MDT,
Pretty much all of the common races---the sorts you can play if you're in a core only game, have warrior as their class. That's because warrior is their most common military element and you're normally meeting their military element. All of those other races are a lot less common. So much less common that in a lot of games, you can't have one as a PC normally.
Core only races are Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Elf and Half-Orc. Note that none of these are in the bestiaries, and so we don't have an 'average racial entry' for any of them. But that is completely and totally irrelevant to the argument. Your argument was, that average npc stats don't support anything beyond NPC classes, and those racial entries (by 7 to 3) prove that is an invalid statement based on the published material.
Additionally, most of those races are actually quite common in home games (Aasimar, tiefling, orcs, vanara, catfolk, tengu, etc. So, yea, not seeing your argument here, nor anything to back up the statement that all the common races have only warriors normally. Again, core rules assumptions, not world assumptions. However, if you were talking about Golarion, all those races I listed are common races, and all the non-CR adjusting ones are considered common (to the point that they are listed as common in APs and guides).
As far as world agnostic is concerned, that point does go a certain distance. However, you need some sort of baseline so that you can make your own world distinctive in some way. For instance, my take on RAI is something like this:made up statistic
And that's perfectly fine if you want to run the game like that. I'm just pointing out that not only is that not in the RAW (which you acknowledge, so not saying you didn't), but it's not even support by the RAIm (Rules as Implied) by the bestiaries.
Where you essentially have everyone in your whole society with a meaningful stat of 12-13 or better as something other than a commoner.
Again though, the concept that stats somehow are required for PC classes is not only not supported by the rules, nor the implied rules, but is actively show to NOT be correct because of the bestiary entries detailed above.
You can put stat minimums on classes (and honestly, I wouldn't mind it at all, I hate seeing 7 str fighters) but it's a house rule, and not implied nor endorsed by the published material. So stating that is a valid reason for most people to not be PC classes (again, when it's shown that the majority of the average representations we have are PC classes, and by a wide margin) simply doesn't hold water.
Actually Gavmania the average person didn't leave hand to mouth and in constant horrible danger -- you need to do some research, yes there were bad times but that hasn't been the constant total state across time.
MDT,
Pretty much all of the common races---the sorts you can play if you're in a core only game, have warrior as their class. That's because warrior is their most common military element and you're normally meeting their military element. All of those other races are a lot less common. So much less common that in a lot of games, you can't have one as a PC normally.As far as world agnostic is concerned, that point does go a certain distance. However, you need some sort of baseline so that you can make your own world distinctive in some way. For instance, my take on RAI is something like this:
Basic human societies typically break down like this:
PC classes 5%
Warriors 5%
Experts 3%
Adepts 2%
Commoners 85%
Societies that spend a LOT of resources on PC class development might be able to stretch to
PC classes 10%
Warriors 5%
Experts 3%
Adepts 2%
Commoners 80%
That plus a long running war and maybe you're at
PC classes 10%
Warriors 10%
Experts 5%
Adepts 5%
Commoners 70%
Where you essentially have everyone in your whole society with a meaningful stat of 12-13 or better as something other than a commoner.
If you want to go even further than that, you need something like a 'High Men' race---Aztlanti in Golarion for example, or a country that has been practicing pretty hardcore eugenics for a long time. Even there I bet commoners are still 40% or so.
Where are you getting these numbers from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MDT,
The races you cite are pretty much only permitted in the latest splatbooks. That makes them rare pretty much by default. I'd wager that humans alone probably make up 80% of the population of most worlds.
Let me ask this again more plainly.
In what way does a race's rarity have any effect on the average member of it (using average NPC stat array) being a PC class if average stats, as you state, are not suitable to PC classes?.
In other words, I still don't have anything from you on why their rarity matters. Or are you stating that rare races automatically qualify for PC classes regardless of stats? And if so, why?
Let me try to break this down for you.
Who in the hell would be a commoner if he could select his own class, regardless of stats?
About half my cousins, as they are extremely shiftless and lazy, and put out the minimum amount of effort to get food, sex, beer, and stay out of jail. That last one is optional by the way, based on how many of my cousins are actually in jail on drug offenses, theft, and other charges.
What land would have commoners if it were possible to retrain them on a timescale of a few weeks?
Syria, Iran, China. Countries who didn't trust their own people, and didn't want a competent populace who might be able to usurp their control.
Who would be an expert when they could be a rogue, or a ranger, or an inquisitor or a bard?
Someone prevented from it by a caste system (see above about those in charge not wanting underlings getting uppity), those who are shifty and lazy and don't want to do the extra work to retrain or learn the extra concepts. Someone who's tone deaf (for bard), someone who distrusts religion (for inquisitor), someone who hates the wilderness (ranger), or someone who's too afraid to be a thief (rogue).
Who would be a warrior when they could be a fighter, paladin, or ranger?
Somone who's lazy, someone who doesn't have access to training, someone who is prevented by a caste system, someone who who doesn't take it seriously (weekend warrior, noble's son who can't be bothered to do all the drills).
Who would be an adept when you could be a wizard, sorcerer, cleric or other caster?
