Every noble or rich person should be a wizard...


Advice

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I think of npc wizard, I assume "most of them probably just spend their times crafting items"- it is safe, and it provides a lot of money.

This seems like a great way for a noble to make sure his promising second son is taken care of. Additionally... 8 years of wizard school gets him away from the house long enough for the first son to consolidate power. Thus, you would have the backup heir, but they wouldn't have the time to cause inheritance issues.

The first son wouldn't aim to be a wizard. it would take up too much time to learn... and they wouldn't have time to actually use their knowledge. Experimenting and crafting takes a lot of time from ruling, and they aren't adventurers constantly going into battle.

It is great to RAISE a wizard for your house. No one is going to argue the usefulness of a spellcaster. But personally being a wizard is probably not the most conducive to being a ruler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, god forbid your nobleman's son is actually a dullard or lazy or a clod. Once you ARE rich, it doesn't take much talent or effort to STAY rich, just don't screw it up. To borrow dickensian language, the estate produces an income, i.e. You already have the managers etc in place and they keep the place running, you just cash the checks and make sure to schmooze with the neighbors so that you get invited to the fancy parties.

Being a Wizard takes work. Being a rich fail-son just takes being rich.


lemeres wrote:

When I think of npc wizard, I assume "most of them probably just spend their times crafting items"- it is safe, and it provides a lot of money.

This seems like a great way for a noble to make sure his promising second son is taken care of. Additionally... 8 years of wizard school gets him away from the house long enough for the first son to consolidate power. Thus, you would have the backup heir, but they wouldn't have the time to cause inheritance issues.

The first son wouldn't aim to be a wizard. it would take up too much time to learn... and they wouldn't have time to actually use their knowledge. Experimenting and crafting takes a lot of time from ruling, and they aren't adventurers constantly going into battle.

It is great to RAISE a wizard for your house. No one is going to argue the usefulness of a spellcaster. But personally being a wizard is probably not the most conducive to being a ruler.

But they wouldn't keep leveling as a wizard I think. Or at least most wouldn't. They'd get learn enough have a few useful spells then spend the rest of their career advancing as something else.

Though I suppose that's not possible under PF2's weird multiclass system. Was doable under PF1.

Hmm maybe start as Rogue for the skills then multiclass into Wizard?


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Hmm maybe start as Rogue for the skills then multiclass into Wizard?

Yeah, rogue with a wizard dedication would be pretty fair for a decent int score noble. That would be someone focused mostly on various skills (which could be applied to ruling and social situations) who also dabbles in magic.


Random other thought I just had. Rich people and hard work man... I don't think so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Random other thought I just had. Rich people and hard work man... I don't think so.

I feel it is a cyclical thing. The first generation builds up a grand house, the second generation gets the benefits of the house without having to work and thus squander it, and then the third generation has to build the now broken house back up from the rubble. Rinse and repeat.

Depending on the degree of competition, second generation gets sniped by first and third generation because they are big fat cattle.

For the purposes of this discussion, it might be a wizard that was enrolled in school at the time of his house's collapse, and thus he managed to get through his education armed and willing to use magical knowledge to claw his way back up. (thinking more of story seeds: second sun is sent to college with full tuition to get him out of the house. While he is gone, the first son supports the wrong royal heir, and thus the house is smacked down by the prince that got the crown; first son likely did not make it out with his head).


I could see it be a campaign setting as long as a good reason was in but for my games royalty and the rich tend to take martial roles with big heavy armor. Cavaliers typically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: Fighters, with any class it's not simply a matter of something nearly anyone can do. Even if the fiction does say it's something everyone is capable of, it's still not something many do because it's extremely difficult - a lot of eastern martial arts fantasy will say that it's a result of almost supernatural dedication. A fighter's not simply a representation of your bog-standard soldier, a Fighter is more like a John Wick or Neo from the Matrix - doing stuff that's technically possible but they're clearly supernaturally good, far better than anyone else that's ever lived. A soldier might be able to walk up to someone and do a Strike with a longsword; a Fighter will be wombo-comboing enemies like a XIao Xiao animation, doing one action to set up the next to devastating effect. The sheer talent in physical combat is as rare as the gift of magic.

As for Wizards and wealth, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth inequality comes about. The ultra-wealthy are not that way because they have merit, they are not better than the unwashed masses. They're that way because they got capital.

