RoboEmperor
2014-12-07, 07:33 AM
Would a poor ordinary orphan boy/girl who spent his/her life hunting down and observing anything magical in his/her surrounding more likely to end up a sorcerer or wizard?
This is d&d 3.5 not pathfinder. Lets consider an ordinary orphan. An incredibly poor ordinary orphan, who is physically inept. Maybe that's why he/she is fascinated by magic. Whether he/she is in an orphanage or on the street is not yet determined, but this person is crazy for all things magical. If there's a circus in town, he/she will attend in hopes of seeing some magical act. Rumors of something haunted or weird? He/she will mount a full investigation. In his/her spare time, he/she will browse the various shops, studying the weird fey creatures in a bottle, or the assortment of magical potions and equipment.
The question becomes obvious if he/she finds a textbook on magic. Then he/she will study that textbook his/her entire life and become a wizard. So lets say for this case, this orphan is in some rural village where there is no magic shop. Any magical equipment is observed occasionally by the occasional traveling merchant or adventurer. He/she would stare at their +1 dagger until the merchant/adventurer left.
The question also becomes very simple if the orphan has magical blood. Exposure to magical items made him/her connected with his/her inner self, and voila sorcerer, so for the purpose of this thread, the orphan has no magical lineage whatsoever. If you're the person who absolutely believes sorcerers need magical blood, just think this orphan has trace amounts of the blood and whether or not this upbringing will more likely result in his/her awakening or wizard stuff.
My Analysis
For the sorcerer argument, you could say after being exposed to so many minor magical things, the orphan gains an intuitive understanding of magic and becomes a sorcerer. If I may make an analogy, he/she would be a kid who is fascinated by music, got his/her hands on a harmonica, and learned how to play just by experimenting and copying random tunes he/she hears on TV or in convenience stores, without ever learning how to read sheet music, especially because there isn't anyone in the village who can read sheet music.
For the wizard argument, you could say after studying so many minor magical things, the orphan developed his own rudimentary theories on magic, and began experimenting like crazy and became a wizard by himself.
Wizard counter argument is, magical theory is insanely complex and requires years of training under a qualified wizard to simply cast a cantrip (elves go through 100years of wizard academy for level 1 spells!), and any magical ability gained through comparatively simple experimentation/study is a sorcerer because he/she understands it intuitively rather than through complete theory. Counter argument to that is, simple experimentation is still studying not innate, and it would just mean he/she is a genius.
The above harmonica example changed to fit the wizard would be: he/she invents his own sheet music and through rigorous study and experimentation, invents his/her own music theory about scales, chords, etc. and whenever he/she hears a random tune on TV or in a convenience store, he/she would try to find out what key the song is in, what chord progression, and recreate the songs by knowing which notes sound good together and which doesn't, unlike sorcerers who just say "this sounds right". If this sounds too complex for someone to figure out without ever reading a book on music theory, then it'd probably too complex for an orphan to learn magic just by random experimentation on what little magical stuff he/she can find.
So... which is it in your opinion? Would you go as far as saying the orphan fails at both being a sorcerer and a wizard and ends up a wannabe human? Lets just say with 18int or 18cha, that won't happen.
This is a fact: This character gains the ability to cast spells at age 16, after spending his/her entire life observing magical stuff. Would you say this ability to cast spells is based on study and theory or just natural talent? The orphan just "gets/understands" magic and can use it but can't write a paper on it, or the orphan completely understands magic and can write a paper on it.
So in other words, immense fascination + observing/studying/obsessing about random magical stuff + very little received education = complete theoretical understanding or inexplicable innate understanding?
This is d&d 3.5 not pathfinder. Lets consider an ordinary orphan. An incredibly poor ordinary orphan, who is physically inept. Maybe that's why he/she is fascinated by magic. Whether he/she is in an orphanage or on the street is not yet determined, but this person is crazy for all things magical. If there's a circus in town, he/she will attend in hopes of seeing some magical act. Rumors of something haunted or weird? He/she will mount a full investigation. In his/her spare time, he/she will browse the various shops, studying the weird fey creatures in a bottle, or the assortment of magical potions and equipment.
The question becomes obvious if he/she finds a textbook on magic. Then he/she will study that textbook his/her entire life and become a wizard. So lets say for this case, this orphan is in some rural village where there is no magic shop. Any magical equipment is observed occasionally by the occasional traveling merchant or adventurer. He/she would stare at their +1 dagger until the merchant/adventurer left.
The question also becomes very simple if the orphan has magical blood. Exposure to magical items made him/her connected with his/her inner self, and voila sorcerer, so for the purpose of this thread, the orphan has no magical lineage whatsoever. If you're the person who absolutely believes sorcerers need magical blood, just think this orphan has trace amounts of the blood and whether or not this upbringing will more likely result in his/her awakening or wizard stuff.
My Analysis
For the sorcerer argument, you could say after being exposed to so many minor magical things, the orphan gains an intuitive understanding of magic and becomes a sorcerer. If I may make an analogy, he/she would be a kid who is fascinated by music, got his/her hands on a harmonica, and learned how to play just by experimenting and copying random tunes he/she hears on TV or in convenience stores, without ever learning how to read sheet music, especially because there isn't anyone in the village who can read sheet music.
For the wizard argument, you could say after studying so many minor magical things, the orphan developed his own rudimentary theories on magic, and began experimenting like crazy and became a wizard by himself.
Wizard counter argument is, magical theory is insanely complex and requires years of training under a qualified wizard to simply cast a cantrip (elves go through 100years of wizard academy for level 1 spells!), and any magical ability gained through comparatively simple experimentation/study is a sorcerer because he/she understands it intuitively rather than through complete theory. Counter argument to that is, simple experimentation is still studying not innate, and it would just mean he/she is a genius.
The above harmonica example changed to fit the wizard would be: he/she invents his own sheet music and through rigorous study and experimentation, invents his/her own music theory about scales, chords, etc. and whenever he/she hears a random tune on TV or in a convenience store, he/she would try to find out what key the song is in, what chord progression, and recreate the songs by knowing which notes sound good together and which doesn't, unlike sorcerers who just say "this sounds right". If this sounds too complex for someone to figure out without ever reading a book on music theory, then it'd probably too complex for an orphan to learn magic just by random experimentation on what little magical stuff he/she can find.
So... which is it in your opinion? Would you go as far as saying the orphan fails at both being a sorcerer and a wizard and ends up a wannabe human? Lets just say with 18int or 18cha, that won't happen.
This is a fact: This character gains the ability to cast spells at age 16, after spending his/her entire life observing magical stuff. Would you say this ability to cast spells is based on study and theory or just natural talent? The orphan just "gets/understands" magic and can use it but can't write a paper on it, or the orphan completely understands magic and can write a paper on it.
So in other words, immense fascination + observing/studying/obsessing about random magical stuff + very little received education = complete theoretical understanding or inexplicable innate understanding?