PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerers make MORE sense than wizards



Jamin
2007-01-07, 09:14 PM
After seeing some people say that they didn't get the sorcerer I have chosen now to revel that dun dun duun.I don't get wizards (ok I do mostly). The idea that anyone who has int greater then 10 can lean spells is kinda silly IMO. In most fantasies people are born with magic. It just does not click with me why everyone with int>10 is not on board the magic train. Because apparently it takes the same amount of exp to be a better fighter as it is to be a better wizard.
It just fits more with the feel of Arcane magic that it is something you are born and have to master rather than something you can master if you feel like it. Don't get me wrong I know that this is DnD and some things don't make sense but IMO a sorcerer not a wizard did it.

(Also sorcerer are more balanced)

Brickwall
2007-01-07, 09:27 PM
Actually, mastering cantrips isn't supposed to be any exceptional feat. However, having a high Int is necessary for things like Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft, and other wizardly things. In addition, it requires an educated background, and a life of effort. Most people in the D&D universe don't know the mechanics like we do, so why would they put all those years in when they could do something with that 18 Strength they were born with for a much easier time? That's kinda like asking why everyone with half a brain doesn't get a college graduation and become a lawyer or doctor or something. If we started looking at logic only after 18, that's what would happen. But, of course, most people would be sucky lawyers/doctors, and without people filling all the other jobs, the world would tumble into chaos.

Basically, smart people invest their time into taking advantage of their smarts, and the ones who have an opportunity to take the years of schooling necessary to become wizards do so. Everyone else is screwed over.

Everyone with a high enough Int can learn spells, but why would they if it's easier not to? If you still go to school, look at all the people who get B's and above. Now ask yourself how many of them really want to put effort into going into college, then getting their Master's in something. Pretty damn few, right? Right. That's why wizards are rarer than you'd think.

But we all know that smart people are mechanically unbalanced. Unfortunately, we all play D&D instead of hogging the inventions to ourselves. Oh, well. Nobody said we were ambitious. That's why all wizards aren't evil wizards.

Jamin
2007-01-07, 09:33 PM
I agree with everything you have said but the point I am trying to make is that I think that sorcerers make more sense than wizards. This is mostly in reply to the thread about sorcerers not making sense because I have always thought that if one of them had to go it should be wizard not the sorcerer.

EvilRoeSlade
2007-01-07, 09:49 PM
You know, you're right, sorcerers make more sense than wizards. After all, in real life I've never met anyone who learned how to use magic from reading a silly book. Sheesh. :smalltongue:

Brickwall
2007-01-07, 09:54 PM
Then maybe you should have refuted it there instead of making a new thread. You made me a day closer to carpal tunnel with that.

TheThan
2007-01-07, 09:56 PM
I agree with what brickwall said, but maybe there is something both of you are missing. Maybe sorcerers are simply very talented in the arcane arts. It’s like being a natural at something. They don’t have to study or practice at it because it’s intuitive for them. Whereas a wizard puts time and effort into learning how to use magic, a sorcerer just does it because it’s easy for him.

I knew someone in high school who was a natural with mathematics. He actually had to drive down to the State College to take his math classes because he had passed all the math classes the school offered. Its not that he was a genius or anything (even though a lot of people though he was), he just had a talent for math that surpassed most people’s ability.

I think that’s why there are both wizards and sorcerers. There are wizards that have studied really hard to get where they are, and sorcerers that didn’t have to because it came naturally for them.

Scalenex
2007-01-07, 09:59 PM
You mean they make more sense from a metaplot story point of view, not from a mechanics or power level point of view, right?

In that sense, sorcerers do mesh with fantasy stories more than wizards.

I don't see a problem with any smart person with the dedication and training be able to use arcane magic either. What does strain my suspension of disbelief necessary for D&D is how similar sorcerers and wizards are. Both sorcerers and wizards look the same casting fireball. They use the same somatic and verbal components and the same bat guano. If that were not the case, then spellcraft wouldn't work quite the way it does.

That strikes me as unrealistic (though I am loathe to use that word for setting with extraplanars and dragons). A sorcerer is channeling innate power from their interior reserve. A wizard isn't casting spells so much as finishing spells. My understanding from the PHB is they do a spell with their book and do all but the last step keeping a nearly cast spell on hold, and then finishing it with a standard action later (this explains how a power word spell can take up seven spell book pages :smallsmile: ). My beef with the system, I don't think sorcerers and wizards should cast spells the same way.

LurkerInPlayground
2007-01-07, 10:10 PM
This is like arguing whether two half-elves mating would ever produce a full elf. (yes, this was a real argument) It's not like magic actually occurs in real life and actually "makes sense."

Personally, I think the kind of magic where a bunch of so-called "smart guys" shoot hot balls of fires is then upped by a smarter guy shooting a slightly hotter and bigger fireball to be boring. (Ooo! look at me brandish this same trick over and over! I'm speshul!11 Lol!) It's done to death in MMORPG's and any fantasy setting you could name.

Now, the cool kind of magic is the real subtle, not-so-flashy sort. Like the kind you'd find in Wizard of Earthsea or Howl's Moving Castle. In those worlds, people who have overly-flashy magic are upstarts trying too hard to be impressive. (Sort of like katana-ophiles bragging about knowing swordsmanship.) It's just cool to have magic that bends reality in mind-******* ways and actually has some danger associated with it. You know, instead of being over-hyped guns.

Oh well, that's just my preference.

Scalenex
2007-01-07, 10:22 PM
This is like arguing whether two half-elves mating would ever produce a full elf. (yes, this was a real argument) It's not like magic actually occurs in real life and actually "makes sense."

Personally, I think the kind of magic where a bunch of so-called "smart guys" shoot hot balls of fires is then upped by a smarter guy shooting a slightly hotter and bigger fireball to be boring. (Ooo! look at me brandish this same trick over and over! I'm speshul!11 Lol!) It's done to death in MMORPG's and any fantasy setting you could name.

Now, the cool kind of magic is the real subtle, not-so-flashy sort. Like the kind you'd find in Wizard of Earthsea or Howl's Moving Castle. In those worlds, people who have overly-flashy magic are upstarts trying too hard to be impressive. (Sort of like katana-ophiles bragging about knowing swordsmanship.) It's just cool to have magic that bends reality in mind-******* ways and actually has some danger associated with it. You know, instead of being over-hyped guns.

