Core Principle: Your Fantasy Economy is Bullshit

[MGuy]

In the places mentioned they have a tradition of teaching magic and IIRC those places have a significantly above average number of mages, which means they (excluding eberron which caps their npcs) have more higher level casters. I don't think its merely coincidence. Granted it IS probably a combination of Teaching AND experience but, unlike you, I don't believe experience for most people in DnD land is gained by killing stuff. I believe experience for most, non PC people, is just that, experience or in other words, practice. The only thing that I'd say would truly limit high level casters is a given PC's ability scores. If they ain't high enough they don't have the talent necessary.

Still. I don't understand how you or anyone can cling so tightly to the idea that magic doesn't change your economy. Magic can blow up the world, change your gender, and kill your god but it can't change or fix your economy.

[Username17]

Still. I don't understand how you or anyone can cling so tightly to the idea that magic doesn't change your economy. Magic can blow up the world, change your gender, and kill your god but it can't change or fix your economy.

What the entire fuck?

No one said magic didn't affect the economy. I said two things:

• Magic is just like any other method of production or service. It has inputs and outputs, and is evaluated in those terms exactly like any other methods.
• The wall of stone example you keep ejaculating about is a non-example. Because the costs are very high, the people who do it are very rare, and the outputs are very small.

More generally, lots of mazing magical techniques are similarly uninteresting from and economics standpoint because the marginal cost is high compared to the marginal benefit. And thus, other methods will predominate in those fields.

But magical powers can make a big influence. Many specific D&D examples have been mentioned. There's also Spirit Movement and Guard in Shadowrun. However, you keep flying off the handle and claiming that because a magical methodology exists that it is necessarily going to revolutionize the world and transform society and displace mundane workers from that field of endeavor. And that's... just not true. Magic only displaces mundane techniques at things where it is "better". And when you have 1 9th level Wizard and 20,000 mundane people in your "large city" then a 9th level Wizard had better be doing the work of an ass tonne of mundane normals before his method could rationally be called "better."

-Username17

[mean_liar]

It's all well and good to claim that MAGIC IS TECHNOLOGY and somehow you could change the way you did things and teach a fuck tonne of people how to cast powerful spells - but there are no rules for that. And no examples of any D&D settings where anyone does that. There is, in short, no reason at all to believe that the number of wizards in society is any less than the number of wizards society is capable of creating.

This is unlike the Wish economy, which shows up nowhere but your assumptions about what should happen in the setting. If all you're trying to do is come up with post-facto reasons why the game's generic setting is how it is without adding anything, then the Wish economy goes too.

There could also be custom Feats that allow Wizarding colleges (allowing you to take multiple apprentices as Cohorts at -X level, tiering downward) or industrial magic (using the pre-existing rules on spell invention to create more applicable/effective non-dungeoneering uses of magic). You just don't want to write them in. But unlimited low-level wealth is okay (but also doesn't affect the economy)?

[Crissa]

The Wish economy doesn't go, because it doesn't postulate any mechanics that aren't already in the setting.

You can't say there are ways of making more wizards when the setting doesn't have more methods of making wizards. You're postulating something outside of the system, somewhat like a creationist postulates that evolution is merely one tool of many an unknown intelligence is manipulating.

-Crissa

[MGuy]

Well speaking generally across the board. I'd think we should just leave it at a "it depends". Magic isn't a hard coded term. Different system's settings, set ups have different styles of "magic" that do various things and have varying limits and uses. I'd think it would be impossible to determine what anything looked like until we know exactly what "magic" CAN do in a given setting.

That's a tautologically true but ridiculously unhelpful statement.

I think it's very important to note that magical creation is just a job. It creates wealth, but so does farming. Most of the wealth creation tricks really aren't even that big a deal. I mean seriously, wall of stone? It's 37.5 cubic feet of stone. That's nice... and it's even cooler that it comes pre-installed. But there isn't a quarry on the planet that would wipe its ass with that kind of power.