Someone the gods don't like (cleric/oracle), someone who doesn't have any weird species cross-breeding in their family tree (sorcerer), someone with a learning disability like dislexia (wizard), someone who's lazy and doesn't want to put in all the extra study.
If the investment to create such classes, in terms of raw ability + training was as small as you imply, the published worlds, modules, etc would make no sense at all.
I didn't say it was small, I said there were no state requirements, and that there are no rules for such. What I did say was that there is a small difference between the training/etc required for an NPC class and that of a related PC class. In other words, We're probably talking about 15% more effort, give or take. But I know people who won't do 15% more effort for 50% more payout.
This implies that fairly serious barriers to entry MUST exist for all of these classes, or you must be in a Young Adult fiction world where nobody but the PCs and maybe the BBEG possess any initiative.
Yes, I agree with that, if you want NPC classes as the vast majority (70+%) then you HAVE to put in SERIOUS MAJOR barriers in place. Despots who trample the common people, strict inflexible caste systems that deny anyone the ability to choose what they become, and things like that. In other words, about what we see in the real world.
But stats in and of themselves arent' it, at least with regards to NPC stat arrays. Average stats are good enough. You will be an average whatever, not an exceptional one like a PC with PC stats, or an Elite NPC with Elite stats.
Kolokotroni,
I started with the 3rd edition DMG and applied a bit a reasoning to estimate what could be done with a nation that more aggressively developed its human resources. My point isn't this specific set of numbers though, my point is that there needs to exist SOME set of baseline numbers so that discussions like this one have something to ground themselves in.
5% PC classes lets you sweep up most of the people who are +2 sigma in one of the relevant stats (+2 sigma is around 2%), and that's about the fraction you get with the old DMG system.
Actually the starting point is deciding whether or not someone can be trained in the base class. If thats possible, then the whole % is moot. A government or other large organization can simply actively train people in a given class. So far I dont see a consensus on whether or not a character can be deliberately trained in a class (though the ultimate campaign retraining rules seems to indicate you can).
I am EWHM. I've even played wizards with int of 14 or so, it's not that hard and it has great rewards.
Honestly there is nothing that keeps NPCs from having PC classes and we've seen across how many adventure paths and books where it isn't even rare -- just because you want the game to come out one way doesn't mean that what you want is actually supported by the system.
MDT,
The rare races originally showed up mostly as monsters. They generally had better stats accordingly. When they were allowed to become PC races without an LA, they were generally somewhat nerfed from their monster (or template) cousins. If a race is rare, and very magical in nature, it doesn't warp your setting much to allow most of its members to be low level PC class members. This is a tradition going WAY back (even in Basic D&D you had 'Normal Men' but Elves were, well, elves which was basically a Fighter/Magic User class). It doesn't play hell with the assumptions of the world to allow rare magical races that.
Only 2 races on that list were CR adjusted races (Svirnefblin, and Drow Noble). The rest are built on the 9 to 14 pt standard racial build from ARG. So your statement that they were 'primarily monsters and thus imbalanced' is simply wrong. Especially since over half of them were never built as monsters originally. In fact, if you look, with one exception, the ones that use NPC classes [i]were monsters originally[/b], and pretty much unchanged.
So again, you need to answer why an average npc array, [b]brand new playable race built from the ground up to be balanced against core races and that have something on the order of 95% PC class levels with standard NPC arrays[b] is somehow not indicating that standard NPC stats are insufficient for PC classes.
As to your reasons why human talent isn't developed, I find them insufficient.
Try moving to Syria, or living with my cousins.
So basically, you are saying that historically the reason people were serfs and lived from hand to mouth was that they were stupider and less capable than people today, and it had nothing to do with the fact the people in power did everything they could to keep the common populace ground down and under their heel (and untrained with any sort of weapon, which was commonly illegal for them to own)?
Certainly they could be used to explain why a nation that was less than the baseline could be less than the baseline. You and I live in a terribly high-surplus society. Just getting by in most of the West is laughably easy. Not so most of the people in your average D&D/PF world.
They live in a much lower surplus society. Those that don't work at least moderately hard perish unless they're aristocrats or something. Even the beggars probably work harder than most of us have to.
That argument actually argues that you should have more PC classes, not more NPC classes. If you really are that short of manpower, you have to make what you have work better. Which means everyone needs to hit those PC classes so they can do two different things (farmer, militia, local healer, priest, merchant, everyone has to do at least 2 of those jobs). And it's easier to wear multiple hats if you have a PC class, almost certainly multiclassed to broaden your abilities.
Stats are the only really effective barrier to entry that can operate across the rather diverse scope of societal organization that you see in most worlds. And trust me on this, unless you want Eberron or something Very close to it, you NEED those barriers to entry. Especially if you have PCs that have imperial motivations.
Again, not supported or even implied in RAW. If you want to do something like that in a house rule, that's up to you. But the system does not, implicitly does not, and demonstrably does not, put a limit on class based on stats. You can even take a level of Wizard without sufficient INT to cast a single spell. You won't get your spells, but you can take that level.
I've never played Eberron, but my own game world has about 50-60% of the population with at least one level of a PC class, and averages about 8th or 9th level.
