My thoughts on the Sorcerer vs Wizard differences

[KoDT69]

Ok so you all know the obvious design favoring the Wizard class got over the Sorcerer.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but the difference is utterly illogical given the info presented in the Player's Handbook.

Paraphrasing, Sorcerer uses innate magical ability from a bloodline or something. However you look at it, they are born inherently magical.

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study". In many media formats and stories we see a naturally talented person excel while a jealous other person struggles and devotes every waking moment to even compete in the same league.

Now I can agree to the one level delay on spell levels in exchange for the extra spells per day, but there is a huge difference which I call BS on. Why would the natural magic prodigy take a full round to metamagic tweak a spell but the Wizard doesn't? Feel free to disagree but I personally ignore that full round metamagic rule, and give the Sorcerer the same bonus feats the wizard gets.

The discussion point that I'm interested in...
Who else plays it this way? I mean, sure I know some people are going to tell me I'm oh so wrong here, but the whole talent vs study trope is completely opposite in every other instance that I can think of, and more evidence that they simply preferred the wizard class. The fluff does not support it. Why would a guy with inherently magical dragon blood be so much lower powered than the non-magical human dude that read a bunch of books? Like I said, I'm not interested in why you think I'm wrong. I'm wondering if other tables run the 2 classes different than the PHB says and what your reasoning is.

[Doctor Awkward]

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study".

I'm going to stop you right here because this premise is 100% incorrect.

Any athletic coach, acting coach, music teacher, martial arts instructor, and so on will tell you every single time that hard work always surpasses natural talent. In real life the people who put in the effort are the ones who succeed.

"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks, but the man who has practiced one kick ten thousand times"-- Bruce Lee

[Batcathat]

I'm going to stop you right here because this premise is 100% incorrect.

Any athletic coach, acting coach, music teacher, martial arts instructor, and so on will tell you every single time that hard work always surpasses natural talent. In real life the people who put in the effort are the ones who succeed.

"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks, but the man who has practiced one kick ten thousand times"-- Bruce Lee

Agreed. Natural talent can give someone an edge, at least early on, but it isn't enough on its own.

Besides, presumably wizards are also more or less talented at magic, same as practicioners of any other skills, even if they aren't as "inherently magical" as sorcerers.

[NigelWalmsley]

Training might beat talent in the real world, but D&D isn't the real world. In the real world, a smart person might learn faster or have a better memory than someone else, advantages that are fairly easily supplanted by study. But in D&D someone who is "naturally good at magic", like a Drider or Dragon, gets a level of magic that regular people need to work their whole lives for to reach. While you obviously could imagine that training was a better path to power overall, it seems reasonable to say that RAW suggests that natural magic is more powerful than the acquired sort.


Now I can agree to the one level delay on spell levels in exchange for the extra spells per day

Honestly this is the bigger problem. Sorcerers end up being better at metamagic in RAW anyway.

[KoDT69]

@Doctor Awkward
That only works out when the 2 people being compared have the same potential. There are limits to a physical body.
For example, let's say we have 2 characters that want to be unarmed brawlers.
Dude 1 - Half Orc with a 20 natural strength
Dude 2 - Gnome with a 6 natural strength
The gnome can practice all he wants but will have to dedicate everything in his being to just catch up to where the half orc started.
And y'all really NEVER seen a plotline anywhere that showcases my point? I don't buy that.

[CharonsHelper]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but the difference is utterly illogical given the info presented in the Player's Handbook.

Paraphrasing, Sorcerer uses innate magical ability from a bloodline or something. However you look at it, they are born inherently magical.


You're mixing up character level and age. By default, the wizard is the oldest character at level 1, while the sorcerer is one of the youngest.

So (assuming a human-only party and standard age table) you could have a starter group of level 1 characters where the sorcerer is 16 and the level 1 wizard is pushing 30.

I will say, if you want a better sorcerer, try the Pathfinder version. It basically took 2 of the popular fixes to the sorcerer from the 3.5 message boards and mashed them together. (The Arcane bloodline is basically fix A, while the rest are fix B.)

In Pathfinder the wizard still has a somewhat higher ceiling, but the difference in power is definitely smaller.

[KoDT69]

@CharonsHelper
The age thing I will give some credit to. But still, to he magic being a natural talent makes no sense to be worse at metamagic?

[Psyren]

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study". In many media formats and stories we see a naturally talented person excel while a jealous other person struggles and devotes every waking moment to even compete in the same league.

There are plenty of examples of the reverse though. Hermione Granger isn't from some centuries-old wizarding bloodline like many of her peers, yet she ended up being the most accomplished and impactful witch of her age (if not one of the most of all time) due to her intelligence and study. Doctors Doom and Strange also got their immense power from study rather then being descendants of some magical being.

Part of the issue with these kinds of comparison is that both sorcerery and wizardry are due to inborn talent of some kind. It might not specifically be heritage from a magical creature or event like D&D sorcery is, but not every human can simply become a neurosurgeon or astrophysicist either.

[Batcathat]

@Doctor Awkward
That only works out when the 2 people being compared have the same potential. There are limits to a physical body.
For example, let's say we have 2 characters that want to be unarmed brawlers.
Dude 1 - Half Orc with a 20 natural strength
Dude 2 - Gnome with a 6 natural strength
The gnome can practice all he wants but will have to dedicate everything in his being to just catch up to where the half orc started.

Sure, but that doesn't mean inborn potential always wins. Based on the rules, the gnome would have a hard time catching up to the half orc but going by those same rules, the wizard is generally more powerful than the sorcerer. So clearly whatever advantage sorcerors have isn't enough.


And y'all really NEVER seen a plotline anywhere that showcases my point? I don't buy that.

Is anyone saying that they haven't? I think most of us arguing against your claim that the current power difference is "utterly illogical" and that "In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior", neither of which you have proven.

[Lazymancer]

@CharonsHelper
The age thing I will give some credit to. But still, to he magic being a natural talent makes no sense to be worse at metamagic?
Sorcerer can apply metamagic in ~2-3 seconds (when he casts spell), while Wizard has to do it when he spends an hour preparing spells (which is when his metamagic application gets done). It is reasonable to suggest that applying metamagic to spell takes minutes for Wizard.

[CharonsHelper]

@CharonsHelper
The age thing I will give some credit to. But still, to he magic being a natural talent makes no sense to be worse at metamagic?


Sorcerer can apply metamagic in ~2-3 seconds (when he casts spell), while Wizard has to do it when he spends an hour preparing spells (which is when his metamagic application gets done). It is reasonable to suggest that applying metamagic to spell takes minutes for Wizard.

Yeah, being able to apply metamagic on the fly is pretty handy, especially for some of the more niche metamagics which the wizard would be loathe to use up a slot in their spell-book. Such as changing the elemental damage on the fly if a foe has resistance/vulnerability.

And I don't think that it's usually a huge deal to give up your movement action to be able to use metamagic.

The only really annoying thing about it in 3.5 was that Sorcerers couldn't use Quicken - which was a change they made in Pathfinder. Though that's not a huge deal other than at very high levels anyway.

[liquidformat]

@Doctor Awkward
That only works out when the 2 people being compared have the same potential. There are limits to a physical body.
For example, let's say we have 2 characters that want to be unarmed brawlers.
Dude 1 - Half Orc with a 20 natural strength
Dude 2 - Gnome with a 6 natural strength
The gnome can practice all he wants but will have to dedicate everything in his being to just catch up to where the half orc started.
And y'all really NEVER seen a plotline anywhere that showcases my point? I don't buy that.

You are mixing up way too many things here and trying to compare apples to oranges. 'Natural Talent' in D&D terms would be your ability scores which has a very noticeable affect on character creation. Whereas class choice is something completely different. The source of the magic is a bit of an abstract concept that is goofy and silly to try and compare. For example Sorcerer, warlock, and hexblade could all have magical power coming from a demonic bloodline that is expressing itself in three different ways. Why is the power level of the three so different? Hexblade is tier 5 warlock tier 3 and sorcerer tier 2, to paraphrase KoDT69 they all 'uses innate magical ability from a bloodline or something. However you look at it, they are born inherently magical.' and yet they have vastly different power levels...

[KoDT69]

Lol the Harry Potter example falls a bit short here. In that world you are born a wizard or you aren't. I don't recall any definitive proof in that series that pure blood was more powerful than mudblood. It was spewed as opinion by some, but I don't think there was ever proof. So 2 wizard born to be as such will have slight differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. So of course if one puts in work and the other doesn't, then of course there's advantage. The situation I'm staying is that by design they assume a sorcerer would just not practice or research at all?

Also, I thought Warlocks were supposed to make a pact to power their abilities.

Really y'all are looking to nitpick specific examples. My point was that by the descriptions given, they should have really been the same class but with their different casting ability scores and power sources.

I understand there are examples of both ways beating the other, but as written one is clearly better and I disagree. Oddly enough my alteration has caused exactly zero arguments IRL since 3.0 was released.

[Doctor Awkward]

@Doctor Awkward
That only works out when the 2 people being compared have the same potential. There are limits to a physical body.
For example, let's say we have 2 characters that want to be unarmed brawlers.
Dude 1 - Half Orc with a 20 natural strength
Dude 2 - Gnome with a 6 natural strength
The gnome can practice all he wants but will have to dedicate everything in his being to just catch up to where the half orc started.
And y'all really NEVER seen a plotline anywhere that showcases my point? I don't buy that.

Everyone in real life has the same potential because we are all human beings. Some people might reach certain thresholds with less training than others, but the theoretical limits to what is capable with sufficient effort are the same.
This is not the case for an orc vs. a gnome because they are two very different species of creatures with very different physical capabilities. That would be like comparing the physical limits of a human to a panther, or any other animal.*

And yes I've seen many fictional plots where a character excels with zero training due entirely to their natural talent. The operative word there being "fiction."
As an aside, human beings are a pathetic species in a lot of physical categories when compared to other animals. Being a tool-using creature is pretty much the only natural advantage we have.


Now if all you are wondering is whether or not I run things differently than the book does for sorcerer and wizard, then the answer is no. That the wizard is a mechanically better class than the sorcerer is reflective of nothing but the system itself and that mild imbalance doesn't bother me. There are certain things that a sorcerer can do much better than a wizard can if built correctly, and I personally get a greater sense of satisfaction working within and around the limitations of the system rather than changing the system to accommodate.

[liquidformat]

Lol the Harry Potter example falls a bit short here. In that world you are born a wizard or you aren't. I don't recall any definitive proof in that series that pure blood was more powerful than mudblood. It was spewed as opinion by some, but I don't think there was ever proof. So 2 wizard born to be as such will have slight differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. So of course if one puts in work and the other doesn't, then of course there's advantage. The situation I'm staying is that by design they assume a sorcerer would just not practice or research at all?

Also, I thought Warlocks were supposed to make a pact to power their abilities.

Really y'all are looking to nitpick specific examples. My point was that by the descriptions given, they should have really been the same class but with their different casting ability scores and power sources.

I understand there are examples of both ways beating the other, but as written one is clearly better and I disagree. Oddly enough my alteration has caused exactly zero arguments IRL since 3.0 was released.

