Something that bugs me about Wizards and Sorcerers 3.5 [Archive]

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 06:04 AM

Wizard practices in a controlled setting gradually building the ability to cast simple spells. Sorcerers, on the other hand, suddenly find the power to hurt and manipulate people with ease. Similar to a child finding a gun, except the gun is supernatural in a town full of superstitious, distrustful sorts.

Hm. That might not be too bad an analogy...
A Wizard is someone who became an army cadet and was trained in the use of firearms surrounded by very competent people in a secure facility away from civilians.
A Sorcerer is someone who one day found out that they can shoot bullets out of their fingers, possibly while trying to shake hands with a friend.

:smallamused:
Supertitious folks usually don't make distinction.
The OP isn't wrong:
With their low CHa and their close associations, wizard are often snob, unpleasant nerds, hungry for power, and often, they're dangerous, VERY dangerous (Wizard of Thay, and evil necromancers)
A sorcerer is someone with wizards' powers, but he didn't join an association of maniac bookworms or "wanna be rulers of the world", and he's almost always a very nice and friendly guy.

Serpentine

2011-02-24, 06:07 AM

Yes, but the difference is that the Wizards are in control - both of their magic and, potentially, socially/politically. Wizards are deliberately dangerous, and therefore have authority. Sorcerers can be accidentally dangerous, and therefore need controlling.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 06:10 AM

This is mostly a fluff question.

Why is it in the books when they describe wizards and sorcerers, the wizards are the ones that liked and wanted while sorcerer are not? The apparent problem I see is that usually sorcerer's would have at least a decent charisma, if not a very high one, while wizards, charisma could be their second dump stat or first dump stat, depending on str. Ignoring the whole make friends with magic, shouldn't the sorcerer be the more like class, since they would be better at interacting with people? Sure they are not as intelligent as a wizard could be, but, outside of some rulers, it does not mean much.

Is there a reason more than wizards perhaps being more organized, maybe.

Wizards have status. They're old money, so to speak. You have to either be wealthy enough to receive such an education, which speaks of power and connections, or you have to be sponsored, which again, speaks of power and connections.

Most famous wizards are also old and obscenely wealthy to the point where they're political and economic powers by themselves.

Sorcerers... they're more upstarts who are trying to get status based entirely on their natural abilities rather than training.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 06:52 AM

:smallamused:
Supertitious folks usually don't make distinction.
The OP isn't wrong:
With their low CHa and their close associations, wizard are often snob, unpleasant nerds, hungry for power, and often, they're dangerous, VERY dangerous (Wizard of Thay, and evil necromancers)
A sorcerer is someone with wizards' powers, but he didn't join an association of maniac bookworms or "wanna be rulers of the world", and he's almost always a very nice and friendly guy.
Charismatic isn't nice. It's about force of personality, leadership, it's about your ability to influence others. I'm not saying a sorcerer can't be a genuinely nice person, but for some people the ability to twist them to your whims kind of goes to their heads.
The peasants aren't being superstitious, an angst ridden teenager with the ability to likely kill any peasant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shockingGrasp.htm) in most worlds or put several people to sleep, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) or make someone run away in fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/causeFear.htm) is someone to be afraid of.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 07:05 AM

Charismatic isn't nice. It's about force of personality, leadership, it's about your ability to influence others.

All characteristics that, usually, makes other watching you in a positive way.

an angst ridden teenager with the ability to likely kill in most worlds or put several people to sleep, or make someone run away in fear is someone to be afraid of.

The angst ridden killer teenager, in my eyes, isn't so frightful as the wizards of Thay.
And if he persists, the authority will take care of a single low level sorcerer (a high level one, is in control of his power). A wizards, plans to dominate me.

We don't trust Wormtongue.

Serpentine

2011-02-24, 07:09 AM

Put it this way: There's a good chance Eric Cartman has high Charisma.

And that doesn't change the fact that the angst-ridden killer teenager is nothing but some brat who just burnt down the local pub, while the Wizard of Thay is a representative of a big organisation that just came in and removed a dangerous madman to somewhere safe - or dead.

Noone here is saying that Wizards are better than Sorcerers, only that Wizards, in the game-world/fantasy worlds, are socially percieved as better citizens. Which, by the way, I actually disagreed with somewhat in my very first post here.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 07:11 AM

A wizards, plans to dominate me.

Well, no, even Wizards of Thay have better things to do than dominate the plebes when they can subvert the defenders/rulers of the populace, weakening states so they can be brought to heel for the glory of ROME! THAY! And a tidy personal profit of status, power, and wealth. :smallamused:

At least, that's the best picture of their culture I've been able to figure out...

We don't trust Wormtongue.

We do, however, generally trust Gandalf. And Elminster (I think) if he can be bothered to not just spout cryptic riddles to try to get Bhaalspawn to do his dirty work.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 07:17 AM

Noone here is saying that Wizards are better than Sorcerers, only that Wizards, in the game-world/fantasy worlds, are socially percieved as better citizens. Which, by the way, I actually disagreed with somewhat in my very first post here.

:smallbiggrin:

Staying strictly on the game-world: in official modules of adventures, of many times we have BBEG that are / were wizards? and how many times we have Sorcerers?
I don't know for certain, but I'm almost sure wizards win in this race (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me).
So, if wizard are "officially" the evil guys, more often than sorcerers, why don't trust more the spontaneous casters?

Aharon

2011-02-24, 07:18 AM

@Endarire
Do you have any links to discussions/whatever concerning Andy Collins' Sorcerer-Hate?

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 07:19 AM

All characteristics that, usually, makes other watching you in a positive way.

It doesn't make you nice. Think of all the nasty actors and other performers who still have people fawn over them.

The angst ridden killer teenager, in my eyes, isn't so frightful as the wizards of Thay.
And if he persists, the authority will take care of a single low level sorcerer (a high level one, is in control of his power). A wizards, plans to dominate me.
Since Red Wizard of Thay is a prestige class, of course, they are more frightening, they are far more powerful. I am talking about a single level wizard or sorcerer.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 07:21 AM

So, if wizard are "officially" the evil guys, more often than sorcerers, why don't trust more the spontaneous casters?

They're also "officially" the good guys in about equal measure. So there's that balancing factor as well.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 07:28 AM

It doesn't make you nice. Think of all the nasty actors and other performers who still have people fawn over them.

True, I concede that.

They're also "officially" the good guys in about equal measure. So there's that balancing factor as well.

We do, however, generally trust Gandalf.

Their high Charisma, helps in this, however... :smallwink:

Yora

2011-02-24, 07:37 AM

Wizards can be controlled, sorcerers can not. To become a wizard, you have to find a teacher which means being admited into a very exclusive groups of individuals. They also rely very heavily on the work of other wizards when learning their spells. Developing all your spells yourself takes way to long and is far to much work and too expensive. So if you have the wizards loyal to a higher authority, you can very well prevent that their knowledge leaks out to people who can not be monitored that well. To become a wizard without any other wizards knowing about it is extremely difficult.
A sorcerer on the other hand has no such limitations. If you have the ability, you can learn to master it all by yourself. They don't need the resources of senior wizards, magical libraries, or wizard guilds. Anyone could be a very powerful wizard without the local lords knowing about it. And when you have another peasant revolt, you don't want to have three or four peasants who are 8th level sorcerers.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 07:47 AM

I think this distinction is really about the social aspect. Wizards are participators. Though Wizards are generally seen as elitists, they actively improve the day to day lives of those around them by offering services that aren't offered elsewhere, and so despite their lack of social grace, they're tolerated, because they can get the job done when nobody else can. Simply put, colleges of Wizards benefit by helping people. It's economically useful for them to offer services and it keeps their colleges funded.

Enter the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer is a essentially a free Wizard. He has no material dependencies on the arcane colleges. He doesn't need access to study materials, spell books or any such thing, and therefore is not compelled to participate in the economy. They carry all the stigmas associated with magic and spellcasters (elitism, isolationism etc.), without any of the respect owed to those who actively enhance the abilities of society to meet its goals.

And as mentioned before, Sorcerers come into their power at varying ages. They're often undisciplined because they don't have to devote themselves to rigorous studies in order to access their power. This lack of discipline coupled with heightened power at varying levels of moral maturity results in very unpredictable, very powerful people.

I'd say that in the default 3.5 setting, there's plenty of fluff to support the notion of Sorcerers being feared and shunned.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 08:12 AM

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 08:26 AM

I think this is true only in some settings (Eberron).

Anything said here can be said to be only true in some campaign settings, due to the nature of D&D. However the gist of it is fairly common fluff. Wizards tend to organize in guilds and collages or or other such organizations. They are part of society, respected, if only do to their advanced age and perceived wisdom.
In short, they are academics.

unosarta

2011-02-24, 08:33 AM

I'd say that in the default 3.5 setting, there's plenty of fluff to support the notion of Sorcerers being feared and shunned.

Um, yeah, no.

In the "default D&D setting" there is also no mention of:

Wizards working in colleges that help others. Wizards hating Sorcerers. The general population's fear of Sorcerers.