Oh well, that's just my preference.


Someone looks sounds like they would be a fan of Mage: the Ascension (which conveniently has two different ways humans can learn magic, from study or honed natural talent, though the naturals are much stronger).

mikeejimbo
2007-01-07, 10:27 PM
Mage: the Ascension is AWESOME. But that's just my humble opinion.

As for Sorcerors/Wizards in D&D, neither make sense to me. For me, the only thing that would make sense is...well, the mechanics in Mage: the Ascension.

Toxic Avenger
2007-01-07, 10:31 PM
I think that’s why there are both wizards and sorcerers. There are wizards that have studied really hard to get where they are, and sorcerers that didn’t have to because it came naturally for them.That's why I think that sorcerors should get more skill points, more class skills, more hit points, etc., because they haven't had to spend nearly as much time mastering magic. Either that, or the wizard should just be dropped entirely (as a PC class, at the very least). It is just too damn good.

Kantolin
2007-01-08, 12:27 AM
Technically, it doesn't state that a sorceror and a wizard's components are the same (sans material ones).

It could be a case of, well...

Wizard: *Spellcraft* He's... he's moving his hands... that arc is similar to Otiluke's... oh, I see what he's doing. What a ridiculous method of using fireball, it spends an extra amount of time which could easily be halted by Leomund's Second Theorem. I swear, sorcerors...

I suppose in other words, if you'd like them to feel different, it's not terribly hard to make them seem so. Just don't gloss over how unusual and nonstandard and possibly even slightly different every time one's components are over another's.

Desaril
2007-01-08, 12:29 AM
The distinction becomes clearer if we think of fmagic as a type of physics in a fantasy setting. What I mean is that there are Laws of Magic that are reliable like science. If you say certain words, mix various components, and make certain gestures- something will happen. I think there is another X component- the will of the caster (a quasi-psionic mental energy).

Under that view a wizard is a scientist who uses his training to manipulate the laws of magic to achieve effects. A sorceror can do the same thing but is a savant and subconsciously draws upon magical energy within them. This is similar to how a psionic uses his mental energy to alter the laws of physics. This also explains why a sorceror can cast spontaneously, but wizards must prepare and study. I support this distinction in my world by giving sorcerors Eschew Materials as a class feature, because the inner magic relieves the need for the materials.

As for why everyone isn't a wizard- well, as several people said not everyone has an interest, but more importantly having the requisite INT score does not mean you have the knowledge. An INT score does not reflect actual knowledge, but the capacity for knowledge. A slave with an 18 INT who was denied an education would be less skilled than the noble sone with a 6 INT, but extensive training.

As for skill points: I think they have so few points because they have so few class skills. They need less to become proficient within their niche. If they had more skill points, they would quickly outpace other same level classes in their primary skillset. Wizards also are expected to have a high Int, so they are likely to have 4-6 skill points/level (which is better than most classes)!

Duraska
2007-01-08, 01:01 AM
^^^ Well said.

Dragonmuncher
2007-01-08, 01:08 AM
Someone on these boards put forth the idea that sorcerers came first, and wizards were just "normies" that eventually figured out how to copy them. I've always kind of liked that, for some reason.

Orzel
2007-01-08, 01:10 AM
I always went with the idea that learning magic is like beating a ridiculously challenging and unfair video game. If you're not very smart, you'll never beat it. If you are smart, it'll still take close to a thousand hours to beat it. So you either have to be very smart and spend a lot of time studying, or be born knowing the cheatcodes and the device needed for the cheatcodes.

Wizards are the fair honest players who study and learn the game to figure out that down, down forward, forward and punch creates at fireball. (Normal mode)

Sorcerers are the lucky players who are born knowing the cheatcode to make punch = fireball. (Easy Mode)

Everyone else quit after losing 10 times at level 1.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-01-08, 01:23 AM
Dragon, I think that was me, in my campaign idea.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-08, 01:44 AM
I also like the idea of Sorcerors making their spells slightly different from those of Wizards. For instance, all Wizards cast a Fireball that incinerates everything with red-orange flames, whereas one Sorceror might cast a green Fireball and another might cast a blue one (I also wouldn't be too opposed to a Sorceror that casts Iceball or Acidball). All Wizards can learn to Disintigrate their target into fine dust, but some Sorcerors might turn their targets into water or slime instead (maybe even have a Conjuration spell "Baleful Teleport" that scatters the target's atoms across the planes instead, leaving behind a light red mist).

Hallavast
2007-01-08, 03:14 AM
That's kinda like asking why everyone with half a brain doesn't get a college graduation and become a lawyer or doctor or something. If we started looking at logic only after 18, that's what would happen. But, of course, most people would be sucky lawyers/doctors, and without people filling all the other jobs, the world would tumble into chaos.

While most shouldn't become doctors or lawyers, I would say a bit of training in law and medicine would be very beneficial to most people in the world. Do you see where this goes?

axraelshelm
2007-01-08, 03:50 AM
okay this was the idea i came up with for an explanation of magic.
Imagine spells are crafted with the raw eneries of the world that are shaped as blocks and the wizard on his study time crafts these blocks and put them together to form a spell matrix the. when matrix is complete it becomes a spell now sorcerers have only one spell matrix but it exists within them and it looks like a tree growing thats how i explain magic in one of my worlds anyway just adding my 2 cents.

Fizban
2007-01-08, 04:39 AM
I too support the sorcerers came first concept.

Dragons and outsiders are normally the oldest creatures in the world (that is, they were the first to exist). Outsiders have spell like abilities, magic that merely requires a thought to unleash. Dragons have sorcerous casting, the ability to intuitively feel and understand magic, manipulating it better with but a little practice. Sorcery filtered down into the common races in any manner of your choosing (bloodlines, divine gift, nature of the world/magic, etc). Then we have wizards, who study the fundamental laws that govern magic, and use them to produce the same effects that outsiders and dragons can create.

Under this concept sorcerers should either get Eschew Materials for free, or you could overhaul the material component system. Essentially, each sorcerer would set the material component for each of his spells, as long as it makes sense for the spell. Ex: a sorcerer that lives in the woods might use a ball of pitch instead of bat guano for fireballs. Wizards use whatever component they were taught to use. Either way, once chosen the material component the spell depends on cannot be changed without learning the spell over again.