In fantasy terms, it's useful to be a Wizard, sure. But it's even more useful to have the capital to just hire Wizards to do the work for you. Why do the potentially dangerous work yourself, and be limited by the very few spells even the most powerful archmages can cast per day, when you can just hire an untold number of magically-gifted people and underpay them while reaping the rewards? You don't even have to be the best at managing Wizards or anything, so long you're ruthless enough to prevent them organizing and are involved in politics to prevent their organization. Your fantasy rich noble is no more intelligent or gifted than the real life Jeff Bezos, they're just in the right place at the right time and heartless enough to keep ahold of that advantage.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, nobles have wealth and thus less need and motivation to directly acquire personal power, not more.

But that said, the reverse (that non-noble Wizards will never be viewed as the equal to nobles, only employees) is not true in a world with levels. Becoming high enough level allows one to acquire wealth and political power in a way nothing really does in the real world because it creates the kind of direct personal power that is independent of the opinions of others and cannot be removed. Power like that makes you one of the ruling class the very second you want it to.

So people having some degree of upward mobility, having the ability to become one of the nobility (or as good as) due to sheer personal prowess is an inescapable reality in Golarion. And, really, the world reflects that pretty well in a variety of subtle ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes in modern society with common place high speed communication, a global inter connected economy, and easy to distribute/manage assets you just have to sit still and collect your check. However, in places where communication is more limited and requires special networks (Ex: a teleportation network), where the economy is more local, and where its hard to distribute/manage assets not being involved is equivalent of gifting away everything (or everyone just fears you that much).

What I'm trying to say is that a proper noble is a lot more involved in the day to day running than a businessman. And they cant just leave everything to others, as that has a high chance of causing trouble (stealing, poor management, abuse, etc.). There is also the part where nobles have to be either really good to the people to inspire loyalty, or so feared that people would think 3 times before even thinking of wanting to revel (*looks at Nidal and Cheliax*).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, nobles have wealth and thus less need and motivation to directly acquire personal power, not more.

But that said, the reverse (that non-noble Wizards will never be viewed as the equal to nobles, only employees) is not true in a world with levels. Becoming high enough level allows one to acquire wealth and political power in a way nothing really does in the real world because it creates the kind of direct personal power that is independent of the opinions of others and cannot be removed. Power like that makes you one of the ruling class the very second you want it to.

So people having some degree of upward mobility, having the ability to become one of the nobility (or as good as) due to sheer personal prowess is an inescapable reality in Golarion. And, really, the world reflects that pretty well in a variety of subtle ways.

Yeah I imagine going to a kingdom walking up to the king and saying: "yeah I had a look at your army... I can take em." (and you mean it) puts one in a unique position.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
Why do the potentially dangerous work yourself, and be limited by the very few spells even the most powerful archmages can cast per day, when you can just hire an untold number of magically-gifted people and underpay them while reaping the rewards?

Because if you were actually underpaying them, they could just decide not to work for you, and work for someone else instead?

Quote:
You don't even have to be the best at managing Wizards or anything, so long you're ruthless enough to prevent them organizing and are involved in politics to prevent their organization

And how does someone become so universally powerful that he can prevent Wizards, a group known for being ascetics, from going off into the wilderness, building a tower, and doing their own thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Strill wrote:
Helmic wrote:
Why do the potentially dangerous work yourself, and be limited by the very few spells even the most powerful archmages can cast per day, when you can just hire an untold number of magically-gifted people and underpay them while reaping the rewards?
Because if you were actually underpaying them, they could just decide not to work for you, and work for someone else instead?

Good luck to the noble that underpayed/mistreated the poison/disease tester/remover.

***********
Btw Galt is a great example of poor management. Irrisen is a great example of rule by magic and fear. Cheliax and Nidal are great examples of rule by extraplanar creatures. Etc.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Yes in modern society with common place high speed communication, a global inter connected economy, and easy to distribute/manage assets you just have to sit still and collect your check. However, in places where communication is more limited and requires special networks (Ex: a teleportation network), where the economy is more local, and where its hard to distribute/manage assets not being involved is equivalent of gifting away everything (or everyone just fears you that much).

