A Dilemma of Class and the Vancian Writings.

[Ralcos]

I am building a Bronze Age setting, using real world historical information as a starting point, and I came across a dilemma.

Would it be a bad thing to limit or even forbid the vancian arcane classes (such as Wizard)?
I know that magic is a HUGE thing in myth and legend in the real world, even from this era, but the dilemma is the fact that the written word (at this point) is only just beginning; With only a few nations have a written language to record things.

So, what should I do in this situation? Thoughts? Comments? Advice?

Spoiler: Wikipedia source for more details

Show

Bronze Age Writing

Writing emerged in many different cultures in the Bronze Age. Examples are the cuneiform writing of the Sumerians, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Cretan hieroglyphs, Chinese logographs, and the Olmec script of Mesoamerica. The Chinese script likely developed independently of the Middle Eastern scripts, around 1600 BC. The pre-Columbian Mesoamerican writing systems (including Olmec and Maya scripts) are also generally believed to have had independent origins. It is thought that the first true alphabetic writing was developed around 2000 BC for Semitic workers in the Sinai by giving mostly Egyptian hieratic glyphs Semitic values (see History of the alphabet and Proto-Sinaitic alphabet). The Ge'ez writing system of Ethiopia is considered Semitic. It is likely to be of semi-independent origin, having roots in the Meroitic Sudanese ideogram system.[18] Most other alphabets in the world today either descended from this one innovation, many via the Phoenician alphabet, or were directly inspired by its design. In Italy, about 500 years passed from the early Old Italic alphabet to Plautus (750 to 250 BC), and in the case of the Germanic peoples, the corresponding time span is again similar, from the first Elder Futhark inscriptions to early texts like the Abrogans (ca. 200 to 750 CE).

[ArchLich]

That would depend...in 5th edition, little would be lost. If wizards do not exist, there could still be sorcerers and warlocks who wield arcane power. Having a "gift" for it, like sorcerers or bards, or forging a pact with an eldritch being, could be the only way to wield magic that anyone knows. No one would even think of studying magic the way wizards do.

And, in such a society where the spoken word holds so much more power, bards would really shine. One ould even argue for making bards the primary arcane casters in such a society, since they are basically walking libraries.

Can't speak for 4th edition, though.

[Jendekit]

My suggestion would be to ban all classes where the written word is a major shtick. You can still have magic using classes, but use ones where their magic isn't studied or researched in a library setting. Classes like the oracle, witch, and sorcerer from Pathfinder would really fit this setting.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

That would depend...in 5th edition, little would be lost. If wizards do not exist, there could still be sorcerers and warlocks who wield arcane power. Having a "gift" for it, like sorcerers or bards, or forging a pact with an eldritch being, could be the only way to wield magic that anyone knows. No one would even think of studying magic the way wizards do.

And, in such a society where the spoken word holds so much more power, bards would really shine. One ould even argue for making bards the primary arcane casters in such a society, since they are basically walking libraries.

This is, of course, the correct and proper answer/end of thread. But for the sake of argument, there is an alternative.

In one of the 3.5 supplement books (PHB2? Unearthed Arcana? Complete Mage?) there is a section for unconventional spellbooks. Bronze Age Wizards may not have access to paper, but they could certainly find ink. Tattoos could be used to replicate the effect of a spellbook, and it would be visually striking. There are also charms, like small bits of wood/bone with the spells marked on them in symbolic hieroglyphics. Each one is destroyed as the spell is cast. Or the spell is trapped within a knot on a length of rope. Untying the knot releases the spell. If all else fails, the Wizard's staff could be covered in similar markings that store their spells.

Literacy itself isn't the problem, in my eyes, but rather the way that traditional D&D Wizards used books made out of paper.

[ngilop]

the disconnect betwenn magic and writing and myths is very simple


up until very very recently ALL magic was of a divine source, all of it.

the way D&D has magic is not so much the vancian part of it ( use a spll and lose I to memory) its the whole magic is really just science ( the same input always produces the same output)

make magic more mysterious and not a if I do A, B , C and D I get X. that would be more bronze age I feel.