The "default 3.5 setting" is essentially the PHB, as far as I can tell from your post. The default 3.5 setting also describes wizards and sorcerers as getting along passably:

Exact quote:

They may find members of certain classes (such as sorcerers, rogues, and bards) to be not quite serious enough, but they are not judgmental.

Literally, the only way that the PHB describes them interacting together is that the Wizard is condescending to the Sorcerer; that's it.

As for the populous fearing sorcerers, the PHB also mentions that Sorcerers can be mentored by older powerful sorcerers. In addition, although the effects a Sorcerer can make might kill someone, they could easily be killed or taken out by a town guard. In fact, it probably isn't that likely that a sorcerer would be any less likely to kill someone than a wizard. The populous should know that there are bad eggs in every caster type (evil clerics, evil wizards, evil bards, etc, etc), and although many Sorcerers do accidentally do damage, they do it without intention and without lasting impact (really. Go check the PHB 1st level spells. There are none in there that could outright kill someone at first level. Ever).

Anyway, the PHB actually doesn't describe the numbers of Wizards as compared to Sorcerers, but considering that Sorcerers can appear in any race, and Wizardry is spread out across race as well, one could assume that there are an equal number. If that is so, then if one would actually be applying logic to the situation (which isn't necessarily inherent, but that is another problem), then one could, and should, assume that many Sorcerers do make it past puberty and do maintain their powers. And, the PHB is patently false in one aspect

Unlike wizards, they gain little by sharing their knowledge and have no strong incentive to work together.

Sorcerers have every incentive to work together, to prevent "flameouts" so to speak. If a sorcerer goes out of control and attacks someone, then the other Sorcerers are seen badly (although, one must question this logic when applied to evil wizards, who are just as evil as good [with an equal ratio of Good to Evil] according to the PHB, and apparently never stigmatized for their brethren :smallconfused:), and there is an overall detriment to the entire of sorcererdom. They do gain little comparatively when sharing their knowledge, but they can also help a lot of people when sharing their knowledge. One would think that if a townsperson heard of a young person causing lights, hearing strange voices, or acting magically, they would alert a sorcerer, or try to contact one. The sorcerer would have every reason to come, and try to help the younger.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 08:46 AM

Well, the trouble is a bunch of sorcerers is like as pack of alpha dogs. Sure, there is an incentive to work together, but it would be a major clash of personalities, each used to imposing their will on others. Too many cooks in the kitchen, too many captains on the ship, to use some old analogies.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 08:53 AM

Anything said here can be said to be only true in some campaign settings, due to the nature of D&D. However the gist of it is fairly common fluff. Wizards tend to organize in guilds and collages or or other such organizations. They are part of society, respected, if only do to their advanced age and perceived wisdom.
In short, they are academics.

Sorcerers are solitary, carismatic peoples.
Wizards are academics with power and poor social skills. They're a reclusive association, as the mafia, or a governative agency... they're misterious, with their own, unknown agenda.
They cannot be controlled, if not by other casters.
Both wizards and sorcerers, are peoples with great powers, the first are organized (this can be good or bad, depending on the goodness of the leaders snd of the organization), the second aren't (this either can be good or bad, but it will be based on the single individual).

Wizards, being organized, at peoples eyes equal authority, and authority can be respected or feared, trusted or mistrusted, very differently from place to place, especially in D&D settings.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 09:02 AM

Who watches the watchmen, eh? Well for a wizard, they do. It may not be much, but it works better then a sorcerer whose powers could appear in adolencense or earlier.
Who do you fear more, some adults who go to a gun range or a kid with a gun? Without bringing politics into it, I don't know about you but I fear the kid more. Not only do they* lack self-control, there is also a lack of other people to stop them before things go wrong or the group peer pressure of 'we don't do that sort of thing', even though the gun group has a lot more potential firepower.
* I am using 'they' in the informal singular sense to avoid bringing of all things gender into this.

pasko77

2011-02-24, 09:03 AM

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 09:16 AM

Who do you fear more, some adults who go to a gun range or a kid with a gun? Without bringing politics into it, I don't know about you but I fear the kid more.

I fear anyone with a gun and without a Good alignment. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 09:21 AM

I fear anyone with a gun and without a Good alignment. :smalltongue:
I fear someone with a loaded gun with no sense of personal responsibility more then someone with Neutral on the Moral Axis of their alignment.

Serpentine

2011-02-24, 09:23 AM

I fear anyone with a gun and without a Good alignment. :smalltongue:Not always wise with the latter bit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BewareTheNiceOnes):smallwink:

(and seriously, what is that quote about the ones who do evil with good intentions being worse than genuine villains?)

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 09:33 AM

Um, yeah, no.

Wizards working in colleges that help others. Wizards hating Sorcerers. The general population's fear of Sorcerers.

The "default 3.5 setting" is essentially the PHB, as far as I can tell from your post. The default 3.5 setting also describes wizards and sorcerers as getting along passably:

Exact quote:

Literally, the only way that the PHB describes them interacting together is that the Wizard is condescending to the Sorcerer; that's it.

My conclusion is ultimately based on inferences from the nature of Wizards and the equipment table out of PHB 1. Given that you can purchase spellcaster services and specifically wizard spells, it makes sense that you'd have guild wizards to consult to offer services, or at the very least, loose associations.

However; digging through the PHB yields the following:

p.53 Sorcerers and "Other Classes: ...since they cast the same spells as wizards but do so in a different way, they sometimes find themselves in competition with wizards." How heavily you lean on this is really up to you as a DM, but they're not throwing that hook out there for nothing.

In Background, same page: "Sorcerers develop rudimentary powers at puberty. Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled and somtimes dangerous...Sorcerers have no sense of identity as a group. Unlike wizards, they gain little by sharing their knowledge and have no strong incentive to work together."

I don't accept your point that Sorcerers have an obligation to protect the reputation of sorcerers at large because, as stated in the PHB, sorcerers do not form a group identity. They are individualists. They don't define themselves by the actions of sorcerers as a group. They define themselves based on their own actions...at least by the fluff.

p.55 Wizards and "Background: Wizards recognize each other as comrades or rivals. Even wizards from very different cultures or magical traditions have much in common because they all conform to the same laws of magic...In civilized lands where wizards study in academies, schools, or guilds, wizards also identify themselves and others according to membership in these formal organizations."

As I said, PLENTY of fluff to suggest that Wizards operate in colleges and service society to some degree for the benefit of the college. This certainly doesn't describe EVERY Wizard, but the fluff is there, should you choose to use it.

There's also fluff there to support Sorcerers as undisciplined, unpredictable, dangerous and uncooperative. This won't be every Sorcerer, but if you choose to lean that way, the PHB provides ample fluff.

I think this is true only in some settings (Eberron the first in line).

Can you give me some example?
I'm not saying it isn't true, but, Iron Kingdom apart, I don't recall any evidence, so, it would be interesting having some fluff supporting this.

Greyhawk, the official 3.5 setting, also makes heavy use of guild magi. As for Sorcerers being feared and shunned, you'll have to see my response from above. Their early development of power and tendency to manifest uncontrollably at first makes them dangerous, and most commoners wouldn't voluntarily associate with that sort of character. Wizards don't kill people by accident. I, as a commoner, would look at a Sorcerer and keep my distance. I would look at a Wizard and do my best not to piss him off, but I'd have no trouble standing in line with the average Wizard.

That being said, there are degrees of feared and shunned. I didn't note degree in my earlier statement, so perhaps I ought to clarify:

Yes there is fluff to support sorcerers being feared and shunned. If it was elementary school, the Sorcerer would be the weird kid playing in the sandbox all by himself. If he worked to make friends, then he wouldn't have any trouble at it, but it'd be the Sorcerer's responsibility to reach out. None but the curious and the carefree would reasonably approach uninvited.

I didn't say the Sorcerer is universally hated. There is a big difference. :smalltongue:

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 09:55 AM

Not always wise with the latter bit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BewareTheNiceOnes):smallwink:

I should also fear TVtropes... :smallwink:

snip
In Background, same page: "Sorcerers develop rudimentary powers at puberty. Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled and somtimes dangerous...Sorcerers have no sense of identity as a group. Unlike wizards, they gain little by sharing their knowledge and have no strong incentive to work together.

(snip)

As I said, PLENTY of fluff to suggest that Wizards operate in colleges and service society to some degree for the benefit of the college. This certainly doesn't describe EVERY Wizard, but the fluff is there, should you choose to use it.

There's also fluff there to support Sorcerers as undisciplined, unpredictable, dangerous and uncooperative. This won't be every Sorcerer, but if you choose to lean that way, the PHB provides ample fluff.

As for Sorcerers being feared and shunned, you'll have to see my response from above. Their early development of power and tendency to manifest uncontrollably at first makes them dangerous, and most commoners wouldn't voluntarily associate with that sort of character. Wizards don't kill people by accident. I, as a commoner, would look at a Sorcerer and keep my distance. I would look at a Wizard and do my best not to piss him off, but I'd have no trouble standing in line with the average Wizard.
:

mmm.... yes, I can buy this.
Good debate, tnx! :smallsmile:

Gnoman

2011-02-24, 10:12 AM

Not always wise with the latter bit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BewareTheNiceOnes):smallwink:

(and seriously, what is that quote about the ones who do evil with good intentions being worse than genuine villains?)