-Username17

This... Is what got me started on my whole rant. You said that it was JUST A JOB. To which I responded:

However even in terms of DnD I disagree with you, a lot. Casting, item creation, blah blah blah may just be "a job" but it is an undeniably and significantly BETTER job. With magic you can break past the limits, risks, and times that are set upon people by generic life. Yes a quarry HAS more material than a single casting of Wall of Stone but you have to get a LOT of man power and other resources to mine it in a fashion that would trump what an equal group of mages could produce. Then you face environmental hazards, weather, famine, having to protect shipments from ne'er do wells etc. When, on the flip side, you get enough people crafting wand of Wall of Stones and train not-so-high-level people to be able to use those wands and you've created a steady flow of whatever material you need that you can change at your leisure (i don't believe the spell designates what kind of rock you can produce). Doing so you don't have to worry about weather, famine, protecting the mine, destroying the landscape, endangering lives, etc etc. More over you can apply it DIRECTLY where you want it in the shape you want it in no muss no fuss.

All I'm saying is Magic is better, in all ways out to infinite. There is nothing in the world, done in a mundane way, that is better than magic. Making ti the obvious career choice for any who can do it. All you've been saying since is that: Magic isn't a big deal, it won't change shit. Magic can't be taught to people. Magic won't innovate anything. At least that's what you were saying when actually getting to my actual point. That is what I disagree with. And casting Wall of Stone a few times a day STILL trumps dirt farmers in creating a castle.

[Username17]

All I'm saying is Magic is better, in all ways out to infinite. There is nothing in the world, done in a mundane way, that is better than magic.

And this is why you are full of shit. Magic is just a method. It does stuff. Not infinity stuff, just whatever the fuck it says it does. And it isn't free. It takes actual time from actual skilled professionals and often other stuff besides.

Find Traps is never going to replace Rogues and Scouts, because Rogues and Scouts, completely mundanely, perform better than that incredibly shitty spell. You are literally looking at methods with higher costs and lower returns and claiming it's better anyway because it is magic. That does not make any fucking sense. At all. On any level.

If something has higher costs for lower returns, it is worse. If something has lower costs for higher returns, it is better. Whether or not it is magic doesn't change that equation at all.

-Username17

[MGuy]

No it is better because it does things in the most efficient way. You are not looking at it in the same way I am. Yes, a rogue or scout can find traps better than a mage could casting it. But you know what they have to get training to do so (since trap finding is a class dependent skill). A mage pops it down and a year or two worth of experience in finding traps becomes instantly his and that's IFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF he doesn't take the time to make search a class skill and put ranks into it in which case he IS better than them. Additionally if the rogue or scout were to be able to use the spell they'd be able to do it BETTER than they would without it. So once again person with magic > same person without. And again, the cost is a spell slot. And if he's not gonna be searching that day, guess what, there are any number of other things he can do with that spell slot on a given day while a rogue/scout are just stuck with the singular ability to find traps. Whoopdee fucking doo.

[Username17]

No it is better because it does things in the most efficient way. You are not looking at it in the same way I am.

No. If I'm not looking at things your way, it's because your way is retarded.

Efficiency is measured by two things. Two. Inputs. And Outputs.

• If Inputs go up, the process is less efficient.
• If Inputs go down, the process is more efficient.
• If Outputs go up, the process is more efficient.
• If Outputs go down, the process is less efficient.

That's it. That's the final word. And if your way of looking at things gets a different answer, then your way is wrong. Period.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Ok then if you are looking at it efficiently lets check the score. Rogue/Scout trades out any other kind of abilities they COULD have to get the ability to find traps and sneak attack along with more skills and skill points. All of their lives they'll essentially only be able to do those things. For all the hard work they PUT IN to being a better rogue or scout that's the kind of shit they have to PUT OUT for it. On the other hand you have mr wizard who learns "magic". For all the hard work, equal to that of the rogue and scout, that he PUTS IN to being a wizard he can PUT OUT more than them. They can find and disable traps? Wizard can destroy the building traps are in, find the traps, bypass the traps, make an exact copy of the trap, teleport trap maker into trap, force trap maker's family into the trap in the same fucking day. Certainly seems like the time and effort you put in magic has a higher return than learning to be a better rogue. Perhaps if that rogue and scout found the right MAGIIIIIIC items they might do better.

[A Man In Black]

stuff

I seriously don't know what point you're trying to make any more.