So baisically I just said "yeah, cool idea" by completel restating it in my own words. Woot.

Catharsis
2007-01-08, 07:50 AM
I fully agree on sorcerers making more sense than wizards, I greatly prefer their flavor. In fact, when I got into D&D, I had a really hard time grasping that concept of preparing spells from a spellbook, and then poof! forgetting them upon usage. It might work well from a game mechanics point of view, but it's nonsensical even within the fantasy license. The clerics make more sense, they receive gifts from their deities which they must spend wisely. The concept of a sorcerer, on the other hand, is perfectly straightforward: He has certain powers that he can use at will until he is exhausted. There are countless examples for that magic system in mythology and literature.

What the sorcerer really needs, flavor-wise, is to get Eschew Materials for free. For a born magic-wielder to throw little tarts at people and wave feathers at them is utterly ridiculous.

Morty
2007-01-08, 09:03 AM
Meh. I've never like sorcerers flavour. This whole 'dragon/demon' ancestor and 'inborn talent' bugs me off- dude studies nothing at all, and he achieves the same level of power as hard-working wizard. I've always pictured sorcery as just different method of spellcasting, but from the same 'source' as wizardry, and maybe give them 'battle mage' flavour. That, or remove sorcerers at all. They're unnecessary.

Athenodorus
2007-01-08, 09:18 AM
Meh. I've never like sorcerers flavour.

Me either; It seems like a way for a player to just declare "I have Magic Powers!" and leave it at that.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-08, 09:22 AM
Me either; It seems like a way for a player to just declare "I have Magic Powers!" and leave it at that.

But isn't magic inborn in many fantasy settings?

Charity
2007-01-08, 09:46 AM
They don't make more sense, it's just their high Charisma making you believe them when they say they do.

I think the whole wizards schools genre of high fantasy would suggest Spells can be learned, rather than only inately gained. Lots of full wizard colleges out there, they can't all be Sorcerers boozing it up on the tax payers money.

Solaris
2007-01-08, 10:06 AM
Sure, magic's inborn in most books.
This isn't a book. I could theoretically list off elves as being "Like humans, but better in every way" as an example of what happens in "Most books" and then point out that such a thing wouldn't be so hot in a game, 'cause then everybody who didn't play an elf plays second fiddle.
I won't, 'cause I can't think of anything aside from Tolkien's writings. I suppose that's an example of a cliche that people complain about even though it's almost gone.
A better example would be Jedi in Star Wars. In the books and movies, they are the end-all be-all. They were nerfed a bit in the d20 RPG - even though they're still pretty hot - just to make other characters viable.
It's not so much that the wizard forgets the spell as it is that he mostly cast it while he was preparing it, and unleashes the rest of it when he casts it during play. Saying someone can't do that is quite similar to saying that someone who's born without a natural talent at something - pick anything - can't learn to do it. Given that wizards learn higher-level spells faster, it actually makes a good bit of sense: People with natural talent (such as sorcerers) tend to coast on said talent, whereas people with the drive to work at achieving something they lack a talent in tend to actually do better than those with the talent.

Athenodorus
2007-01-08, 10:15 AM
I guess I am just a fan of the Colbey Calistinsson school of advancement: Medicore Talent + Work > Inborn Genius + Laziness.

Orzel
2007-01-08, 10:27 AM
I find that magic being inborn or learned is 50/50 in the media. Most of of the settings with pointy hat, "nerdy", or robe wearing spellcaster go with learned. Everywhere else like sword slasshing or child spellcasters have inborn.

Like a Batman villian and a Marvel mutant, some guys spend the money and time to produce a freeze gun, others are called Bobby Drake.

Person_Man
2007-01-08, 11:48 AM
If you're willing to be a Kobold, own Races of the Dragon, and use online rules, Sorcerers are superior to Wizards.

For an investment of one feat, you can use the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a). It increases your caster level by one, including spells per day and spells known. You're now superior to a Wizard of the same level. Combine with the dragonblooded sorcerer substitution levels and the right prestige class, and you're pretty much the best full caster in the game, except for the Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3).

CuthroatMcGee
2007-01-08, 12:10 PM
I totally buy the argument that sorcerers came first, because there must have been magic before there were books. And I'd argue that the first wizards were sorcerers who started meeting, and writing down how they cast spells, and then eventually dual-classed into wizards. What I don't agree with, is that wizards are superfluous. It would be too hard to only have one arcane spellcaster in the game, and, of couse, anything can be taught if someone puts the effort into it.
Let's imagine that there are only certain ways that arcane energy can be manipulated. That's not too hard, there is a limit to what can be done with iron, right? Now imagine that wizards, on their scrolls, in their books, and in their memories, have the instructions on how to manipulate the energy to create, say, Bigby's Clenched Fist (First discovered by archmage Bigby). They look down at the scroll, read what it says, and create a Clenched Fist. A sorcerer, while toying with the arcane energy, happens upon the pattern necessary for Bigby's Clenched Fist, and he casts it. He remembers how he did that, and can now cast it many times a day.
What I don't get is why Charisma is a sorcerer's base stat. Charisma is a person's appearance, which has nothing to do with magic. I say it should be Wisdom. I also say that I hate material components, and I want to find a way to do away with them altogether. How many mages would carry around like 10000 gold worth of gems, just to cast spells? I wouldn't, and I'd go out of my way to find spells without material requirements.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-08, 12:24 PM
Charisma is not just appearance, it's "Force of Personality." My appearance is low, but people say my raw force of personality is rather high.

Orzel
2007-01-08, 01:07 PM
I always imagined that a sorcerer casts spells by convincing his magical body parts to grant him magicial energy and asking his brain for the magic words to cast a certian spell. Takes why it's Cha based. Wizards are so smart, they don't need to trick magic spells outta their brain.

Sorc: Liver, I need energy for a 3rd level spell.
Liver: No, you drink to much.
Sorc: Stomach, 3rd level spell energy gets you a steak
Stomach: Mmmm... steak
Sorc: Okay, Brain. You don't like me and I don't like you but..
Brain: I like you.
Sorc: Hows about the motions and words for Fireball for your best pal then.
Brain: Wiggle your thumbs, says "Funnytooth", and point.

