conservation of momentum

[Camman1984]

If i dimension door/teleport/misty step etc. While travelling at speed, like flying, on a horse, falling (an important one), is momentum conserved?

this came up because a party i was in teleported from an airship travelling at speed straight into the kings throne room, the dm ruled that momentum was conserved and we ended up in his lap which was hilarious.

[Slipperychicken]

I would say no for instantaneous teleportation. That would cause all kinds of havoc with vehicles, movement, planetary rotation, and other physics effects. What if you were on a vehicle going 80mph, teleport off it, only to splatter yourself on the floor? Or if you teleport to a planet whose rotation is slower than the prime material? Would you immediately launch off the planet? Such effects could have some very absurd and potentially game-breaking results.


If you're going through a portal or similar physical opening, however, you need that momentum to get through, so I'd say momentum is conserved then. Also, we all love our Portal references.

[Giant2005]

Normally I'd think you would keep your momentum but almost everything I have seen/read in the sci-fi genre contradicts that. I'd just go with the standard sci-fi convention myself.

[The Evil DM]

Actually you don't want to conserve momentum in a teleport spell.

Assume for a moment you are on the equator of an earth size planet - linear ground speed of approximately 1000 mph due to rotation of the planet. You don't feel the movement because you are rotating with the planet and attached to its surface.

Now you teleport to a point on the 60th degree latitude either north or south. Which is arbitrary.

At this latitude the ground speed of the earth size planet is only 500mph due to rotation. If momentum is conserved and you teleport in this manner you will end up with a 500mph relative speed over the surface of the planet in the direction of the planets rotation.

Not fun.

In the terms of earth that would be teleporting from central Africa just south of the Sahara to Moscow.

[Kane0]

Also, we all love our Portal references.
Now you're thinking with portals.

For dimension door and misty step i would conserve momentum as you are described as moving as part of the spell, but in the case of teleport no, because no movement is described in the casting of the spell.
In my mind i see the first two as a portal you step through and a teleport as you take a stride respectively, where the latter is a snap of the fingers and you are in a new location.

The same can be done for other teleportation effects, such as the shadow monk's shadow step and such.

[asorel]

If a spell such as Teleport does not conserve momentum, one must ask where is it that momentum goes. Do we assume that Teleport works in a similar manner as a transporter, converting matter into energy during the intermediate process, allowing the excess energy to be absorbed into the Weave? Such a system allows for the transfer of energy into the teleporting body as well, which is required for safe travel between latitudes, as mentioned earlier.

This implication opens a new avenue of research regarding teleportation and momentum. Could a caster learn to pump more kinetic energy into an object, allowing them to, say, send a boulder with a velocity of MACH 1 to the inside of a throne room?

[Chronos]

D&D doesn't even have conservation of momentum when not teleporting.

[MrStabby]

Meh, excess momentum gets transferred into whatever planet you are on - just say that the spell matches the speed at location. Do the same with things like repelling blasts as well.

Other physics problems involve pressure each side of a gate spell, which has led to some interesting uses.

[Slipperychicken]

Other physics problems involve pressure each side of a gate spell, which has led to some interesting uses.

I know that in 3.5, environmental effects don't pass through gate spells and other portals. Did they forget to include that in 5e?

[Gritmonger]

Meh, excess momentum gets transferred into whatever planet you are on - just say that the spell matches the speed at location. Do the same with things like repelling blasts as well.

Other physics problems involve pressure each side of a gate spell, which has led to some interesting uses.

There was an old story I read once, science fiction, set in World-War II, where a Nazi scientist had developed a portal, and one of the first major accidents was in pointing it at the surface of a star, and later it was set to "self destruct" by the creator by setting its coordinates to far below the ocean of a distant planet.

[Xetheral]

Momentum is listed as LC (Least Concern) by the IUCN. Accordingly, it need not be conserved.

[Cyan Wisp]

I would say it is up to the caster. Maybe they want to arrest their momentum (e.g. falling) or maybe they want to keep it going (e.g. riding a pegasus). It's all part of the magic of the spell. :smallcool:

[Yuki Akuma]

This is a game where you can sprint at full tilt and then come to a dead stop immediately. And for that matter, you can sprint at full tilt in a figure eight pattern just as easily as in a straight line.

Why do you think 'conservation of momentum' is even a thing?