[MGuy]

Said my point already. Man with magic > than man without it.

[Endovior]

Your point is that Wizards are more awesome then Rogues?

DUH.

Everyone knows this already, you've made a non-point.

[Leress]

Said my point already. Man with magic > than man without it.

1. No shit, Sherlock.
2. Your examples don't do shit to the economy.

[violence in the media]

Said my point already. Man with magic > than man without it.

I think the problem is that you're trying to compare the productive outputs of one wizard of 9th+ level to one peasant laborer when, properly, you should be comparing the productive outputs of that wizard to 20 or 30 thousand such peasants.

"But we can train all the peasants to use magic and be wizards too!"
Well, I suppose you could, but that would be a massive public education process that apparently requires a decade or so (from the wizard random starting ages) just to get to the point of throwing a single first level spell in a day. Training anyone with an intelligence of 10 or lower in magic is a total waste, and a similar argument could be made against wasting the training resources on anyone with less than a 13 intelligence--assuming you ultimately want them to cast 5th level spells.

Right there, you've eliminated more than half of the PHB racial populations. Not to mention that there will be people who, quite reasonably, determine that they can become a more successful barrister or merchant in less time than it would take them to master the intricacies of Magic Missile.

[RobbyPants]

Said my point already. Man with magic > than man without it.

Of fucking course.

But what's that have to do when comparing one wizard to a bunch of people working for a pittance and their effect on the economy?

[TheFlatline]

"But we can train all the peasants to use magic and be wizards too!"
Well, I suppose you could, but that would be a massive public education process that apparently requires a decade or so (from the wizard random starting ages) just to get to the point of throwing a single first level spell in a day. Training anyone with an intelligence of 10 or lower in magic is a total waste, and a similar argument could be made against wasting the training resources on anyone with less than a 13 intelligence--assuming you ultimately want them to cast 5th level spells.

Right there, you've eliminated more than half of the PHB racial populations. Not to mention that there will be people who, quite reasonably, determine that they can become a more successful barrister or merchant in less time than it would take them to master the intricacies of Magic Missile.

I wonder who would raise crops to feed the 20-30,000 peasants while they studied for 12 hours a day for a few years.

And for every wizard who manages to get to the point where they can sling, say, 4th level spells, what do you think the attrition rate is in killed/otherwise lost wizards? Shall we be conservative and say 50-to-1?

From a societal standpoint, that is an immense amount of investment for a relatively small amount of reward.

Also, MGuy is missing the social prestige and privilege of guy with magic being simply better. Those who *can* get into a position to learn magic aren't going to want *everyone* to learn it, simply because being better is prestigious. I can see wealthy families sending their non-inheriting sons off to apprentice to some wizard in order to make a name for themselves (much like historically how non-inheriting sons would enlist in the military to make their own name and fortune), which would only reinforce the aristocracy of being a magic user.

Unless, of course, the society has a paranoid/negative outlook towards magic, which seems to be an unspoken undercurrent in most D&D settings. Even in high magic settings, it always seems like the peasantry, and even the wealthy/ruling class has a stand-offish viewpoint to magic. They might use it, but they don't *like* it. At least, that's the vibe I've always gotten.

[FatR]

The Wish economy doesn't go, because it doesn't postulate any mechanics that aren't already in the setting.

You can't say there are ways of making more wizards when the setting doesn't have more methods of making wizards.

Going by mechanics, all you need to make a wizard is a dude with above-average Intelligence. The rest is fluff, that the Wish economy ignores as well. "A large part of population is wizards" is a far more logical corollary to RAW than the Wish economy. Because the Wish economy fixates on a single game-breaking trick, while arbitrarily ignoring other 1000 RAW tricks, that can reshape the world into a post-scarcity society with no problems at all (see: Tippyverse), because Frank likes his DnD to be grimdark. And, really, a post-scarcity society is but a tip of the iceberg of things possible.