Our issue isn't your fix or the idea that sorcerer should be bumped up to tier 1 like wizards it is your argument about bloodlines and talent. Warlocks have some descriptive text that suggests pact magic and some that suggests inborn abilities and hexblades have similar descriptive text. My understanding from reading them is warlocks and hexblades power is ether coming from evil bloodline or pacts with fiends. If it is coming from pacts then you can ignore it but if it is coming from bloodlines than that is an issue with your premise.

Also having a 'magical bloodline' is kind of ambiguous too as there are vast differences in magical bloodlines in D&D. A gnome has a magical bloodline since they have SLAs and dragons also have magical bloodlines since they can cast spells as sorcerers of given levels. So it is clear that having a magical bloodline in and of itself doesn't equate to being a powerful magic user in and of itself.

The idea I have always had with sorcerers is sure they innately have some magic from their bloodline but the act of taking levels in sorcerer means they are training to awaken and refine that magic into actual power which takes 'effort and skill'. On the other hand wizards immerse themselves into learning about the fundamentals of magic and how it the laws behind magic work and by having that understanding are able to utilize magic.

Given this it makes sense that wizards are often more powerful than sorcerers, after all a sorcerer is obstructed and hindered by the limits of his bloodline whereas the wizard is only held back by his own comprehension.

If you look at Wuxia literature this is also a common theme, the innate bloodline is a powerful boon to begin with but it quickly becomes shackles that hold back the user whereas the person who's power was built off of their own hard work ends up being more powerful in the long run.

[Cruiser1]

Part of the issue with these kinds of comparison is that both sorcerery and wizardry are due to inborn talent of some kind. It might not specifically be heritage from a magical creature or event like D&D sorcery is, but not every human can simply become a neurosurgeon or astrophysicist either.

Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series has two types of "channellers" (i.e. magic users):

Those who can learn to channel, with study and hard work. Not everybody is born with the potential, and if somebody with potential isn't schooled, then they'll never be different from a normal person. This is similar to a Wizard class.
Those who are not only born with ability, but are already channelling whether they like it or not! These "wilders" often have rough times growing up, while wrestling to control their ability (if they fail, they can be overcome and die from their own magic). This is similar to a Sorcerer class.

[liquidformat]

Everyone in real life has the same potential

That really isn't, sure we are all human beings but there are inborn genetic differences that do give people advantages or disadvantages. Take Michael Phelps for example, sure he has put in crazy effort to get were he is but take a look at the guy he has ridiculously long arms on a large torso with comparatively shorter legs and big feet. Those genetic differences give him a leg up from your average joe blow.

Similarly people are born with a preset number of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles that differ from person to person and how many you have of each give you natural advantages or disadvantages in sports.

You also having autistic savants which are capable of doing things your average person can't no matter how much they train.

[Doctor Awkward]

That really isn't, sure we are all human beings but there are inborn genetic differences that do give people advantages or disadvantages. Take Michael Phelps for example, sure he has put in crazy effort to get were he is but take a look at the guy he has ridiculously long arms on a large torso with comparatively shorter legs and big feet. Those genetic differences give him a leg up from your average joe blow.

Similarly people are born with a preset number of fast twitch and slow twitch muscles that differ from person to person and how many you have of each give you natural advantages or disadvantages in sports.

You also having autistic savants which are capable of doing things your average person can't no matter how much they train.

I'm glad you brought up Phelps because he is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Here is an article discussing his three consecutive wins at the 100 meter butterfly: https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/12/12451080/rio-olympics-michael-phelps-wall-gold

As you can see, cumulatively he only won by 0.28 seconds over all three events. And his margin in 2008 was by 0.01 seconds. My point is exactly that the edge that his alleged "genetics" have given him is so absurdly small that is to be largely inconsequential. And that article repeatedly highlights the extremely rigorous training that he puts himself through in order to attain the endurance he needs to really get his wins. If the OP were correct in his assessment, then there would be no point in anyone else ever competing in any event that Phelps does, because his inborn abilities would guarantee his victory every time.

[KoDT69]

If the OP were correct in his assessment, then there would be no point in anyone else ever competing in any event that Phelps does, because his inborn abilities would guarantee his victory every time.
You are taking an extreme view of what I'm saying. My point is that with the same race, ability scores, whatever other variables, he having innate magical power over not having it is a huge difference.

Now if you want to say
Wizard putting in hard work and dedication
Will surpass
Sorcerer that just wanders along in life using the power that comes naturally putting in zero effort to improve it
Then I would agree. But I'm really talking at the core that if both put in the same effort the Wizard is still superior because of the design. Why is it assumed that the Sorcerer is incapable of putting in just as much effort honing his craft?

[Batcathat]

I feel like another flaw in the reasoning is that the difference between wizards and sorcerers aren't just that wizards study and sorcerers are gifted, they are doing different, if similar, things. A wizard can be born with a talent for wizardry but that doesn't make him a sorcerer and a sorcerer can work really hard to hone their magic but that doesn't make her a wizard.

[Telonius]

In my own houserules, Sorcerers are the metamagic specialists. I ditch the "metamagic casting takes longer" thing, and give them a bonus Metamagic feat every five levels. (Wizard gets bonus feats there too, but can only spend them on Item Crafting or Spell Mastery).

[NigelWalmsley]

If the OP were correct in his assessment, then there would be no point in anyone else ever competing in any event that Phelps does, because his inborn abilities would guarantee his victory every time.

Phelps is a bad analogy. Because in D&Dland, inborn talent at swimming isn't "you have some weird genetics (or maybe just chance) that makes you a tiny margin better than others". It's "your mom was a fish person and you can breathe water and swim faster than normal people can walk". Inborn ability varies a lot more in D&D than it does in the real world. In the real world we're talking about one species, and a species that actually has fairly low genetic diversity at that. There's no real-world parallel to "three generations ago, one of your ancestors mated with a creature of smokeless fire and now you have magic".

[Soranar]

I remember a quote concerning shaquille o neal and his basketball coach:

''you can't teach 7 feet tall''


That's pretty much what I have in mind when I think talent over practice.

In DnD land, it's easier to compare a fighter class

say a level 6 human fighter with an elite array

vs a ECL 6 half-ogre fighter with an elite array, extra STR and+ the extra reach makes a huge difference in DnD and the lack of skillpoints is not that noticeable

Just like a high ability score makes a caster type harder to resist in save or suck spells and extra spells which is a big deal

But the real class difference are these: more spell knowns (big deal) more feats (big deal too) higher level spells (probably the most important aspect) and a better casting STAT (Int gives more skillpoints which is better than a simple bonus to CHA skills)

In my games we houseruled that wizards get a sorcerer's progression and sorcerers get a wizard's to even things out a little but a sorcerer simply doesn't have class features

they had to create them in splat books (sorcerer only spells and kobold shenanigans)

[gijoemike]

At my tables we have always played with the full round metamagic rule for spontaneous casters. I say spontaneous casters and not just sorcs because bards are an important part of this argument. Bards aren't born with this power. They pick up a feel for magic and can use just a few spells. Sorcs are born with the ability to tap into just a few spells. They can call upon this magic with no preparation.


Wizards must study for years to even get a cantrip right. They understand the most subtle presence of magic, the ins, outs and upside downs. They take 20 times longer to prepare and plan a spell for later that day.

Consider the demolition of a building. The Engineer/architect studies the building and plants explosives at key points vs a guy who is good at throwing a stick of TNT and just walked off the street. Who would you want to make a change?

Consider a clock. Random guy with a great sense of time vs an actual clock maker. Now one needs to alter the workings of a clock. Who would you hire?


But I am of the opinion contrary to most players not just this board that the level in which you obtain new levels of spells should be swapped for sorcs and wizards. I believe that wizards should have fewer spells per day, access them 1 level later than sorcs, but they have access to any spell in the spell book they have studied and copied. Wizards take longer to learn how to use a spell and access to that magic isn't natural and easy to them.


I also believe that Wizards, who study the inner workings of magic, should have metamagics as their class feature and no metamagic should be a open feat any caster can just take. But sadly this rule change cannot happen in 3.5 because there are feats, metamagic, and classes devoted to metamagic and divine spells. And it isn't fixed by saying clerics have access to certain meta-magic either. It doesn't help that WotC added more metamagic feats every 2 books and in Dragon Mag.


Imagine a game where Wizard got a bonus feat at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and had to pick metamagic feat. Clerics got that choice at 5,10,15. Sorcs, bards, warlocks just didn't get that. Imagine how the game would be radically different. The stacking metamagic game that proves casters are better at everything ever either becomes impossible or is extreme late game. Maximized, Chained, Ocular, Repeat, Split Ray would require a lvl 15 straight class wizard+.

[CharonsHelper]

In my games we houseruled that wizards get a sorcerer's progression and sorcerers get a wizard's to even things out a little but a sorcerer simply doesn't have class features

they had to create them in splat books (sorcerer only spells and kobold shenanigans)

Yeah - that's why I brought up the Pathfinder sorcerer. Some of the bloodlines are really good.

[Zanos]

I feel like another flaw in the reasoning is that the difference between wizards and sorcerers aren't just that wizards study and sorcerers are gifted, they are doing different, if similar, things. A wizard can be born with a talent for wizardry but that doesn't make him a sorcerer and a sorcerer can work really hard to hone their magic but that doesn't make her a wizard.
Even on the first page, this is too far down.

The core mistake is the assumption that, in universe, sorcerery(talent) and wizardry(hard work) are two separate components of the same goal. They are not. They are fundamentally different methods of accessing arcane magic. One can be a talented or hard working sorcerer. Or both, or neither. Or a lazy wizard. Just being a sorcerer doesn't automatically raise you to 20th level. There are sorcerers who will never attain any level past 1st due to laziness. And there are wizards who will study for multiple lifetimes and never surpass the wizards who were truly talented and hard working, like Larloch or Karsus.

Hard Work + Talent will beat either separately, but only if you're actually applying both to the same thing.

[Thunder999]

Maybe the metamagic thing is because the wizard already spent the extra time on it in the morning, doing whatever it is that makes it cost a slot X levels higher (while the prep time is set at 1 hour I like to imagine that higher level spells take longer, after all they take more pages so there's clearly more to them)

[tiercel]

You're mixing up character level and age. By default, the wizard is the oldest character at level 1, while the sorcerer is one of the youngest.

So (assuming a human-only party and standard age table) you could have a starter group of level 1 characters where the sorcerer is 16 and the level 1 wizard is pushing 30.


But of course, this pales in comparison to the Elven Learning Disability problem; while you could have (at extremes) a 16yo first-level human sorcerer grouping with a 27yo first-level human wizard, that pales in comparison to even that same human wizard grouping with a 170 year old first-level elf wizard.

Plus, it’s worth noting that while there is the (mostly cosmetic) age thing, there isn’t the 2nd edition deal where some classes advance levels with fewer XP, which is to say that a sorcerer attains 1st level generally faster a wizard does, but takes the same time (all else equal) to go from first to second level — so while there’s a mostly-fluff difference in how long apprenticeship takes, there’s no difference in attaining expertise.

tl;dr sorcery isn’t actually easier to do (or progress) than wizardry, just easier to start.

