Wizard Hypocrisy Towards Sorcerers

[RatElemental]

I think Harry Potter is probably the worst place to look for a comparison between naturally gifted mages and ones who had to study, seeing as all wizards in Harry Potter are kind of a mix between D&D sorcerers and wizards. While shaping your magic is something you can do through study, the ability to do magic has at least somewhat of a genetic component It can be entirely impossible to do magic if you weren't "born right" even if both your parents are wizards themselves.

[MoiMagnus]

Honestly, this is pretty dumb.
Divine magic is probably the closest you can get to the realm of true magic.

There is a difference between divine magic as "you are a god shaping the world" and divine magic as "you are a cleric praying for your god to shape the world".

It's not unreasonable for wizards to compare cleric to magic-item users or scroll-users: someone who borrows power from someone else who does the real job. With this mindset, wizards would rather see them as equals to gods (though really young ones) rather than to clerics.

[Peelee]

There is a difference between divine magic as "you are a god shaping the world" and divine magic as "you are a cleric praying for your god to shape the world".

It's not unreasonable for wizards to compare cleric to magic-item users or scroll-users: someone who borrows power from someone else who does the real job. With this mindset, wizards would rather see them as equals to gods (though really young ones) rather than to clerics.

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

[dancrilis]

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

They can still prepare read magic....

[RatElemental]

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart.

[Peelee]

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart.

And how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical wizard's belief in their superiority over a cleric based on the power source? Yes, if you take away the carpenter's saw, they cannot work, but the carpenter doesn't think they're better than the stonemason.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Harry Potter is probably the worst place to look

True.

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart.

Also true, you are two for two!

[RatElemental]

And how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical wizard's belief in their superiority over a cleric based on the power source? Yes, if you take away the carpenter's saw, they cannot work, but the carpenter doesn't think they're better than the stonemason.

What does your hypothetical have to do with it either? Remove the stonemason's tools and they cannot work, either. Remove the cleric's god and they're just a man in a funny hat, too.

But the cleric can't simply start working on a new book, using nothing but their own personal research to fill the pages if that happens. The wizard can.

[Peelee]

What does your hypothetical have to do with it either? Remove the stonemason's tools and they cannot work, either. Remove the cleric's god and they're just a man in a funny hat, too.

Yes, that is the point. The wizard looking down on the cleric when they're effectively in the same boat is foolish in the wizard's part.

"Remove the clerics God and they're just a person in a funny hat" is why the wizard is asserting superiority, but take the wizards spell book away and they're just a person in funny hat. You have indeed managed to get the exact point.

But the cleric can't simply start working on a new book, using nothing but their own personal research to fill the pages if that happens. The wizard can.

Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

ETA: Further, wizards can only fill a new spellbook with the spells they already have prepared, so that's actually worse.

[dancrilis]

Yes, that is the point. The wizard looking down on the cleric when they're effectively in the same boat is foolish in the wizard's part.

"Remove the clerics God and they're just a person in a funny hat" is why the wizard is asserting superiority, but take the wizards spell book away and they're just a person in funny hat. You have indeed managed to get the exact point.


Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

A Cleric can also take up the causes they associated with their old god and get their power back, a Wizard is much worse off as a new spellbook will cost a fortune for them to get back where they were.

[RatElemental]

Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

ETA: Further, wizards can only fill a new spellbook with the spells they already have prepared, so that's actually worse.

The rest of that is a fair point, but I think these aren't quite as good as you think they are. A cleric, should they lose their god, has to devote themselves to an entirely different god or completely change their outlook (becoming a philosophy cleric)

The wizard can jot down what they have memorized, true, but I was talking specifically about spell research. Wipe out all known magic, and all the gods. The wizards will be set back quite a bit, but they can reresearch all of the spells that were lost. The clerics will never recover those lost gods, and will have to make due without them, and depending on the setting may or may not be permanently reduced to MIAFH status.

[Peelee]

The rest of that is a fair point, but I think these aren't quite as good as you think they are. A cleric, should they lose their god, has to devote themselves to an entirely different god or completely change their outlook (becoming a philosophy cleric)

The wizard can jot down what they have memorized, true, but I was talking specifically about spell research. Wipe out all known magic, and all the gods. The wizards will be set back quite a bit, but they can reresearch all of the spells that were lost. The clerics will never recover those lost gods, and will have to make due without them, and depending on the setting may or may not be permanently reduced to MIAFH status.