[MGuy]

@ Endovair; Great now if a people are better off with magic, what is the point of having anything else? Why wouldn't you instead of making more rogues, barbarians, and whatever that don't do nearly as much as a mage does? They are useless wastes of space. While you can't make every dirt farmer have adventurer levels you would most likely have everyone WITH adventurer levels learn magic. It doesn't take every wizard in the world to start the trend it takes the existence of wizard academies, priesthoods, bardic colleges, and whatever you call groups of druids that get together to realize, hey magic is > than every thing else we have. Sure if teaching is unavailable then there should be other things but when it is everyone who has a decent mental stat should be in those schools. Get every fucker you can to 5th level (which apparently is the limit) and have them turbo grind to higher levels. There is NO good reason not to.

@Leress: I know its obvious. Increasing crop yields, keeping monsters at bay, making something from nothing, being able to control weather, divine locations of necessary resources, Send messages long distances, keep wandering beasts at bay, charm anyone and everyone you meet into being the best friend you've ever had, create things in environments and under conditions you'd otherwise be unable to, save lives, purify tainted food/water, fix broken things with no crafting experience endure harsh conditions you'd normally be unable to, reveal lies and falsehoods, create your own food/water, animate your own free labor/war force, infect the population of competitors, make any animal your friend, gain help from woodland creatures, instant home. And if you don't think you can utilize any of those (some thing you can learn on your way to 5th level in a nice, non dangerous environment) to help your economy, if you're thinking that all of those are useless. You can instead take your army of military wizards and curb stomp each and every nation who hasn't built up a strong magical heritage. Or you can infiltrate it with your charming wizard spies. Or you can subvert it with your able wizard merchants. If my court is full of wizards and your court is full of a mix of shit that is objectively worse than my wizards, I win.

@Violence: Granted Education isn't a 100% thing. And true enough, i believe most people didn't bother taking advantage of it. However the one wizard thing was just an example. It showed the "potential". However if you institutionalize teaching, make the learning of how to cast a spell a regular thing then you've got hundreds teaching thousands. It would take time, sure enough, to get everything off the ground floor, and you'd need groups of mages (not just wizards, you should hit all your stats up, Druid, bard, cleric, and of course training for your every once in a while sorc) who'd be willing to educate the populace. Now everyone isn't going to do it but as evidenced in most fantasy fiction there are nations that actually do that. You don't need everyone in a given small community to be the best of the best. Just by being a 5th level caster you make your village better.

@Robby: I've repeated this a number of times. Its not about what one wizard can do. Its about what a whole generation of people who can wield magic can do vs a whole generation of people who can't.

@ Flatline: Motivation is something else all together. I don't expect every god king to do the same thing with their powers. However if we are simply going to accept the undercurrent in the DnD settings (and by that I'm assuming you mean accept that what's there is there for a reason) than this discussion is pointless.

[Starmaker]

This is unlike the Wish economy, which shows up nowhere but your assumptions about what should happen in the setting. If all you're trying to do is come up with post-facto reasons why the game's generic setting is how it is without adding anything, then the Wish economy goes too.

It is all about post-facto reasons. PCs, while speshul, are not unique. Frank is interpreting the rules in a way conducive to a stable and playable game world. People don't want post-scarcity money-can't-buy-me-love existential bullshit in their vaguely medieval fantasy heartbreakers.

Once you accept the industrial revolution as an immediate outcome of the laws of magic, you will only be able to stage games in that small window where it is in the process of winning and the only available theme will be "how magic wins". This is obviously bad for a game.

---

The game - any game - should include a number of fantastic elements. These set the basis of various conflicts to be resolved (by the players) and serve for general awesomification. The price is paid in closing off other possible plots and general reduction of verisimilitude. if the total is negative, that change is dumb. (Never fuck with units and compass points.)

Say, cloud castles are awesome. In a typical D&D campaign, you might go and conquer one. And you might run a campaign based on a cluster of flying islands, Dragon Hunters-style. What you don't want is giving each peasant an easy way to lift their straw-and-crap hovel into the air.

Similarly, undead is cool, and Endless Night is a crazy awesome campaign to play in (if anyone here is going to run one, remember I signed up). But no one wants Shadow Over The Sun to be the D&D default, and if it's in the actual rules (spoiler alert: it is), you fix the dumb parts because they are dumb.

A thing to keep in mind here is the distinction between a campaign, a setting, and a game. If you for some reason want to run a Final Revolution scenario and ragnarok the setting to a happy end, that's fine. But that shit shouldn't ruin other people's games. Whether the Final Revolution is or is not currently in the D&D rules has no bearing on whether it should or should not be there.