Jerthanis
2007-01-08, 01:37 PM
Sorcerer: "My powers spontaneously manifested when I was a teenager, my powers are inborn and come naturally to me, my parents cast me from my village for fear of my arcane power."
Party: "Cool, so you will be a great asset to us?"
Sorcerer: "Well, as long as I still have the material components to my spells."
Party: "Huh?"
Sorcerer: "For example, were I to cast a spell which would cause lightning to jump from enemy to enemy, I'd need a number of silver pins equal to the number of targets."
Party: "Then isn't it the power of the silver pins doing it?"
Sorcerer: "No, it's all because one of my great grandparents was a dragon... or something, anyway, I've honed this talent myself, teaching myself how to control it."
Party: "Wait... then shouldn't your parents have been sorcerers too, and thus been able to train you?"
Sorcerer: "Uh... no..."
Psion: "And your powers are a reflection of your will manifesting on the world around you? How come you have to wave your hands around and chant phrases? How did you spontaneously come to know those words? When I do your flavor, I do it in a way that's more consistent (though I have crazy crystal fetishes too which are also incongruous in their own way, let us say I do your flavor MORE consistently)"
Sorcerer: "Well, it seems natural to me, like a master painter instinctively knows his craft."
Bard: "Actually, artists require a great deal of training to master their craft, there are large schools dedicated to producing artists, and the greatest works have come only from those who have studied diligently AND been blessed with talent."
Sorcerer: "But... magic makes more sense to be inborn, that's how it is in fantasy novels after all."
Party: "Actually, that's one of the most consistently annoying things prevalent in fantasy in the opinion of the person writing this conversation, that magic in fantasy is inherently non-democratic, and there's a quality that you must be born with in order to match another, that you must be born a hero to be a hero, born a king to be a king, born a wizard to be a wizard. Predestination is only an exciting aspect of a world when used to show how blind and foolish people are for failing to use their own judgment and rationality when prophecy is involved, such as in Oedipus Rex. Much more interesting, is the peasant who becomes a powerful warrior, the orphan squire who becomes king, the hopeless rising above themselves and becoming something more, rather than just the rabble who exist to be rescued by the elite dynasties who happen to have been born to greatness. Besides, each fantasy world is crafted differently, and as long as everything maintains its own internal logic, there are no hard and fast rules as to what necessarily 'makes sense' or not."
Sorcerer: "But I am better balanced than the wizard."
Party: "A result of the over-estimation of the utility of spontaneous casting and the underestimation of the power of the arcane spell list. In a way, the sorcerer is only as good as it is because the wizard is too good."

EDIT: this wasn't meant as a response to the above post, despite both involving hypothetical conversations.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-01-08, 02:33 PM
I currently in favour of dumping sorcerers completly and replacing them with favoured souls and psions for the following reasons;


If the sorcerer is supposed to be more flexible but more restricted than the wizard then the Psion just makes him look half-hearted. The Psionic characters can do everything the sorcerer should be able to do that he can't
Psions and Sorcerers don't make a lot of sense if you have them in the same campaign.
Most myths that involve not learned magic involve divine gifts, therefore the Favoured Soul has mythical bases while the sorcerer is hard to justify as anything but a superhero rip off.
If a sorcerer can gain powers from outsider heritige and gods have the outsider type, why isn't a sorcerer's abilities divine rather then arcane. The Blackguard Prc is clearly designed to have demonic power and that has divine magic. Also dragons have access to certain cleric spells and are divine in many myths.Sorcerers are more based of X-men then off myth. Not everyone wants (or neccesaraly should have) a strict myth only fantasy world but I find that magic only really makes sense with a mystical bases. I can't think of one mythological character that has abilities that would best be represented by the sorcerer class. For example.

Greek Oracles: Have natural rather then learned power but it's clearly divine. More Favoured Soul then Sorcerer and Cleric would work just as well.

Thoth/Hermes/Odin: These three gods are all magic users described as teaching magic to mortals. Odin himself has to sacrifice his eye for magic so why should a mortal be born with power when even a god has to put effort in.

Alchermists: Have to experiment to find out whether things will work. That's pretty wizard like.

Witches: According to the Witch Hunters and Inquisitors; Witches are given their powers by demons who drink their blood (soul implied). Sounds like divine magic to me.

Demigods: A lot of mythological characters get their powers from being related to gods. These characters are similar to sorcerers but the divinity implied suits the favoured soul better.

The main thing I hate about sorcerers is more personal. I just find the idea of a character who studied and worked to gain power to be a more comendable role model. Every year I see more and more scientific studies that show that inborn talent gets you no where past school and success is work and luck.

God_of_Luck
2007-01-08, 02:52 PM
Charisma stands for your way with words (communication skills).

LurkerInPlayground
2007-01-08, 03:54 PM
"Charisma" stems from the greek for "gift of the gods" or "blessed by fate" or something along those lines. Interesting...since D&D loosely defines this as "strength of character" or "power of the will." Then in the context of a fantasy setting, it's a measure of how one exerts influence over the environment or her own fate by the sheer "strength of personality." Thereby, charisma is romanticized to be a mechanism of actualizing one's own strengths. Suddenly, your little internal world actually matters to the outside world. How you feel about things *does* have an influence on the world if you're the D&D sorceror.

Anyway, as Jerthanis points out, fantasy tends to do the "I was born speshul!111" thing. Kings were destined to be kings. Peasants become mighty swordsman and so forth. What is high fantasy other than voyeurism? Human nature is elevated and glorified. (Whereas, sayyyy horror or *dark fantasy*, is voyeurism in a different sense.) Call fantasy literature "art" if you must, since it does reflect our deeper longings and desires.

Anyway, as long as we're going to comment about destiny and how people unfairly gets talent without work...well life is unfair. Person A was born with a higher intelligence than person B...why? *shrugs* Mr. Sorceror coasts on his talent while an overly-stressed grad student of the arcane busts his ass writing a thesis. (But hey, at least in the end, the wizard is more versatile and gets more metamagic feats.) Similarily, a hot model gets by on looks whilst the ordinary Joe slaves behind a desk in a tiny cubicle.

