Nationalism is a universally accepted doctrine and are more or less feudal or at the Iron Age level of social organization. Getting a wizard on the battlefield (and getting them to actually obey orders) can happen only if a) said wizard is willing to do it or b) if they are forced to do it. I think we can agree that option b) is out of the question in most countries - not only are wizards often powerful by themselves but what little organizations they do have will usually be opposed to anyone harassing its members. That leaves option a) . In most cases, however, a wizard would have little reason to leave their home behind and risk their life. The whole "king and country" routine wouldn't fly with many of them - the medieval idea is that the lords and the aristocracy get their priviledges because they are responsible for the defense of the realm. New leadership probably wouldn't change much for them, anyway. Barring the possibility that their city would be put to the sword or invaded by magophobes, they imo have little need to concern themselves with military matters - and in both cases they need to protect only their immediate surroundings. Why become a leashed dog in the military and risk it all when you have power, money and respect at your fingertips anyway? Unless there is a strong tradition of civil service such as the Waterdeep guild mages or the War Wizards (and these too are probably curtailed in some traditions so they are not available for everything), many wizards wouldn't bother. Even those who do will probably request exceedingly high wages or limit themselves to support duties where the risk is less, such as logistics or divinations/counterscrying; few would make it to the actual battlefield.
This, of course, changes if their actual academy/guild etc is run or at least sponsored by the state for the interest of training mages, as in many magocracies, Rashemen, Silverymoon and Cormyr. Again, however, their application would be constrained by the costs this would entail (training and equipping mages is longer, more difficult and more expensive than equipping knights, especially if you include wands and the like) and traditions. There is no debating their usefulness in battle would be significant, which would be one of the main reasons the armies of the Silverymoon league (I forgot the exact name) and Cormyr are very effective. Still, I would again think that they are most useful in support duties and not in direct battle.
Using them for war imo involves another problem: as far as I know, most countries in the Realms have not reached the stage where Nationalism is a universally accepted doctrine and are more or less feudal or at the Iron Age level of social organization. Getting a wizard on the battlefield (and getting them to actually obey orders) can happen only if a) said wizard is willing to do it or b) if they are forced to do it. I think we can agree that option b) is out of the question in most countries - not only are wizards often powerful by themselves but what little organizations they do have will usually be opposed to anyone harassing its members. That leaves option a) . In most cases, however, a wizard would have little reason to leave their home behind and risk their life. The whole "king and country" routine wouldn't fly with many of them - the medieval idea is that the lords and the aristocracy get their priviledges because they are responsible for the defense of the realm. New leadership probably wouldn't change much for them, anyway. Barring the possibility that their city would be put to the sword or invaded by magophobes, they imo have little need to concern themselves with military matters - and in both cases they need to protect only their immediate surroundings. Why become a leashed dog in the military and risk it all when you have power, money and respect at your fingertips anyway? Unless there is a strong tradition of civil service such as the Waterdeep guild mages or the War Wizards (and these too are probably curtailed in some traditions so they are not available for everything), many wizards wouldn't bother. Even those who do will probably request exceedingly high wages or limit themselves to support duties where the risk is less, such as logistics or divinations/counterscrying; few would make it to the actual battlefield.
This, of course, changes if their actual academy/guild etc is run or at least sponsored by the state for the interest of training mages, as in many magocracies, Rashemen, Silverymoon and Cormyr. Again, however, their application would be constrained by the costs this would entail (training and equipping mages is longer, more difficult and more expensive than equipping knights, especially if you include wands and the like) and traditions. There is no debating their usefulness in battle would be significant, which would be one of the main reasons the armies of the Silverymoon league (I forgot the exact name) and Cormyr are very effective. Still, I would again think that they are most useful in support duties and not in direct battle.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html
This is why I prefer using an adaptation of the Storyteller rules, rather than the D&D rules. But, to be perfectly honest, I don't think of the setting in terms of mechanics most of the time, so long as the mechanics are flexible enough to let me do what I want. Which is largely why I don't like 4e much, given their comparative inflexibility to 3e. That they're easier to use I don't doubt or dispute, but they don't quite do what I want them to. Really, level based systems aren't that great for flexibility and fluidity period, but as far as that goes, 3.xE/SWSE is still king of the hill to my mind. Horrible I'll admit if you have to deal with rules lawyers, but I don't, so that's not a downside to me in my situation.
As to the rest, I'd very much recommend taking a look at Harry Potter. There's a lot of excellent ideas in there for how magic might look and how it might work in a modern sort of world. Simply as a source of inspiration I think its worth choking down the story for. Not sure you'd agree though, given your views on what an academy should be, but it presents a pretty strong case I think.
What I think is going on is that you are cutting out other factors in play. Its just not the races in the players handbook you have to deal with. theirs dragon, ithlids, aboloths, beholders,malgyms, and many others. So this so called epic charecter can upset the balance and cause these creatures to go after them. That is another reason why low level wizards would not gang up on nations cause of the old addage the enamy of my enamy is my friend. Look at the tuigan horde, the zents teamed up with everyone else.
4e probably made that more manageable in a lot of respects, as did SWSE, but the problem is almost certainly still there to some extent, as it will be with any level-based method of depicting the world.
There is one thing I do agree with you on ElvenAvenger. You're not likely to see an epic level wizard attacking an army, not because they couldn't win easily (they could), but because killing them would be a waste of time.
After all, why go through all that trouble when you can just Mindrape the ruler of a nation, and become the power behind the throne? There is really nothing a good mindraping can't solve: gain access to all memories, add false memories, erase memories, alter emotions, alter opinions, and even alter their alignment.
When it comes right down to it, that well known and respected general / king that is level 10 (which puts him within the top 1% of the most powerful people in the world), just is nothing compared to that level 25 evil aligned wizard.
It kinda makes you wonder what happened to Shoon VII (aka Zallanora Agentresses), who is a level 36 Necromancer. As well as the Twisted Rune and other such ultra-powerful evil wizards who want to control everything.
Either way, I was just throwing out their name. It still doesn't account for Shoon VII or any of the other numerously ultra-powerful individuals, both known and unknown.
As for those other ubers, I'd say most died in the Spellplague and leave it at that... until you need a villain for your campaign, in which case they've just been hiding and building up their power to provide a foil for your PCs.