[Gritmonger]

This is a game where you can sprint at full tilt and then come to a dead stop immediately. And for that matter, you can sprint at full tilt in a figure eight pattern just as easily as in a straight line.

Why do you think 'conservation of momentum' is even a thing?
Except "dead stop" is not on a dime, but rather "within these twenty five or so square feet."

It's not an exact thing, that's for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not a thing. Hence, fall damage.

[asorel]

This is a game where you can sprint at full tilt and then come to a dead stop immediately. And for that matter, you can sprint at full tilt in a figure eight pattern just as easily as in a straight line.

Why do you think 'conservation of momentum' is even a thing?

The physics still exist, even if they aren't perfectly simulated by the game rules. PCs arriving naked at the bottom of an ocean are going to be crushed to death whether or not the book has a rule for it. The game rules are a simulation of the game world, and the absence of something in the simulation does not imply a corresponding absence in the world itself.

A different way of picturing this relationship is through the analogy of a screen. Playing a movie filmed in 2560x1440 on an 800x600 monitor doesn't change the integrity of the video file.

[Fralex]

If you're on a moving airship, and you create a portal leading to somewhere on the ground, the portal at your end has the same momentum as the ship. Thus, you can teleport to a place with a completely different inertial frame of reference, and it will feel as natural as stepping through a doorway. The only momentum that gets conserved is your walking speed with respect to the floor. From your perspective, nothing changed.

This never came up in Portal because it wasn't possible to put portals on moving surfaces.

[asorel]

If you're on a moving airship, and you create a portal leading to somewhere on the ground, the portal at your end has the same momentum as the ship. Thus, you can teleport to a place with a completely different inertial frame of reference, and it will feel as natural as stepping through a doorway. From your perspective, your momentum never changed.

This never came up in Portal because it wasn't possible to put portals on moving surfaces.

That only applies to spells that create portals, or otherwise require movement to work, such as Dimension Door or Misty Step. The ambiguous scenario is spells that merely displace the target, such as Teleport or Plane Shift.

[Fralex]

That only applies to spells that create portals, or otherwise require movement to work, such as Dimension Door or Misty Step. The ambiguous scenario is spells that merely displace the target, such as Teleport or Plane Shift.

If you imagine that every teleportation spell displaces its targets by briefly passing a portal through them, but the portal is not visible because it's made to be a perfect fit, then it works out for any spell.

Or in other words, we can just assume that, whenever a teleport spell is cast, whatever piece of magical energy that exists on your end to grab you and move you somewhere else is moving so as to be standing still from your perspective. And that the same thing is true for whatever piece of magic exists at the destination to "catch" you.

[unwise]

Over the years we have come up with two guidelines on this, after it becoming an issue a bunch of times.

A) Your velocity is relative to the 5'square you are in. So if you are falling you are moving. If you are on the deck of a boat, you are not.

B) All velocity is as if you just pushed through a 1' thick waterfall. So it slows the velocity a lot, but won't save you if you are falling off a cliff.

Those two rules of thumb have saved a lot of time around our table.

[goto124]

this came up because a party i was in teleported from an airship travelling at speed straight into the kings throne room, the dm ruled that momentum was conserved and we ended up in his lap which was hilarious.

Rule of Funny says 'for this instance only, yes'.

[Camman1984]

I am mainly thinking about it for me parkour thief who may got eladrin. If i fall off a building can i use my misty step to teleport to a ledge without just hitting the ledge at the speed i was already travelling. it doesnt seem like an intended use of the spell but could be useful in my character build.

[Fralex]

I am mainly thinking about it for me parkour thief who may got eladrin. If i fall off a building can i use my misty step to teleport to a ledge without just hitting the ledge at the speed i was already travelling. it doesnt seem like an intended use of the spell but could be useful in my character build.

In the words of Isaac Newton, "No, the fall didn't hurt me. It was the sudden stop at the end." It doesn't matter whether you were abruptly stopped by the ground or an instantaneous teleport. Your internal organs are still gonna slosh around painfully.

EDIT: Well, unless the warp portal or whatever you imagine the teleportation magic conjuring moves with just a slightly slower velocity than yourself. Then it would be like stepping onto a moving train while running, where "train" is "the entire world, post-warp."

[goto124]

I am mainly thinking about it for me parkour thief who may got eladrin. If i fall off a building can i use my misty step to teleport to a ledge without just hitting the ledge at the speed i was already travelling. it doesnt seem like an intended use of the spell but could be useful in my character build.