[NigelWalmsley]

''you can't teach 7 feet tall''

That's another thing. In the real world, the most successful athletes aren't necessarily the ones with the greatest natural talent, but there is an incredibly ruthless culling on the basis of natural talent long before you get to the top. The average height in the USA is 5' 9''. Based on a quick look at this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_As sociation_history), it's been almost a decade since there's been anyone shorter than that in the NBA. The best basketball player might be the one who trained the hardest, not the one with the most talent, but if you don't have the talent there's no amount you can train to end up on top.

[CharonsHelper]

I'm glad you brought up Phelps because he is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Here is an article discussing his three consecutive wins at the 100 meter butterfly: https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/12/12451080/rio-olympics-michael-phelps-wall-gold

As you can see, cumulatively he only won by 0.28 seconds over all three events. And his margin in 2008 was by 0.01 seconds. My point is exactly that the edge that his alleged "genetics" have given him is so absurdly small that is to be largely inconsequential. And that article repeatedly highlights the extremely rigorous training that he puts himself through in order to attain the endurance he needs to really get his wins. If the OP were correct in his assessment, then there would be no point in anyone else ever competing in any event that Phelps does, because his inborn abilities would guarantee his victory every time.

You're assuming that the other top level Olympic athletes don't also have a talent advantage over the general populace.

[Zanos]

I'm glad you brought up Phelps because he is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Here is an article discussing his three consecutive wins at the 100 meter butterfly: https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/12/12451080/rio-olympics-michael-phelps-wall-gold

As you can see, cumulatively he only won by 0.28 seconds over all three events. And his margin in 2008 was by 0.01 seconds. My point is exactly that the edge that his alleged "genetics" have given him is so absurdly small that is to be largely inconsequential. And that article repeatedly highlights the extremely rigorous training that he puts himself through in order to attain the endurance he needs to really get his wins. If the OP were correct in his assessment, then there would be no point in anyone else ever competing in any event that Phelps does, because his inborn abilities would guarantee his victory every time.
They aren't inconsequential if they got him a win. If everyone has the same consistently rigorous training regime and one guy keeps winning, there's another factor at play. 0.01 seconds is not inconsequential at the top end of races, swimming or otherwise.

Both matter. Do you think Phelps has no genetic advantage? If you want a field that has a absolutely clear and present one, look at competitive strongman. The vast majority of people will never lift anything close to what Brian Shaw can, even with extremely rigorous training. I'll grant that hard work beats talent when talent is lazy, but hard work alone can't beat a guy with natural gifts that is also working hard. Honestly I can't fathom an argument where one guys genetics make him 6'6" and another guy 5'6" and you say they have the same potential. It's just a lie. There's substantial evidence for genetic influence on intelligence too, but that's less painfully obvious through passive observation.


That's another thing. In the real world, the most successful athletes aren't necessarily the ones with the greatest natural talent, but there is an incredibly ruthless culling on the basis of natural talent long before you get to the top. The average height in the USA is 5' 9''. Based on a quick look at this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest_players_in_National_Basketball_As sociation_history), it's been almost a decade since there's been anyone shorter than that in the NBA. The best basketball player might be the one who trained the hardest, not the one with the most talent, but if you don't have the talent there's no amount you can train to end up on top.
Yup. I don't think anyone under 6 feet tall has ever won a major strongman competition.

[Doctor Awkward]

They aren't inconsequential if they got him a win. If everyone has the same consistently rigorous training regime and one guy keeps winning, there's another factor at play. 0.01 seconds is not inconsequential at the top end of races, swimming or otherwise.

Both matter. Do you think Phelps has no genetic advantage? If you want a field that has a absolutely clear and present one, look at competitive strongman. The vast majority of people will never lift anything close to what Brian Shaw can, even with extremely rigorous training. I'll grant that hard work beats talent when talent is lazy, but hard work alone can't beat a guy with natural gifts that is also working hard. Honestly I can't fathom an argument where one guys genetics make him 6'6" and another guy 5'6" and you say they have the same potential. It's just a lie. There's substantial evidence for genetic influence on intelligence too, but that's less painfully obvious through passive observation.


Yup. I don't think anyone under 6 feet tall has ever won a major strongman competition.


Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does? If you genuinely believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to excelling at certain things then there is no point in holding these competitions. It's a foregone conclusion that the people with the "right genes" will win if they put in sufficient effort.

These arguments are the foundation of the eugenics movement.

[Batcathat]

Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does? If you genuinely believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to excelling at certain things then there is no point in holding these competitions. It's a foregone conclusion that the people with the "right genes" will win if they put in sufficient effort.

These arguments are the foundation of the eugenics movement.

So what are you saying? We're all completely blank slates? Anyone has the potential to be an Olympic swimmer or the strongest person in the world or a Chess grandmaster or a groundbreaking scientist assuming they work hard enough? While I believe hard work beats talent alone in most cases, that doesn't mean talent doesn't exists. Someone like Phelps, who are at the very top of their field, likely has both talent and hard work going for them.

[ShurikVch]

Why would the natural magic prodigy take a full round to metamagic tweak a spell but the Wizard doesn't?
Because it's fundamental property of spontaneous spellcasting: not just Sorcerers, but also Assassins, Bards, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, etc...
(Same thing for "naturally spellcasting" monsters - like Dragons or Rakshasa)
Clerics and Druids too - with their spontaneous healing/summoning/wounding
Or, even, you know, Wizards - in case of Spontaneous Divination ACF

Anyway, Sorcerer can mitigate this flaw via feats - Accelerate Metamagic at lower levels (if Dragonblood), Rapid Metamagic - at higher levels; or Metamagic Specialist variant (at the cost of Familiar)
Or, also, Sorcerers are able to prepare spells too: via Arcane Preparation (or Corrupt Arcana) feat - prepared spells aren't suffering from the full-round-metamagic problem

Note: I don't count Sorcerers as "natural magic prodigies" - for me, they're "idiot savants", who got pitiful breadcrumbs of arcane knowledge from their heritage, and able to use it for their advantage (sometimes)

For the comparison:
Do you know how many of "17+" Wizards in the Forgotten Realms? Over 50!
But how many Sorcerers of similar level? Below 20! (And some of those are freaking Dragons!)
I think it says something if the only known Dragon Archmage - Daurgothoth "the Creeping Doom" (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Daurgothoth) - is Wizard rather than Sorcerer...

[Zanos]

Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does? If you genuinely believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to excelling at certain things then there is no point in holding these competitions. It's a foregone conclusion that the people with the "right genes" will win if they put in sufficient effort.
I would argue though that a strongman event where the only competitors were a huge 6'6" man and a tiny woman would not be very interesting, yes. If you personally possess the ability to perfectly analyze someone's genetic makeup, epigentic expression, and training regimine to predict the results, I would suggest that you pursue a career in sports betting. But as far as I know, science isn't quite that advanced.


These arguments are the foundation of the eugenics movement.
Even in a book of lies, you sometimes find truth. Forced eugenics is disgusting because it violates the freedom of individuals, not because genetics isn't real. If you honestly believe that a woman that's 5 feet tall can squat 1100 pounds if she just trains hard enough, I don't know what to tell you, other than that you are denying science. Next you'll tell me that a chihuahua and a pit bull can be just as strong if the chihuahua just trains hard enough.

[NigelWalmsley]

Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does?

What's the point of competing in any even that Phelps does if his skill is 100% a result of training? You haven't trained as much as he has, and you're not in as good shape as he is. Even if any person could be Phelps, the reality is that once you entered high school without being in the running for the US Olypmic team, the window for being as good at swimming as Phelps closed for you.

[Doctor Awkward]

So what are you saying? We're all completely blank slates? Anyone has the potential to be an Olympic swimmer or the strongest person in the world or a Chess grandmaster or a groundbreaking scientist assuming they work hard enough?

That's exactly what I am saying because that's how life works. What you describe as "talent" has only ever dictated is how much time and effort a certain individual must put in to a given activity in order to attain a certain threshold in that activity. That is the only difference in the potential between different human beings.


Next you'll tell me that a chihuahua and a pit bull can be just as strong if the chihuahua just trains hard enough.

Once again you are comparing two different breeds of animal with huge genetic diversity between them. What's particularly ironic about your example is that dogs hold the record as the most genetically diverse land mammal; the largest breed is upwards of forty times the size of the smallest one, and they have a huge variety of coats, bone structure, facial features, and instinctual behaviors. Human beings are not nearly so diverse. If you honestly believe that there is a human genome that makes one predisposed towards being very good at weightlifting then I don't know what to tell you, other than you are denying science.

[CharonsHelper]

That's exactly what I am saying because that's how life works. What you describe as "talent" has only ever dictated is how much time and effort a certain individual must put in to a given activity in order to attain a certain threshold in that activity. That is the only difference in the potential between different human beings.

{scrubbed}

[Batcathat]

That's exactly what I am saying because that's how life works. What you describe as "talent" has only ever dictated is how much time and effort a certain individual must put in to a given activity in order to attain a certain threshold in that activity. That is the only difference in the potential between different human beings.

I don't think that's true and if you're going to claim "that's how life works" you should probably provide some evidence. Yes, hard work and dedication can compensate for a lot of lacking talent but it's not always enough. Have you really never met anyone or heard of anyone who's really put their everything into, for example, compete at the highest level of some sport but just can't do well enough no matter how hard they try?

I do think almost anyone can become pretty good at almost anything with enough dedication but I do think both the upper limit and how hard it is to get there can vary between individuals.

[KoDT69]

What's the point of competing in any even that Phelps does if his skill is 100% a result of training? You haven't trained as much as he has, and you're not in as good shape as he is. Even if any person could be Phelps, the reality is that once you entered high school without being in the running for the US Olypmic team, the window for being as good at swimming as Phelps closed for you.
I think you are taking an extremely negative and illogical approach to this analogy.
Sure Phelps is at the top of the rankings but only slightly. How is it pointless to compete? We don't know when he will hit his maximum performance level, which somebody else could be on the rise with a higher maximum that just hasn't been reached yet. How long can he maintain his physical shape and training regimen? Phelps could get sick or injured at any time giving those in the running time to shine or even overtake him.


Is it pointless to be #2 striving to beat #1? Is it pointless to be #250 in the ranking, but enjoy trying, and maybe even making a living at what you do? Was Dennis Rodman as good as Michael Jordan? No way! But he made huge bank doing what he loved.

Also, the Forgotten Realms 50 Wizards vs 20 Sorcerers is basically irrelevant. The authors clearly preferred the Wizard in design and it only makes sense to use the superior class design for their Uber Mary Sue characters. That's Munchkin 101. It's also 100% up to the author what character types they want to tell the story about. Saying the Sorcerer gets breadcrumbs of arcane magic tho? INCONCEIVABLE! If access to 9th level spells, Epic Spellcasting, and similar potential for Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft.... Doesn't seem like bread crumbs to me!