Nobody controls the circumstances of their birth. You can call it divine providence, fate or chance or whatever...they mean about the same thing. Your life is forced into an arbitrary path and you all know this. Yet many are still uncomfortable with the idea that sometimes hard-work has no payoff. It's more comforting to believe that one has control over one's life than it is to accept that you're flawed in some way.

Of course, high fantasy affirms the idea that you were meant for something greater, even if it's not apparently evident. I mean there *must* be an order and purpose to things, right? Whether you're the bumbling inept bard, a day-dreaming farm boy, or a simple hobbit down in the Shire, something of dramatic importance *has* to occur. (Makes plenty of narrative sense.)

clockwork warrior
2007-01-08, 06:12 PM
i posted this in the other thread that this was based on, but figured it could be useful here as well

here is a common misconception of wizards, that they just read a spell, and forget it and thats that. anyone who reads the wizard description learns that it is more complicated than that. wizards start as a normal person with an above average intelligence who learns to cast spells. opportunity for them, they don't have the natural magic in there blood to hold arcane energy, so instead what they do is copy formulas and what not into books showing them how to manually cast spells. what happens during the time that they prepare is spells is that they are actually casting the spells, but not completing them, and instead just keeping the incomplete spells held inside them with a trigger to release them.

a wizards mind is similar to a scroll, they hold spells there until they are ready to be cast.

sorcerers work the same way, but they have magic naturally coursing through them. without any formal training, they just take that raw energy and shape it the best they can, and use it as much as there bodies will allow. through experimentations (and probably a hidden 6th sense) sorcerers know the proper incantations used and items required to properly expel the spells from there bodies. the magic in them is raw, but with the components it takes form.

the warlock is much different compared to a sorcerer, where a sorcerers blood carries the basics of magic, a warlock has a direct connection to the unnatural, generally a demonic force presiding within there souls giving them unlimited arcane power, but very little control over what form it takes.

one thing that people always forget about dnd is that they don't have a players handbook to tell them how magic works, they only have a basic understanding of it. it is a force that literally changes reality through mystic forces. know one in the games understands magic 100%, otherwise even commoners would be flinging about cantrips all day. magic represents a force of will and unnatural knowledge of the unknown forced into being through strange gestures and eldritch words, or divine forces and strong faith

that is the clockwork warriors explanation on magic in dnd.
while i do find it a little odd that sorcerers have the same components that wizards have, and easy way to fix it is give sorcerers the feat to remove material components, and just say that the sorcerer makes there own verbal and somatic components through magical experiments

Fhaolan
2007-01-08, 06:24 PM
a wizards mind is similar to a scroll, they hold spells there until they are ready to be cast.


I just had the fascinating image of a wizard preparing his spells by inking them onto his own body and limbs.

Wizard: Hold on! I've got that spell prepared, it's just under...
Party: Oh god! Don't DO that! There are minors present.

Seffbasilisk
2007-01-08, 07:30 PM
I just had the fascinating image of a wizard preparing his spells by inking them onto his own body and limbs.

Wizard: Hold on! I've got that spell prepared, it's just under...
Party: Oh god! Don't DO that! There are minors present.

There's rules for that in...complete arcane is it?

Most of my wizards (or other spellbook caster) have a few spells tattooed on themselves.

TempusCCK
2007-01-08, 08:03 PM
Meh, I've always found myself relating to sorcerers more than wizards because I am one of those people who is just naturally talented, and I do just coast on that. Good thing or bad thing? Doesn't matter, it's my thing.

Take this into consideration: I flunked my high school Alegbra II class because I simply didn't want to do homework my senior year, as a result my class rank was somewhere around 20/75. Yet I still tested higher than the entire class on any standardized test that was thrown in front of me. I earned the bragging rights for testing higher purely on natural talent alone, and don't I deserve it? I still did good, even if my work ethic is in the crapper.

I see it the same with sorcerers, they don't need to tediously study abstract theory and read books all the time. They figure it out through empirical observation based on natural talents. Sure, we define them with different limits and abilities, but in the end, sorcerers are still using magic.

Starbuck_II
2007-01-08, 08:49 PM
If the sorcerer is supposed to be more flexible but more restricted than the wizard then the Psion just makes him look half-hearted. The Psionic characters can do everything the sorcerer should be able to do that he can't
Psions and Sorcerers don't make a lot of sense if you have them in the same campaign.
1. There are many spells that Psions can't manifest equivalents to. Sorcerors use their belief in themselves to force the world's power to listen to them.
Psions use their internal power to change the world around them with their will.
Wizards know the cheat codes to activate the world's power to do what they want.
2. They make good sense (Psions do at least).


Granted, the fact that Sorcerors know they need matrial components is weird... a designer mentioned they eat spiders to cast spider climb...um, how did they know that?
Strange there is a Web spells, but no Spiderman web (webs act like nets if you read the monstrous spider that you shoot out), but I digress.

lost_my_NHL
2007-01-08, 08:53 PM
One thing I don't get is the wizard spell's known thing. With sorcerer, there is a table for spells known and one for spells per day. I can never figure out how many spells a wizard is supposed to have in his or her spellbook.

Scalenex
2007-01-08, 09:03 PM
Someone on these boards put forth the idea that sorcerers came first, and wizards were just "normies" that eventually figured out how to copy them. I've always kind of liked that, for some reason.

That's how my world works, the reprucussions of which still affect the world today.

The first intelligent creatures were the dragons created by the gods to inherit the world. Then the main evil god, Fyren, became jealous of the good gods usurping his right of creation so he created a bunch of evil monsters to harass the dragons while simultaneously working to corrupt several dragons from within. The combination of corruption and external threats caused the dragon society to decline. So ended the first age of my world.

The elves were created next. They weren't as long lived or as powerful as dragons so they weren't expected to get as heady with their own power. Also they couldn't use magic as easily, it was believed that if they had to study hard to learn wizardry as opposed to wielding natural sorcerous talent, they'd abuse magic less (WRONG!). The elves gradually became corrupt and powerhungry like the dragons before them and began to war amongst themselves. At about same time, outsiders invaded from the lower planes in huge numbers eventually forcing the remaining elves and dragons from putting aside their differences to fight the invaders. So ended the second age of my world.