As to Imperial Motivations, the idea that 4 people could invade a country and take it over by themselves is the type of game I absolutely detest, as it requires every person in the world to be level 1.
Yep, what a nasty disgusting world.
People can cast 'cure light' a couple of times a day (fully modern first aid kit). There's hundreds of people who can not only cast overland flight but also a bunch of floating disks and *gasp* ferry other people around (airplanes). They can cast expeditious retreat on mounts and go way too fast (cars). and so forth.
I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind. As to your 85/70% commoners, please show me that in the rules, and I'll reconsider.
And again, stat requirements are your house rule. Nothing more. Unless you can point me at something in the system that tells me what stat numbers are required to enter any specific class.
As to your 85/70% commoners, please show me that in the rules, and I'll reconsider.
The clue is in the name. They are commoners.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to your 85/70% commoners, please show me that in the rules, and I'll reconsider.
Well, James Jacobs' opinion and writings are not "rules" per se. So you're welcome to disregard these as well. But:
I've always resisted nailing down exact numbers like this for NPC class levels, since I feel that it unnecessarily restricts adventure and sourcebook writing on the hobbyist and professional levels. Because once it's in print, folks tend to treat those numbers as sacrosanct; it's what happened with D&D, and as a result lots of people felt it was cheating to do something like have a super high level NPC live in a small town... which was already canon for a lot of places (such as Elminster living in Shadowdale).
[...]
The VAST majority of the humanoids in civilized areas should be commoners, aristocrats, warriors, or experts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that I suspect you'll pay any attention however:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Farmer Joe's stable hands, field workers, and other laborers are all commoners.
Well, there are lots of ways that one could effectively enforce that most people only have NPC classes without specifically making them "stat requirements." I suggested one already; you need to be something special to take PC races, that certain je ne sais quoi that Ars Magica codified as "the Gift," but that appears in fantasy fiction under various other names like "the Talent," "the Blood," whatever. You could have an intelligence of 20, but without the necessary aptitude, you can't cast spells.
Similarly, in the real world, you could have a charisma of 20, but be tone-deaf. Tone-deafness appears to be a genetic issue, related to the structure of the brain, and as such is inherited. More interestingly, the frequency varies from society to society, and is negatively correlated with tonal languages -- one presumes that if you are tone-deaf, it's much more of a handicap in China than in Canada. But tone deafness would be a game-mechanical reason for why someone can't become a bard, because you need above average pitch sensitivity. (And all PCs who are interested in bardic levels, by rule fiat, have that gift, because they're PCs.)
The problem is that you're arguing from the wrong direction. We have an established list of tendencies in Pathfinder society, well-documented in the rules. Therefore, there is a reason for those tendencies that may not be documented (and may not even be known in-game). Why aren't there more mages? Good question. I agree that the answer "because no one recognizes their value" is ilogical. But it's even more illogical to reason that the canonical society cannot exist because JJ never bothered to provide a justification for this particular aspect of canonical society.
If we wanted something like what you describe we'd need an extra set of attributes---something like magical aptitude, spiritual aptitude, and bardic voice.
That's my point, though. We wouldn't. We can merely handwave that the PCs meet the nebulous requirements, whatever they are -- they may not even know -- but most of unnamed mass of NPCS don't.
Indeed, one of the problems with stat requirements are exactly that stat requirements are too broad; there are too many things lumped under "Intelligence" or "Strength" for me to have any idea whether a given character would actually be well-suited to any specific task. Aptitude testing is a complex subject and big business in the real world; someone in the 95th percentile on reading ability but 15th on mathematics would not do well as an engineering student, but might make an awesome law student.
Basically, the answer to the question "Why can't I field an army massed NPCs with PC classes?" becomes "Because they're NPCs, and only exceptional, named NPCs have PC classes." Which also has a long and venerable tradition behind it; I think it was explicit in first edition that only 10% of the population could qualify for earning character levels at all. But of course, your character automatically qualified for that elite 10% just by being YOUR character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to test for intelligence just cast detect thoughts and you will get the information in 12 seconds the target does not even get a save.
Orfamay,
Splits as hard as you describe (15/95) are REALLY rare. Rare enough that we write books and make moves about them. Some systems though DO have separate magical aptitude/magery and equivalents for divine and bardic magic. They actually give you a meaningful basis for understanding just how far you CAN push the typical population in terms of training.
Which is exactly what we neither need nor want. We don't understand aptitude in the real world; there's no reason that your characters should understand it in Pathfinder. (Even just IQ theory has swallowed psychology students by the battalion...)
Here's all you "need" to understand.
* I want to give everyone in my kingdom PC class levels instead of NPC levels.
* You can't.
If the Game Master is willing to give you more information than that, she's being needlessly generous.
. You could also get coherent answers with your specific aptitude approach, but that requires an extra 3 or 4 stats.
By the way, the "specific aptitude" approach is exactly how sorcerers are defined to work in Core. You can become a sorcerer only if you have the proper bloodline for it (or a relevant feat/trait/whatever). But, by astonishing coincidence, every player who wants to gain levels as a sorcerer just happens to have, not only a sorcerous bloodline, but the exact right bloodline.