Fair, but the wizard still needs a research laboratory, IIRC, and clerics can be clerics of causes.

All that being said, druids, rangers, paladins, and others all use divine magic without gods, so targeting clerics just because they're pious doesn't really give any brownie points either.

And it doesn't really seem ideal to say "in a setting where clerics need gods and all gods are removed clerics are SOL" when I can just say "sure and in a setting where arcane magic just goes poof wizards are SOL."

[RatElemental]

Fair, but the wizard still needs a research laboratory, IIRC, and clerics can be clerics of causes.

All that being said, druids, rangers, paladins, and others all use divine magic without gods, so targeting clerics just because they're pious doesn't really give any brownie points either.

And it doesn't really seem ideal to say "in a setting where clerics need gods and all gods are removed clerics are SOL" when I can just say "sure and in a setting where arcane magic just goes poof wizards are SOL."

And the cleric needs a temple, the fighter needs a forge, the ranger needs a fletcher, etc.

I think we've hit a fundamental difference in assumptions here. I have trouble envisioning a setting where arcane magic doesn't work but divine magic does, and always viewed a setting without magic as one where wizards and clerics both are SOL.

The other divine caster classes have always been a weird case, they seem to work more or less the same way cause clerics do but somehow end up being an entirely different class. Well, except for archivist, which can basically be summed up as "What if a cleric was a wizard?"

[Peelee]

And the cleric needs a temple

I don't recall that being necessary in RAW, no.

ETA: Actually, ignore that. I think were getting too bogged down in the details. My overall point is that it would be foolish for wizards to look down on clerical magic because of the source of that magic.

[Keltest]

I don't recall that being necessary in RAW, no.

ETA: Actually, ignore that. I think were getting too bogged down in the details. My overall point is that it would be foolish for wizards to look down on clerical magic because of the source of that magic.

Still not sure how you figure that. Wizards have their hands directly on the fabric of reality. Clerics ask somebody else to do it. The practical effects may be the same, or at least similar, but there is very much a "I am the power" versus "I work for the power" divide there.

[Peelee]

Still not sure how you figure that. Wizards have their hands directly on the fabric of reality. Clerics ask somebody else to do it. The practical effects may be the same, or at least similar, but there is very much a "I am the power" versus "I work for the power" divide there.

But the wizards are not the power. They still get their power from a book. No book, no power. They know how to get the power. If you want to look at it that way, it's sorcerers who espouse "I am the power."

So if wizards look down on clerics because they are not "I am the power", then surely wizards must respect sorcerers for embodying "I am the power". And yet wizards have disdain for sorcerers specifically because of this. It's as if wizards like this are hypocritical asses who just want to say "I'm better than those people" and just move the goalposts when those goalposts are inconvenient for their arguments.

[Fyraltari]

But the wizards are not the power. They still get their power from a book.

Where does the book come from?

[dancrilis]

Where does the book come from?

Bookmaker's shop.

[Fyraltari]

Bookmaker's shop.

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

Edit: because this video states that wizards are the ones writing spells into their books. It’s about fifth edition, though, but if it’s true for 3.5, then the spellbooks aren’t so much an external source of power than a convienent place to put the stuff they made themselves and arguing that relying on a book is the same as relying on another creature for power is a bit like claiming the guy who came in by bike didn’t make a greater effort than the one who drove in because they both used a vehicle.

[dancrilis]

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained.

[Fyraltari]

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained.

Yeah, so it’s not an external source of power, then. It’s a tool.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, so it’s not an external source of power, then. It’s a tool.

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

[Fyraltari]

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

If that were the case, wouldn’t the ink bottle be enough? And wouldn’t the power run out of the book after a finite number of usages?

[RatElemental]

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.

Arcane Magical Writings

To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll.

This doesn't say anything about the ink being magical, just a complex encoded spell formula that describes the spell to be cast. If a wizard's book were like a scroll then anyone could just pick up a wizard's book and start casting.