What I'm trying to say is that a proper noble is a lot more involved in the day to day running than a businessman. And they cant just leave everything to others, as that has a high chance of causing trouble (stealing, poor management, abuse, etc.). There is also the part where nobles have to be either really good to the people to inspire loyalty, or so feared that people would think 3 times before even thinking of wanting to revel (*looks at Nidal and Cheliax*).

I actually agree with all this, nobles have a variety of actual responsibilities and gain benefits from having a certain skill set with which to perform them. The thing is, the skill set to be good at this and that to become a level 1 Wizard? Absolutely zero overlap.

Learning magic is certainly something some Nobles will do, but it's just not actually useful in their day to day duties until and unless they get fairly high level (which there appears to be absolutely no in-universe way to ensure). So it's gonna come under either the 'hobby' designation or the 'non heir' category. I mean, I can easily see many Golarion nobles sending a second child off to learn magic just like real world nobles often sent second sons off to the church...and of course, a church might well be where some of them are sent to learn magic in Golarion, if their proclivities run that way.

But both those are 'some nobles, some of the time' not all nobles everywhere by any means.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Thoughts?

I think they often have been portrayed as wizards in adventures unless it was important for them to be portrayed as a martial character for some reason.

In Eberron (which is high availability of low level magic) the world has had an effective world war for the past 100 years. So in that setting many nobles wouldn't have had the resources available to frivolously become wizards. In that setting (which originated in 3.5) nobles are often shown with NPC classes (so the noble class) or simply don't have class levels at all.

But yes. If you're making NPCs with a PC class then there is definitely a good argument for aristocrats to be a wizard class. That would be the default class unless there's a compelling reason to not be (perhaps they're just not smart enough to become wizards).

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

This is actually starting to point out why class (im)balance made a ton of sense, and "fixing" it doesn't make much sense at all.

Anyone (literally anyone) can become a "Fighter." PC, NPC, doesn't matter. It's an open book for anyone who can pick up a weapon.

And yet most NPC soldiers and guards have levels in the Warrior NPC class, instead of Fighter.

So even Fighter takes a little something better than just picking up a greatsword and claiming the title.

And yeah, agreed with the rest upthread. Not everyone can be a Wizard.

Or pretty much any other base class. (The Eberron setting even had an NPC arcane caster, the Magewright.)

The vast bulk of people are stuck with Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert and Warrior, as the height of their potential, with the best spellcasting career they can hope for being that of the Adept. (And Golarion has vanishingly few Adepts, since I don't think James Jacob is a fan of the class, perhaps thinking it cheapens spellcasting to make it available as commonly as an NPC class would make it, to say nothing of how it can be problematic when combined with other rules, such as the Leadership feat, which allows dozens of low level Followers with a few levels in NPC classes. Imagine making them all Adepts...)

Dark Archive

Neo2151 wrote:
Strill wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

This is actually starting to point out why class (im)balance made a ton of sense, and "fixing" it doesn't make much sense at all.

Anyone (literally anyone) can become a "Fighter." PC, NPC, doesn't matter. It's an open book for anyone who can pick up a weapon.
But look at how much defense is being given to Mages needing to be extra before they can even start?
Yet, in outcomes, they should be similar?

Not everyone can be a "fighter". A "fighter" is not just any old joe who picks up a sword. A "fighter" is a hero on the path to matching the likes of Achilles, Cu Chulainn, Jason, or Bellerophon. An NPC can train for combat, but that doesn't mean they're going to match a player character, no matter how hard they try.

Eeh, hard disagree.

The Fighter will never match up to those legendary folks because a) the mechanics don't support the kind of feats they are capable of, and/or b) because they became what they were through being much much more than just a Fighter (divine blood, magic, etc.)

Just remember that level 20 fighter should be able to solo stuff like gargantuan colorful cave worms :p That isn't just "lots of mundane training", that IS extraordinary. They might not be mythic, but not everyone would be able to do that just with lots of training

(level 18 Crimson Worm vs single level 20 Fighter would be "moderate" encounter)


Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Because anyone can become a Wizard with training.

But a Wizard only needs training. Who can afford that training? The upper classes. Every single noble family, merchant clan or similar group with sense would shell out whatever's needed to train their kids with at least the basics of magic use. Even if it's only to enable them to defend themselves against others.

Thoughts?