You can't "train" to have a cross-blooded Draconic/Orc heritage. But if that's what you want your character to be, it's just handwaved that you happened to have that bloodline all along -- you merely didn't know it until it revealed itself when you earned your 7th level.
Even mundane characteristics are handled this way. What are the actual probabilities that Flambeau, sorceress of flames, just happens to have the genes for red hair? What are the odds that Ethryn the Sinister just happens to be left-handed? In the real world, those are both rather rare. In Pathfinder, the odds are 100% for player characters, because it's more fun to play the character you want rather than the one that your parents made. Heck, if you want your character to have heterochromatic eyes, because that sounds cool,... consider it done.
And Farmer Joe's stable hands, field workers, and other laborers are all commoners.
Somebody didn't pay attention to the thread. Not surprised.
Given I'm generally a GM, I actually do need to have coherent answers to both questions.[...] I say, ok, given the history of this place, and its present distribution, this is going to be a long term project, but expenditure of money and time will probably produce results.
No, you don't. There's no reason for the PCs to "know" that it's even possible, nor is there any reason that magic has to follow rules that they would consider to be coherent. (Consider how incoherent Mendelian genetics, or quantum theory, was considered to be when first proposed.) Especially in a world where not only are there gods, but explicitly chaotic and capricious ones as well, the idea that anything has a coherent answer is wishful thinking. The idea that everything has such is, well, madness, probably caused by the whim of an arbitrary, capricious, and chaotic god who thought it would be fun to put such obviously-wrong ideas into your head.
There's also no reason that any particular theory about the causes of magic need to be correct (remember that "malaria" was theorized to be caused by bad air for centuries. This is in fact where the name came from). So, yes, you could start a magical breeding program. Thirty years after that, you will find that the number of mages available for recruitment in your army have increased exactly as much as the narrative demands.
Just what fraction of potential sorcerers actually are sorcerers?
Exactly as many as you need there to be for NPCs, plus one for every PC who takes character levels in sorcerer.
Orfamay,
There's plenty of reasons for PCs to believe it is possible.
Of course there are. PCs can believe anything they choose to believe. That doesn't make them right.
Your responsibility as a GM is to run a good narrative, not to coddle their beliefs. Especially in a world with chaotic deities, you are almost obligated to throw a change-up every so often.
Orfamay,
I'm more a simulationist than a narrativist. I want my rules to make a 'good enough' coherent world to allow players to experience a fair amount of immersion. From that, in my experience, stories happen.
I can understand that; I'm a simulationist myself. But the simulationist bit can -- and should, IMHO -- happen backstage. Just because there are rules that you are playing by doesn't mean that the players should know those rules, and in most cases, they shouldn't know those rules, because you may need to change them on the fly. Perhaps there's a new supplement out that changes something, or perhaps one of your players found a loophole in how you thought your world worked.
There's even good simulationist reasons for why magic doesn't obey physics-like laws. First, we still don't know the laws of physics (What do you mean, neutrinos have mass?!?!!?), so one can hardly complain when nature refuses to bend to our carefully laid plans. Second, it's magic, not physics, not even biology. And third, we are dealing with a world filled both with deceptive and malicious gods as well as with chaotic ones who just like to eff with the heads of know-it-all cosmologists.
Star Trek is a classic example; as legions of Trekkies will attest, it's a very immersive world. But how do the transporters work? "Very well, thank you very much."
Lots of posts. :) I'll only respond to a few.
A) Inquisitors are not all 100% people who bring out hammers and tongs and torture people to make them confess their sins before god. Yet that is what Religious Inquisitions were about (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!).
B) I am more than fine with saying there is some reason why NPC classes are the norm. But there's nothing in the rules backing it up, nothing in the bestiary to back it up (in fact, the published material for the core rules actually supports that NPC classes are the minority, even for monstrous races), and no restrictions on PC classes. I do not accept 'stats dur errgggh!' as a reason because that is frankly just silly considering some of the iconics and the published bestiary entries.
C) Transporters work on principle of matter and energy states. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one state to another, and matter and energy are interchangeable. Transporters work by breaking down matter at the atomic level, converting that matter into a different type of energy, transmitting that energy to another location, and then reversing the process, building matter back again out of energy. Basically, every time you get on a transporter, you are being disintegrated, utterly destroyed. Then you are being resurrected at the other end in a completely new body that's identical to the old one. Which really means all transporter technicians are mass murderers. Plus there's absolutely no reason why people should catch colds, have losses of limb, or even age in a transporter society, because the computer could easily filter out anything with viral DNA. You could also store a 25yo version of your body, and have it reconstruct that version of your body every time, and simply rearrange the neural pattern to match your current neural pattern. :) BTW - Current science models say the concept of a transporter is technically feasible, even though we currently do not have the technology to convert matter to energy and back again conveniently, but it doesn't break any of the laws of physics as we know them today. :)
D) Setting specific restrictions are perfectly fine. If you want to houserule that PC classes require a certain minimum + total, that's fine, but it's a house rule, not a game rule. Same with saying that a mystic force must approve your soul for training in a PC class. It's a house rule, but it's a perfectly fine house rule. But they are not universal constants (in case you hadn't figured it out yet, my big beef is with people who post that 'obviously this must be the thing the devs intend and you should all follow it in your own games' because that's obviously complete bull malarkey).