[Ralcos]

the disconnect betwenn magic and writing and myths is very simple


up until very very recently ALL magic was of a divine source, all of it.

the way D&D has magic is not so much the vancian part of it ( use a spll and lose I to memory) its the whole magic is really just science ( the same input always produces the same output)

make magic more mysterious and not a if I do A, B , C and D I get X. that would be more bronze age I feel.

Could you give an example of making magic more mysterious?
I mean, low level characters could find ways to identify magic pretty easily in the system.

Also, I'll go with the above idea of using bone and wooden runes as the "spellbook".
1/2 inch per spell level, maybe?

[Everyl]

Could you give an example of making magic more mysterious?
I mean, low level characters could find ways to identify magic pretty easily in the system.

I don't have any advice for how to do it with a D&D-ish system, but a number of game settings have magic systems that are freeform and/or require some sort of roll or check to perform. Magic becomes unreliable, with even "simple" spells sometimes producing unexpected results. Also, they may have prices or risks other than castings-per-day associated with them, such as risking damage to the caster, or risking some form of corruption or other long-term consequence if magic is overused.

Examples:
Mage: the Ascension (and probably its successor, Mage: the Awakening, which I haven't personally played) uses a semi-freeform system of magic. Casters have ratings in various kinds of magic that roughly define the most powerful effects they can attempt to create, and all casting calls for one or more rolls to determine whether and how quickly the spell is cast. Very bad rolls or using magic under the wrong circumstances (beyond the scope of this summary to explain) can result in mages suffering from Paradox effects, which tend to range from inconvenient to potentially lethal.

Shadowrun uses a somewhat similar roll system to Mage, but with much more definition. Mages can learn specifically-defined spells through study, and they cast these spells using skill-based rolls. Casting more powerful spells requires better rolls, and mages can often choose how much force to put into a spell - a low-damage burst of fire and a high-damage burst of fire are probably the same spell cast with different force. Magic is unreliable and dangerous, however, with all casters potentially draining their own health if a spell goes wrong - or even if it goes right, but is more powerful than they could handle.

In both examples, magic becomes far more mysterious than in D&D. Mages are people who dedicate their lives to striving to understand dangerous hidden lore that cannot be fully understood. Even the most talented, experienced mage in either setting is still taking at least a small risk with every spell they cast, so they probably only use magic when truly necessary. Magic never becomes routine, and even the most scientific mind will never be able to pin down why a spell worked one time but failed another.

Again, I'm not sure how to apply this information to a D&D setting. If you're talking 3.X rules, I'm pretty sure there are supplements that use the Vitality Point/Wound Point system instead of Hit Points for character health, and have casters spend Vitality Points (instead of spell slots) when they use magic; something like that might be a place to start.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Could you give an example of making magic more mysterious?
I mean, low level characters could find ways to identify magic pretty easily in the system.

Also, I'll go with the above idea of using bone and wooden runes as the "spellbook".
1/2 inch per spell level, maybe?

Complete Arcana pg186 has a lot of details on these sort of things. But it basically breaks down to 1 fingerbone = 1 page. Larger things that carry symbols grant more pages worth of spells. You can also build structures (castles, pyramids, standing stones, etc) to act as spell books. So that evil Wizard in his Ziggurat would be a deadly opponent to face in his lair.

[Ralcos]

Complete Arcana pg186 has a lot of details on these sort of things. But it basically breaks down to 1 fingerbone = 1 page. Larger things that carry symbols grant more pages worth of spells. You can also build structures (castles, pyramids, standing stones, etc) to act as spell books. So that evil Wizard in his Ziggurat would be a deadly opponent to face in his lair.

0.0
just the image of the evil wizard's ziggurat just scares me.
Anyhow, I'll look into it.

[brian 333]

It occurs to me that true Wizards would begin to appear at the dawn of writing. They would be the literate few, rare masters of the symbolic structures which in time become alphabets. Whether their spellbooks are walls etched in hieroglyphs or clay tablets marked with a triangular stylus or metal discs stamped in a spiral pattern from edge to center or any of a dozen other possible forms, (all used in the Bronze Age, for the record,) these characters are set apart from the common man by their very power to read.