Because it is more complex than that and just like in the real world not everyone can become a neurosurgeon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Yes in modern society with common place high speed communication, a global inter connected economy, and easy to distribute/manage assets you just have to sit still and collect your check. However, in places where communication is more limited and requires special networks (Ex: a teleportation network), where the economy is more local, and where its hard to distribute/manage assets not being involved is equivalent of gifting away everything (or everyone just fears you that much).

But the thing is that's not the case, and never has been. Say I own a fleet of merchant ships. I obviously can't captain all of them, I might not even know how to sail, and I don't need to. I hire someone who is good at hiring ship captains, and they hire the captains. I pay someone to take inventory and balance the books and hire the deck hands and the warehouse workers etc. etc. etc.

It is possible someone along the way is stealing from me? You bet, but writing off a loss from theft is literally the price of doing business. There isn't enough hours in the day to run everything yourself. The thing is, the incentives for your employees to cheat you are low, because you can fire them. The incentives for you to not be a lazy drunk are also low, because most everything already runs itself. In a feudal system, it doesn't matter how much merit you have, because the king isn't king on merit, it's because his dad was king. Abrigail Thrune is a powerful sorceress and devil binder, BUT she's queen of Cheliax because her mom was queen. Queen of Irrisen is queen of Irrisen because her grandma is Baba Yaga.


More involved in day to day =/= micromanaging it. If you hire a person to hire ship captains you still need to check each captain's background, check they are being properly paid for their services, and check that the goods are being properly received/delivered (at least every so often). Being fired in a pseudo medieval were trading is a thing isn't really that much of a problem, specially since at low level money is effectively no problem (maybe a few harsh months).

One other thing, Nobles might compare better with mob bosses than businessmen. The main reason being that mob bosses dont have as much protection from betrayal unlike high level businessmen (with their law and other things).

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I removed some posts and replies. The wealth and merit commentary is a derail from this thread. Please bring the thread back on topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Becoming a Wizard is the equivalent of an advanced degree in a hard science. Specifically, a difficult one like Physics. Per the PF1 starting age stuff, it's probably around PhD equivalent.

I don't know that I agree especially if it's based on PF1 factors: the wizard has dramatically changed and there is no stat requirements Anyone with an 1 or higher stat [say by rolling for stats] can be a casting class, so you could have a 3 int and be a full fledged wizard: this is a pretty big seachange from PF1 where you had to be at least average or above to be the class.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not every Noble has the capability or desire to spend 8 years learning solely how to do Wizard magic and little else (note: Wizards actually have less Skills than anyone else, due to this monofocus).

I'm not sure how analogous the ages for PF1 wizards is to PF2. PF2 wizards can be just as young as any other classes so IMO that means their training is just as easy/hard as that of any other class: I can be a wizard at 16 and a fighter at 16 with identical training times leading up to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
...

Compared to other adventurers yes, but the distribution of spellcasters to commoners is quite low.

Adventurers are the exception rather than the rule, at least this is how it appears in Golarion.

Not having stat restrictions on players is also a game contrivance rather than something I think is worth while evaluating world building through. Especially now that dedications have stat requirements attached.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I don't know that I agree especially if it's based on PF1 factors: the wizard has dramatically changed and there is no stat requirements Anyone with an 1 or higher stat [say by rolling for stats] can be a casting class, so you could have a 3 int and be a full fledged wizard: this is a pretty big seachange from PF1 where you had to be at least average or above to be the class.

None of the institutions that exist in Golarion have changed their curriculum. They still take as long and are as difficult, that just takes a somewhat different mechanical form now (specifically, all Wizards now having +2 Int and training in Arcana just from being a Wizard).

My point very carefully didn't mention minimum Int score (which waxs indeed a thing only in PF1) just training time, which is a well established fact in-world.

And the minimum Wizard Int if rolling is technically 5, since they get a +2.

graystone wrote:
I'm not sure how analogous the ages for PF1 wizards is to PF2. PF2 wizards can be just as young as any other classes so IMO that means their training is just as easy/hard as that of any other class: I can be a wizard at 16 and a fighter at 16 with identical training times leading up to that.