E) James Jacobs is a very good dev, but if you go check your sources, you'll see time and time again that he's posted that his opinion is just that, his opinion, it is not RAW, it's not even to be considered a Dev response. It's only what he would do in his own home game. He's the creative director for Golarion and he has a lot of weight in that one specific area. So, on Golarion, I agree the intent is that a lot (60%? 70%) of the NPCs are NPC classes. But Golarion is not Pathfinder. And while that might be the intent, the published material for Golarion doesn't match that beyond the first AP or possibly 2 in a series. Once you get up to the 3rd book or higher, you start running into mostly PC class people. Amazing how the 2% of the population who are evil PC class people running around in the world all congregate around the PCs and the evil NPC class people avoid them. Or, as is more likely, even on Golarion PC classes are way more common than some people in this thread would like to admit (15-40% of the population).
F) Abraham's linked thread (Which I participated in, woot!) is a great read to burst the 'everyone is a poor dirt grubbing idiot' myth that is being spread around more in this thread.
Here's a question:
On Golarion, which isn't really my main setting but it is the plurality setting around these parts, the Andorrans almost certainly exploit their citizens' talents better than, say, Cheliax due to more freedom and less oppression.
Almost certainly not. If you're looking for ways to "exploit citizens' talents" effectively, freedom is the worst way to do it. Look at the way the Chinese rolled through the Beijing Olympics, for example. They set a goal --- I forget whether it was the aftermath of Sydney or another Olympics -- that by the time they hosted the games in Beijing (2008) they would lead the medal table.
They did. They built a national infrastructure around identifying and training these kids in a spare-no-expense sort of way to make get them to be able to perform at peak levels. Between the huge size of the talent pool China can draw from, and the fact that talented kids were basically compelled to participate in this training, they could get the best-of-the-best. They also chose the sports for the children, focusing on the medal-rich sports like gymnastics and diving, so if your child was athletically talented and wanted to be a judoka, there was a fair chance he would be trained as a gymnast instead if they though there was a better chance of him making it to the Olympic level.
And it worked. China dominated the medal table for the first and only time in its history.
If magery can be trained, and if you want lots of mages, Cheliax is probably better at training mages than Andoria.
Heroes and heroic classes have always been MUCH rarer than commoners and other NPC classes.
The only reason this doesn't seem true all the time is because heroes tend to deal with characters of significance, not the every day man.
Few bother even giving a name to the shopkeep that sold your players their armor. Everyone remembers the king who sponsored your quest and the villain that tried to thwart them.
I've been part of tabletop roleplaying games for nearly 3 decades and this has always remained true in every version of D&D. It is not a hard-coded rule. It is a design philosophy that is older than most roleplayers.
If wizards and fighters were really so common, then the adventurers themselves aren't so special anymore, which kind of defeats the point.
I think that doesn't have to be the case.
Remember, what separates the local cop from the special forces navy seal? Mostly it's training and life choices.
Why do the PCs gain so much power? Because they go out and seek it. They are the top 1%'ers, they strive when others reach 'good enough'.
There's absolutely no reason why most of the town guards couldn't be Fighter 3's ro Fighter 4's. Or, more likely, multiclassed as Ranger 1/Fighter 2 (track is very useful even in town to a peace officer). The reason the PCs are special is not their classes, it's their personal drive and the fact they don't stop, they keep going even in the face of adversity. They don't just sit back and let life happen around them, they grab it by the throat, shake it for all it's worth, and make it do what they want.
Personally, I much prefer the idea that the PCs are special because of who they and not what class they are.
So, really, from a 'special snowflake' perspective, is there much difference with the PCs being special because of who they are instead of what? So a large section of the NPCs are classed (which by the way, is almost required if you want to use retraining rules and such) but don't have the drive and therefore never reach the wealth and power of the PCs. How does that make the PCs less special? To me, it makes them more special, because the NPCs had the ability to do what the PCs are doing, but they lacked the drive to do it. I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday over 'Ooh, PCs are mystically uber special snowflakes and nobody else is like them... at least, until one dies or a new PC joins in magically in the perfect spot to join in'.
The clue is in the name. They are commoners.As to your 85/70% commoners, please show me that in the rules, and I'll reconsider.
Yes, and wizards are wise. No, wait, they're not. They're intelligent. Entirely different stat. I guess class names have meanings unrelated to their etymologies.
Shocking thing to have linguistic drift in a book written in a natural language. Almost unheard of. Especially not in a language as tightly controlled as English.
There's no linguistic drift on commoners. It meant common people then, it means the same now (though it is no longer applied to a modern society, if I use the term "commoner" people would understand it to mean one of the common people (usually from history)). Just check a dictionary if you don't believe me.
Interesting. Not delving too deeply into what has already been posted, I'll propose my own thoughts on the matter, and then go back and re-read.
Primarily, the first thing that comes to mind is the iconic image of a wizard on a hill hurling spells into the enemy horde. This image demonstrates four key aspects of what I take to be the "standard" version of this scenario.