They would be rare and powerful beings, of course. As advisers to kings and competition to priests, the wizard character would be a figure of awe. Sycophants would line up to garner their favor, and jealous rivals in politics and faith would set elaborate traps for them.

Of course, some wizards would seek the safety of anonymity, from which they could pursue their investigations into the powers of the universe. These mystical characters would be found in fantastic dwellings far out in the wilderness: mountaintop fortresses, cloud castles, islands in large lakes or small seas, or strangely comfortable caves. The few who know their locations would be hesitant to speak of them with strangers for fear of enraging the master.

But the Player Character Wizard will have been a student of one of these powerful viziers or hermits, and will have as yet not achieved a reputation in the land, (or will have fled his homeland and the certain death that his former master plans for him...) For him the rise to power is just beginning, and his four bronze discs hung on a ring will represent the limit of his knowledge of magic until his research and practice in the use of power gains him insight to the next spell.

With this as a base, each spell the character learns will be a unique one, unless he gains access to a master's work, (by whatever means,) and learns to decode the writing system that master used. For such a character learning languages will be all important unless he plans to do all his own research.

[sktarq]

*digs into library* I'd take a look at Necromancer Games Ancient Kingdom's Mesopotamia book. It is "revised third edition" and I don't know what system you are planning to use but should be a good source of ideas at least.

They have a take on Wizards etc that you may want to take advantage of. Along with a fun bunch of prestige classes that can give a nice sense of time.

And is set in the Bronze age-though will say most weapons are made of copper (see page 10) with Bronze being +1 and Iron existing in very limited quantities as an optional rule with a +2.

[VoxRationis]

This is, of course, the correct and proper answer/end of thread. But for the sake of argument, there is an alternative.

In one of the 3.5 supplement books (PHB2? Unearthed Arcana? Complete Mage?) there is a section for unconventional spellbooks. Bronze Age Wizards may not have access to paper, but they could certainly find ink. Tattoos could be used to replicate the effect of a spellbook, and it would be visually striking. There are also charms, like small bits of wood/bone with the spells marked on them in symbolic hieroglyphics. Each one is destroyed as the spell is cast. Or the spell is trapped within a knot on a length of rope. Untying the knot releases the spell. If all else fails, the Wizard's staff could be covered in similar markings that store their spells.

Literacy itself isn't the problem, in my eyes, but rather the way that traditional D&D Wizards used books made out of paper.

What are you talking about? Literacy is ABSOLUTELY the problem in such a situation. A class that gets its powers from erudition and academic study is going to perform roughly without a coherent writing system—the medium doesn't matter. (Also, if the historical Bronze Age is an inspiration, full-body written tattoos are going to feel at least as out-of-place as a scroll or codex.)
That said, the Bronze Age, depending on the exact place you're thinking of, isn't totally pre-literate, and back then, people put a lot of stock in the magical powers of writing—the Egyptians believed that it was sometimes necessary to cut off the heads of the viper hieroglyphs so they didn't come to life and injure the dead in the afterlife. I'd argue that the rarity of literacy in a Bronze Age setting makes a D&D wizard more appropriate—every aspect of his training, even the most basic aspects, is a strange and unusual skill unknown to the common folk.

[Ralcos]

... I'd argue that the rarity of literacy in a Bronze Age setting makes a D&D wizard more appropriate—every aspect of his training, even the most basic aspects, is a strange and unusual skill unknown to the common folk.

After some thinking, I agree with you. Though, I'd still use runed tokens for the travelling Wizard. Players shouldn't have to carry large, heavy tablets around in their adventures.

... And is set in the Bronze age-though will say most weapons are made of copper (see page 10) with Bronze being +1 and Iron existing in very limited quantities as an optional rule with a +2.