[ShurikVch]

Also, the Forgotten Realms 50 Wizards vs 20 Sorcerers is basically irrelevant. The authors clearly preferred the Wizard in design and it only makes sense to use the superior class design for their Uber Mary Sue characters. That's Munchkin 101.
FYI, there are also more high-level (17+) Fighters than Sorcerers in Faerûn
What's they're, "Uber Mary Sue" too? :smallamused:


It's also 100% up to the author what character types they want to tell the story about.
I wonder - why they don't want to write about Sorcerers?..
Also, it's not just about the novel characters: Telbran Nelarn - 24th-level Sorcerer (the highest i could find so far) - didn't take a part in any published story, and simply mentioned in the City of Splendors: Waterdeep


Saying the Sorcerer gets breadcrumbs of arcane magic tho? INCONCEIVABLE! If access to 9th level spells, Epic Spellcasting, and similar potential for Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft.... Doesn't seem like bread crumbs to me!
Yes, exactly - breadcrumbs: they're know less spells than Wizards, they're incapable to get more spells known, and they got those spells later (which is - outside of "15 minutes/day adventuring" realm - may mean "never")
They may get "... access to 9th level spells, Epic Spellcasting ..." - so what? Big deal! Same can be said about Bards, Assasins, or even Sinkers (that Doomguard-themed PrC from Dragon #287, whose maximal spell level is - usually - 2nd). Sure, Sorcerers would get there faster, and with less hoop-jumping, but still slower than Wizard (and at higher levels all classes are similar anyway)
And I wouldn't be so sure about the "... similar potential for Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft...": with 2 skill points per level, and Int as a dump stat... Well, if you wouldn't learn literally anything else at all, then maybe...

[KoDT69]

@ShurikVch
Ok so the Fighter argument is a non-sequiter. I was referencing the writing of an arcane caster character and the authors taking an obvious choice to go with the mechanically superior class. You are specifically saying:
Wizards are superior to Sorcerer's as written
- which nobody is arguing. The real point is that:
I disagree that the difference should be so much. I play them different and was asking the community who else does something similar and why.
I even said in the first post that I knew a bunch of Wizards are better arguments would be shoveled on even tho I said plain and clear that I wasn't interested in that discussion as I asked a pointed question.
And you mention INT as a Sorcerer dump stat... Is that the only way you think a Sorcerer can be built? Is every Wizard an 18 INT at first level plus race bonus plus the 1 every 4 levels? You never saw a Wizard with a single INT point less than the absolute max? Ever rolled for your ability scores how the PHB outlines?

[Snowbluff]

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study". In many media formats and stories we see a naturally talented person excel while a jealous other person struggles and devotes every waking moment to even compete in the same league.


*puts on morpheus glasses*

What if I told you that this is an awful trope that is overused by awful childrens entertainment, and we shouldn't be trying to emulate in further media because we should be encouraging people to practice to better themselves.

[ShurikVch]

I was referencing the writing of an arcane caster character and the authors taking an obvious choice to go with the mechanically superior class.
Note: Bard is arcane caster too
In Forgotten Realms, there are ~7 high-level (17+) Bards (excluding deities who have 20+ levels in the class)
But high-level Sorcerers on Faerûn - if we would exclude Deities and old Dragons - are in the single-digit range too
Shouldn't "mechanical superiority" of Sorcerer class ensure authors would write more about Sorcerers than Bards?
Or does it work in some other way?


You are specifically saying: Wizards are superior to Sorcerer's as written - which nobody is arguing.
{scrubbed}


The real point is that:
I disagree that the difference should be so much. I play them different and was asking the community who else does something similar and why.
Yo may disagree all you want, but the fact is: not even real Dragons are usually as good in magic as a Wizard of the same level.
So, why some Humanoid with a dregs of draconic ancestry should be better in magic than a full-blooded Dragon?


And you mention INT as a Sorcerer dump stat... Is that the only way you think a Sorcerer can be built? Is every Wizard an 18 INT at first level plus race bonus plus the 1 every 4 levels? You never saw a Wizard with a single INT point less than the absolute max?
You see, novice Sorcerer need a lot of abilities:
Cha is the casting stat (obviously);
Con would need for Concentration checks, for hp, and to prop the bad Fortitude save;
Dex is need for AC, ranged attacks, and Reflex saves;
Wis is less necessary, but still - dumping it completely may be... unwise;
Thus, the choice is primarily between the Str and Int; are you in favor of Str dump?


Ever rolled for your ability scores how the PHB outlines?
Rolling is, actually, not that different - you're able to decide which roll go to which ability, and re-roll the abysmally bad results
All rolling is good for is to create characters with abilities above the point-buy limit

[KoDT69]

Yet again, I'm not interested in the number of what class the authors of FR books have written about. They write about what they like. That has no bearing on the actual question I've posed here.

Personally I would value INT over STR or a basic Sorcerer build. The Wizard also has to keep his ability scores similarly allocated for his CON and DEX etc.

Don't really know who LordDraco is. I've been around since 2006. I've been in and out over that time and it seems that the discussions here have become a lot more of what's happening here. I pose a question with an alternate view to RAW, and that question gets ignored by a bunch of people who want to argue the RAW rules instead. At least a few posters here were able to contribute to the spirit of the thread. My last time in here was about the same way.

Some people seem to be taking this as a personal attack on them. Oh no he doesn't worship the Wizard? Blasphemy!

No for real dudes. I'm saying that all things being equal:
Same race, age, sex, size, physical potential of every kind other than bloodline
Same ability scores let's say all 18's!
Same dedication to the craft
Same time invested
Literally zero difference except class
As the supporting fluff the Sorcerer magic born naturally and the other doesn't. It makes logical sense to me that the natural gift would have *some kind* of advantage but they did not design it that way.

Dragon Sorcerers aren't that great? OK so you're going by the generic monster manual for this? Most of those things are not even close to optimized. Author preference can have everything to do with that. But hey, there's a reason you have player characters under level 20 that can take on avatars of deities. You looked in Deities & Demigods? Those are some of the saddest looking stat blocks as far as optimization. I don't run anything important to my game with such poor choices.

[Psyren]

That's exactly what I am saying because that's how life works. What you describe as "talent" has only ever dictated is how much time and effort a certain individual must put in to a given activity in order to attain a certain threshold in that activity. That is the only difference in the potential between different human beings.

This is beyond ridiculous. I genuinely can't believe what I'm reading. Genetics don't matter, socioeconomic advantages don't matter, language and cultural barriers don't matter, all that matters is "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?" Seriously?

[ShurikVch]

As the supporting fluff the Sorcerer magic born naturally and the other doesn't. It makes logical sense to me that the natural gift would have *some kind* of advantage but they did not design it that way.
And there is your misconception: you saying Sorcerer's magic is "born naturally"; but who said Wizard's - isn't?
There is some quotes (from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting):

You come from Halruaa, a half-legendary land where basic magic is taught to all with the aptitude for it. Every crafter and laborer, it seems, knows a cantrip or two to ease her work.

Tribal custom restricts the practice of sorcery and wizardry among the rural clans, although people with an aptitude for magic are as common in Chult as they are anywhere else. Only one wielder of arcane magic is permitted to practice his or her craft in any given clan or village. These sorcerers and wizards participate in hunting ceremonies and brew potions to aid the warriors. Renegade mages hide in the jungle and study magic in secret, or abandon their home villages to travel to the college in Mezro.

Harrowdale has turned out to be a poor site for a temple to Mystra. The old Harrans do not trust wizards or other practitioners of the Art, and the younger generation lacks magical aptitude - few Harrans possess the basic talents required for successful study of the Art.

Halruaans receive public schooling until at least the age of thirteen. Screening for magical aptitude occurs at age five, and magic-capable students often master cantrips by the time they are fifteen.
...
To Halruaans, the true Art is wizardry - they view sorcery as a dangerously undisciplined and primitive approach to magic. Those few Halruaans whose gifts lead them to sorcery instead of wizardry either downplay the extent of their powers or leave the country.

Halarahh is a difficult place to live for those who lack the gift. Favorable treatment and promotions, in all walks of life, come to those who have the gift and somehow elude those who lack magical aptitude. The saying "as useless as a sword in Halarahh" is often on the lips of frustrated former residents of Halarahh who moved else where.

All Thayan children are examined for magical aptitude at an early age. Those who show signs of potential are removed from their parents and subjected to ever more rigorous schooling in the arcane arts, culminating in apprenticeships to the Red Wizards, who are notoriously careless of and abusive toward their apprentices. (Those whose talents run to sorcery channel their talents into wizardry, suppress them, or leave the country. The Red Wizards despise sorcerers, who don't follow the carefully regimented system of magical schools.)
What is this mysterious "magical aptitude" which younger Harrans so lacking?
Well apparently, it's something completely different from sorcery (by the red quotes)



Dragon Sorcerers aren't that great? OK so you're going by the generic monster manual for this? Most of those things are not even close to optimized. Author preference can have everything to do with that. But hey, there's a reason you have player characters under level 20 that can take on avatars of deities. You looked in Deities & Demigods? Those are some of the saddest looking stat blocks as far as optimization. I don't run anything important to my game with such poor choices.
I mean: even if we put aside Level Adjustment - just "HD-by-HD", humanoid Sorcerer is already a better mage then any Dragon in existence

Side question: what's wrong with the Deities? Pile of HD, huge scores, bunch of at-wills, truckload of immunities - what else you need?

[lylsyly]

The discussion point that I'm interested in...
Who else plays it this way? I mean, sure I know some people are going to tell me I'm oh so wrong here, but the whole talent vs study trope is completely opposite in every other instance that I can think of, and more evidence that they simply preferred the wizard class. The fluff does not support it. Why would a guy with inherently magical dragon blood be so much lower powered than the non-magical human dude that read a bunch of books? Like I said, I'm not interested in why you think I'm wrong. I'm wondering if other tables run the 2 classes different than the PHB says and what your reasoning is.

BACK TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS INTERESTED IN.

At our table Sorcerers also get the bonus feats. Also get CHA bonus (not from items) to spells known not just daily slots. Wizards may be more versitile but if you are playing a certain archetype (like blaster) you are going to rely on certain spells and having more of them makes you better at what you want to do.

just my 2 coppers ;-)

[DeAnno]

If you aren't concerned so much about Sorc-specific stuff in random splats, Generic Arcane Spellcaster 20 is a "more fair" version of Sorcerer. Gets bonus feats, you can choose Int or Wis, and you can poach from the Cleric and Druid lists freely. It's still on the "slow" full caster progression getting new spell levels on even class levels, but there is a lot more (easily used) compensation than the Sorcerer gets.

The metamagic problem is still there, but hey, upside; you can take Sneak Attack as a bonus feat on Generic classes and if you metamagic scorching ray-like spells you get SA on each ray due to it being a Full round action.

[KoDT69]

I actually like the Generic Spellcaster for the list versatility as well. If you got a small party of mundane classes and only this one caster, it can cover multiple roles with a few leftover spells to still be useful and unique. The class ability bonus feats on generic classes is an interesting change, especially for the other non-casters.

[Gudrae]

I actually looked into this several years ago because of quicken magic and I came to an odd realization. As a wizard can choose to leave spell slots empty to prepare later in the day with a shorter time a sorcerer can prepare a spell slot with quicken or other metamagic. In the quicken spell metamagic descriptor it includes "when cast spontaneously." In the sorcerer descriptions it says "he can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time", "...have no need to select and prepare their spell slots ahead of time." It would seem that while it would be unusual a sorcerer could prepare a spell.