Primarily, 1) Casters will always be outnumbered. Even in settings with high degrees of magic, the odds of every single person being able to cast spells is nigh-on ludicrous. The teeming hordes of commoners and low-level fighters will eventually overwhelm even the most proficient wizard, which is why Wizards never truly take this kind of lone-gunman-esque stance. Wizards are usually backed by an army of their own, and either act as artillery or as anti-artillery, being a counter to enemy mages.
2) Even AoE spells will only take you so far, and that's assuming you're doing nothing but preparing AoE spells. In a realistic ideal, a wizard would likely take a mix of utility and blasting spells, unless they were acting solely as artillery. Moreso than that, unless you have a small army of nothing but wizards, leading back to point one, you will never have enough spells to handle them all, short of the 'ole HellBall, but that's an entirely different ballgame.
3) The rogue sneaking up behind him. The key to combatting wizards in open warfare is misdirection. A wizard can hurl fire at the endless waves of front-line soldiers all he wants, but if his back isn't guarded, he won't live very long. To further that point, when you (the wizard) have an enemy that is aware of your existence, it is unlikely in the extreme they won't try to take you out earlier, in more unexpected fashions. Poison, assassins, the like, the wizard is not omniscient, and without a great deal of caution, may simply end up dead before the battle ever occurs. Remember, it's a lot easier for the enemy to waste four low-level rogues to try and assassinate one high level wizard than it is to face you in open warfare.
And 4) The final point, the enemy wizard who is playing God better than you are. The stereotypical image of the blaster wizard can be pretty terrifying to the unenlightened, but the true might of the wizards comes not from that simple ability to destroy, but rather the ability to sew mayhem in the enemy ranks, and one wizard with a couple fireballs will almost always fall prey to the enemy wizard who was prepared with more crowd control. Where your damage was mitigated quickly through saves, your entire platoon was quickly disabled through careful applications of color spray and deep slumber, leaving your platoon easy pickings for the incoming enemy.
I suppose I drifted away from the original "Economics" idea, but I still feel like there's some relevance. More on point, even in magic-rich settings, it's fairly rare for kingdoms to shell out high wages for single shot magic items. Wands perhaps, but rarely scrolls, with exceptions for high-level spells that may single-handedly win the day.
Interesting. Not delving too deeply into what has already been posted, I'll propose my own thoughts on the matter, and then go back and re-read.
Primarily, the first thing that comes to mind is the iconic image of a wizard on a hill hurling spells into the enemy horde. This image demonstrates four key aspects of what I take to be the "standard" version of this scenario.
Primarily, 1) Casters will always be outnumbered. Even in settings with high degrees of magic, the odds of every single person being able to cast spells is nigh-on ludicrous. The teeming hordes of commoners and low-level fighters will eventually overwhelm even the most proficient wizard, which is why Wizards never truly take this kind of lone-gunman-esque stance. Wizards are usually backed by an army of their own, and either act as artillery or as anti-artillery, being a counter to enemy mages.
2) Even AoE spells will only take you so far, and that's assuming you're doing nothing but preparing AoE spells. In a realistic ideal, a wizard would likely take a mix of utility and blasting spells, unless they were acting solely as artillery. Moreso than that, unless you have a small army of nothing but wizards, leading back to point one, you will never have enough spells to handle them all, short of the 'ole HellBall, but that's an entirely different ballgame.
3) The rogue sneaking up behind him. The key to combatting wizards in open warfare is misdirection. A wizard can hurl fire at the endless waves of front-line soldiers all he wants, but if his back isn't guarded, he won't live very long. To further that point, when you (the wizard) have an enemy that is aware of your existence, it is unlikely in the extreme they won't try to take you out earlier, in more unexpected fashions. Poison, assassins, the like, the wizard is not omniscient, and without a great deal of caution, may simply end up dead before the battle ever occurs. Remember, it's a lot easier for the enemy to waste four low-level rogues to try and assassinate one high level...
Good post thankyou.
Some of this has been covered elsewhere, so i will address the points that have not been.
1) I agree except that it is very difficult to act as anti artillery (unless you mean target the enemy "artilllery"). Defending against Magic becomes very difficult when you don't know what spells are coming your way; you have to have the specific spell ready to cast to counterspell it, and you have to cast it yourself. Dispel magic works against enemy debuffs but for an instantaneous spell like Fireball or Stone call there is no cheap, direct defense that covers your whole troop (indirect defenses I have covered).
2) You can have as many AoE spells as you are willing to pay for if you use scrolls (this is the key to this thread; it is cheaper to buy a scroll of fireball than to equip a poor knight, yet the fireball will probably kill more than the knight)
3) Rogues would also be a limited resource (they're a PC class). While I don't discount this (I can see hunter/killer squads sneaking onto the battlefield before battle begins so as to be in position for this. I also can see personal bodyguards for the mage so as to make this very difficult).