Bottom line: the ability to change the world does not scale with firepower dramatically - or, indeed, at all. It actually has a slight reverse relationship once we demand some playability standards. Forgotten Realms is not shitty because things are in a stalemate, it is shitty because the main characters are npc wizards and whoever isn't one is forced to suck cock. And consider DMH where things are getting better in 20 to 50 years, and exactly because magic is not zomgcrazypowerful we can has meaningful gradual change and a multitude of meaningful adventures.

Also:

FrankTrollman[/url]]But remember that in setting there is no particular reason to think that people who know how to do things that are considered possible by people in the modern world would seem any less impressive or magical to the people living in the fantasy world. One person can use telekinesis to lift a 4 kilogram object, while another person can make a block and tackle to personally lift a 400 kilogram object. Which do you think is more impressive to people who are born into a world in which both are possible?

[mean_liar]

The Wish economy doesn't go, because it doesn't postulate any mechanics that aren't already in the setting.

Frank actually referenced published settings to say that there's no way to create more wizards.

Moreso, the bigger point was that you can create unlimited wands under the Wish economy but... that doesn't effect the world economic systems. Because I don't know why.

Unless you go to the Tomes, in which case you're limited in slots. But then, that's a custom rule... just like custom spells for manufacturing or infrastructure development, or custom feats to encourage more wizarding.


...


According to DMG demographics, about 1% of any population is a spellcaster of some kind.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

@ Endovair; Great now if a people are better off with magic, what is the point of having anything else?

If people who are highly educated are so much better than everyone else in real life, what's the point of having them?

Seriously, your rantings have become incoherent. No one is listening to you anymore. Just stop posting in this thread and walk away.

[Korwin]

How many people could an High-Level* Wizard support** with the Wish-Economy?

*High enough for Planar Binding Efreeti.

** Wish for bread, etc.

[Kaelik]

The Wish economy doesn't go, because it doesn't postulate any mechanics that aren't already in the setting.

Frank actually referenced published settings to say that there's no way to create more wizards.

Moreso, the bigger point was that you can create unlimited wands under the Wish economy but... that doesn't effect the world economic systems. Because I don't know why.

Unless you go to the Tomes, in which case you're limited in slots. But then, that's a custom rule... just like custom spells for manufacturing or infrastructure development, or custom feats to encourage more wizarding.

The Wish Economy itself is a custom rule, because the custom rule is no magic items over 15,000gp. The actual rule is that everyone with 2000gp has a staff of infinite wishes which they use to create more staves of infinite wishes.

That's balls to the walls stupid, so a custom rule exists to make it not possible (or, actually, several custom rules) of which Book of Gears rules are some.

The point of the custom rule to wish is to make wish useful, and do the things we want it to do, while also making it not do the things we don't want it to do.

[mean_liar]

The Tome rewrites primarily address shortfalls with DnD rules dealing with adventuring. I believe that it is clear that a similar rewrite to address the bizarre demographics and economics of the DMG/DMG2 - or even extension to existing spell lists - is a similarly reasonable undertaking.

My point was that there is an arbitrary limit on what custom content was reasonable and what wasn't. We can talk about Tome stuff, but when you step outside the limited bounds of what the Tome attempts to do, it's a no-go? That's silly. Not only that, but my limited reading of the Tome implies that you're still cranking out unlimited Wishes - which include mundane items.

[Username17]

The Wish Economy is indeed just a couple of nerfs. The first is a nerf to wish, reinstating the 3e price limit on wished items, and the second is a nerf to savings. Namely that you can't save up copper pieces towards any magic item whose nominal value is more than 300 pounds of gold. That's it.

The Wish Economy doesn't empower anyone or hand out amazing wealth outside the capacities of the system or anything. It's just a slight expansion to the DMG "gp limit" rules stating that purchases outside the 15k limit - supposedly only possible in the most major of cities - also have to be bartered using something of comparable value - and not simply hundreds and hundreds of pounds of gold or tonnes and tonnes of silver.

I'm not really sure what you think the wish economy is, or why you could or would take it out of the game.

-Username17