With misty step, you gain less momentum than if you fell the entire distance. So you reduced the impact you would've gotten. The faster you misty stepp, the less damage you get.

It's what Dishonored does with Blink, iirc.

[The_Ditto]

Actually you don't want to conserve momentum in a teleport spell.

Assume for a moment you are on the equator of an earth size planet - linear ground speed of approximately 1000 mph due to rotation of the planet. You don't feel the movement because you are rotating with the planet and attached to its surface.

Now you teleport to a point on the 60th degree latitude either north or south. Which is arbitrary.

At this latitude the ground speed of the earth size planet is only 500mph due to rotation. If momentum is conserved and you teleport in this manner you will end up with a 500mph relative speed over the surface of the planet in the direction of the planets rotation.

Not fun.

In the terms of earth that would be teleporting from central Africa just south of the Sahara to Moscow.

OOH .. world record rock skipper build coming up!!
:smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Moron]

If a spell such as Teleport does not conserve momentum, one must ask where is it that momentum goes

*Jazz Hands* Magic! *Jazz Hands*

[asorel]

*Jazz Hands* Magic! *Jazz Hands*

I would say it's absorbed into the Weave. On a general note, simply hand waving the specific components of magic is more detrimental to gameplay than the alternative. Knowing exactly what a spell does and how it does it allows you to know the spell's limitations, which facilitates creative use. The Angry DM (http://theangrygm.com/angry-rants-why-do-we-care-how-magic-works/) makes a more thorough analysis of this subject.

[Mr.Moron]

I would say it's absorbed into the Weave. On a general note, simply hand waving the specific components of magic is more detrimental to gameplay than the alternative. Knowing exactly what a spell does and how it does it allows you to know the spell's limitations, which facilitates creative use. The Angry DM (http://theangrygm.com/angry-rants-why-do-we-care-how-magic-works/) makes a more thorough analysis of this subject.

What magic doesn't actually work any particular way? Expecting internally consistent rules & limitations to magic changes it from the supernatural to the natural.

Certainly it can produce consistent effects, where it reaches natural world "Spells" but that doesn't mean there must be anything in particular running "under the hood".

[asorel]

What magic doesn't actually work any particular way? Expecting internally consistent rules & limitations to magic changes it from the supernatural to the natural.

Certainly it can produce consistent effects, where it reaches natural world "Spells" but that doesn't mean there must be anything in particular running "under the hood".

Can the arcane forces of a default D&D world really be referred to as supernatural? It's something of a mystery to most peasants, but then so are written records in many cases. Within wizarding circles, magic is fairly well quantified and not all mysterious.

[Mr.Moron]

Can the arcane forces of a default D&D world really be referred to as supernatural? It's something of a mystery to most peasants, but then so are written records in many cases. Within wizarding circles, magic is fairly well quantified and not all mysterious.

Using information found in the D&D 5e PHB (and DMG if you must), please explain to me the underlying mechanics of:


Prismatic Spray
Power Word: Kill
Invisibility
Greater Invisibility


Of particular interest are the underlying reasons that Invisibility and Greater Invisibility behave differently, especially with regards how Invisibility "knows" I'm attacking, rather than just swinging at thin air or just kind of waving my arms about.

Presumably if the default position in the game is that these properties and underlying mechanics are well known, a consistent accounting for them can be found in the games default text.

[asorel]

Using information found in the D&D 5e PHB (and DMG if you must), please explain to me the underlying mechanics of:


Prismatic Spray
Power Word: Kill
Invisibility
Greater Invisibility


Of particular interest are the underlying reasons that Invisibility and Greater Invisibility behave differently, especially with regards how Invisibility "knows" I'm attacking, rather than just swinging at thin air or just kind of waving my arms about.

Presumably if the default position in the game is that these properties and underlying mechanics are well known, a consistent accounting for them can be found in the games default text.

I am not able to do so, because I am not a wizard. However, one of such a profession should be able to do so, as wizards must be able to summarize these spells in a written form that is reproducible by other wizards without deviation, barring personal notation differences. WotC doesn't give us a list of formulae, but the fluff is clear on this matter.

Regardless, the wizardly magic of D&D isn't truly supernatural. Supernatural is synonymous with the occult. It's throwing candles and eye of newt at a pentagram and seeing what sticks. It isn't something for which you can take a class, because that implies a certain degree of understanding. An argument could be made for Sorcerers, and perhaps Warlocks, however.