The humans were created to inherit the world next. Their short lives meant they would be less apt to be corrupt and power hungry (in theory), or at least their short live span would provide a check and their high population would mean that other humans would react and stop their own tyrants. Most of the monstrous humanoids were created in the second age by Fyren's daughters (as opposed to the monsters created in the first age by Fyren which were intelligent but fewer in number and less apt to wield tools and other trappings of civilization) by evil gods to give elfs grief but a few were created early in the third age. The other PC races were created to solve unanticipated problems. The dwarves were created when the giants created by the evil gods were getting out of hand and the gnomes were created as peace brokers between elves, dwarves, and humans. The halflings were believed to be created from humans, magically evolved to their current state. There is much debate on how and why they were made. Sorcerers are just now less common than wizards. Some are believed to be descendents of dragons or extra-planar beings. Some are believed to be blessed (or cursed by the gods), being destined for greatness. Either one of the two arguments can be used to honor or shun sorcery. Because wizards are more organized and are more institutionalized into governments (magic schools wield a lot of influence), sorcerers usually get the shaft in large nations and have to buy a liscense from wizard schools or guilds to practice arcane magic, but wizards are apt to tread lightly around sorcerers in small kingdoms and frontier areas where they still hold sway. In one city-state, Avalnia, sorcerers marry sorceresses in arranged marriages and all the nobility possess the sorcerer class allowing them to rule by birthright and sheer personal power. They claim to be descended from dragons and blessed by the gods for greatness. They wield enough temporal power there to get away with that arrogant claim. In Avalnia, the legal hoops wizards have to jump through to practice their art are so great that most wizards give the city-state a wide berth (or they would if Avalnia wasn't the world's major trading port for scrolls, magical items, and rare spell components).

Rumda
2007-01-08, 09:06 PM
One thing I don't get is the wizard spell's known thing. With sorcerer, there is a table for spells known and one for spells per day. I can never figure out how many spells a wizard is supposed to have in his or her spell book.

he can have as many spell levels as can fit in the spell book with each level taking up a single page and all the cantrips on the first page

Charles Phipps
2007-01-08, 09:06 PM
Mage: the Ascension is AWESOME. But that's just my humble opinion.

As for Sorcerors/Wizards in D&D, neither make sense to me. For me, the only thing that would make sense is...well, the mechanics in Mage: the Ascension.

To me, I feel that Mage the Ascension is awesome but made magic too easy. I liked the feel of D&D magic where it's horrendously difficult and constantly requires pouring over books as well as studying various signs, portents, etc to make sure that your next spell will work.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-08, 09:22 PM
If you're willing to be a Kobold, own Races of the Dragon, and use online rules, Sorcerers are superior to Wizards.

For an investment of one feat, you can use the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a). It increases your caster level by one, including spells per day and spells known. You're now superior to a Wizard of the same level. Combine with the dragonblooded sorcerer substitution levels and the right prestige class, and you're pretty much the best full caster in the game, except for the Archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3).
Well, Kobolds are (while having some handy defensive abilities) kinda mechanically weak (although for a Sorcerer, the Strength penalty doesn't hurt much, but the Con penalty does). I'm not familiar with the racial substitution level, but the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage only puts your spell level access on par with the Wizard's (and it still leaves you behind on spells known). By any chance are you looking at a variation on the Sorcerer/Mage of the Arcane Order/Archmage?


One thing I don't get is the wizard spell's known thing. With sorcerer, there is a table for spells known and one for spells per day. I can never figure out how many spells a wizard is supposed to have in his or her spellbook.However many they can afford.

You see, spells in your spellbook are supposed to come out of your Wealth By Level... it's one of the balancing features of Wizards. Or at least, it's supposed to be....

Ravyn
2007-01-08, 09:41 PM
LostMyNHL: The wizard's base (absolute minimum) number of spells is all cantrips (except those prohibited by your specialties) plus (3 plus Int modifier) first-levels, then two new spells per level. Beyond that, they pick up more by writing them into the spellbook, which has its own costs. Maxima then are a function of how many pages said wiz has room for and how many spells the wiz can afford.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-08, 10:32 PM
To me, I feel that Mage the Ascension is awesome but made magic too easy. I liked the feel of D&D magic where it's horrendously difficult and constantly requires pouring over books as well as studying various signs, portents, etc to make sure that your next spell will work.

Well, my point is this. Consider the people who actually believed in magic. Such as Hermetics. They believe it takes a lot of training, but mostly self-discipline. And also that there aren't specific spells you cast, you just sort of "do it."

I'm not extremely well-knowledged in Hermeticism, so I can't say anything more than that.

Desaril
2007-01-08, 11:19 PM
I think the comparison of natural talent vs hard work and study is not truly relevant. Rogues get more skill points than any other class each level, but don't have to spend any game time actually studying. Fighters pick up bonus feats without having to train. Many classes gets benefits without having to demonstrate working for it.

The true limitation of wizards- having to record and review a spellbook and prepare spells is balanced by the limits of the sorcerors spell list. Players may not agree that it is accurately balanced, but that is WOTC's attempt. If you want variety, you have to choose your spells carefully in advance; if you want flexibility, you get less choice. It's a trade-off.

As for charisma based casters- I think its a bad idea! However, I think I see where WOTC was going. The idea was to create a third choice for casters (INT, WIS or CHA) and to encourage putting points in Charisma (and hopefully Charisma based skills). Since 3rd edition uses a unified experience/advancement system, they had to try and balance all the classes/races/stats so that there was no clear advantage to choosing a particular class. We know that hasn't worked out, but at low levels all classes can contribute equally well to a party.

Mr Pink
2007-01-09, 12:45 AM
I have to say my opinon on this topic has flipped bewteen the two main views which i will not repeat... however, what i have finally come to the conclusion is that i think i'll modify the PHB description of a sorceror.
A very basic description of how i feel is along the lines a a wizard with natural talent, but very different talent that still requires training.
A Sorceror has a natural magical ability which they can release at will. However, in order to manifest thesir magic into a tangible "spell" requires training and practice. in time, the "spells" they have learned they are capable of castign at will a certain number of times a day, before they would be come exhausted of thier magical energy, (like a figther running or swimming for hours would become exhausted of physical endurance) and require rest.
It takes more time for a sorceror to learn how to control a "spell" and they still require the material components in order to focus spells of great power. However, whilst this allows them flexability in manifesting the spells they have learnt, they are limited to learning only a select few spells, where as a wizard can simply use their powers of intellect to remember spells, a sorceror must spend time 'feeling' the spell, and practice channelling their raw magical ability into that spell.

i think somegthing like that makes more sence to me now... also explains material components and charisma (to a degree)...