You could always be a 17 year old Wizard (or lower if your GM allowed it). But they were exceptional, a prodigy. It taking many years to train as a Wizard is an established bit of world lore that has not changed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
graystone wrote:
I don't know that I agree especially if it's based on PF1 factors: the wizard has dramatically changed and there is no stat requirements Anyone with an 1 or higher stat [say by rolling for stats] can be a casting class, so you could have a 3 int and be a full fledged wizard: this is a pretty big seachange from PF1 where you had to be at least average or above to be the class.
None of the institutions that exist in Golarion have changed their curriculum.

None of the spells in Golarion changed, either. They've always worked that way.

Which way curricula in Golarion have always worked is currently unclear. We only know how they used to always work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
graystone wrote:
...
Compared to other adventurers yes, but the distribution of spellcasters to commoners is quite low.

It's a good thing we weren't talking about commoners though... *looks at OP and reads "noble or rich person"*

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Adventurers are the exception rather than the rule, at least this is how it appears in Golarion.

Not sure what that has to do with what I said... If the PF1 commentary is relevant, so too would PF2's: adventurer or not wasn't at issue or you should have commented at Deadmanwalking's too.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Not having stat restrictions on players is also a game contrivance rather than something I think is worth while evaluating world building through. Especially now that dedications have stat requirements attached.

It's a complete change in how the class works: there are PLENTY of spells you can use as a wizard that do not care the least what your Int is. IMO, that's what makes those stat requirements of the devotions so egregious IMO: they make no sense to me as no class requires even average stats let alone 14's. Secondly, the "contrivance" is for anyone made using the PC rules: if you aren't using the PC rules then they aren't wizard be definition [they aren't made by using a class]. As such, I'm not sure I see much relevance in this part of your post.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
None of the institutions that exist in Golarion have changed their curriculum. They still take as long and are as difficult, that just takes a somewhat different mechanical form now (specifically, all Wizards now having +2 Int and training in Arcana just from being a Wizard).

I'm not sure that matters though: being tutored, mentored or or specially trained takes far less than an institutions. You could have a martial school cover 8 years too if you expect to send your child at 6-8. I'm not sure there is a correlation to 'this one school takes x years' and 'all wizard training take x years'.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And the minimum Wizard Int if rolling is technically 5, since they get a +2.

While there aren't any int flaw races yet, I included that in my post calculations as I'm sure we'll see that at some point: hence the 5 -2 for flaw form 3.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
You could always be a 17 year old Wizard (or lower if your GM allowed it). But they were exceptional, a prodigy. It taking many years to train as a Wizard is an established bit of world lore that has not changed.

You said "Per the PF1 starting age stuff" which doesn't apply anymore: the game no longer tells you some classes take longer to train by default. That's why it's NO longer an "exceptional, a prodigy" that can write 16 down as a wizard... The 5 int dullard wizard is just as acceptable an age for that wizard too as they did away with the extra training times.


I suspect the low Int ones usually get weeded out through some magical accident or another during training.


Cyouni wrote:
I suspect the low Int ones usually get weeded out through some magical accident or another during training.

IMO, they get directed to spells that suit them: non-attack spells that have the same affect no matter your int like shield, detect magic, air bubble and/or anthaul. If your from a rich merchant family, you aren't unhappy if your dumb kid comes back from training being able to cast Floating Disk, Longstrider, Unseen Servant or Anthaul.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

None of the spells in Golarion changed, either. They've always worked that way.

Which way curricula in Golarion have always worked is currently unclear. We only know how they used to always work.

They're explicitly sticking with setting stuff from PF1 being true. So setting elements like 'Wizards take a while to learn to be Wizards' remain.

graystone wrote:
I'm not sure that matters though: being tutored, mentored or or specially trained takes far less than an institutions. You could have a martial school cover 8 years too if you expect to send your child at 6-8. I'm not sure there is a correlation to 'this one school takes x years' and 'all wizard training take x years'.

Sure, but the setting stuff has always been very explicit that it takes a longer time to learn to be a Wizard than, well, almost any other profession. It is treated by the setting as a difficult academic discipline.

graystone wrote:
While there aren't any int flaw races yet, I included that in my post calculations as I'm sure we'll see that at some point: hence the 5 -2 for flaw form 3.

Ah! You're right, I was thinking flaws couldn't reduce stats below 3 like in PF1, but there's no text indicating that.

That said, rolling is an optional rule that I'm not sure we should really be thinking about for world building purposes.

graystone wrote:
You said "Per the PF1 starting age stuff" which doesn't apply anymore: the game no longer tells you some classes take longer to train by default.