This one?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis

Eldan

2011-02-24, 10:17 AM

Wizards are hard won skill from intense study and training. Sorcerers are raw talent. But this power can appear at any time, even when the sorcerer doesn't have the moral understanding to control it. Imagine a child with the ability to potentially make anyone their friend or kill them with a gesture. That's why the Sorcerer is feared.

Which is why I usually argue that "Grope" and other spells like it in the BoEF are completely reasonable. Minimum starting age for Sorcerers is 16 years. And that represents a Sorcerer with more or less controlled magic and several spells at his disposal. I'd think that "Grope" would be a spell that I could totally see the average 14 year old male sorcerer develop.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 10:19 AM

Their high Charisma, helps in this, however... :smallwink:

Sure, but they're still wizards so you're conceding the point that not all wizards have low CHA. Whether this was actually a point of contention, I dunno.

(really. Go check the PHB 1st level spells. There are none in there that could outright kill someone at first level. Ever).

1st level Commoner with 10 con and 2 HP from an average roll of a 1d4. Meet Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm) with minimum of 2 damage. Commoner with 10 con and 3 HP from rounding 2.5 up to 3. 75% chance of fatality from magic missile.

Edit: 75% and 50% chances of causing a bleed-out.

Darth Stabber

2011-02-24, 10:26 AM

I use a modified sorcerer for my primary campain setting (4+ skills, more social and all knowledge), and they are a class of nobility and royalty. The major ruling houses of several nations are of sorcerous bloodline (due to Draconic ancestry). This natural gift with magic is part of "evidence" of their "divine right" to rule. Infact princes/princesses who do not manifest the gift withing a few years of puberty are no longer considered for succession, and most noble houses require manifestion for inheritance of title, land and duty.

Favored Soul is also treated as a semi-hereditary trait. They are outsider descendants not god-touched. And socially they are interchangable with sorcerers.

People who play these classes understand that they are nobility or are the bastards of nobles (or late blooming .

This works for me, but YMMV.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 10:33 AM

Sure, but they're still wizards so you're conceding the point that not all wizards have low CHA. Whether this was actually a point of contention, I dunno.

1st level Commoner with 10 con and 2 HP from an average roll of a 1d4. Meet Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm) with minimum of 2 damage. Commoner with 10 con and 3 HP from rounding 2.5 up to 3. 75% chance of fatality from magic missile.

You want a truly horrifying example? Grease. Your youthful sorcerer is patching up a roof with his father, when suddenly a slick of oil boils forth from his outstretched hands. The father fails his balance check and falls from the 30 ft. roof.

Serpentine

2011-02-24, 10:36 AM

This one?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. LewisYesssss. That one. Thank you!
Now to remember it...

Greenish

2011-02-24, 10:45 AM

I think this is true only in some settings (Eberron the first in line).Though sorcerers don't really face any prejudice in Eberron (and often have a contemplative mystic bend).

although many Sorcerers do accidentally do damage, they do it without intention and without lasting impact (really. Go check the PHB 1st level spells. There are none in there that could outright kill someone at first level. Ever).Except Shocking Grasp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shockingGrasp.htm) and Chill Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm).

Greyhawk, the official 3.5 settingEberron is the official 3.5 setting, since it's tailor-made for the edition. :smalltongue:

The default setting most books speak about is derived from Greyhawk, yes, but FR and Eberron are also official settings.

B1okHead

2011-02-24, 10:46 AM

I think part of it is that people are afraid of what they don't understand. It is easier to understand how wizards use magic than how sorcerers use magic.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 10:49 AM

Which is why I usually argue that "Grope" and other spells like it in the BoEF are completely reasonable. Minimum starting age for Sorcerers is 16 years. And that represents a Sorcerer with more or less controlled magic and several spells at his disposal. I'd think that "Grope" would be a spell that I could totally see the average 14 year old male sorcerer develop.
Or for that matter, a similarly frustrated apprentice wizard with a knack for spell research.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 10:50 AM

Sure, but they're still wizards so you're conceding the point that not all wizards have low CHA. Whether this was actually a point of contention, I dunno.

nah, my (specific) point was merely: Gandalf is a caster with a high charisma, so it's more similar to a sorcerer.
But strangely, a good cha doesn't help the sorcerers in being more trusted.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 11:18 AM

nah, my (specific) point was merely: Gandalf is a caster with a high charisma, so it's more similar to a sorcerer.
But strangely, a good cha doesn't help the sorcerers in being more trusted.
Gandalf was more an Angel then either a D&D Wizard or Sorcerer. Strictly speaking Sorcerers are potentially far better at lying to people (Bluff) then making them like them (Diplomacy) considering what their class skills are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm), and lies rarely make friends once found out.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-24, 11:24 AM

Also, Andy Collins, the guy who made Sorcerers in 3.0, hated them.
Can I get a source for this?

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I'd like to read more on the subject.

Dragoon

2011-02-24, 11:57 AM

Well, this has been helpful debate that has definitely given me a bit more understanding on how it could happen. Thanks everyone.

Killer Angel

2011-02-24, 12:07 PM

Well, this has been helpful debate that has definitely given me a bit more understanding on how it could happen. Thanks everyone.

We good wizards are always ready to help! :smallsmile:
(said the sorcerer with his high bluff)

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 12:14 PM

The default setting most books speak about is derived from Greyhawk, yes, but FR and Eberron are also official settings.

I suppose to be 100% accurate, Greyhawk is the official DnD setting as opposed to the official 3.5 setting...you know in the sense that it came first. In terms of popularity, I think outside of Living Greyhawk, FR has the market share.

...and Eberron I just won't touch with an 11' pole. Nothing against it, it's just not the DnD I know and love.

All technically official settings, I'm just a bit of an elitist when it comes to Greyhawk. My bias is showing :smallredface:

Eldan

2011-02-24, 12:29 PM

There were settings before Greyhawk, kind off.

But 3.5 does include Greyhawk elements in core. Sure, it's basically only the gods and a few spell names and items, but it's there.

bloodtide

2011-02-24, 12:29 PM

I guess it's just human nature to fear what is different.

Take the example from Marvel comics: Everyone hates and fears mutants, but they like people with 'normal super powers'.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 12:32 PM

I guess it's just human nature to fear what is different.

Take the example from Marvel comics: Everyone hates and fears mutants, but they like people with 'normal super powers'.

...Not the best of examples, really.

Skaven

2011-02-24, 12:38 PM

Also, Andy Collins, the guy who made Sorcerers in 3.0, hated them.

I still cannot believe he got away with what he did to this class.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 12:46 PM

I still cannot believe he got away with what he did to this class.

I fail to see how the sorcerer got screwed. I mean assuming they're Tier 2, and that the ideal character should be Tier 3, then that means they got plenty of love.

Unless I'm out of the loop on the developer hatred, and missing something big...then I believe you should direct your anger toward the creators of the Truenamer...if you prefer a more mainstream example, Swashbucklers feel your pain.

TheGeckoKing

2011-02-24, 01:16 PM

I personally think the main reason Sorcerers get the funny looks and get shunned is because one, unlike a Wizard (which can be gradually taught magical ability and be barred easily from the nastier stuff if his tutor thinks he'll go on a bender), a Sorcerer can just go mental with the spells and you can't really do much to stop them short of incapacitating/killing them. That and if the Sorcerer goes wrong somewhere, it's harder to point out where;

Wizard - "Oh, you mis-pronounced that word there, and you need to wiggle your fingers more."

Sorcerer - "Um.......your power is down to your bloodline, right? Maybe your blood sugar is down? I dunno, you seem to make this stuff up as you go along."

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 01:17 PM

Hehe...Diabetic Sorcerer can't cast spells :smalltongue:

TheGeckoKing

2011-02-24, 01:36 PM

Only if your blood sugar level is too low. Too high and you might end up peeing out Fireballs or something :smalleek:

Greenish

2011-02-24, 01:39 PM

I fail to see how the sorcerer got screwed. I mean assuming they're Tier 2, and that the ideal character should be Tier 3, then that means they got plenty of love.Well, they get the spells, which the developers grossly underestimated, but there's no particular reason why sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) should have, say, longer casting time on metamagic'ed spells, or why they're a level behind the prepared casters in spell access.

And then there's the fact that they have 19 dead levels.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 01:52 PM

Well, they get the spells, which the developers grossly underestimated, but there's no particular reason why sorcerers (and other spontaneous casters) should have, say, longer casting time on metamagic'ed spells, or why they're a level behind the prepared casters in spell access.

And then there's the fact that they have 19 dead levels.

"Sorcerers, the accidental Tier 2."

I'll grant that spontaneous casters get a raw deal to a degree, but I'd take full-round casting for metamagics on prepared casters if I could do the metamagic part spontaneously over preparing metamagics any day. Quicken notwithstanding of course. Rods cover that mind you.

Hmm...on second thought, can Sorcerers apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell? ...if not then yeah they got screwed. Sort of. They're still Tier 2...but still strictly worse than every other primary caster in Core.