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-09, 12:49 AM
You mean they make more sense from a metaplot story point of view, not from a mechanics or power level point of view, right?

In that sense, sorcerers do mesh with fantasy stories more than wizards.

I don't see a problem with any smart person with the dedication and training be able to use arcane magic either. What does strain my suspension of disbelief necessary for D&D is how similar sorcerers and wizards are. Both sorcerers and wizards look the same casting fireball. They use the same somatic and verbal components and the same bat guano. If that were not the case, then spellcraft wouldn't work quite the way it does.

That strikes me as unrealistic (though I am loathe to use that word for setting with extraplanars and dragons). A sorcerer is channeling innate power from their interior reserve. A wizard isn't casting spells so much as finishing spells. My understanding from the PHB is they do a spell with their book and do all but the last step keeping a nearly cast spell on hold, and then finishing it with a standard action later (this explains how a power word spell can take up seven spell book pages :smallsmile: ). My beef with the system, I don't think sorcerers and wizards should cast spells the same way.

Integration looks the same whether an idiot savant from maine is doing it, or if a Ukrainian student is doing it. They say that the only language we'll have in common with aliens will be math (and maybe whale song), as it's a universal thing.

Why shouldn't it be the same for sorceros and wizards, who goo around with the fabric of space and time? I've always assumed that all that waving and mumbojumbo isn't precisely what you're using spellcraft to figure out what's being cast– it's how it's bending reality.

AmoDman
2007-01-09, 01:13 AM
The distinction becomes clearer if we think of fmagic as a type of physics in a fantasy setting. What I mean is that there are Laws of Magic that are reliable like science. If you say certain words, mix various components, and make certain gestures- something will happen. I think there is another X component- the will of the caster (a quasi-psionic mental energy).

Under that view a wizard is a scientist who uses his training to manipulate the laws of magic to achieve effects. A sorceror can do the same thing but is a savant and subconsciously draws upon magical energy within them. This is similar to how a psionic uses his mental energy to alter the laws of physics. This also explains why a sorceror can cast spontaneously, but wizards must prepare and study. I support this distinction in my world by giving sorcerors Eschew Materials as a class feature, because the inner magic relieves the need for the materials.

As for why everyone isn't a wizard- well, as several people said not everyone has an interest, but more importantly having the requisite INT score does not mean you have the knowledge. An INT score does not reflect actual knowledge, but the capacity for knowledge. A slave with an 18 INT who was denied an education would be less skilled than the noble sone with a 6 INT, but extensive training.

As for skill points: I think they have so few points because they have so few class skills. They need less to become proficient within their niche. If they had more skill points, they would quickly outpace other same level classes in their primary skillset. Wizards also are expected to have a high Int, so they are likely to have 4-6 skill points/level (which is better than most classes)!

I was about to post this exact same opinion. Sure, you can change the flavor of D&D that magic is not a sort of science that both Wizards and Sorcerers worth with on subtely different ways (however you cast a fireball, it's still a fireball), but that is your own addition. Be they as they are, the Sorcerer stops making much sense when you start analyzing the way magic works. And who says a high INT isn't an inborn talent? People keep assuming they can put their high stat in INT if they want a wizazrd...but the characters can't. An extremely smart adventurer capable and willing to study magic is what is required to develop a high level wizard. Their high intelligence is their natural knack for it.

As far as law and medical education, it's obviously the exception and not the norm that even smart people get motivated enough to study those subjects. Do some people learn the "rudiments" of it? (cantrips) Perhaps, but cantrips in D&D are no big deal, and even people with basic knowledge of law and medicine are considered to be more skilled than most everyone in those areas, even if others had the capability to become as skilled (they just didn't).

Desaril
2007-01-09, 07:06 PM
Be they as they are, the Sorcerer stops making much sense when you start analyzing the way magic works.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Can you explain? I think both archetypes are supported by literature. The question is how do you reconcile them in the same universe without explaining how magic works. You HAVE to explain why two casters can acheive the exact same effect through two entirely different efforts. If not, anything is possible without reasonable explanation and you lose versimilitude. Once versimiltude goes, it is harder and harder to suspend disbelief.

That's why grown men can sit around get into intellectual debates about imaginary people casting imaginary spells, but (hopefully) don't watch Blues Clues. Without versimilitude, it becomes juvenile.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-09, 07:24 PM
Duh, magic is caused by mediclorians. So of course sorcerers are more sensible!

Really though, I figure trying to make magic anything other then very vague makes it seem less like a giant world full of infinite possibilities and more closed off. I prefer to have both exist. As well as the crazy nature magic, god magic, and music magic.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-09, 09:11 PM
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Can you explain? I think both archetypes are supported by literature. The question is how do you reconcile them in the same universe without explaining how magic works. You HAVE to explain why two casters can acheive the exact same effect through two entirely different efforts. If not, anything is possible without reasonable explanation and you lose versimilitude. Once versimiltude goes, it is harder and harder to suspend disbelief.

That's why grown men can sit around get into intellectual debates about imaginary people casting imaginary spells, but (hopefully) don't watch Blues Clues. Without versimilitude, it becomes juvenile.
It is possible to explain how both could exist (and tack Divine magic in there at the same time).