Thus as far as metamagic goes sorcerers are not beneath wizards

They are equals.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: ShurikVch beat me to it. Though I am not convinced a feat is required.

[Max Caysey]

Ok so you all know the obvious design favoring the Wizard class got over the Sorcerer.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but the difference is utterly illogical given the info presented in the Player's Handbook.

Paraphrasing, Sorcerer uses innate magical ability from a bloodline or something. However you look at it, they are born inherently magical.

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study". In many media formats and stories we see a naturally talented person excel while a jealous other person struggles and devotes every waking moment to even compete in the same league.

Now I can agree to the one level delay on spell levels in exchange for the extra spells per day, but there is a huge difference which I call BS on. Why would the natural magic prodigy take a full round to metamagic tweak a spell but the Wizard doesn't? Feel free to disagree but I personally ignore that full round metamagic rule, and give the Sorcerer the same bonus feats the wizard gets.

The discussion point that I'm interested in...
Who else plays it this way? I mean, sure I know some people are going to tell me I'm oh so wrong here, but the whole talent vs study trope is completely opposite in every other instance that I can think of, and more evidence that they simply preferred the wizard class. The fluff does not support it. Why would a guy with inherently magical dragon blood be so much lower powered than the non-magical human dude that read a bunch of books? Like I said, I'm not interested in why you think I'm wrong. I'm wondering if other tables run the 2 classes different than the PHB says and what your reasoning is.

Who won more? Moe Norman (often stated as the most talented ballstriker of all time) or Tiger Woods, who worked his ass off?

The obvious answer is Tiger Woods, because he studied his craft! Same thing goes with a wizard vs sorcerer. But what you fail to deduce is that wizards are no less talented at magic than sorceresses, they just study more. So in effect, a wizard is someone with a natural talent for magic, who puts in the hours, where as a sorcerer is some, with a natural talent for magic, who doesn't put in the hours!

Back in the day there was only a mage, which was a person with magical blood, who had to train and study to be able to cast magic. They split the mage up into sorcerer and wizard.

[KoDT69]

@Max Causey
No I'm not failing at anything here. You are assuming that the Sorcerer doesn't put in work, and while some could be lazy, I've specifically addressed that my comparison is with both putting in the same work. I've also said the point of this thread is not to discuss which is better by RAW. Not interested. Not the point. Your quote includes me stating as such.

[ShurikVch]

Actually, the failing is the presumption of Sorcery and Wizardry being the same thing
My quotes showed the difficulties of sorcerous-gifted people in Halruaa and Thay
Sure, it wouldn't be such problem, if Wizardry and Sorcery were the exactly same thing (instinctive/learned aside)?

Also, take note of the Ultimate Magus PrC (Complete Mage) - how would you explain that?..

[KoDT69]

Actually, the failing is the presumption of Sorcery and Wizardry being the same thing
My quotes showed the difficulties of sorcerous-gifted people in Halruaa and Thay
Sure, it wouldn't be such problem, if Wizardry and Sorcery were the exactly same thing (instinctive/learned aside)?

Also, take note of the Ultimate Magus PrC (Complete Mage) - how would you explain that?..
No presumption of anything of the sort. I said a dozen times that they are different by RAW but I simply disagree that they should be and play it different at my table. I don't have to explain Ultimate Magus and again it is meaningless even to the point you think you're making. A monk or Rogue or even a Commoner can take Wizard levels or Sorcerer levels or both then Prc into UM, and the backstory just kinda shifts to accommodate the new classes.

Thanks to those of you contributing to the conversation I was actually looking for.

[Darg]

Guys, why is everyone arguing about whether or not talent or effort is stronger? Everyone knows that having friends/workhorses is superior to both. Spirit Shaman wins hands down with their awesome imaginary friend that negotiates with other imaginary critters to switch out their spells known. Take Magical Training for access to Wiz spells, take one level of an arcane caster class with the practiced spellcaster feat, take one level of Sand shaper to increase your spells known by 2.5x, get 10 levels in rainbow servant, and now bask in your ultimate spell casting capabilities with 3 spell lists and the benefits of prepared style spell selection and spontaneous style spell slots and 9th level spells.

[Doctor Awkward]

This is beyond ridiculous. I genuinely can't believe what I'm reading. Genetics don't matter, socioeconomic advantages don't matter, language and cultural barriers don't matter, all that matters is "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?" Seriously?

I'm not surprised you can't believe it because that's a ton of **** that I absolutely did not say.

I said that "hard work and practice always wins over natural talent." Period.
Because it's the truth.


Have you really never met anyone or heard of anyone who's really put their everything into, for example, compete at the highest level of some sport but just can't do well enough no matter how hard they try?

No.

Whenever someone says, "I can't do it. I have no talent," what they are really saying is, "I don't think I can put in the time and effort necessary in order to be as good as I want to be."
Every skill can be learned. Even being determined enough to succeed can be learned.

[Batcathat]

Whenever someone says, "I can't do it. I have no talent," what they are really saying is, "I don't think I can put in the time and effort necessary in order to be as good as I want to be."
Every skill can be learned. Even being determined enough to succeed can be learned.

I just don't believe that, because there are people who are so dedicated, push themself so hard, and still don't measure up to people who work less at the same thing. Yes, any skill can be learned and hard work can compensate for a lot of lacking talent. But like I said above, I do think both upper limit of a skill and how hard it is to get there can vary

[ShurikVch]

No presumption of anything of the sort. I said a dozen times that they are different by RAW but I simply disagree that they should be and play it different at my table.
You may play a lot of things at your table, but what's you asking us about?.. :smallconfused:


A monk or Rogue or even a Commoner can take Wizard levels or Sorcerer levels or both then Prc into UM, and the backstory just kinda shifts to accommodate the new classes.
It's only for PC: PC are "special people", "one of a sort", etc; if your average inhabitant of the world lacks necessary heritage for Sorcery, they wouldn't become a Sorcerer at all


Question: your proposal about the faster spontaneous metamagic - does it applied on Sorcerers only, or on every single spontaneous class - including Clerics and Wisards with Spontaneous Divination?
If the first, than all your complains are boiling down to a cry "Sorcerers are underpowered in 3.5! (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Katanas_are_Underpowered_in_d20)"
If the second - than OK...

[KoDT69]

Well since you specifically asked, I really apply the ignoring of that full round metamagic on all spontaneous casters. The simple fact is that all spontaneous casters are also much more limited to begin with so having extra drawbacks seems intentionally harsh.

And for the record, I do not agree that the casting time difference is evened out by preparation time the night before. Both classes have to get down time for rest regardless and in turn would be burning the same level spell slot either way. I shouldn't have to explain why actions out of combat don't balance actions in combat. Action economy can make or break a tough battle. I've also never had a caster break a game I was running.

[CharonsHelper]

If the first, than all your complains are boiling down to a cry "Sorcerers are underpowered in 3.5!"

Which is only really true relative to wizards. It's still a full caster arcane class.

[Darg]

Which is only really true relative to wizards. It's still a full caster arcane class.

Well, not all spells are created equal. Wizard has the possibility to make up for bad spell selection.

To be fair though, it's possible that a wizard has less spells known than even a battle sorcerer. Wizard requires scribing spells into their spellbook in order to know more than the two per spell level they get as they level. Not to mention they don't learn those spells if they prestige as the free spells are a class feature of wizard.

It's really the balance of opportunity. A sorcerer is like a noble or a white collar. Given ample opportunity and security from the word go.

Then you have the wizard who wasn't given security and connections as a leg up. Given enough opportunity you get Oprah Winfreys and Ralph Laurens.

Of course, you can have Sorcerers that put in the extra work from the start with the Magical Training feat to have the same threshold of growth as a wizard while still being superior to a Wizard.

[ixrisor]

If you honestly believe that there is a human genome that makes one predisposed towards being very good at weightlifting then I don't know what to tell you, other than you are denying science.

There is actually. There’s a simple gene that causes natural production of various muscle enhancers, higher bone strength, and increased growth in all dimensions. The deadlift record for those who have this gene is 501kg, but the highest record for those without the gene is 300kg. Anyone with this gene is guaranteed to be stronger than anyone without it, given similar training. It’s called being male.

[ahyangyi]

There is actually. There’s a simple gene that causes natural production of various muscle enhancers, higher bone strength, and increased growth in all dimensions. The deadlift record for those who have this gene is 501kg, but the highest record for those without the gene is 300kg. Anyone with this gene is guaranteed to be stronger than anyone without it, given similar training. It’s called being male.

It's so true in real world (well, mostly, since it's technically the whole Y chromosome, not a single gene), but I am also so grateful that we usually don't have this in fantasy settings (beyonds fantasy races based on insectoid sexual dimorphism I guess -- when people design ant people or bee people they often play this trope and somehow I am fine with that).

[Zanos]

It's so true in real world (well, mostly, since it's technically the whole Y chromosome, not a single gene), but I am also so grateful that we usually don't have this in fantasy settings (beyonds fantasy races based on insectoid sexual dimorphism I guess -- when people design ant people or bee people they often play this trope and somehow I am fine with that).
RPGs should be fun, and the sobering reality that people are not born equal in all respects is not very fun. Maybe if you were running some kind of ultra-gritty dark setting. This is typically why we let people pick their stats these days instead of rolling 3d6 in order.

[AntiAuthority]

Ok so you all know the obvious design favoring the Wizard class got over the Sorcerer.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but the difference is utterly illogical given the info presented in the Player's Handbook.

Paraphrasing, Sorcerer uses innate magical ability from a bloodline or something. However you look at it, they are born inherently magical.

In any realistic and logical standpoint, natural talent is superior to "catching up through study". In many media formats and stories we see a naturally talented person excel while a jealous other person struggles and devotes every waking moment to even compete in the same league.

Now I can agree to the one level delay on spell levels in exchange for the extra spells per day, but there is a huge difference which I call BS on. Why would the natural magic prodigy take a full round to metamagic tweak a spell but the Wizard doesn't? Feel free to disagree but I personally ignore that full round metamagic rule, and give the Sorcerer the same bonus feats the wizard gets.

The discussion point that I'm interested in...
Who else plays it this way? I mean, sure I know some people are going to tell me I'm oh so wrong here, but the whole talent vs study trope is completely opposite in every other instance that I can think of, and more evidence that they simply preferred the wizard class. The fluff does not support it. Why would a guy with inherently magical dragon blood be so much lower powered than the non-magical human dude that read a bunch of books? Like I said, I'm not interested in why you think I'm wrong. I'm wondering if other tables run the 2 classes different than the PHB says and what your reasoning is.

“Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.”

Natural talent can make a huge difference if it works hard, but... I think Wizards are gifted, just not in the way OP has considered. A Wizard with 12 INT at Level 1 powerful and all, but they're less gifted than another Wizard who has 20 INT at the same level. The Wizard, by itself, is also naturally talented because they're so extraordinarily brilliant that they can cast magic... Intelligence is a form of natural talent.

Now, as to whether I can explain why Sorcerers are a tier lower than Wizards... Going by the fluff of both, and what I explained about, both are naturally gifted at magic, just... The Sorcerer is (usually) self-taught and trying to figure out how to not injure themselves and/or others by accident (the stress probably isn't helping), while the Wizard has the backing of proper guidance in the form of teachers to use magic more efficiently, a curriculum designed to help teach them the basics of magic and avoid the stress of "am I going to blow my fingers off if I try to cast this spell?"