Zaydos

2011-02-24, 02:04 PM

"Sorcerers, the accidental Tier 2."

I'll grant that spontaneous casters get a raw deal to a degree, but I'd take full-round casting for metamagics on prepared casters if I could do the metamagic part spontaneously over preparing metamagics any day. Quicken notwithstanding of course. Rods cover that mind you.

Hmm...on second thought, can Sorcerers apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell? ...if not then yeah they got screwed. Sort of. They're still Tier 2...but still strictly worse than every other primary caster in Core.

Yes sorcerers can apply multiple metamagics to a single spell.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-24, 02:06 PM

Sorcerers are as high as they are on the tier list because of the pure power of spellcasting, not because the class is interesting or particularly well-designed. Clerics are largely in the same boat: they get all of their class features at level 1, and then those class features simply get better as they progress.

Wizards at least get free metamagic / item creation feats. Sorcerers are just kind of...bland.

SleepyShadow

2011-02-24, 02:23 PM

Wizard: "Sorry Commoners, I'm having a hard time hearing you over how awesome I am. No, don't worry, I won't destroy your entire village. Even though I could. Easily."

Sorcerer: "Hey, how's everyone doing? How are the kids? You got married? That's great! I'm so happy for -ACHOO!-
*sneezes, blows up the house*
Sorry everyone ... again."

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 02:24 PM

Wizards at least get free metamagic / item creation feats. Sorcerers are just kind of...bland.

With unnecessarily gimped casting progression.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 02:44 PM

With unnecessarily gimped casting progression.

This is really only an early game weakness. At level 20, Sorcerers have equal casting (Level 9) and more spells per day...albeit from a more limited pool of spells, but there are ways around that to a degree. I realize for all practical purposes, this doesn't really help, as the majority of the game doesn't occur at level 20, but in terms of peak power, they end up in the same place...if more uses per day was actually a worthwhile tradeoff for limited versatility then there's a viable argument to suggest that a sorcerer actually gets the better deal.

The criticism that they don't really have class features doesn't hold much water either. Clerics don't have class features past level 1. Wizards get scattered Bonus Feats...useful, but they hardly do anything to enhance the flavor of the class. Druids aside, Core Spellcaster 20 is boring.

This is probably by design to encourage PrCs. WoTC sells a lot of PrCs, after all. None of this really negates the fact that Sorcerer 20 is no more than a 5 level class...still I don't think the intent was to screw the Sorcerer so much as it was to get people to buy books.

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 02:47 PM

This is really only an early game weakness. At level 20, Sorcerers have equal casting (Level 9) and more spells per day...albeit from a more limited pool of spells, but there are ways around that to a degree. I realize for all practical purposes, this doesn't really help, as the majority of the game doesn't occur at level 20, but in terms of peak power, they end up in the same place...if more uses per day was actually a worthwhile tradeoff for limited versatility then there's a viable argument to suggest that a sorcerer actually gets the better deal.
.

Strictly, it's a weakness from levels 3 to 17. At level 18, both classes have 9ths and they even out, but till then the Wizard will always be one step ahead in terms of casting - a very significant bonus because of the exponential way that spell levels get better and better.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-24, 02:49 PM

Honestly, the lowest of levels are the ones that as a caster, hurt the most. At level 1-3, you're pretty squishy still. And level 3 is a sad level for a sorcerer. You still go down pretty fast, and only have level one spells, and can easily run dry on them.

The real reason to go sorc is not the flexibility, it's the sorc only spells and things. Wings of cover, wings of flurry, these things are great.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 02:52 PM

Strictly, it's a weakness from levels 3 to 17. At level 18, both classes have 9ths and they even out, but till then the Wizard will always be one step ahead in terms of casting - a very significant bonus because of the exponential way that spell levels get better and better.

And that's a fair criticism...I'm just pointing out that at 20, Sorcerers and Wizards balance out fairly well...assuming you accept that lots of one is better than a little bit of everything.

I guess my overall point is that Sorcerers are still very playable, disadvantaged or not. I guess if it really sticks you that bad, play a Wizard? ...or consult rule 0?

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 02:54 PM

This is really only an early game weakness.

It's a weakness until level 18 full-classed, and it's a weakness throughout their entire career when you take into account they have one less level to be flexible with when multiclassing and PrCing. And they're already at a disadvantage to Wizards for what kinds of casting PrCs they can GET into.

Edit: Note, too, that it was the progression, not the end destination, that I was referring to.

And that's a fair criticism...I'm just pointing out that at 20, Sorcerers and Wizards balance out fairly well...

Which is largely meaningless, since that's <5% of a standard campaign if it's something that'd be reached at all. Whereas low level weaknesses are a lot more glaring because they actually make it harder to advance in level.

I guess my overall point is that Sorcerers are still very playable, disadvantaged or not. I guess if it really sticks you that bad, play a Wizard? ...or consult rule 0?

Just because you can fix it does not mean that it wasn't a bad move in the first place.

Who said they weren't playable? I just said they had unnecessarily gimped casting progression.

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 02:54 PM

And that's a fair criticism...I'm just pointing out that at 20, Sorcerers and Wizards balance out fairly well...assuming you accept that lots of one is better than a little bit of everything.

I guess my overall point is that Sorcerers are still very playable, disadvantaged or not. I guess if it really sticks you that bad, play a Wizard?

Yeah, but at level 20, Sorcerers and Wizards are balanced against each other and stomping all over everything else in the entire campaign world with steel-toed spiked boots, so it's almost immaterial anyways.

Sorcerers are very much playable, they're just weaker, because spellcasting is simply that good and wizards get it sooner. I always give Sorcerers to new players who want to be spellcasters, though, because they're much, much simpler to play.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-24, 02:56 PM

Sorcs typically will enter most prestige classes a level later than wizards.

Even worse, some prestige classes, such as loremaster and Iot7v, have spells known requirements. These hurt much worse for sorc than for wizard.

Gullintanni

2011-02-24, 03:00 PM

Yeah, but at level 20, Sorcerers and Wizards are balanced against each other and stomping all over everything else in the entire campaign world with steel-toed spiked boots, so it's almost immaterial anyways.

Sorcerers are very much playable, they're just weaker, because spellcasting is simply that good and wizards get it sooner. I always give Sorcerers to new players who want to be spellcasters, though, because they're much, much simpler to play.

I've always found Clerics pretty simple. From an intuitive standpoint most people will put on armor, buff their friends and healbot up. This is decidedly sub-par for a Cleric, but it's still plenty good enough to carry you from 1-20.

Have you found your new players successful as sorcerers? Unless you're coaching them on spell selection, I could see them having a difficult time of it.

Sorcs typically will enter most prestige classes a level later than wizards.

Even worse, some prestige classes, such as loremaster and Iot7v, have spells known requirements. These hurt much worse for sorc than for wizard.

Hmm...point.

Thanks for the good debate!

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 03:04 PM

I've always found Clerics pretty simple. From an intuitive standpoint most people will put on armor, buff their friends and healbot up. This is decidedly sub-par for a Cleric, but it's still plenty good enough to carry you from 1-20.

Have you found your new players successful as sorcerers? Unless you're coaching them on spell selection, I could see them having a difficult time of it.

Most of them want to be blasters too, so it's fairly easy. I just tell them - "this one does fire damage, this one does ice damage, this one does lightning damage, this one turns your best friend into a seven-headed hydra..." They figure it out pretty fast.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-24, 03:12 PM

I've done that myself. Alternatively, diehard blaster fans are directed toward warmage. Even easier to roll up, thanks to less decisions, and they have slightly more class abilities to utilize as they get better at the game.

It's not the most powerful class, but it's a very useful class.

Yora

2011-02-24, 03:14 PM

Even worse, some prestige classes, such as loremaster and Iot7v, have spells known requirements. These hurt much worse for sorc than for wizard.

Depends. The idea is that these are spells the character will use all the time anyway. But even without any specific class in mind, that's probably quite often not the case.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-24, 03:20 PM

Depends. The idea is that these are spells the character will use all the time anyway. But even without any specific class in mind, that's probably quite often not the case.

Well, Loremaster, for instance, requires seven divination spells. That's fairly painful, considering you can enter the class at your eighth level. You only know ten spells total at this point, so 7/10 non-cantrip spells(including one of your highest level spells) are occupied by divinations. Consider that not counting cantrips, you only have 11 divination spells to select from in core.

Sure, you can cherry pick a bit and minimize the pain, but in order to enter this prestige class, you need to sacrifice fairly significantly in a way that a wizard does not, or optimize something a wizard can entirely forget about. He can just scribe the spells into his book and never care about them. The 900g he expends on doing so is trivial.

JonestheSpy

2011-02-24, 03:52 PM

Dang, surprised no one's mentioned his yet: because lots of game designers and players are also comic geeks who've read X-Men, and the sorcerers=mutants analogy is blindingly obvious.

Heck, Rich Burlew totally sends this up at the beginning of Start of Darkness.

unosarta

2011-02-24, 05:49 PM

1st level Commoner with 10 con and 2 HP from an average roll of a 1d4. Meet Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm) with minimum of 2 damage. Commoner with 10 con and 3 HP from rounding 2.5 up to 3. 75% chance of fatality from magic missile.

