Thelemic_Noun |
As far as I can see, one of the only benefits that sorcerers have over wizards and arcanists when it comes to being an emperor are their higher Charisma scores, which make them much better at the Ruler role in the kingdom-building rules.
When it comes to the incredibly complicated task of running a state, flexibility and problem-solving skills are of paramount importance.
Note that a 200-hex kingdom is equal in size to Slovenia or Costa Rica.
A half-elf who takes the human favored class bonus and learns the (nerfed) paragon surge spell is certainly in a better spot than most sorcerers, but any other race is at a significant disadvantage.
There are tools, of course, for sorcerers. At only 5,000 gp apiece, an emperor could stock a small closet with mnemonic vestments. The ring of spell knowledge and the page of spell knowledge also expand a sorcerer's repertoire.
But the ring and the vestments require that the sorcerer have access to the spell from a scroll or spellbook. (Theoretically, I suppose, a sorcerer could use limited wish to duplicate a spell and teach it to the ring, but doing so is rather expensive). Thus, there is nothing they can learn that their court wizards/arcanists do not already know. In which case, why not just be a wizard/arcanist and skip the complicated and expensive item setup? (Again, apart from the higher Charisma giving better returns in the kingdom-building and Leadership departments.)
One thing that might explain the sorcerer-king trope (and especially why empires run by sorcerer-kings are often relics of the past) is the Wild Arcana archmage mythic path ability, but obviously not all mage-emperors can be mythic.
So how would a sorcerer ever run a country?
Sundakan |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, not touching that.
But, the thing with being a ruler is instead of relying on "I have a spell for that", like Wizards do...you run on "I have a guy for that". Delegation is the key to success.
Your high Charisma and status as ruler means that you have your ow personal power, and the combined power of all your followers. Including any other Wizards or Sorcerers in the nation. And the Cha helps in convincing them or any powerful adventuring groups to help you.
Goblin_Priest |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea... I don't get it. I didn't see a single thing in your post explaining why a sorcerer wouldn't be a good leader.
Leadership feat, a handful of leadership boosting magic items, a strong charisma score, and at least mediocre intelligence (to invest in enough social skills) are all you need. I'd say bards make better leaders than sorcerers, but I see no reason why wizards or arcanists would be better than sorcerers.
Cole Deschain |
As an answer... "Why are sorcerer-kings a thing?"
Because rulership is a political position, not one based upon combat or magical statistics.
And because in English, tossing tabletop RPG character classes out the window, "sorcerer-king" has a long pedigree as the accepted shorthand for a king with some mojo.
How would a sorcerer run a country?
The same way a fighter would, or an Aristocrat, or a rogue, or a Barbarian, or a ranger.
Delegation.
Arbane the Terrible |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing it occurs to me: Unlike wizarding, Sorcery IS inheritable.
Because rulership is a political position, not one based upon combat or magical statistics.
I'm gonna be over here reading history and laughing like a hyena at this statement. How do you think anyone got to be king in the first place?
D'ni Dragon |
Yeah, "sorcerer kings" as a descriptor predate D&D I think, and I'm pretty sure the first ones to show up in D&D predate sorcerer as a class. The Dark Sun sorcerer-kings were epic level Wizard/Psychic Multiclasses. That said, sorcerers have a high charisma so they'd probably do pretty well as a king, fluffwise at least. They'd probably need more skill points.
Brew Bird |
Sorcerer bloodlines and noble titles are also both hereditary. A wizard king would have to spend time training their heir in both magic and statecraft. A sorcerer's child will probably be born with magic, so they can focus their education on developing the skills that are needed to run a country, their magic coming relatively easily.
Cole Deschain |
I'm gonna be over here reading history and laughing like a hyena at this statement. How do you think anyone got to be king in the first place?
For every Charlemagne, I can give you a dozen Tsar Nicholas II examples.
Scythia |
High charisma, and the right selection of spells will handle most tasks of rulership. Problems that can be solved with subjects can be, with magic used to grease the skids. A basic focus on Enchantment in particular makes getting and holding onto the job much easier.
Of course being a human sorcerer wouldn't hurt either...
Klorox |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arbane the Terrible wrote:I'm gonna be over here reading history and laughing like a hyena at this statement. How do you think anyone got to be king in the first place?For every Charlemagne, I can give you a dozen Tsar Nicholas II examples.
and Charlemagne did nothing to conquer his kingship, he inherited it from his father Pippin the Short who had done the job of deposing the Merovingian king... that he did great during his reign is something else altogether...still managed to be outfoxed by the pope on Xmas night, 800AD.
thejeff |
Sorcerer bloodlines and noble titles are also both hereditary. A wizard king would have to spend time training their heir in both magic and statecraft. A sorcerer's child will probably be born with magic, so they can focus their education on developing the skills that are needed to run a country, their magic coming relatively easily.
It's not clear that sorcerous bloodlines are that inheritable. It's not always a straight line with every ancestor and descendent having the bloodline. Alternately, they could inherit the power, but their talents could lead in a different direction entirely.
But mostly, charisma is at least as useful at taking and holding a throne as intelligence is and any high level character has access to the raw power.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
Given that the general assumption is that a King is a member of an NPC aristocrat class, I can't see the point of this question.
Sorcers are clearly more suited for the job than wizards. They get Bluff as a class skill, and the Charisma to back it up. All you need to truly seal the deal is orange hair and small hands.
Paradozen |
High charisma to help ease tensions between the classes and territories subjugated. Legitimate and onjectively testable claims of holy descent and leadership by birthright. Leadership (feat) granted by some bloodlines which happen to make great leaders.
And of course, Disintegrate and a high bluff/intimidate for when everything else isn't working.
avr |
Wizards are smart enough to know that ultimate power can be had without sitting on a throne. Why do you think everyone loathes the evil vizier, the power behind the throne? He must have dumped charisma.
Or the wizards are just off in their towers, summoning otherworldly beings when they want to slack off and enjoying a lifestyle at least as pleasant as the kings but with less duties.