4) crowd control spells tend to be close range spells - in short your spellcaster will have to get within easy striking distance to cast them, and believe me he would definitely be the main target once he had revealed himself. Powerful as they are, I believe your spellcaster is too valuable to risk that way (I haven't "proven" this to myself yet, I only suspect it to be so at this stage). That said, a properly prepped spellcaster could use hit and run attacks against enemy strongpoints using horses (via the mount spell?), invisibility, fly or dimension door scrolls to get away. This only makes sense where Fireball doesn't work (probably because they have cover).
What we both seem agree on is that spellcasters would be the most important asset on the battlefield.
Good post thankyou.
Some of this has been covered elsewhere, so i will address the points that have not been.
1) I agree except that it is very difficult to act as anti artillery (unless you mean target the enemy "artilllery"). Defending against Magic becomes very difficult when you don't know what spells are coming your way; you have to have the specific spell ready to cast to counterspell it, and you have to cast it yourself. Dispel magic works against enemy debuffs but for an instantaneous spell like Fireball or Stone call there is no cheap, direct defense that covers your whole troop (indirect defenses I have covered).
2) You can have as many AoE spells as you are willing to pay for if you use scrolls (this is the key to this thread; it is cheaper to buy a scroll of fireball than to equip a poor knight, yet the fireball will probably kill more than the knight)
3) Rogues would also be a limited resource (they're a PC class). While I don't discount this (I can see hunter/killer squads sneaking onto the battlefield before battle begins so as to be in position for this. I also can see personal bodyguards for the mage so as to make this very difficult).
4) crowd control spells tend to be close range spells - in short your spellcaster will have to get within easy striking distance to cast them, and believe me he would definitely be the main target once he had revealed himself. Powerful as they are, I believe your spellcaster is too valuable to risk that way (I haven't "proven" this to myself yet, I only suspect it to be so at this stage). That said, a properly prepped spellcaster could use hit and run attacks against enemy strongpoints using horses (via the mount spell?), invisibility, fly or dimension door scrolls to get away. This only makes sense where Fireball doesn't work (probably because they have cover).
What we both seem agree on is that spellcasters would be the most important asset on the battlefield.
As a point of order, yes, in my mind spellcasters will always be the most important asset, simply because no matter how you dice it, one caster will (usually) have a lot more impact on a battle, even at low tiers of power, than a platoon of common fighters.
To continue, on point one, there are several ways to act as anti-magic-artillery, and you touched on one briefly with dispel magic, though you didn't go into detail. Dispel Magic can be used to counterspell any appropriate spell of equivalent level or lower. Most of the standard blasting spell fare are level three or lower, the same as dispel magic. Moving into higher tiers, the way you enact anti-artillery moves from direct counterspelling to field disruption. You do this through careful placement of terrain modifications and effects such as AMF and Wall of Stone. Remember that a wizard can guise himself to be hidden amongst a large group of well-versed fighters, and with an Anti-Magic field he would render not only his own abilities invisible to the prying eyes of enemy spellcasters, but when he finally drops it when they are close enough to the fighting, he can unleash some of his more potent close range abilities. This also allows him to provide protection from long-range bombardment for his group with ease. This also touches briefly on 4, because there are innumerable ways for a Wizard to get in close without subjecting himself to too much scrutiny. Throw a wizard into a middle of a Phalanx and watch the mayhem when even an entire battalion of enemy archers fails to find the mark.
On two, this is going more in line with the original thread, and I have a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around the implications. While it's true that it would likely do more damage, I'm not sure about how permanent the aoe damage is in comparison. My train of thought follows in such a manner that, assuming all things relative, an AoE spell will be countered fairly quickly with an AoE heal, combined with reflex saves. A knight may not do as much damage overall as those aoe spells, but more oft than not he will guarantee his kill before moving to a new target, where with AoE spells you'll likely never be sure of the kill unless you continue the bombardment. I think the key here is cost-efficiency and re-use capabilities. You throw a scroll in, and you get maybe a couple confirmed kills, and some damage. You throw armor, a sword, and a horse in, you're likely to get continued use out of it for some time, and over the course of it's use you'll likely gain a higher net benefit from them than from the scroll.
On three, I use the terms "fighter" and "rogue" more as a point of description than the class themselves. Even amongst commoners you'll find people more suited to stealth and quick-wits than to brute force. And as I'm aware they're a PC class, I don't particularly feel that this precludes their exclusion from the standard NPC army. You are bound to have groups of "exceptional" individuals, who while perhaps not measuring up to the standard PC group, may merit at least a few class levels. Perhaps depending on the enem, even a few high-level NPC's, though I'm not sure they would waste them on a trivial matter like a few low-level wizards. Another point of order, we most certainly shouldn't preclude Rogues as a "Limited Resource" when we're actively discussing the inclusion of assumed minimum 5th level wizards available en masse to produce scrolls for warfare.
On four, again going back to one, this is about the tactical use of the asset. In 3.5 there was a guide by Treantmonk called "How to play GOD", and was entirely about wizards. The key to Wizards was (and still remains, in my experience) that blasting is not the end-all be-all of casters. In fact, it is usually buffing and debuffing that are the strongest assets at a wizards disposal, and proper application of those abilities will provide much more net benefit than a caster focusing on blasting. Example, a Wizard who prepares a series of buff spells and turns what was simply a "good" group of knights into a force to be reckoned with.