Edit: 75% and 50% chances of causing a bleed-out.

(really. Go check the PHB 1st level spells. There are none in there that could outright kill someone at first level. Ever).

Commoner with 10 con and 2 average hit points takes 12 damage to be outright killed. They can be outright saved with a DC 15 Heal check. Most towns, hamlets, thorps and villages have at least one healer. If help is not administered to the character, they have a 38% chance of actually dying from the hit point loss, and not stabilizing.

Compound on that the fact that a Heal check may be made every round while the dying character is dying, and that the heal check itself is DC 15, and able to be attempted untrained. If attention by a non-healer is being made to the character, they have a 7% chance of dying. If it is made by a healer, the chance of dying is truly tiny. Compound on this fact again the fact that multiple characters can make one Heal check per round per character (there is nothing in the rules against it). So, if the Sorcerer actually tried to save the person they accidentally harmed, that person would have a 2% chance of actually dying. If another helped at the same time, they would have a 1% chance of dying. If a trained healer helped, it would most certainly happen.

Therefore, there is no way that a spell of first level could ever kill a character outright. It might cause them to be knocked (so, I might add, can a house cat) and start dying, but the act of dying itself takes up to a minute.

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 06:16 PM

Commoner with 10 con and 2 average hit points takes 12 damage to be outright killed. They can be outright saved with a DC 15 Heal check. Most towns, hamlets, thorps and villages have at least one healer. If help is not administered to the character, they have a 38% chance of actually dying from the hit point loss, and not stabilizing.

Compound on that the fact that a Heal check may be made every round while the dying character is dying, and that the heal check itself is DC 15, and able to be attempted untrained. If attention by a non-healer is being made to the character, they have a 7% chance of dying. If it is made by a healer, the chance of dying is truly tiny. Compound on this fact again the fact that multiple characters can make one Heal check per round per character (there is nothing in the rules against it). So, if the Sorcerer actually tried to save the person they accidentally harmed, that person would have a 2% chance of actually dying. If another helped at the same time, they would have a 1% chance of dying. If a trained healer helped, it would most certainly happen.

Therefore, there is no way that a spell of first level could ever kill a character outright. It might cause them to be knocked (so, I might add, can a house cat) and start dying, but the act of dying itself takes up to a minute.

Mr. Sorcerer rolls a natural 20 on his touch attack for the Shocking Grasp, confirms, and rolls double-6's on his resultant damage. 12HP in a single hit, his poor victim is crispy barbeque. So, assuming a +0 BAB vs. AC10 (unarmored, no Dex bonus for either side), it'd be somewhere in the range of a 2.5% chance to score and confirm a critical Shocking Grasp. What's the odds of rolling 12 on 2d6?

Eldan

2011-02-24, 06:17 PM

1 in 36. Pretty small chance, then.

Greenish

2011-02-24, 06:22 PM

Commoner with 10 con and 2 average hit points takes 12 damage to be outright killed.

Therefore, there is no way that a spell of first level could ever kill a character outright.Spells with an attack roll can crit. Shocking Grasp and Chill Touch can both kill human commoners outright (let alone races with con penalty, such as elves).

And well, even people reduced to -n require immediate help not to croak there and then.

Show

2011-02-24, 06:25 PM

Commoner with 10 con and 2 average hit points takes 12 damage to be outright killed. They can be outright saved with a DC 15 Heal check. Most towns, hamlets, thorps and villages have at least one healer.
[lots of statistics]
Therefore, there is no way that a spell of first level could ever kill a character outright. It might cause them to be knocked (so, I might add, can a house cat) and start dying, but the act of dying itself takes up to a minute.

You're discounting the examples already brought up.
Shocking grasp, 5d6. 5 automatic damage with all rolls of ones takes this commoner to negatives. Even if considering only a very low roll average of two, they will still only have two hitpoints left, not much time remaining to summon a healer if they fail their saves. Assuming an average roll of 3.5*5, we get 17, rounded. That is most certainly dead, even for an exceptionally healthy commoner who rolled full HD and has 16 con.

Going back to the basics of this thread, the reason Sorcerers are so feared/hated is because they are different. They have power that only they can have. This runs up against many, many problems. Religion and jeleaousy are only two. Remember, anyone can be a wizard given enough study(as long as they are moderately intelligent). Their magic is safe, understood, and friendly. With sorcerers, they are simply different and special. And especially in the middle ages, it was not a good idea to be different.

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 06:30 PM

You're discounting the examples already brought up.
Shocking grasp, 5d6. 5 automatic damage with all rolls of ones takes this commoner to negatives. Even if considering only a very low roll average of two, they will still only have two hitpoints left, not much time remaining to summon a healer if they fail their saves. Assuming an average roll of 3.5*5, we get 17, rounded. That is most certainly dead, even for an exceptionally healthy commoner who rolled full HD and has 16 con.

Going back to the basics of this thread, the reason Sorcerers are so feared/hated is because they are different. They have power that only they can have. This runs up against many, many problems. Religion and jeleaousy are only two. Remember, anyone can be a wizard given enough study(as long as they are moderately intelligent). Their magic is safe, understood, and friendly. With sorcerers, they are simply different and special. And especially in the middle ages, it was not a good idea to be different.

A 5th level sorcerer should totally be killing 1st-level commoners outright...kind of a bad example.

unosarta

2011-02-24, 06:31 PM

Spells with an attack roll can crit. Shocking Grasp and Chill Touch can both kill human commoners outright (let alone races with con penalty, such as elves).

And well, even people reduced to -n require immediate help not to croak there and then.

And that chance of critting? Pretty infinitismally small. The fact that an entire class is being prejudiced to this level, when they can be just as large of a bonus to a community if they are properly controlled, is poppycock, to be honest.

Also, I already covered that. There is a roughly 2% chance of the character dying then and there if they are helped. 38% chance if there is no help, which doesn't seem likely at all.

You're discounting the examples already brought up.
Shocking grasp, 5d6. 5 automatic damage with all rolls of ones takes this commoner to negatives. Even if considering only a very low roll average of two, they will still only have two hitpoints left, not much time remaining to summon a healer if they fail their saves. Assuming an average roll of 3.5*5, we get 17, rounded. That is most certainly dead, even for an exceptionally healthy commoner who rolled full HD and has 16 con.

Dude. 5d6 damage on shocking grasp will happen at level five, in which case they would have far more damaging spells on hand. It is highly unlikely a preteen Sorcerer who didn't understand their powers would be able to progress past level 1, let alone make it to level five without understanding their power.

Going back to the basics of this thread, the reason Sorcerers are so feared/hated is because they are different. They have power that only they can have. This runs up against many, many problems. Religion and jeleaousy are only two. Remember, anyone can be a wizard given enough study(as long as they are moderately intelligent). Their magic is safe, understood, and friendly. With sorcerers, they are simply different and special. And especially in the middle ages, it was not a good idea to be different.

This seems like a far more likely idea, one that I don't think has really been discussed, but one that does make far more sense than any other. Sorcery is something that even with great knowledge of it, you simply cannot do. That is scary.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 06:34 PM

Spells with an attack roll can crit. Shocking Grasp and Chill Touch can both kill human commoners outright (let alone races with con penalty, such as elves).

And well, even people reduced to -n require immediate help not to croak there and then.
And gods help you if the DM rules ∞*0 level spell casting, a fairly common houserule I am given to understand. The d3 damage spells quickly add up for a commoner.

The Glyphstone

2011-02-24, 06:35 PM

Just remember that only a Sith deals in absolutes.:smallsmile:

That is to say, a very small chance =/= 'absolutely no chance' which is more the point of dispute people have.

Show

2011-02-24, 06:36 PM

Dude. 5d6 damage on shocking grasp will happen at level five, in which case they would have far more damaging spells on hand. It is highly unlikely a preteen Sorcerer who didn't understand their powers would be able to progress past level 1, let alone make it to level five without understanding their power.

That is very true, and I completely agree. It's just that you said before that there was "no way a first level spell could ever kill a commoner outright." I thought that mean at all levels, not just with the preteen sorc. that has been used as an example before. I judged it by the spell, not by the sorcerer.

ZombyWoof

2011-02-24, 06:36 PM

There is actually no rule that states that sorcerers must have high charisma. A Sorcerer could very well have a charisma of 10-12 and still be able to cast spells. This is much in the same vein that there is no rule which states that Wizards must NOT have a high charisma. A Wizard could very well have a charisma of 30-40 and still be able to cast spells.

In fact, you can't even state "generally" that a wizard will have lower charisma than a sorcerer, because in the game world people aren't sorcerers because they have charisma: they are sorcerers because they have the talent of sorcery. Otherwise, all Paladins would be able to cast sorcerer spells :smalltongue:

I fail to see how the sorcerer got screwed. I mean assuming they're Tier 2, and that the ideal character should be Tier 3, then that means they got plenty of love.
"Ideal character is tier3" is an opinion not a fact.