Another possible explanation... If you could shoot lightning out of your fingers and had absolutely no idea what you were doing, wouldn't that make you less likely to train yourself because you might just set your house on fire or something? If I found out I could accidentally burn down my house by playing around with this stuff, I don't think I'd put too much time into self-training because it's a double edged sword as far as I'm concerned... My formally trained counterpart, though, doesn't have to worry as much about accidentally hurting themselves so probably puts in more time as a result.



In regards to talent IRL... Natural talent makes success easier, and some people are incredibly average (or below) and have to work much harder to get the same results... That said, everyone has a limit to what they can do with the amount of time they have.

Yes, comparing the professional athletes as a way to undermine talent doesn't work because... It's not like the winning athlete is the only talented one competing in the sport, and the ones right behind them are just talentless Regular Joes with no talent who worked themselves like crazy. There are varying levels of talent and hard work that got them to that point, the ones you see that are performing at an (inter)natiaonal level are the same ones that were selected over those with less training and natural talent to get to that point. They're so close to the winner because they're all naturally talented, just to differing degrees (and possibly some might have more efficient training regimens than others).

It's (theoretically) possible with enough training that an untalented athlete might eventually make it to that point, but... It would probably take a very long time, with possibly more time than they actually have to live depending on how hard they work themselves, along with the possibility of hard work actually hurting them from over training... They might hypothetically be able to reach the level of an Olympic athlete with infinite amounts of time, but nobody lives forever and old age coupled with the stress done to their bodies from possibly training like crazy would make it even less likely.

[CharonsHelper]

It's so true in real world (well, mostly, since it's technically the whole Y chromosome, not a single gene), but I am also so grateful that we usually don't have this in fantasy settings (beyonds fantasy races based on insectoid sexual dimorphism I guess -- when people design ant people or bee people they often play this trope and somehow I am fine with that).

Yeah - it's something to consider IRL, but not really at the gaming table. I know for sure that I didn't have any sexual dimorphism for the game I designed. Though, there is fluff that all the most powerful psychics are female, there's nothing backing it up mechanically. (And it's very much set up to allow a PC to be a special snowflake - just that they may have the cultish Council of Mothers after them.)

One of the alien species in Space Dogs does have sexual dimorphism. The krakiz (2-2.5 meter tall reptiles) have prides, with single powerful females with a feathered mane and a bunch of slightly smaller males. I know that you said that insectoid sexual dimorphism doesn't bother you - how about tribal/barbaric space lizards? :P (and no - they're not playable - PCs are human only)

[Quertus]

People keep talking about things like, "if the Sorcerer and the Wizard put in the same amount of effort…". This got me thinking.

I've seen Wizards put effort into their craft, bartering with other Wizards to trade spells, scouring ancient tombs (or shops) for additional spells, going to libraries and doing spell research, even translating ancient texts or the spell books of fallen adversaries.

But when has a Sorcerer *ever* put effort into their craft? :smallconfused:

If anyone has a story of a Sorcerer at an actual table actually putting effort into their craft, I'd love to hear it.


Yes, exactly - breadcrumbs: they're know less spells than Wizards, they're incapable to get more spells known, and they got those spells later (which is - outside of "15 minutes/day adventuring" realm - may mean "never")


I'm confused as to what a "15 minute adventuring day" has to do with Sorcerer spells known.


That's exactly what I am saying because that's how life works. What you describe as "talent" has only ever dictated is how much time and effort a certain individual must put in to a given activity in order to attain a certain threshold in that activity. That is the only difference in the potential between different human beings.


This is beyond ridiculous. I genuinely can't believe what I'm reading. Genetics don't matter, socioeconomic advantages don't matter, language and cultural barriers don't matter, all that matters is "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?" Seriously?


Whenever someone says, "I can't do it. I have no talent," what they are really saying is, "I don't think I can put in the time and effort necessary in order to be as good as I want to be."
Every skill can be learned. Even being determined enough to succeed can be learned.

"Anyone can succeed at anything" is a nice lie, but it leads to the dystopia of "everyone's failures are entirely their own fault".

Now, if everyone were immortal with no worries (say, Necropolitan), would it be true? Could any one of us chosen at random eventual exceed the Sistine Chapel, or the works of Mozart? I don't know - I had never considered it before.

What I can say is, I'm a genius. By the time I was 5, I realized that the bulk of the world was so <insert pejorative here> that they could not understand things that were blindingly obvious to me, even when it was explained to them.

Similarly, I am… somehow physically defective. I can only push so hard, only do so much, before I get sick. And it's just always been that way.

Having lived with both these facts of my existence since preschool age, I am a *very hard sell* on notions of equality of potential.

If someone could ever *learn* to think the ways that come naturally to me, or someone came up and said the equivalent of, "oh, you just need rutabagas in your diet", and magically fixed my physical limitations, I might buy it.

Lacking such evidence, I remain a firm believer in inequality. Yet I struggle to write anyway, because I'd love to be able to do so despite my lack of talent. :smallredface: If I ever make it up to just "bad", well, that'll be an improvement over "gouge your eyes out to keep from reading more". But 3 decades hasn't seen sufficient improvement yet, despite the reading, writing, and studying I've done.

So… how much effort should it take to overcome talent, or a lack thereof? 30 years seems like a lot, in human years. If you tell me it'll take at least that long to teach someone who lacks the talent how to think, forget it. I'll stick to looking for people with talent.

Or, in D&D parlance, if this were true, that talent is irrelevant to potential, then the Sorcerer - or the Fighter - should equal the Wizard, given sufficient optimization. Which… is true. So, this works in D&D land, even if I'm skeptical of its validity IRL.


*puts on morpheus glasses*

What if I told you that this is an awful trope that is overused by awful childrens entertainment, and we shouldn't be trying to emulate in further media because we should be encouraging people to practice to better themselves.

That *is* so much better read in Morpheus's voice :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Consider, too, that wizardry and sorcery are different. They're different classes. You can multiclass and take both! They level up separately and don't stack. There's even a PrC for combining them: Ultimate Magus.

Now, from a design perspective, recall that 3.0 is where sorcerers were invented as the class that gives spontaneous spellcasting. It was thought then that spontaneous casting, even with limited known spells, would be so much more powerful than traditional Vancian casting that it needed to be held back. Hence the delayed spell levels. The increased flexibility of spontaneously adding metamagic, it was deemed, also needed a handicap to balance it: hence the full-round casting action when you do so.

It turned out later that Vancian casting wasn't so much weaker than spontaneous casting, especially with more daily flexibility in what spells to have available at all. And having to pre-decide on your metamagics turned out to be relatively trivial compared to not being able to move and cast.

Thus, it wasn't design intent to make the sorcerer weaker than the wizard, but a lack of understanding of just how the game would turn out to be played and how powerful certain things would be.

[zfs]

Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does? If you genuinely believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to excelling at certain things then there is no point in holding these competitions. It's a foregone conclusion that the people with the "right genes" will win if they put in sufficient effort.

These arguments are the foundation of the eugenics movement.

No, it would stray into that territory if you believe that Michael Phelps's genetic advantages at swimming make him a better/more valuable/more useful person than Average Joe. They make him a better swimmer than Average Joe, which encompasses roughly one one gazillionth of the human capacity for achievement. But Average Joe, with practice, could become a very good swimmer, and a very good runner, and a very good pastry chef. That he will never be quite as good as a select handful of Olympic-level swimmers isn't really saying very much - he could become, through training, better at 100 other disciplines.

[AntiAuthority]

Then again, I ask, what is the point of anyone competing in any event that Phelps does? If you genuinely believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to excelling at certain things then there is no point in holding these competitions. It's a foregone conclusion that the people with the "right genes" will win if they put in sufficient effort.

These arguments are the foundation of the eugenics movement.

Arguing someone is better at a certain subject because they're talented is one thing, trying to argue that someone is better at a certain subject because they're naturally talented and it leads to eugenics is another matter entirely. Reason why this is an issue is... I'll just quote a smarter person than me (in a manner of speaking).


“Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Everyone's naturally gifted at something or another, the thing is that people can go their whole lives without finding it, they might not put much time into nurturing it or they might just not even enjoy the thing(s) they're talented at. Trying to compare it to eugenics falls apart because... What if someone is naturally gifted at athletics, are they somehow more or less valuable than the people who are gifted at arts, or the people who are gifted at mathematics or the people who are more gifted at communication skills or the ones that are naturally more gifted at coding? Everyone has a gift at something or another, this is way too broad to try to apply eugenics. Talent's less like a "you either have it or you don't" type of deal and more like a sliding scale on multiple attributes. You might be a better basketball player than me, but what if I'm a better tennis player than you? Something like that.

Also, about the issue of why bother competing... If you're already in the finals against someone with more talent than you, and you had to go through a very, very selective screening process to get to this point... You're probably really close to this person in ability already. Thing is, people don't exist in a vacuum. The less talented person might be having good day while the more naturally talented one might be suffering from physical ailments or mentally they're not giving their all in the game. There's also the possibility the more talented person is slacking because they're lazier, while the (slightly) less talented person trains harder than them, allowing their work ethic to overcome the lazier, more talented person's gifts.

Finally... Having more talent at something and being bothered you're not the best ever at everything (or even just one thing)... I don't see why that's that big of a deal and leads to "Why bother if I'm not the best and this person is objectively more talented than me?". Let me just come up with a random example about something I know nothing about and just pulling out of thin air: chess. You could be the 7th best chess player in the world according to ranked matches, you routinely compete on an international level and such... And instead of being proud that you're literally one of the best in the world, you're instead miserable that there are 6 people better than you out of how many other people you're a better player than. What's the point in playing chess if you're not the best at it because of some hereditary advantage your higher ranked competitors have? What's the point of doing anything you enjoy if there's a genetic predisposition to winning, and your natural talent for it is lesser than that other person's natural talent? There's always going to be someone better at something, so there's not much point to try anything with this logic... Or you could go and say, "I'm genuinely amazing at this, who cares if I'm not the MVP of all time, I still rock and there's only a handful of people who can claim to be better than me at this thing and I'm clearly one of the best on the planet, that in itself shows how great I am."

[Doctor Awkward]

"Anyone can succeed at anything" is a nice lie, but it leads to the dystopia of "everyone's failures are entirely their own fault".

Now, if everyone were immortal with no worries (say, Necropolitan), would it be true? Could any one of us chosen at random eventual exceed the Sistine Chapel, or the works of Mozart? I don't know - I had never considered it before.

What I can say is, I'm a genius. By the time I was 5, I realized that the bulk of the world was so <insert pejorative here> that they could not understand things that were blindingly obvious to me, even when it was explained to them.

Similarly, I am… somehow physically defective. I can only push so hard, only do so much, before I get sick. And it's just always been that way.

Having lived with both these facts of my existence since preschool age, I am a *very hard sell* on notions of equality of potential.

If someone could ever *learn* to think the ways that come naturally to me, or someone came up and said the equivalent of, "oh, you just need rutabagas in your diet", and magically fixed my physical limitations, I might buy it.