Actually, Bronze was the most common metal during the age (Get it? "BRONZE Age"?) Anyhow, I'm treating Bronze as the base weapons (no bonus or penalty to attack or damage), with Iron acting as Masterwork +1, and Steel as Masterwork +2 (Iron and Steel double the weight of the base Bronze weapon).
My rule for prices and trade value is that, due to the difficulty of smelting and smithing Iron and Steel, the rarity of Iron ore, AND the popularity/ease of Bronze weapons; Iron is triple the cost of the base Bronze weapons and Steel is quadruple the price.

[Xuc Xac]

Anyhow, I'm treating Bronze as the base weapons (no bonus or penalty to attack or damage), with Iron acting as Masterwork +1, and Steel as Masterwork +2 (Iron and Steel double the weight of the base Bronze weapon).
My rule for prices and trade value is that, due to the difficulty of smelting and smithing Iron and Steel, the rarity of Iron ore, AND the popularity/ease of Bronze weapons; Iron is triple the cost of the base Bronze weapons and Steel is quadruple the price.

None of that makes any sense. Iron is everywhere and requires only one ore. Bronze is an alloy of metals not often found together. Iron became popular when the tin trade was disrupted and bronze prices went up because iron is more common and cheaper but lower quality. Steel is actually better than bronze but it took a very long time to figure out how to make it consistently. Bronze is about 10% heavier, not half the weight.

[jqavins]

What are you talking about? Literacy is ABSOLUTELY the problem in such a situation.

If I may presuem to speak for the bearded ninja fellow, I believe you and he are saying the same thing. "Literacy isn't the problem" with having vancian wizards in the bronze age, because writing systems started to appear at about the same time as bronze. The problem with having D&D wizards in a bronze age setting isn't that literacy is unknown (since it isn't) but that they can't have their spell books and scrolls without paper. And I agree, mostly; papyrus is a bronze age material, so books and scrolls would not be impossible to create.

None of that makes any sense. Iron is everywhere and requires only one ore. Bronze is an alloy of metals not often found together. Iron became popular when the tin trade was disrupted and bronze prices went up because iron is more common and cheaper but lower quality. Steel is actually better than bronze but it took a very long time to figure out how to make it consistently. Bronze is about 10% heavier, not half the weight.

Hear, hear. There are three reasons for bronze's period of dominance. First, if you have the ores it is easier to smelt than iron, as the required temperature is much lower. Second, early iron was an inferior material to bronze for most purposes. Third, closely related to the second, and most important, steel is even harder to make, as it requires the same smelting temperature as iron plus additional steps that call for additional know-how. Think of the first Schwartzenager Conan movie; one thing they really got right is that steel, not iron, is the key to power.

I'm treating Bronze as the base weapons (no bonus or penalty to attack or damage), with Iron acting as Masterwork +1, and Steel as Masterwork +2 (Iron and Steel double the weight of the base Bronze weapon).
My rule for prices and trade value is that, due to the difficulty of smelting and smithing Iron and Steel, the rarity of Iron ore, AND the popularity/ease of Bronze weapons; Iron is triple the cost of the base Bronze weapons and Steel is quadruple the price.

It would make (some) more sense to say bronze and iron give the same performance but the iron is weaker (i.e. more easily damaged) and steel is masterwork +1. Iron weapons are rare in most areas only because smiths don't bother making them, as they bring a lousey price. Steel, on the other hand, brings 2 to 4 time the price of bronze, if you can find it. (If I ruled a kingdom in such a setting, all steel would be property of the crown and a serious crime to sell.)

[sktarq]

Actually, Bronze was the most common metal during the age (Get it? "BRONZE Age"?) Anyhow, I'm treating Bronze as the base weapons (no bonus or penalty to attack or damage), with Iron acting as Masterwork +1, and Steel as Masterwork +2 (Iron and Steel double the weight of the base Bronze weapon).
My rule for prices and trade value is that, due to the difficulty of smelting and smithing Iron and Steel, the rarity of Iron ore, AND the popularity/ease of Bronze weapons; Iron is triple the cost of the base Bronze weapons and Steel is quadruple the price.