Show

2011-02-24, 06:39 PM

In fact, you can't even state "generally" that a wizard will have lower charisma than a sorcerer, because in the game world people aren't sorcerers because they have charisma: they are sorcerers because they have the talent of sorcery. Otherwise, all Paladins would be able to cast sorcerer spells :smalltongue:

Charisma is a natural part of being a sorcerer. Sorcery is based on force of personality. There are no rules concerning it that I know of, but the more personality someone has, at least the way I look at it, the more likely that person is a sorcerer. To me, Personality=Innate magical ability.
This is obviously both true and untrue in plenty of occasions, but in the one example of sorcerers, it seems quite valid.

They are sorcerers because they have sorcery, but in a world where sorcery is approximately equal to charisma, it only stands to reason that the more sorcery they have, the more force of personality they have.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-24, 06:48 PM

There is actually no rule that states that sorcerers must have high charisma. A Sorcerer could very well have a charisma of 10-12 and still be able to cast spells. This is much in the same vein that there is no rule which states that Wizards must NOT have a high charisma. A Wizard could very well have a charisma of 30-40 and still be able to cast spells.
:smalltongue:
On the other hand, if your charisma is low, I mean below 10, your sorcery won't manifest at all as far as spells are concerned and at 10 you will only going to be able to cast 0 level spells. A sorcerer needs average or above charisma to be more then a commoner, even if above average charisma doesn't automatically produce sorcery.

lesser_minion

2011-02-24, 07:44 PM

The populous should know that there are bad eggs in every caster type (evil clerics, evil wizards, evil bards, etc, etc), and although many Sorcerers do accidentally do damage, they do it without intention and without lasting impact (really. Go check the PHB 1st level spells. There are none in there that could outright kill someone at first level. Ever).

If a sorcerer wants to kill someone, requiring them to kill their victim outright with a single 1st level spell is unreasonable. Once an opponent is in the negatives, there is no reason why the sorcerer can't just kick/bite/stab them to death or something.

If the sorcerer is accidentally losing control of their magic, then there's no reason to limit them to 1st-level spells. You could even have the occasional sneezing sorcerer accidentally cast something like Apocalypse from the Sky.

Slayn82

2011-02-24, 08:44 PM

AtomicKitKat

2011-02-24, 09:03 PM

Only if your blood sugar level is too low. Too high and you might end up peeing out Fireballs or something :smalleek:

If it burns when you pee, check with your local Healer.:smalltongue:

Also, while on the topic of frying commoners, Burning Hands (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/burningHands.htm). Just set their clothing(or surroundings) on fire, and suddenly, you just needed to spend 6 seconds putting out their flames or risk having them die twice as fast. Also, Grain Silo Explosions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion)...

Volthawk

2011-02-24, 09:16 PM

All sorcerers having access to 1d6 damage spells means is that they don't have to grab a weapon before being able to kill people easily. I mean, a club (no cost, commoners can use it) does 1d6, doesn't run out, and adds strength.

elonin

2011-02-24, 09:26 PM

Doesn't this whole conversation depend on the amount of magic in the campaign? If magic were common enough that the typical peasant saw it on a daily basis then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. In the real world people have been burned at the stake for suspicion of witchcraft. They were suspected of dealing with the devil and thus were put to death. There is no reason why ignorant peasants would behave differently if they were unused to magic. If magic was more common it would depend on what they've seen and heard. A university of magic might harass sorcorers for not being in the guild or having to work at it. Dragon lance is a good example of this "join one of our orders or we'll hunt you down".

unosarta

2011-02-24, 10:26 PM

If a sorcerer wants to kill someone, requiring them to kill their victim outright with a single 1st level spell is unreasonable. Once an opponent is in the negatives, there is no reason why the sorcerer can't just kick/bite/stab them to death or something.
There is actually no game rule or mechanic that states that they are even able to loose control. The text that describes sorcerers going out of control also describes it when they first gain their powers, and when they are presumably level 0 or 1. A sorcerer is not going to be level 5 when they "first start gaining their powers". Because at the point that they do gain their powers they are very emotionally unstable, they tend to apparently not have as much control, but honestly, even without that much control, it is highly unlikely that they would kill anyone anyway. And once a sorcerer gains control, they would probably be more of a help than a Wizard, with a longer longevity and greater ability to relate to others.

If the sorcerer is accidentally losing control of their magic, then there's no reason to limit them to 1st-level spells. You could even have the occasional sneezing sorcerer accidentally cast something like Apocalypse from the Sky.

Again, there is no mechanical rule that actually says that that happens. In fact, nothing in the mechanics ever even mentions it, so honestly, this whole argument is based on one circumspect piece of fluff in the description. Fluff is mutable.

Coidzor

2011-02-24, 10:28 PM

Just remember that only a Sith deals in absolutes.:smallsmile:

Truly, Jedi Math was set back a thousand years when they banned the absolute value notation. :smallfrown:

Commoner with 10 con and 2 average hit points takes 12 damage to be outright killed. They can be outright saved with a DC 15 Heal check. Most towns, hamlets, thorps and villages have at least one healer. If help is not administered to the character, they have a 38% chance of actually dying from the hit point loss, and not stabilizing.

Like a healer getting there on time or commoners succeeding on Heal checks is likely.

Mortally wounding someone and killing them outright with massive damage isn't that much differentiated in the public consciousness.

On the other hand, if your charisma is low, I mean below 10, your sorcery won't manifest at all as far as spells are concerned and at 10 you will only going to be able to cast 0 level spells. A sorcerer needs average or above charisma to be more then a commoner, even if above average charisma doesn't automatically produce sorcery.

Well, yeah. The point that was being made was that people shouldn't be assuming an 18 CHA sorcerer and an <8 CHA wizard.

Again, there is no mechanical rule that actually says that that happens.

Exactly. So once one is going outside of the rules to do it in the first place, there's no reason to have it be limited to 1st level, boring spells.

lesser_minion

2011-02-25, 05:00 AM

Again, there is no mechanical rule that actually says that that happens. In fact, nothing in the mechanics ever even mentions it, so honestly, this whole argument is based on one circumspect piece of fluff in the description. Fluff is mutable.

This is a discussion about the fluff. Ignoring the fluff is not going to fly here.

Even were this not a discussion about the fluff, "fluff is mutable" is utterly wrong. Don't like it, change it, but don't act like it's not there just because you don't have to use it.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-25, 05:09 AM

Well, yeah. The point that was being made was that people shouldn't be assuming an 18 CHA sorcerer and an <8 CHA wizard.

I don't think we are assuming that. What I am assuming, more or less, is that the average successful wizard is going to have less charisma then the average successful sorcerer.

BobVosh

2011-02-25, 05:19 AM

Just remember that only a Sith deals in absolutes.:smallsmile:

That is to say, a very small chance =/= 'absolutely no chance' which is more the point of dispute people have.

Wait, is Yoda a sith? "Do or do not, there is no try." That sounds fairly absolute.

Also for the xmen mutant hated by muggles...I have never under stood that.

Jamini

2011-02-25, 05:40 AM

Also for the xmen mutant hated by muggles...I have never under stood that.

You are aware of some of the things they could do, even if they weren't aware of it? Right?

Let's see.

Rogue : Stole mutant powers. Would almost kill any non-mutant who merely touched her skin. (Seriously, part of her backstory is she nearly killed her boyfriend!)

Cyclops : Literally blasted EVERYTHING with his sight without control unless he had those visors.

Nightcrawler : Great guy, but he still looked godamn freaky.

The Juggernaut : Nothing stopped him. Literally, nothing.

Wolverine : Regeneration + Near Immortality. He's fairly harmless without those nasty claws, but he's still a badass.

Storm: When she gets pissed, she levels buildings. Notice that the storm we know from the comics, cartoons, and live action movies already had a TON of control, and even then she'd occasionally level something with a tornado. Imagine a young storm PMSing. Then run as power lines come down around your head.

Magneto : His overtly maliciousness aside, anything that can be influanced by a magnetic field is his to control.

Xavier : Would you like someone who could read your mind whenever he wished? Telekinisis? Mind control? Think about if he couldn't shut it off, or accidentally planted a suggestion in your head?

That's just some of the prime cast. Some of them had worse/deadlier/scarier powers than that.

I'd be wary of anyone with mutant powers. Maybe not overtly hostile, but I'd be careful as I do prefer to KEEP my insides INSIDE. Thank you very much.

Ashtar

2011-02-25, 05:52 AM

So what if we invert the world? Let's imagine...

At the dawn of time, the birth of the races, traces of divine, draconic and infernal blood lines mixed in with the emerging races. The possessors of such complex bloodlines wielded powers unknown in the young races. They found they couldn't teach such things to others and only those born with the gift could control magic. As the years passed, the sorcerers as they were known started to understand and heighten their mastery of magic. Some started to record their knowledge and found willing, if unskilled, disciples and apprentices. Their innate presence drawing others to their presence. Slowly, among the rare apprentices, who despite not being blessed by the ancient bloodlines, the first wizards appeared. Since they could not let the magic flow naturally, they learned to invoke it, to control it. Their mastery did not come from nature, but from hard work and study. They were the triumph of the young races, magic springing from their own skills instead of being inherited.