[Mr.Moron]

I am not able to do so, because I am not a wizard. However, one of such a profession should be able to do so, as wizards must be able to summarize these spells in a written form that is reproducible by other wizards without deviation, barring personal notation differences. WotC doesn't give us a list of formulae, but the fluff is clear on this matter.

The results are consistently reproducible at least to the extent we can suitably abstract them into game mechanic of a spell that behaves consistently.

It's a big jump from that to saying wizards must understand the under-the-hood-workings. You can understand what something does and the means with which to get it to do that thing without understanding how it does that thing, or why your actions cause it to behave that way.

Just because I can predict how fast something will fall doesn't mean that I understand how gravity works.If gravity was "magic", it might even be fair to say there was no consistent way in which gravity worked. Only that it had results sufficiently consistent for me to be able to interact with it prescribed ways.

Suppose I'm playing a wizard in our game and I ponder

"What about regular invisibility makes it fail on attacks? I'd like that property of the magic, whatever it is in a creative fashion"

What check is that (if any), and what do you tell me when I roll a 25 on it?

[Icewraith]

Because the spell wouldn't work if it didn't do this anyways, I'd say that in the case of teleport-like spells you arrive at your destination aligned with the local reference frame, regardless of your momentum pre-teleport. Portal-like spells will brake and re-orient you if you travel through them at an unsafe speed or an extremely sharp angle.

[asorel]

The results are consistently reproducible at least to the extent we can suitably abstract them into game mechanic of a spell that behaves consistently.

It's a big jump from that to saying wizards must understand the under-the-hood-workings. You can understand what something does and the means with which to get it to do that thing without understanding how it does that thing, or why your actions cause it to behave that way.

Just because I can predict how fast something will fall doesn't mean that I understand how gravity works.If gravity was "magic", it might even be fair to say there was no consistent way in which gravity worked. Only that it had results sufficiently consistent for me to be able to interact with it prescribed ways.

Suppose I'm playing a wizard in our game and I ponder

"What about regular invisibility makes it fail on attacks? I'd like that property of the magic, whatever it is in a creative fashion"

What check is that (if any), and what do you tell me when I roll a 25 on it?

We do have more than game mechanics, in the form of spell books. It isn't detailed explicitly, but it's there.

Complete and total knowledge of a subject isn't necessary to its empirical use. To further your example, we might not know why mass tends to attract, but we can still apply the inverse square law and derivative mathematics to make rigorous predictions with the concept.

[Mr.Moron]

We do have more than game mechanics, in the form of spell books. It isn't detailed explicitly, but it's there.

Complete and total knowledge of a subject isn't necessary to its empirical use. To further your example, we might not know why mass tends to attract, but we can still apply the inverse square law and derivative mathematics to make rigorous predictions with the concept.

Right. However gravity isn't magic. Magic doesn't exist. There is no such thing as supernatural, in the real world.

The problem is you're going from.

Wizards know that "Lim-Tobo-Ala-Bruft: right hand shake, left sway, cross your arms, jazz hands" = Burning Hands.
and
Wizards know that "Lim-Rama-Koma-Pa: right hand sway, left hand clench fist, touch your hips, wiggle your fingers"= Shocking Grasp

To meaning that wizards can derive:

"Lim-Rama-Ala-Pa, right hand shake, left hand fist, cross your arms over hips, wiggle your jazz hands" = Burning Grasp.
or that the heat from Burning Hands comes from a consistent, predictable and measurable place - if it comes from any place at all.
or that Shocking Grasp only works on grounded targets.
or that the momentum lost in a Teleport spell goes somewhere in any real sense, instead of just being unaccountably gone for no particular reason save "That's just what teleport does"

[asorel]

Right. However gravity isn't magic. Magic doesn't exist. There is no such thing as supernatural, in the real world.

The problem is you're going from.