For the most part, Wizard's can't touch magic directly. Sure, they can do a few things every here and there, and they can apply mystic energy.... but mostly, they're stuck powering the awkward "magical circutry" which is their spellbook. Apply energy here, here, and here for fifteen minutes, putting a variance in the energy then to control certain options, and the painted "circuts" manipulate the energies into an energy packet which can then be picked up and maintained with almost no effort. In a scroll, the energy packet is tied to the parchment; the spellcraft roll to copy represents figuring out how that particular packet of energy was shaped; the spellcraft roll to familiarize yourself with it for later casting represents tracking down which tabs for triggering are appropriet; the caster level check for activating a scroll with a caster level higher than yours represents seeing if you can manage the force needed to activate the stored spell. When using a borrowed spellbook, the Spellcraft check represents tracking down where to apply energy properly (they don't come with instructions) and how to pick up the resultant packet. The Wizard doesn't so much cast a spell as build and invoke one. It's something he picks up and uses, not something that's a part of him. This explaination also covers why it takes a 20th level specialist Wizard with in excess of fifty spell slots and 227.5 spell levels (counting 0th level spells as half a level) a full fifteen minutes to prepare a cantrip in an empty slot; fifteen minutes is the minimum needed to run and retreive a "spell program"; it's just that the Wizard is capable of running more than one such at a time, so he can run (prepare) his fifty spells in an hour.

A Sorcerer's magic is virtually a part of him. He touches it directly and shapes it through raw mystic force. Like most cases of the biological vs. the mechanical, it's a lot more effecient; the spell a Wizard takes fifteen minutes to put together via his spellbook, a Sorcerer sets up in one standard action. The downside, though, is that it's a lot less flexible. He can only put his impromptu packets together in so many ways, as he has to remember them all personally (they are partially instinctive, but do require practice and expirimentation). He can do it more often, though, as he only has to gather a pool of energy, there's less maintenence involved in holding an energy pool together than there is in trickle-charging a bunch of spell packets.

The bard constructs his spells on the fly, similar to how a Sorcerer does. But in the Bard's case, he's using verbal memory tricks to remind himself of exactly how the spell goes, in a musically "learned" fasion, rather than drawing on instinct. He's got a lot of other things to focus on, though, and doesn't have quite the energy to apply to packet-making as the Wizard or Sorcerer.

A Divine spellcaster gets these packets handed down pre-made; the Cleric need only invoke them (Causes, if permitted, are [quasi-]dieties under this Theory of Magic; perhaps Causes are what the dieties were originally born of, or there's an awful lot of dieties out there and you don't actually need a diety's name to pray to one [and thus a Cause cleric is actually getting spells granted by a diety who's name he doesn't know] - it is techncially possible for a Cleric to have no ranks in Knoweledge(Religion), after all - or whatever).

The verbal and somatic components of spells are not all the same - that's why you need a Spellcraft check to identify a spell as it's being cast. Each Wizard sets up a slightly different trigger mechanism - and, indeed, sets up slightly different trigger mechanisims even for copies of the same spell, so he doesn't fumble two spells trying to supply the right bit of extra push to the same triggers and coming up short (the Quicken Spell metamagic feat partially revolves around aranging for less "push" and redundant triggers). Much of the Spellcraft check to identify a spell on the fly is involved in tracking the energies as they come into play in order to predict the final result; the energy packet has something of an effect on the outside world while it's still being given that final push.

Spellcasters need the material and focus components because some energy packets require a pattern to draw off of; there's a little more information needed to finish the effect than can be easily contained in the energy packet (in the case of "complex" material or focus components, such as a live spider or a cocoon; Eschew Materials aleviates the need for some of it by putting a bit more info into the spell); others require something physical for a slight boost in energy or focus (for "simple" components like the copper coin for Detect Thoughts or the copper wire for Sending; Eschew Materials aleviates the need for some of it by putting a bit more force or focus into the spell). Sorcerers still need them because sometimes, there's just too much to remember, or some of it really does need to be channeled outside the body, for whatever reason. Other components are either a source of energy to power certain portions of the spell that are only quasi-magical in and of themselves, a bribe of sorts to certain forces,
or even a form of insulation against backlash. A divine caster avoids the need for most such trappings with help from above... but there are limits to what they can be bothered to do for their followers.

Matthew
2007-01-10, 10:01 AM
Duh, magic is caused by mediclorians. So of course sorcerers are more sensible!

Arggh! *snap*

Athenodorus
2007-01-10, 10:40 AM
Meh, I've always found myself relating to sorcerers more than wizards because I am one of those people who is just naturally talented, and I do just coast on that. Good thing or bad thing? Doesn't matter, it's my thing.

I would argue that is merely a high stat score, which could be enhanced through hard work, ala Int and Wizards. ;)

Shazzbaa
2007-01-10, 12:46 PM
[and thus a Cause cleric is actually getting spells granted by a diety who's name he doesn't know] - it is techncially possible for a Cleric to have no ranks in Knoweledge(Religion), after all - or whatever).

I really enjoyed this explanation... and now you've made me want to someday make a cleric of a god he doesn't know. What fun.

In every story I make, I've portrayed magic as an art, so I tend to see it that way in D&D. Not all good artists went to school or had any training, but on the flip side, not all artists were born with the knack for art. If you ask an artist how the heck he knows where to put shading, some artists (learned artists) will explain to you about light sources and the illusion of depth. Other artists (natural artists) will say, "Well, you can sort of see where it goes -- it just looks right."

The thing is that magic isn't like anything natural in our world, and I really like Jack's explanation for this reason. I like seeing wizards as scientists and sorcerers as artists, because they really never end up being exactly the same thing.

Wizards hack magic. They figure out the things to do that will make magic flow out and do what they want. A wizard probably learns specific phrases to say and specific motions to make. A sorcerer is manipulating the magic that's already in him. He is not making particular motions, but pushing or pulling the magic. He probably does not see his verbal components as particular words, but rather a collection of syllables and sounds that sound right. Now, it may so happen that those syllables form the very words that the wizard learned, and his pulling of the magic is a very similar gesture to the specific motion of the wizard, but it's not exactly the same thing.

Flavour change for the sorcerer also seems necessary for me. In lieu of Eschew Materials for free, as mentioned above (many times), I'd say it should be specified that the sorcerer needs some small amount of training or study in order to improve past the silly little cantrips that come naturally, otherwise his magic is unfocused and incomplete. We actually have a player in our game who took a level in sorcerer, and I liked the way he played it. At first he would only use a couple of spells that had no material components, and somewhat randomly. He later found an expert in town and asked what was going on; the expert told him he was a sorcerer so the character studied up on magic and learned how to use his innate gift to its fullest potential.
So you could keep material components, you'd just have to specify that almost anyone who can do anything particularly impressive needs some training or study.