The writings of the respected sorcerers of old were much sought after and their arcane knowledge was persevered for the future of the young races.

...
With such a premise, would sorcerers still be disliked? After writing this, I feel there might still be a jealousy towards someone who had "inherited" magic.

dsmiles

2011-02-25, 05:52 AM

You are aware of some of the things they could do, even if they weren't aware of it? Right?

Let's see.

Rogue : Stole mutant powers. Would almost kill any non-mutant who merely touched her skin. (Seriously, part of her backstory is she nearly killed her boyfriend!)Don't forget that she did absorb Miss Marvel's (Carol Danvers') powers permanently. That's how she got the ability to fly, and the multiple personality disorder (which Magneto happened to take care of).

Gullintanni

2011-02-25, 07:37 AM

Mortally wounding someone and killing them outright with massive damage isn't that much differentiated in the public consciousness.

You know, this probably should have been mentioned sooner. It doesn't really matter whether or not a fledgling Sorcerer accidentally kills or accidentally wounds the target in question.

While murder is definitely the worst of two outcomes, aggravated assault still bears a hefty penalty. If a Sorcerer is accidentally dealing 2-5 damage against commoners with no more than 3 hit points, then he's not going to spend a lot of time outside of prison...and gods help him if he's a servant in a noble house and he happens to wound a family member.

unosarta

2011-02-25, 07:41 AM

Like a healer getting there on time or commoners succeeding on Heal checks is likely.
Dude. They have at least 9 or 10 rounds to stabilize. Even if they don't, I did my calculations based on the fact that the commoner has no bonus in heal. So, even without a healer, the person literally has a 2% chance of dying. If 10% of sorcerers flameout on accident, that means that .2% of all sorcerers will actually kill someone. Why are they feared?!

Mortally wounding someone and killing them outright with massive damage isn't that much differentiated in the public consciousness.
But if they don't die, and the sorcerer ends up being a public good, and doing things for the public (which they would have even more of a reason to do if they retained a sense of guilt from the incident, which would be very likely), then they are a net gain. There is no reason to be afraid of them when they have no chance of flaring out later on.

Exactly. So once one is going outside of the rules to do it in the first place, there's no reason to have it be limited to 1st level, boring spells.
What. What. What is this.

Actually, you know what, I am looking at the fluff right now, in the background section. It says nothing about casting spells on accident. It mentions that "their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, and uncontrolled" but that also includes "incomplete", which means that they spell is unlikely to do anything, since they are doing what is essentially just shoving power and expecting a result. "Eventually the young sorcerer understands the power that he has been wielding unintentionally. From that point on, he can begin practicing and improving his powers."

Secondly, your logic is really, really, well and truly illogical. "So, if the fluff says it, but the mechanics deny it, screw the mechanics!"? Really? But the fluff doesn't say it. If anything, the Sorcerer might be casting a 0th level spell, but that is with a gratuitous reading of incomplete.

This is a discussion about the fluff. Ignoring the fluff is not going to fly here.

Even were this not a discussion about the fluff, "fluff is mutable" is utterly wrong. Don't like it, change it, but don't act like it's not there just because you don't have to use it.

But nothing says that they will "cast uncontrollably" at higher levels. In fact, that makes really no sense, since they have roughly the same amount of control over their magic as Wizards (they have no wilder-esque Wild Magic so to speak, they make no rolls to cast their magic. They just cast their magic).

If the fluff makes no sense, and destroys my sense of realism in the game, I sure as heck will ignore it. More likely, I will change it, if it really does interrupt that much.

Why exactly is "fluff is mutable" wrong? Especially here, where the fluff itself makes little to no sense considering logic.

You know, this probably should have been mentioned sooner. It doesn't really matter whether or not a fledgling Sorcerer accidentally kills or accidentally wounds the target in question.

While murder is definitely the worst of two outcomes, aggravated assault still bears a hefty penalty. If a Sorcerer is accidentally dealing 2-5 damage against commoners with no more than 3 hit points, then he's not going to spend a lot of time outside of prison...and gods help him if he's a servant in a noble house and he happens to wound a family member.

But if they are using their sorcerer powers on accident, it could hardly be called aggravated assault. Rather, if the courts were any halfway intelligent (which, thank you, most courts are), they would choose to take the sorcerer under their wing, apprentice him to someone to learn magic, and bam, they have a judge who knows Zone of Truth. If he were a servant of a noble house and he did that, I might be able to see it. Maybe.

onthetown

2011-02-25, 07:43 AM

Because sorcerers are chaotic by nature, they have a harder time fitting in with the typical adventuring party that's described in the fluff and they are considered more unreliable because of it. The charisma helps, but would you rather have somebody that's studied for years of their life to have arcane control or a spontaneous caster that just happened across their magic in your party? Since the party in the rulebook is full of your typical, Good heroes, you might want somebody a little more reliable.

I actually like the fluff for sorcerers; I just play wizards because they can learn more spells.

Serpentine

2011-02-25, 07:46 AM

On the other hand, if your charisma is low, I mean below 10, your sorcery won't manifest at all as far as spells are concerned and at 10 you will only going to be able to cast 0 level spells. A sorcerer needs average or above charisma to be more then a commoner, even if above average charisma doesn't automatically produce sorcery.Maybe all the low Charisma Sorcerers are the ones who didn't have the strength of personality to control themselves once they started manifesting, and blew themselves up...

I like my Sorcerers to pick the spell they manifested with. They tend to get a slight bonus of some sort with that spell.

Unosarta: It's a while ago now but I, at least, noted that it's not a D&D thing, it's a wider fantasy thing that might (maybe) tend to be translated across to D&D.

unosarta

2011-02-25, 07:51 AM

Unosarta: It's a while ago now but I, at least, noted that it's not a D&D thing, it's a wider fantasy thing that might (maybe) tend to be translated across to D&D.

That might make sense, and it might have worked (and I totally would have loved it if it had) if the developers had actually factored in some sort of Wilder-like random magic elements. That would have made for an interesting class. The Sorcerer as it is is just boring. However, without that random magical element, there is no reason for as to why a sorcerer would "flameout so to speak", and there is no real mention of it in the PHB.

Also, the PHB never mentions why the household and friends of the sorcerer tend to be in fear constantly. :smallconfused:

Most of this post was not directed at you. Just BTW.

Gullintanni

2011-02-25, 07:53 AM

Dude. They have at least 9 or 10 rounds to stabilize. Even if they don't, I did my calculations based on the fact that the commoner has no bonus in heal. So, even without a healer, the person literally has a 2% chance of dying. If 10% of sorcerers flameout on accident, that means that .2% of all sorcerers will actually kill someone. Why are they feared?!

Actually, you know what, I am looking at the fluff right now, in the background section. It says nothing about casting spells on accident. It mentions that "their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, and uncontrolled" but that also includes "incomplete", which means that they spell is unlikely to do anything, since they are doing what is essentially just shoving power and expecting a result. "Eventually the young sorcerer understands the power that he has been wielding unintentionally. From that point on, he can begin practicing and improving his powers."

The problem is that aggravated assault with a spell evokes as much fear as murder with a spell. The distinction is immaterial. There are a ton of situations as well where being suddenly reduced to zero hit points would suck hard. Hunting trips, swimming, do work in high places...all of these are likely candidates for accidental death resulting from accidental spell blasting.

...and your interpretation of the fluff is, IMO, weighted a little bit improperly. The passage you quoted listed three characteristics of novice sorcerer casting.

"their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, and uncontrolled" but that also includes"

Incomplete - Not particularly dangerous
Uncontrolled - This means that the level of power they expend is unregulated, and they can't control who they target. Dangerous.
Spontaneous - I read this to mean that they spontaneously vomit forth spell energy. That is to say, such...such spellcasting is unintentional. It spontaneously just happens. Combined with the lack of control stated above, and the danger inherent to hanging around developing sorcerers becomes clear.

Furthermore, not every spell they cast will necessarily have all three components. Some spells will be more complete than others. Some spells will be more controlled and intentional than others. Those aren't the ones that worry people. It's the uncontrolled, spontaneous spells that will scare people.

Again, the fluff is there to make that case, and it really can't be ignored. That's not to say that this will be every sorcerer, it's just that it's almost certainly a few...at the very least, sorcerers are unpredictable. In a world where unpredictability is dangerous (ie. the life of a peasant), accepting such a liability is counter to logic, and really, counter to survival.

EDIT:

...and the reason there's no element of randomness inherent in the Sorcerer class is that PHB assumes that by the time a Commoner reaches Sorcerer 1, they've gone through their period of accidental manifesting, and have mastered their gift.

Serpentine

2011-02-25, 07:55 AM

unosarta

2011-02-25, 08:33 AM

Unosarta: Most likely it's just that the topic has moved on, but that wasn't my point. The original post did mention the books - and I said I doubted his premise - but he also asked why that was so. And the reason that is so (or might be treated as so) is because of the wider fantasy landscape.

Yeah, that is true. And it is really fascinating. I wonder what fantasy books really cemented that "trope" so to speak of sorcery.