Get a squad of Malazan marines. Gogo Bridgeburners...
OK, here's another issue. Is True strike worth it?
Let's compare troops: a spellcaster armed with a composite longbow and a wand of True strike costs 850gp (let's assume he got the proficiency somewhere; either he is an elf or he burns a feat to get it or something). 20 of them will cost 17,000gp
For that price I could outfit 170 bowmen with a composite longbow. So let's compare these 2 troops against our lightly armoured skirmishers.
Let's give our targets the best possible armour - a chain shirt, and let's say they have a generous dex of 14, but no shield. So, AC 16.
at extreme range (1100'), the ordinary bowmen get a grand total of -14 to their attacks (+1BAB, +3Dex, -18Range). That means they only hit on a natural 20. That's a 1/20 chance of hitting or an average 8.5 hits.
our spellcasters get +0BAB, +3Dex, -18Range but they also get +20 for True strike. net bonus: +5. That means they need to roll 11 or more to hit, or 50%. That's 10 hits.
the next round, the enemy has run into the next range bracket. Our normal bowmen get a total of -12, so still need a 20 to hit, another 8.5 hits.
our spellcasters are now at a bonus of +7 for a hit on a 9 or more or 60% hit rate. That's 12 hits.
On the third round, bowmen get -10 and still ned a natural 20 so another 8.5 hits. Spellcasters have a 70% hit rate and get 14 hits.
on the 4th round: -8 and +11 for 8.5 and 16 hits.
On the fifth round the enemy troops meet your own side and a melee forms. let's say the bowmen have precise shot, the spellcasters do not.
The bowmen are at -8 for 8.5 hits. The spellcasters are at +9 for 14 hits. This will continue until the battle ends.
As you can see, the spellcasters outperform the bowmen for the same price. A worthwhile investment.
quote by Gavmania
I know you put this up a while ago but I have been thinking about it and I believe it is in error.
You have a force of 20 spellcasters (lets call them wizards) vs 170 longbow archers (lets call them fighters). They start at 1100 ft. both have DEX of 16 (I know you said fourteen for the archers but in your example you gave them a bonus of +3). The archers also have a CON 15, and the wizards an INT of 15. all other stats are 10. Everyone is human.
So the wizards are 1st level, have a DEX 16, INT 15 and each has a light crossbow and a fully charged wand of true strike. HP 10 AC 17 (assuming mage armor). Feats are Toughness, dodge and alertness (from their familiar). Oh also scribe scroll (really useful here:/)
The fighters are also level 1, Dex 16 and Con 15. Each has a comp longbow and chainshirt. feats are weapon focus longbow, toughness and dodge. HP 17 and AC 18
First problem
At that range it is unlikely either side would even see the other. the perception DC is +109. Perception skills is wizards +3, fighters +1. Being generous spotting the enemy unit (say both are colossal) drops the DC by -8. That means the wizards may see them at 320 feet, and the fighters at 300. That's rolling a 20. It also assumes not attempt at stealth. Of course you could rule that spotting military units is easier (I would) but a more likely engagement range is around 500 feet. This assumes a reasonable amount of blocking terrain. Also at 1100 feet the wizards with their light crossbows are hopelessly out of range (80*10=800 vs 110*10 = 1100)
BTW I am assuming wizards have the initiative
Round one Surprise round.
I will give the wizards the ambush.
Use wand (standard action).
Round Two
The wizards fire. attack bonus is BAB 0 + DEX 3 + true strike +20 - range 12 = +11. 70%hit rate = 14 hits
Archers close 30 feet and fire BAB 1 + WF 1 + DEX 3 - range 8 = -3. 5% hit 9 hits (rounding up).
Both weapons are 1D8 (4.5 average damage) The wizards have 10 HP so lets say three hits kills one. Fighters have 17 HP so lets say 4 kills one of them. For part hits I will give an extra kill (to simplify)
So 4 fighters die, and 1 wizards.
Round three
Range is 470
The wizards use their wands
The archers run forward (by four move)
Round four
Range is 350
Wizards fire As before but range is now minus 8, so +15. 90% hit. That's 17 hits or 5 kills
The archers advance 30 feet and fire. Bonuses as above but range is now -4 = +1. 15% or 24 hits or 8 kills
Round five
Range starts at 320
The wizards use their wands, and are looking nervous
The archers advance thirty feet and fire
Bonuses are the same, 8 kills.
Round five
The wizards bolt and are mowed down fleeing.
Now this example may no happen this way. For example the wizards might be under cover (+4AC)or might skirmish backward 30 ft a round.
It takes no account for terrain or weather or if it is day or night.
Also the pathfinder rules, like the 3.5 edition before it states that a first level character has problems targeting over 100 ft (If you fail your perception roll you cannot target it).
Also a knight can cover a lot of ground if running with his mount (by five with run feat, 250 ft a round). Barbarians are also fast. Range is a limited protection
Wizards are dangerous but will get slaughtered if by themselves. BTW I would prefer the archers to the wizards.
hope this helps
Sorry mucked up the quote. Apologies to Gavmania