I was using the PF1 stuff to get a specific number of years, but it's clearly established in the world lore in things like the Pathfinder Tales (which, unlike the previous rule system, remain canonical) that it takes a long time to learn to be a Wizard. That's why the reference to specific number of years was the only time I mentioned PF1 or anything from it. As an example of how many years it might take. The fact that it's a significant number of them is not in dispute if you read the fiction and sourcebooks, I just thought a number (even if it's only hypothetical) would provide people with an idea of what 'a number of years' actually means.

graystone wrote:
That's why it's NO longer an "exceptional, a prodigy" that can write 16 down as a wizard... The 5 int dullard wizard is just as acceptable an age for that wizard too as they did away with the extra training times.

You could do it at Int 11 in PF1 as well. Or Int 5 if you didn't want spells, just 'Wizard' written on your sheet. Indeed, nothing required you to roll for starting age so literally every Wizard you played could be 17.

But that doesn't change how rare things are in setting, which is completely independent of the PC rules. And the setting makes it abundantly and canonically explicit that becoming a Wizard is difficult and takes a long time.

Why did your Int 5 Wizard take less time? That's for you and the GM to determine (maybe you're an idiot savant or something), but it doesn't meaningfully effect how things work for most people in the setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

None of the spells in Golarion changed, either. They've always worked that way.

Which way curricula in Golarion have always worked is currently unclear. We only know how they used to always work.

They're explicitly sticking with setting stuff from PF1 being true. So setting elements like 'Wizards take a while to learn to be Wizards' remain.

That's not an independent setting element. That's an outgrowth of rules that used to exist for starting ages on classes. Those rules are now gone, so the setting must adjust to accommodate the change.

Perhaps Wizards still take a while. But if that's the case, people start learning to be wizards earlier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Becoming a Wizard is the equivalent of an advanced degree in a hard science. Specifically, a difficult one like Physics. Per the PF1 starting age stuff, it's probably around PhD equivalent.
I don't know that I agree especially if it's based on PF1 factors: the wizard has dramatically changed and there is no stat requirements Anyone with an 1 or higher stat [say by rolling for stats] can be a casting class, so you could have a 3 int and be a full fledged wizard: this is a pretty big seachange from PF1 where you had to be at least average or above to be the class.

From experience- getting through a PhD program has a lot less to do with "how smart you are" and a lot more to do with "how far you get before your 'give-a-crap' runs out."

I imagine Wizard school is much the same, it's just that the reward is a fair bit better than the endless post-doc treadmill.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

That's not an independent setting element. That's an outgrowth of rules that used to exist for starting ages on classes. Those rules are now gone, so the setting must adjust to accommodate the change.

Perhaps Wizards still take a while. But if that's the case, people start learning to be wizards earlier.

But it is an independent setting element. None of the other Classes that had the same starting age as Wizards had it established that in-universe their training was an extensive and formal academic process. Yet Wizards did, and were implied or even outright stated to take longer than people like Clerics who had the same listed starting age.

And yet, Wizards have exactly that fact emphasized numerous times. That makes it an entirely separate setting assumption.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Side note, I feel like clerics had the same starting age because they need to memorize prayers, rituals, and overall just learn to commune with the deity.)

Also as for sending kids off to study, well Valerie's backstory was that her father sent her away to become a Paladin of Shelyn. I'm sure she isn't the only case and that there probably are plenty of children sent away to various Academies and Temples.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Or another kind of spell caster.

Magic gives such a significant advantage over (non adventuring) non spellcasters. I don't mean in combat but in every day life.

Divination especially. Want to find out what's the best thing to invest in for the next year? Divination. Want to know how best to organize your troops? Divination. Want to learn what other nations are doing that might affect yours? Divination.

Then there's Enchantment/Charm magic. Want to improve your negotiations? Either charm them directly or boost your own speechcraft with Enchantment.

And of course, there's the protective aspect. Want to defend against anothers Divinations or Charms or whatever? Abjuration.

Since magic in Golarion has been around since literally the beginning of time, magic use should be well established in the societal/cultural structure of every intelligent nation.

And why Wizards you ask? Because anyone can become a Wizard with training. You need the right bloodline to be a Sorcerer. You need true faith and the acceptance of a god to be a Cleric or Druid.