Lacking such evidence, I remain a firm believer in inequality. Yet I struggle to write anyway, because I'd love to be able to do so despite my lack of talent. :smallredface: If I ever make it up to just "bad", well, that'll be an improvement over "gouge your eyes out to keep from reading more". But 3 decades hasn't seen sufficient improvement yet, despite the reading, writing, and studying I've done.

So… how much effort should it take to overcome talent, or a lack thereof? 30 years seems like a lot, in human years. If you tell me it'll take at least that long to teach someone who lacks the talent how to think, forget it. I'll stick to looking for people with talent.

Or, in D&D parlance, if this were true, that talent is irrelevant to potential, then the Sorcerer - or the Fighter - should equal the Wizard, given sufficient optimization. Which… is true. So, this works in D&D land, even if I'm skeptical of its validity IRL.

That's an interesting conclusion that sounds like it's rooted entirely in personal experience. I could just as easily say, "there are just some things you'll never ever succeed at in life," is a nice lie but the problem is that it inevitably leads to the dystopia of, "every time you fail at something it's probably someone else's fault." Reality is obviously much more complicated than that. No one in the history of the world has ever succeeded entirely on their own merit. They've all had parents, teachers, friends, and other loved ones pushing them to the heights that they reached. But unless you have a very good reason to suspect that someone else was actively undermining your efforts (which is sometimes the case), then the main reason for your failure is looking you in the mirror.

The notion that because you personally have never experienced it then it probably doesn't exist is an absolutely stunning level of arrogance, even by my standards. How much effort would or should it take for you to succeed at something? I have no idea because I don't know you. There is no simple answer to that beyond "as much as it takes," because every person is different. My point is only that when you give up on something because you think you have no talent, it's a matter of that activity requiring more effort than you are willing to expend to achieve your desired results.

Also, I've never once needed someone to tell me that they were a genius. It's usually self-evident.


Trying to compare it to eugenics falls apart because... What if someone is naturally gifted at athletics, are they somehow more or less valuable than the people who are gifted at arts, or the people who are gifted at mathematics or the people who are more gifted at communication skills or the ones that are naturally more gifted at coding?

I don't recall ever attempting to assign "value" to any given activity. I'm merely attacking the notion that natural talent is necessary to excel at any given activity. This is not the case. All that matters is your best efforts. If something doesn't come easy to you, then you have to practice more and work harder in order to excel at it. Harder than someone to whom such an activity comes easy. That's all there is to it.

The foundation of eugenics is that people are genetically predisposed to certain activities, and so if you expect to excel then you better have the genes for it. Otherwise it won't matter how hard you work. This is anti-science hot garbage.

[Darg]

Thus, it wasn't design intent to make the sorcerer weaker than the wizard, but a lack of understanding of just how the game would turn out to be played and how powerful certain things would be.

Exactly. I still find it hard to justify 4th or higher scrolls of spells being particularly common considering how long it takes and how costly they are to make. Experience and time is an extremely heavy price to pay, especially as every one wants to keep improving themselves instead of plateauing. But, unregulated magic mart is par for the course when it comes to excessively versatile and OP wizards.

[Asmotherion]

Eh, the delay in spell level access is the thing that is most bothering in Sorcerers.

Other than that, there's plenty of ways to build a Sorcerer that's as versatile as a wizard though Prcs, Items, and Using the Right Spells.

The Polymorph line of spells (Including Shapechange), and the Planar Binding line of Spells alone give you access to plenty of SLAs and Abilities.

[tiercel]

In my experience, talent and hard work can be a bit chicken and egg: hard work can develop talent, but talent can lead to what you decide to work hardest at.

Maybe you have a knack for math; when exposed to a new theorem or operation, you find it always or even often just intuitively *makes sense* and slots into all the other math you’ve learned up to that point. You find you enjoy working in math because it’s often easy, and when it’s not easy, you can still overcome most any problem based on your lessons set to you, and the work is satisfying because you feel a mastery that can be applied to many situations.

Maybe you don’t have a knack for music; you can read the music, and practice the mechanics, but maybe reading and doing the music isn’t the same as hearing, feeling, or being able to express it. Maybe no matter how much you painstakingly train your grip, your fingers, your embouchure, your rhythm, the music never quite... flows. Maybe if you work very, very hard, your music is... passable. Fair. Proficient. But never fully alive, never quite art.

Maybe it’s exactly the other way around! —but regardless, which subject are you going to feel incentivized to put the most work into — the subject that feels easier, makes more sense, and feels more rewarding, or the subject where your best effort might win you the occasional “not bad,” but never any sense of mastery?

Presumably, a wizard has the knack for the “book learning” that will allow her to continually learn and write down one spell after another into her book, giving her a wider range of options, whereas a sorcerer has the knack for “blood magic” that allows him to cast spells through a more immediate form of access, giving him greater flexibility in casting but fewer spells he can ever learn — and so each does the work that follows her or his own knack. (Especially insofar as said knack can be, in part, quanitified as an Intelligence or Charisma score.)

[Quertus]

Exactly. I still find it hard to justify 4th or higher scrolls of spells being particularly common considering how long it takes and how costly they are to make. Experience and time is an extremely heavy price to pay, especially as every one wants to keep improving themselves instead of plateauing. But, unregulated magic mart is par for the course when it comes to excessively versatile and OP wizards.

I thought scrolls always took exactly 1 day to create.


That's an interesting conclusion that sounds like it's rooted entirely in personal experience.

Well, yeah. I have strong evidence *that I've lived through* to suggest that there are problems with your idea, at least outside of a geological timeframe (which, afaik, is beyond standard human capacity).


Reality is obviously much more complicated than that.

Fair.


No one in the history of the world has ever succeeded entirely on their own merit. They've all had parents, teachers, friends, and other loved ones pushing them to the heights that they reached.

Citation needed. That is, afaict, this hypothesis, while not unreasonable, cannot be proven.


But unless you have a very good reason to suspect that someone else was actively undermining your efforts (which is sometimes the case), then the main reason for your failure is looking you in the mirror.

That… doesn't address the role of "nature vs nurture" in such failures. So, even if true, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


The notion that because you personally have never experienced it then it probably doesn't exist is an absolutely stunning level of arrogance, even by my standards.

Why thank you. But you've missed my point. Which is reasonable, because my point is complicated.

Writing is something that I *want* to do. As "not a Necropolitan", there are things that I *need* to do. These needs take priority over wants, greatly reducing the time available to train "wants".

In the ~30 years that this has been a want, I have trained numerous needs and wants, with various amounts of effort put in, at various rates / with variable degrees of success.

Another want/need (jury is out on which) is "clarity of communication". Posting here is (amount other things) an enjoyable way to practice that skill.

Having consumed a substantial chunk of what conventual reality dictates as a human lifespan with not just little gain to certain skills but, based on my experience with skills and the improvement thereof, with a projected expected date of completion of "beyond human expected lifespan", I can only conclude the necessity of a more advanced training program to succeed at your premise of being able to succeed.

However, that "more advanced training program" would likely come with costs - costs which might well interfere with oh so human needs.

Further, just as there is a lack of evidence that *any* "training program" could overcome my physical limitations, there is a similar question of whether a non-omniscient being could even accurately answer what, if anything, would be necessary to progress certain of my skills (which seem as limited as those of an Earthdawn demon).


How much effort would or should it take for you to succeed at something? I have no idea because I don't know you. There is no simple answer to that beyond "as much as it takes," because every person is different.

My question might be more succinctly worded as, "might it not be possible for the required time to exceeded ones natural lifespan?".


My point is only that when you give up on something because you think you have no talent, it's a matter of that activity requiring more effort than you are willing to expend to achieve your desired results.

… I cannot help but be encouraged by those who perform accurate cost/benefit analysis on their own skill set acquisition, and act accordingly.


Also, I've never once needed someone to tell me that they were a genius. It's usually self-evident.

Given my numerous flaws, I do not expect my genius to be any more apparent than my point often is (or isn't).


In my experience, talent and hard work can be a bit chicken and egg: hard work can develop talent, but talent can lead to what you decide to work hardest at.

Maybe you have a knack for math; when exposed to a new theorem or operation, you find it always or even often just intuitively *makes sense* and slots into all the other math you’ve learned up to that point. You find you enjoy working in math because it’s often easy, and when it’s not easy, you can still overcome most any problem based on your lessons set to you, and the work is satisfying because you feel a mastery that can be applied to many situations.

Maybe you don’t have a knack for music; you can read the music, and practice the mechanics, but maybe reading and doing the music isn’t the same as hearing, feeling, or being able to express it. Maybe no matter how much you painstakingly train your grip, your fingers, your embouchure, your rhythm, the music never quite... flows. Maybe if you work very, very hard, your music is... passable. Fair. Proficient. But never fully alive, never quite art.

Maybe it’s exactly the other way around! —but regardless, which subject are you going to feel incentivized to put the most work into — the subject that feels easier, makes more sense, and feels more rewarding, or the subject where your best effort might win you the occasional “not bad,” but never any sense of mastery?

Presumably, a wizard has the knack for the “book learning” that will allow her to continually learn and write down one spell after another into her book, giving her a wider range of options, whereas a sorcerer has the knack for “blood magic” that allows him to cast spells through a more immediate form of access, giving him greater flexibility in casting but fewer spells he can ever learn — and so each does the work that follows her or his own knack. (Especially insofar as said knack can be, in part, quanitified as an Intelligence or Charisma score.)

That's a curious example. IRL, *usually*, mathematical and musical aptitude show a high correspondence; it is rare for one to be exceptionally good at one, and exceptionally bad at the other. Earthdawn Demons and myself notwithstanding. :smallfrown:

[AntiAuthority]

Everyone in real life has the same potential because we are all human beings. Some people might reach certain thresholds with less training than others, but the theoretical limits to what is capable with sufficient effort are the same.



The foundation of eugenics is that people are genetically predisposed to certain activities, and so if you expect to excel then you better have the genes for it. Otherwise it won't matter how hard you work. This is anti-science hot garbage.


So the reason there are no blind snipers in the military is because they didn't work hard enough and put in enough hours?


If you honestly believe that there is a human genome that makes one predisposed towards being very good at weightlifting then I don't know what to tell you, other than you are denying science.

About genes not having much say on whether people can build muscle or not, and saying otherwise is denying science... Scientists agree that genetics affect strength, whether it's through sexual dimorphism, different body types that let them build muscle faster or in some cases people that have genetics that make them superhumanly strong because their minds don't hold back their muscles as much as other kids. One kid that was in elementary, IIRC, was strong enough to pick up his muscular father and the chair he was sitting on (possibly with one hand, might have been two, it's been years since I've seen this video)... You can't tell a bunch of kids without the genetic quirk to do the same thing if they just train hard enough, I think you'd be hard pressed to find adults capable of doing something like that (as an aside, the kid's father was a martial artist or something to that effect). Can you explain how you got the claim that science was against genetics affecting muscle, because I'm failing to see how this is denying science or what I said is anti-science trash when science explains this and is saying otherwise.