...and your interpretation of the fluff is, IMO, weighted a little bit improperly. The passage you quoted listed three characteristics of novice sorcerer casting.
This is really subjective, to be honest. The fluff seems to apply those three at the same time. You seem to be taking them apart for some reason.

"their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, and uncontrolled" but that also includes"

Incomplete - Not particularly dangerous
Uncontrolled - This means that the level of power they expend is unregulated, and they can't control who they target. Dangerous.
Spontaneous - I read this to mean that they spontaneously vomit forth spell energy. That is to say, such...such spellcasting is unintentional. It spontaneously just happens. Combined with the lack of control stated above, and the danger inherent to hanging around developing sorcerers becomes clear.
There is another part after that that I had forgotten. The full quote is as follows: "Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." I do admit that they will sometimes be dangerous. However, by being "sometimes dangerous", that is implying that the majority of the time they are not dangerous. However, if they cannot cast first level spells, because they are not first level, as your edit implies, then the "inherent" danger strictly lessens. If we assume 0th level spells, then there is a very small chance that the Sorcerer will actually be able to kill someone. So, if 10% of sorcerers flameout (which is a statistic I used in my earlier post, and nobody contradicted it, so I am just going to stick with it), then they have, even assuming that every single one uses a damaging spell on a person (which is probably not the most likely occurrence, but whatevs), then they deal 1d3 damage at the most. If they deal 1d3 damage, they have a 1/3 chance of killing the average commoner. 1/3*38% means that for a single sorcerer, they have a 12% chance of killing someone if they do not help, and if no help comes. Furthermore, if they do help, then they have a .8% chance of killing someone. If help comes, they have a 6.2x10-4 chance of ever killing someone. If you assume that the three events will happen with equal likelyness, that means that for every sorcerer that flames out, they have a 3.9% chance of killing someone. But, that is only for sorcerers who flame out. Out of all sorcerers everywhere, they have a .339% chance of killing someone without their own control ever. If there are 10,000 sorcerers in the world, that means just 340 of them actually ended up killing someone, ever. That means that there are 9660 who are completely innocent, and have no chance of killing someone.

Furthermore, not every spell they cast will necessarily have all three components. Some spells will be more complete than others. Some spells will be more controlled and intentional than others. Those aren't the ones that worry people. It's the uncontrolled, spontaneous spells that will scare people.
What makes you say this? Where in the fluff does it say that? Right now, there is no argument in this particular case but on semantics, which are highly subjective, and therefore not likely to get us anywhere.

Again, the fluff is there to make that case, and it really can't be ignored. That's not to say that this will be every sorcerer, it's just that it's almost certainly a few...at the very least, sorcerers are unpredictable. In a world where unpredictability is dangerous (ie. the life of a peasant), accepting such a liability is counter to logic, and really, counter to survival.
Can you cite some fluff, here? What part is it that cannot be ignored, because I kind of have it right in front of me, and see nothing about that that would necessarily dictate that I am ignoring any fluff.

Gullintanni

2011-02-25, 08:59 AM

1. This is really subjective, to be honest. The fluff seems to apply those three at the same time. You seem to be taking them apart for some reason.

2. There is another part after that that I had forgotten. The full quote is as follows: "Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." I do admit that they will sometimes be dangerous. However, by being "sometimes dangerous", that is implying that the majority of the time they are not dangerous. However, if they cannot cast first level spells, because they are not first level, as your edit implies, then the "inherent" danger strictly lessens. If we assume 0th level spells, then there is a very small chance that the Sorcerer will actually be able to kill someone. So, if 10% of sorcerers flameout (which is a statistic I used in my earlier post, and nobody contradicted it, so I am just going to stick with it), then they have, even assuming that every single one uses a damaging spell on a person (which is probably not the most likely occurrence, but whatevs), then they deal 1d3 damage at the most. If they deal 1d3 damage, they have a 1/3 chance of killing the average commoner. 1/3*38% means that for a single sorcerer, they have a 12% chance of killing someone if they do not help, and if no help comes. Furthermore, if they do help, then they have a .8% chance of killing someone. If help comes, they have a 6.2x10-4 chance of ever killing someone. If you assume that the three events will happen with equal likelyness, that means that for every sorcerer that flames out, they have a 3.9% chance of killing someone. But, that is only for sorcerers who flame out. Out of all sorcerers everywhere, they have a .339% chance of killing someone without their own control ever. If there are 10,000 sorcerers in the world, that means just 340 of them actually ended up killing someone, ever. That means that there are 9660 who are completely innocent, and have no chance of killing someone.

Fair point I suppose, that they don't qualify the three separately.

"However, by being "sometimes dangerous", that is implying that the majority of the time they are not dangerous." This is kind of fallacious. Sometimes dangerous does not mean usually not dangerous. It just means sometimes dangerous. I take the opposite of that to mean that they are also, sometimes NOT dangerous. It's hardly a limitation of liability. Rather, the sole-purpose of such a statement is to indicate that the developing sorcerer IS sometimes dangerous.

They also don't qualify a limitation on the power that a sorcerer manifests. Nothing limits us to 0 level spells. A developing sorcerer is tapping into the powers of a level 1 character, meaning that they have access, at least in theory, to level 1 spells as well.

I also don't agree that only 10% of sorcerers "flame out". Assuming the definition of "flame out" is simply "manifests power without control or accidentally", then 100% of sorcerers flame out. The statement, "Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous." is an absolute. Their first spells refers to the group Sorcerers. Therefore we can infer that All sorcerers spells first spells are incomplete, spontaneous and uncontrolled.

Assuming that we agree that all three qualifiers (Incomplete, Uncontrollable, Spontaneous) are in effect at all times, then the conclusion doesn't swing any more in your favor. The logical outcome of this is that the spell is:

-Incomplete...there are plenty of ways an incomplete spell can be dangerous. A 5x5' grease is still just as dangerous as a 10x10' grease, and is by all accounts just as incomplete as a magic missile spell that only flies for half its range.
-Uncontrollable...this is an obvious liability so I'm not going to cover it again.
-Spontaneous...this is the bad apple of the group. If all three qualifiers are representative of every single spell a fledgling sorcerer casts, then every single spell a fledgling sorcerer casts is an accident.

If all three qualifiers apply absolutely on all spellcasting of a fledgling sorcerer, then they become even MORE dangerous. I will grant you that they are generally less LETHAL owing to the incomplete clause...but they're even less predictable. And as I said, lethality is not a requisite for fear. If a sorcerer deals 3 damage to a commoner with 2 hit points, they've rendered the target unconcious. In the real world, if I do that to someone, I go to jail. In any historical medieval setting, you'd be lucky to escape the executioner's axe. A sorcerer who is dangerous but non-lethal, therefore, will not escape any stigma that would apply to a sorcerer who is lethal, at least in the eyes of the commoner.

The fluff supports 100% of neophyte sorcerers being cast as uncontrolled, and dangerous at least some of the time, until they've managed to control their power. As a commoner whose only goal is to survive and prosper, its pragmatic to avoid risk as much as possible. That means staying as far from the sorcerer as possible.

Ultimately, if you want to follow the language they use strictly, without any flexibility, then you end up with the end result above. If you allow reasonable flexibility, then the three qualifiers above only apply for part of the time. WoTC doesn't really qualify the power a neophyte sorcerer accidentally manifests except to say that sometimes its dangerous. That means that sometimes, damage spells are probably on the list of things they manifest.

...sorry for the wall of text :smallsmile:

Coidzor

2011-02-25, 09:06 AM

Dude. They have at least 9 or 10 rounds to stabilize. Even if they don't, I did my calculations based on the fact that the commoner has no bonus in heal. So, even without a healer, the person literally has a 2% chance of dying. If 10% of sorcerers flameout on accident, that means that .2% of all sorcerers will actually kill someone. Why are they feared?!

Because you're forgetting to take into account the true ineptitude of commoners. Why, it's almost like you think of them as actual people in comparison with PCs. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, you argue that something cannot happen, when it can, then people are going to bring it up.

What. What. What is this. Attempting to extrapolate from what someone else said and explain it to you since you didn't seem to understand what was said.

The idea being that if one decides to depart from the rules by having spontaneously cast spells as a thing then it's not much of a stretch to increase randomness by not limiting the sorcerer to 1st level spell effects.

Actually, you know what, I am looking at the fluff right now, in the background section. It says nothing about casting spells on accident. To reiterate my earlier point, I mentioned a departure from the writing of the game system anyway, so it's not like I actually thought accidental spell casting was in the rules.

It mentions that "their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, and uncontrolled" but that also includes "incomplete", which means that they spell is unlikely to do anything, since they are doing what is essentially just shoving power and expecting a result. Incomplete and harmless are not the same thing. Shoving raw power at someone in an unrefined manner shows up in many magic systems I've encountered before as something that can be detrimental to one's health.

Secondly, your logic is really, really, well and truly illogical. "So, if the fluff says it, but the mechanics deny it, screw the mechanics!"?

No, because you didn't read what I said correctly. See my earlier point about how if one is already departing from the rules, then there's no real reason to stay with a harsh limit of low level spell effects.

But nothing says that they will "cast uncontrollably" at higher levels. ...Did anyone even claim that? Because if they did, I missed it.