Wizards know that "Lim-Tobo-Ala-Bruft: right hand shake, left sway, cross your arms, jazz hands" = Burning Hands.
and
Wizards know that "Lim-Rama-Koma-Pa: right hand sway, left hand clench fist, touch your hips, wiggle your fingers"= Shocking Grasp

To meaning that wizards can derive:

"Lim-Rama-Ala-Pa, right hand shake, left hand fist, cross your arms over hips, wiggle your jazz hands" = Burning Grasp.
or that the heat from Burning Hands comes from a consistent, predictable and measurable place - if it comes from any place at all.
or that Shocking Grasp only works on grounded targets.
or that the momentum lost in a Teleport spell goes somewhere in any real sense, instead of just being unaccountably gone for no particular reason save "That's just what teleport does"

For wizards specifically, my reasoning is as follows: all casters need to know verbal and somatic components. Wizards need all that and their spellbooks. They can research new spells, and create their own, as shown by spells such as Bigsby's Hand. Their primary ability is also Intelligence. All of this implies a deeper understanding of magic than rote memorization of incantations. Additionally, different skill levels of wizard couldn't exist if memorization is all it took. What's stopping the apprentice who just learned Burning Hands from casting Meteor Swarm? Dismissing it as game balance isn't enough. There still needs to be some sort of explanation for why an Archmage is much more adept at the craft than the apprentice. I don't deny that what this explanation is, how Wizards know more about magic, and to what extent to they understand the conceptual aspects from the arcane is going to vary from table to table. What can't be denied is that these aspects of wizardry as presented by WotC exist to some degree. Seeing as my original point was that D&D wizardry is less mysterious than the totally supernatural, I believe that provided ample evidence for it.

[Fralex]

Right. However gravity isn't magic.

[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_(album))]

[Gritmonger]

Really, when you're in actuality destroying an object and re-creating it elsewhere, the energy of momentum is trivial in comparison to this matter-to-energy conversion. Not the same for portals. I would rule teleport (killing yourself and re-creating yourself elsewhere) momentum, no problem. Portals, problem - because it's an "open" window both ways.

[Icewraith]

For wizards specifically, my reasoning is as follows: all casters need to know verbal and somatic components. Wizards need all that and their spellbooks. They can research new spells, and create their own, as shown by spells such as Bigsby's Hand. Their primary ability is also Intelligence. All of this implies a deeper understanding of magic than rote memorization of incantations. Additionally, different skill levels of wizard couldn't exist if memorization is all it took. What's stopping the apprentice who just learned Burning Hands from casting Meteor Swarm? Dismissing it as game balance isn't enough. There still needs to be some sort of explanation for why an Archmage is much more adept at the craft than the apprentice. I don't deny that what this explanation is, how Wizards know more about magic, and to what extent to they understand the conceptual aspects from the arcane is going to vary from table to table. What can't be denied is that these aspects of wizardry as presented by WotC exist to some degree. Seeing as my original point was that D&D wizardry is less mysterious than the totally supernatural, I believe that provided ample evidence for it.

However, Sorcerers and Bards are able to produce similar or identical effects without all the training.

Why can't an apprentice who just learned burning Hands cast Meteor Swarm? Probably the same reason someone who can read music and just learned to play "twinkle twinkle little star" can't suddenly jump to playing Rachmaninoff. The more powerful spells probably require swifter, subtler gestures and faster tongue-twisting mystical words performed in the same amount of time. Just because you know HOW to do something doesn't mean you can actually do it, or do it in a reasonable amount of time. Similarly, just because you can read music and have the skill to play Rachmaninoff doesn't mean anything you write on your own will be any good (or people will just say "Oh, he's just copying Rachmaninoff").

So, taking a jump to the right and then a step to the le-e-e-e-eft doesn't necessarily reverse the results of a jump to the left and then a step to the ri-i-i-i-ight.

Differing levels of skill can account for the difference between a 1st and 3rd level wizard without the third level wizard having a deeper understanding of magic.

[obryn]

Really, there's already no conservation of mass or energy. Why would anyone expect conservation of momentum?

[asorel]

However, Sorcerers and Bards are able to produce similar or identical effects without all the training.

Why can't an apprentice who just learned burning Hands cast Meteor Swarm? Probably the same reason someone who can read music and just learned to play "twinkle twinkle little star" can't suddenly jump to playing Rachmaninoff. The more powerful spells probably require swifter, subtler gestures and faster tongue-twisting mystical words performed in the same amount of time. Just because you know HOW to do something doesn't mean you can actually do it, or do it in a reasonable amount of time. Similarly, just because you can read music and have the skill to play Rachmaninoff doesn't mean anything you write on your own will be any good (or people will just say "Oh, he's just copying Rachmaninoff").

So, taking a jump to the right and then a step to the le-e-e-e-eft doesn't necessarily reverse the results of a jump to the left and then a step to the ri-i-i-i-ight.