[tiercel]

That's a curious example. IRL, *usually*, mathematical and musical aptitude show a high correspondence; it is rare for one to be exceptionally good at one, and exceptionally bad at the other. Earthdawn Demons and myself notwithstanding. :smallfrown:

“High correspondence” is certainly not “perfect correspondence”; in particular, while being naturally talented in one may be correlated with a knack for the other, (A) this does not always obtain and (B) in my experience, it is also rare to be exceptionally good at one and exceptionally good at the other — it seems to me rather more common that being exceptionally good at one seems to be linked with being reasonably good at the other. (+2 synergy bonus?)

That said, one could choose any two, more disparate, fields of study/accomplishment and I believe my general argument and its return to the wizard/sorcerer question at hand would still stand.

[KoDT69]

I'm really not sure why the conversation has still been so far off the rails. Regardless of real world examples and opinions, I was talking about a mechanical difference by RAW that disagreed with the fluff contained in the same sourcebook. Crack open your 3.5 Player's Handbook and reread the entries as I have just done.

It says the Sorcerer's magic is "inborn talent honed by practice" right in the opening description. Claims of lazy Sorcerers NOT putting in the work goes against RAW.

The Wizard's magic is "not an inborn talent, but and art that they work to improve".

So it says by RAW they both put in the work. Period. Literally my whole point was that one class has what logically seems like an advantage written in, but it doesn't line up with the mechanical rules. I do think it was an attempt at balance in 3.0 but they knew fully how the game actually plays out by 3.5 but they chose not to fix those issues. Why? My guess is that the author's preference for the Wizard left them indifferent about making changes.

I'm not anti-Wizard either. Looking back at 26 years of character sheets and I didn't even remember how many Wizards were in the pile.

[zfs]

I mean, obviously Sorcerers are putting in work to get more powerful - that's what the XP needed to progress from Level 1 to level 20 is. That's different than a creature whose magic is so innate that it improves simply by aging, like a Dragon.

[Batcathat]

So it says by RAW they both put in the work. Period. Literally my whole point was that one class has what logically seems like an advantage written in, but it doesn't line up with the mechanical rules. I do think it was an attempt at balance in 3.0 but they knew fully how the game actually plays out by 3.5 but they chose not to fix those issues. Why? My guess is that the author's preference for the Wizard left them indifferent about making changes.

Again, a sorcerer isn't "wizard but with extra talent". It's a different kind of caster. Saying they should be more powerful because they're born with it is like saying clerics should be more powerful because they're granted it by a deity.

[Darg]

I thought scrolls always took exactly 1 day to create.

They take 1 day per 1000 gp in the base cost. Starting from 5th level spells it takes more than a single day. Still, a student is always learning and not many high level casters would sit around mass producing high level spell scrolls to sell which costs them their experience and time beyond simply making the scrolls.

[KoDT69]

Again, a sorcerer isn't "wizard but with extra talent". It's a different kind of caster. Saying they should be more powerful because they're born with it is like saying clerics should be more powerful because they're granted it by a deity.

They are both full arcane casters. It really doesn't matter as other than that not of fluff, there is no RAW differentiation as to the class making a difference outside the given mechanical rules. All the other stuff is just opinions. Unless you can provide a 3.5 entry from the PHB where both classes are introduced that specifically says "wizards are supposed to be better because they can't different". It reads as 2 ways to access arcane magic.
It's also funny that you bring up Clerics. I almost did that myself. I know the group think is all for the idea wizards should be #1 no matter what, but simply put, it would make more sense that magic powered by a deity would be more powerful. Is there a reason that you think some mortal dude SHOULD or COULD have stronger magic than a deity? What about a Cleric of Mystra? You're welcome to stick with the bandwagon, but I'm not afraid to do things my own way or share an unpopular opinion.
Again, it's irrelevant to the point of this thread.

[Segev]

Exactly. I still find it hard to justify 4th or higher scrolls of spells being particularly common considering how long it takes and how costly they are to make. Experience and time is an extremely heavy price to pay, especially as every one wants to keep improving themselves instead of plateauing. But, unregulated magic mart is par for the course when it comes to excessively versatile and OP wizards.

Even a 9th level spell scroll is only 8 days' work and 304 XP (a trivial amount of XP at level 17). The eight days of work sounds like a lot, yeah, but 9th level spells are powerful and the thing that even high-level wizards have to most carefully pick what to have prepared. 8 days to have a niche 9th level spell perfect for rarely-occurring situations can be very nice, without consuming a spell slot preparing it. Staves are way, way better, of course.

[Batcathat]

They are both full arcane casters. It really doesn't matter as other than that not of fluff, there is no RAW differentiation as to the class making a difference outside the given mechanical rules.

So... there's no differences between them in the rules except the difference in rule mechanics?


All the other stuff is just opinions. Unless you can provide a 3.5 entry from the PHB where both classes are introduced that specifically says "wizards are supposed to be better because they can't different". It reads as 2 ways to access arcane magic.

Yes, exactly. It's two different ways to access arcane magic so you saying that sorcerors "should" be better because their way is inherited doesn't make any sense to me. They don't have more talent than wizards for the same thing, they have talent for a different (if similar) thing.


It's also funny that you bring up Clerics. I almost did that myself. I know the group think is all for the idea wizards should be #1 no matter what, but simply put, it would make more sense that magic powered by a deity would be more powerful. Is there a reason that you think some mortal dude SHOULD or COULD have stronger magic than a deity? What about a Cleric of Mystra? You're welcome to stick with the bandwagon, but I'm not afraid to do things my own way or share an unpopular opinion.
Again, it's irrelevant to the point of this thread.

Oh, you're so brave and I'm clearly just clinging to the bandwagon. :smallconfused:

I don't like wizards being as strong as they are and if I made my own version of D&D I'd nerf wizards (and sorcerers) so hard their grandkids would feel it. That's not the point I'm arguing. I'm disagreeing with your conclusion that sorcerers "should" be stronger than wizards because their way of doing magic is inherited.

[KoDT69]

It's ok that we disagree. My point is that the mechanics described are class features not actually about how they access the magic.
I believe if one person by the book has a natural talent, and another doesn't, then it would make sense to have some sort of advantage.
Another thing is that there is no RAW definition of Sorcery or Wizardry. They are both full arcane casters. I'm open to citations of those if they exist, but it's just opinion that they are different if not specifically stated in the book.

[AntiAuthority]

It's ok that we disagree. My point is that the mechanics described are class features not actually about how they access the magic.
I believe if one person by the book has a natural talent, and another doesn't, then it would make sense to have some sort of advantage.
Another thing is that there is no RAW definition of Sorcery or Wizardry. They are both full arcane casters. I'm open to citations of those if they exist, but it's just opinion that they are different if not specifically stated in the book.

Maybe not the whole solution, but Sorcerers are usually (as far as I know) self-taught and figuring it out as they go along while Wizards have institutions that teach them the basics of magic and instructors to help them figure out how to best apply themselves. Basically a street fighter vs trained fighter type deal.

[KoDT69]

Maybe not the whole solution, but Sorcerers are usually (as far as I know) self-taught and figuring it out as they go along while Wizards have institutions that teach them the basics of magic and instructors to help them figure out how to best apply themselves. Basically a street fighter vs trained fighter type deal.
This is a reasonable argument. Being that the PHB doesn't really define hard and fast rules for the level of training, it gives me an idea for a plot hook in my next campaign. I mean, Wizard School is Wizard School right? Your Hogwarts education is equal to Joe Blow's Discount Wizard Academy... Or does it? :smallwink:

[Batcathat]

I believe if one person by the book has a natural talent, and another doesn't, then it would make sense to have some sort of advantage.

If they did the exact same thing I would agree with you but neither the mechanics nor what fluff there is makes it seem that way. If your interpretation is correct, why do wizard/sorcerer multiclass characters exist? If the intent was for sorcerers to be "wizards, but more naturally talented" you'd think the actual mechanics would reflect that (granted, it wouldn't be the first time the crunch didn't reflect the fluff, but still).

[KoDT69]

Why do wizard/sorcerer multiclasses exist? That's really a silly question. 3.5 was around for a long time and had a rigorous book publishing schedule. PrC's combining 2 casting classes exist for pretty much any combination. There was enough content created to cover most things, combine them, whatever. Variety. Options. Has zero to do with the classes being compared to each other. PrC's can combine Bards and Druids. Doesn't mean they are the same, nor does it imply that they were intended to be as such.

[Batcathat]

My point is that the fact that a sorcerer can take levels of wizard supports the idea that while both are arcane casters, they aren't doing the same thing the same way (and thus a sorcerer being born with it doesn't mean anything for its power or ability compared to a wizard).

[Darg]

Even a 9th level spell scroll is only 8 days' work and 304 XP (a trivial amount of XP at level 17). The eight days of work sounds like a lot, yeah, but 9th level spells are powerful and the thing that even high-level wizards have to most carefully pick what to have prepared. 8 days to have a niche 9th level spell perfect for rarely-occurring situations can be very nice, without consuming a spell slot preparing it. Staves are way, way better, of course.

I think you doubled it somewhere: level × CL × 25gp.

The point is not that it takes an extreme amount of time. The point is that there wouldn't be many high level casters motivated to mass produce high level scrolls. Point one is handing your possible enemies weapons to hurt you. Point two is that you lose hard won experience that you put time and effort into so most of the time you want to minimize how many you make and keep it to how many you need. Point 3 is that because spellcasters generally want to keep their knowledge hidden as trump cards they'll try very hard not to expose those secrets.

[Segev]

I think you doubled it somewhere: level × CL × 25gp.

The point is not that it takes an extreme amount of time. The point is that there wouldn't be many high level casters motivated to mass produce high level scrolls. Point one is handing your possible enemies weapons to hurt you. Point two is that you lose hard won experience that you put time and effort into so most of the time you want to minimize how many you make and keep it to how many you need. Point 3 is that because spellcasters generally want to keep their knowledge hidden as trump cards they'll try very hard not to expose those secrets.

You're right; I was working from x50, not x25. My mistake!

And I don't think it's so much "mass production." I always assumed that high level scrolls were probably bespoke. Or at least somewhat limited-run. Not necessarily to the point it's hard to find one if you're of a level to buy them, but definitely to the point that you won't find shelves and shelves of them in your local magic-mart.

And also, maybe not every wizard has adventurer money, and even at high level could use 1000ish gp (profit) for 3 days' work and a trivial 304 XP.

[Blazeteck]

i completely agree with op on this

[Darg]

You're right; I was working from x50, not x25. My mistake!

And I don't think it's so much "mass production." I always assumed that high level scrolls were probably bespoke. Or at least somewhat limited-run. Not necessarily to the point it's hard to find one if you're of a level to buy them, but definitely to the point that you won't find shelves and shelves of them in your local magic-mart.

And also, maybe not every wizard has adventurer money, and even at high level could use 1000ish gp (profit) for 3 days' work and a trivial 304 XP.

It's not that I don't think that spells are entirely uncommon. It's just that certain spells are more likely to be traded than others. You probably aren't going to be able to find a Finger of Death anywhere reliably. Your local stone masonry guild might employ a wizard that is capable of casting Wall of Stone, but at the same time could be under contract not to sell/give away scrolls without permission. The reason I said 4th or higher was that you start getting into some pretty unique stuff of a level above your average prodigy.