But a Wizard only needs training. Who can afford that training? The upper classes. Every single noble family, merchant clan or similar group with sense would shell out whatever's needed to train their kids with at least the basics of magic use. Even if it's only to enable them to defend themselves against others.

Thoughts?

I pretty much share this sentiment. I wouldn't necessarily say that every person of sufficient material means becomes a wizard or other casting class but I do believe that in such a society magical education and training would be common place among such demographics. The extent of this would vary; including just enough to comprehend what a magic consultant/adviser is telling them, or activate scrolls or wands, or cast basic magic to an extent similar to that of the minor magic rogue feat. I think the majority should have the capability to activate the aforementioned items and cast a couple of cantrips; more uncommon but by no means rare, would be those who learn magic to the extent that they would, in mechanical terms, gain a level in a spell casting class. But even then they might not self-identify as a “wizard” etc.

A theme that tends to emerge in threads such as this i.e. what would nobility do/how would they be etc. is that people seem to have this conception that all nobility are incredibly lazy and possess unlimited funds. RL historically speaking this isn’t the case; the majority of nobles would have had to work hard and yes, compared to your average peasant they would have been wealthy but not to the almost unlimited extent people like to think. Irrc in mediaeval Britain, due to the financial strain involved, there’s instances of nobles lying to the king and saying that there’s plague in the area so he wouldn’t visit them. Nobles were keen on showing off their wealth, this would involve things like serving important guests food flavoured with imported spices from the east and claret from France served Bohemian glassware . I can easily imagine Galorian’s nobles being more than happy to brag about have learned magic from a famous wizard or about how they’ve sent their offspring to study at a prestigious mage academy.

I can certainly imagine bard being a common class among nobility; it has a diverse range of useful skills and there’s no obligation to actually be an entertainer, in fact the 2e CRB even presents being a “charismatic leader” as something a bard might pursue. Rogue (not a magic user class but I’m including it anyway) with Minor Magic feat and Scoundrel racket would fit nicely in noble society (2e CRB mentions politician and diplomat). I can see wizard and cleric (particularly of Abadar) being more uncommon but still widespread among nobility. I think sorcerers would be rare but appear more frequently than among the common folk. You might find the occasional eccentric noble becoming a druid but this would be one of the rarest classes.

To me it makes as much sense for nobles be trained in magic as it does for them to be trained in martial matters, which is a lot of sense because Galorian is a violent and dangerous world full of both mundane and magical threats. Yes they would probably have an adviser on hand but having some knowledge themselves would help them more effectively judge if said adviser is a) the real deal, b) not trying to use magic to take them over and c) if b happens, have some chance of protecting themselves.

That last point just gave me an idea for a wizard character: Lord of noble house is disinterested in magical matters, preferring to rely on hired help. Said hired help turns against the family etc. The lord's child goes on to become a wizard because:

a) The evil wizard is defeated by a band of adventurers but the noble house all but destroyed destroyed. Pivotal in the evil wizard's defeat was a skilled abjuration wizard. Impressed by the abjurer's ability to dispel, counter and banish the foul magics of the evil wizard, the sole survivor decides follow in the abjurer's footsteps and sells what assets remained to fund their arcane education.

or

b) The child escapes and eventually finds a way to learn magic with the plan of returning and getting vengeance.

or

c) Child becomes the slave-apprentice to the evil wizard. Eventually assassinates their master before leaving it all behind and becoming an adventurer.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bard seems like the perfect 'noble' class, actually. A smattering of magic. A smattering of swordplay. The ability to lead and inspire (flavor the Bardic Performance as inspiring oratory and tactical advice from a well-rounded education of past military stratagems of famous battles and generals from your nation).

It *might* feel a little more on theme if it was a prepared caster, and not a spontaneous caster, to represent that the noble bard's spellcasting comes from studies, but the inborn magic works just as well if there's any truth to the notion that this spontaneous magic comes from something 'special' in the family cocktail, as with a sorcerer, with the bardic nobles pointing to their innate spellcasting as 'proof' that their noble bloodline is *actually* special.

Ignore anything to do with music or song (although even a noble bard might at least know how to dance, at formal soirees!), since it's generally not on-theme, and go for it.

51 to 100 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Every noble or rich person should be a wizard... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.