Differing levels of skill can account for the difference between a 1st and 3rd level wizard without the third level wizard having a deeper understanding of magic.

Sorcerers and Bards don't have spellbooks; their power is derived by other means. As such, they aren't relevant to the debate as far as Arcane knowledge is concerned. If anything, they further corroborate the notion that something other than component memorization is involved. If knowing complex gestures is all that is needed, why do wizards need spellbooks to do what sorcerers and the like can do without them? If the components are all that matter, why isn't Dexterity the casting stat? What does Intelligence have to do with finger waggling? Also, what of spells that only have material components? Or something cast with Subtle Spell?

Wizards perform research, and the results of completed research are recorded in spellbooks. It can't be just a summarization of components, because all casters need to know those. There is also the simple fact that the fluff of wizards is, and always has been, that they acquire magical power through study and research.

[Shining Wrath]

Wizards know how to use magic without necessarily being able to derive it from observed data. Analogously, there was real chemistry before Bohr came up with the electron shell atomic model.

Sorcerers don't experiment. They just do. There's no rational explanation for a sorcerer.

[Icewraith]

Sorcerers and Bards don't have spellbooks; their power is derived by other means. As such, they aren't relevant to the debate as far as Arcane knowledge is concerned. If anything, they further corroborate the notion that something other than component memorization is involved. If knowing complex gestures is all that is needed, why do wizards need spellbooks to do what sorcerers and the like can do without them? If the components are all that matter, why isn't Dexterity the casting stat? What does Intelligence have to do with finger waggling? Also, what of spells that only have material components? Or something cast with Subtle Spell?

Wizards perform research, and the results of completed research are recorded in spellbooks. It can't be just a summarization of components, because all casters need to know those. There is also the simple fact that the fluff of wizards is, and always has been, that they acquire magical power through study and research.

They are relevant to the discussion when it comes to arcane casting in general. I can't recall the exact Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists ATM, so I was originally supposing Sorcerers might not get spells that would rely on physics to not rip the user to shreds (such as a couple proposed versions of teleport), but then I remembered Bards can use ANY spell. Also, I'm pretty sure ANY spellcaster can try to invent a new spell with the DM's permission. Wizards are better known for spell research, but when it comes to actually creating new spells I think sorcerers would be more successful. But since wizards write things down, their research persists.

It's not that I disagree with your overall concept, it just doesn't jive with the fact that in D&D, knowing why a spell works isn't necessary as long as you know how to cast the spell. It's the difference between being able to use a theorem to solve a math problem and being able to derive the theorem in the first place.

Think of casting a spell like attending an exclusive club, call it the Arcane Spellcaster's club. Wizards have to do all that extra work to enter the club, Sorcerers and Bards do not. All three classes are still stuck with verbal, somatic, and material components as necessary. To enter the club, you have to get past the doorman and walk through the door.

What you're saying is that the finger-wiggling is what gets you past the doorman (secret handshake?), and Wizards do all that extra work to understand the door and the nature of the club. That doesn't eliminate the possibility that the finger-wiggling et.al. is merely how everyone opens the door or corresponds to different doors/spells, Sorcerers and Bards are on "the list", and the Wizards are spending all that extra time and effort bribing the doorman.

[asorel]

It's not that I disagree with your overall concept, it just doesn't jive with the fact that in D&D, knowing why a spell works isn't necessary as long as you know how to cast the spell. It's the difference between being able to use a theorem to solve a math problem and being able to derive the theorem in the first place.

I don't dispute the fact that the intricacies of casting are by no means a prerequisite to casting. I call out out wizards specifically on this subject, however, because the fluff (and to an extent the gameplay mechanics) of the class implies that some form of additional knowledge exists.

Nor have I contested that the other arcane casters are irrelevant to a general discussion of arcana. But as far as understanding the sophisticates of magic, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and their ilk are assumed not to, barring extenuating circumstances. While it's certainly possible, the circumstance would be exceptional.



Think of casting a spell like attending an exclusive club, call it the Arcane Spellcaster's club. Wizards have to do all that extra work to enter the club, Sorcerers and Bards do not. All three classes are still stuck with verbal, somatic, and material components as necessary. To enter the club, you have to get past the doorman and walk through the door.

Not a bad analogy. I would personally say that Wizards have access to the club's blueprints, and simply come through a back entrance, whereas Warlocks are the ones who bribe their way in, but that's semantics more than anything else.