A few things. Copper was more common during much of the age. This wasn't realized since much of early work in archeology focused exactly on those people (kings tombs etc) that would have had the top of the line bronze equipment. And since even when iron was available but massively less common than bronze it would be called the iron age. Naming conventions from an earlier time which are being somewhat adjusted to the confusion of the rest of us. But if you want to make bronze you main metal-more power to you. Either you could be modeling a later bronze age culture (most of them did have writing by then) or it is a historical inaccuracy significantly less important than you have people able to cast repeatable real magic on a regular basis.
Also iron and steel would not be twice the weight. - Okay perhaps the iron weapons are built heavier to get that....but not the steel. The difference is only ~10%

also there are interesting options to be had in playing with arsenic, alum,and tin bronzes

[Ralcos]

A few things. Copper was more common during much of the age. This wasn't realized since much of early work in archeology focused exactly on those people (kings tombs etc) that would have had the top of the line bronze equipment. And since even when iron was available but massively less common than bronze it would be called the iron age. Naming conventions from an earlier time which are being somewhat adjusted to the confusion of the rest of us. But if you want to make bronze you main metal-more power to you. Either you could be modeling a later bronze age culture (most of them did have writing by then) or it is a historical inaccuracy significantly less important than you have people able to cast repeatable real magic on a regular basis.
Also iron and steel would not be twice the weight. - Okay perhaps the iron weapons are built heavier to get that....but not the steel. The difference is only ~10%

also there are interesting options to be had in playing with arsenic, alum,and tin bronzes

Okay... (types things down)
How's this?

Spoiler: MODIFIED Equipment Material Rules

Show

Material	Price modifiers	Weight	Attack Roll Modifiers
Bone/Stone	-20% / -20%	x.5 / x2	-1 / -2
Copper	-	-	-
Bronze	+25%	+5%	+1
Iron	+220%	+10%	+2

Craft DCs
Stone: DC 20 (Craft: Stonecrafting)
Bone: DC 15 (Craft: Bonecrafting)
Copper: DC 15 (Craft: Orangesmithing)
Bronze: DC 25 (Craft: Orangesmithing)
Iron: DC 35 (Craft: Blacksmithing)

Note: Iron ore is hard to find, with only some nations learning how to smelt it and mold it into tools and weapons. Usually, this process leaves the Iron equipment brittle and fragile (due to lackluster knowledge on how to process Iron).
On a natural '1' roll with an Iron weapon, the weapon has a 10% chance of shattering, forcing a second Craft (Blacksmithing) check to reforge it. This Iron process couldn't create armor.

Note 2: On a natural '1' or '2' on an attack roll with a Stone or Bone weapon, the weapon has a 25% chance of breaking, with no hope to repair or remake the weapon.
The same happens with Bone armor against a natural '20' on an attack roll. Stone armor does not exist.

[sktarq]

Okay... (types things down)
How's this?

looks pretty good for game.
Much more fussiness and iron looses its appeal. . . I guess steel could be on there as a semi legendary material....behaps the only reliable way of producing it is by dragons breath or dropping in the ash from a cremated body (at least according to legend) and getting any would be an adventure in itself.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Okay... (types things down)
How's this?

Honestly? Just go 5E.

With whatever system, just have Bronze be the Base weapons. No number changes. No fiddling with weight. Then add +'s for Iron and Steel Weapons, and -'s for Bone and Stone. Keep it simple. Keep it safe.

You will be a much happier person if you keep stuff like "Simulationism" out of your game.

[jqavins]

With whatever system, just have Bronze be the Base weapons. No number changes. No fiddling with weight. Then add +'s for Iron and Steel Weapons, and -'s for Bone and Stone. Keep it simple. Keep it safe.

You will be a much happier person if you keep stuff like "Simulationism" out of your game.

If you want a closer approximation to the history and metalurgy, don't give any plus for iron, but only for steel. Even today, if a steel sword is not available and you have the choice of iron or bronze, take the bronze.

[Thunderfist12]

If you want a closer approximation to the history and metallurgy, don't give any plus for iron, but only for steel. Even today, if a steel sword is not available and you have the choice of iron or bronze, take the bronze.

I have to agree. Just re-label Bronze as Bronze / Iron, using the same bonuses but different weight and price, and re-label Iron as Steel and pretty much keep it the same.