Additionally, there's variant rules for scribing spells, allowing you to "scribe" individual spells as a figurine or runed bone, or even encode it in the geometric shapes of a building. These things are explicitly not magical as described, the spell is just 'written' in a very nonstandard way.

ETA:

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained.

That comic doesn't say the ink is magical either. Just expensive.

Edit 2, Arcane Boogaloo: I also believe the 350 GP quoted is because of this line in the scribing rules, which is the only place I can find a cost for scribing scrolls:

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

[Peelee]

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

[Doug Lampert]

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.



This doesn't say anything about the ink being magical, just a complex encoded spell formula that describes the spell to be cast. If a wizard's book were like a scroll then anyone could just pick up a wizard's book and start casting.

Additionally, there's variant rules for scribing spells, allowing you to "scribe" individual spells as a figurine or runed bone, or even encode it in the geometric shapes of a building. These things are explicitly not magical as described, the spell is just 'written' in a very nonstandard way.

ETA:


That comic doesn't say the ink is magical either. Just expensive.

There's also the Spell Mastery feat in the PHB, which allows a wizard to prepare some spells without a spellbook. And any wizard can prepare Read Magic without a book.

Basically, any claim that wizards get their spells from a magical book falls down on the facts that (1) the book is non-magical and (2) they don't necessarily need the book and (3) the wizards are the ones who write the books (in fact, since the encoding of a spell is personal, they each have to write their own) and (4) a wizard can write a book and research spells even if he does not have a spell-book.

[Fyraltari]

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

Look is the discussion about wizards vs clerics or wizards vs sorcerers, here?

[RatElemental]

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

An adventuring wizard's book will be mostly from levels, scrolls looted and books lifted from dead enemy wizards, yes. But for nonadventuring wizards (and adventuring ones who have some downtime):

Independent Research

A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.

All this costs the wizard is the time, space, and ink. Or they can scribe the spells into the foundations of their home, and prepare their spells from that. Or tattoo them onto their body. Or have a few back up books.

A wizard without a book is a fighter without a sword, or rogue without their dagger, or a sorcerer without their spell component pouch. Complaining that they need tools to do what they do and therefore they aren't the ones dealing more closely with the fundamentals of magic just doesn't make sense. The only ones tinkering with magic on that level other than wizards are the gods.

[dancrilis]

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

This is a fair enough comment technically it is 100gp per page (which could be ink, fancy pens etc), my comment on magic ink was more adhoc then it should have been for the conversation.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOver...intoaSpellbook

The inner quote is what a wizard would charge you for the privilege of learning their spells.

Edit 2, Arcane Boogaloo: I also believe the 350 GP quoted is because of this line in the scribing rules, which is the only place I can find a cost for scribing scrolls:

The reason it is 350gp rather the 700gp is because 350gp would be a theoritical crafting price if only the ink accounted for the 700gp.

If that were the case, wouldn’t the ink bottle be enough? And wouldn’t the power run out of the book after a finite number of usages?

To me more blunt rather then adhoc.
A Wizard needs a tool to help them prepare for them it is a spellbook (normally) for a Cleric it is a God (normally) other such tools exist - but the point is effectively that Wizards and Clerics both need tools in a way that sorcerers and psions do not - as such wizards looking down on other casters is arrogance without firm justification rather then the natural order of things.
Wizards (some at least) believe that they are superior because they study and are able to follow arcane rules, rather then having innate understanding and so having 'unearned' arcane power, or being able to follow divine rules and so having 'unearned' divine power.

All this costs the wizard is the time, space, and ink.

So a wizard without access to ink is doomed if they lose a spellbook - where effectively every other caster has an easy enough time continuing without any tool (subject to not being overly reliant on material components).

A wizard without a book is a fighter without a sword, or rogue without their dagger, or a sorcerer without their spell component pouch.

A figher without a sword can use a rock (so can a rogue) and a sorcerer likely has spells without components (even ignoring the Eschew Materials/Ignore Material Components feats).

The only ones tinkering with magic on that level other than wizards are the gods.

'Other than wizards' imply that wizards tinker with magic on the level of gods - virtually every other caster can tinker with reality in the same way as wizards do (to a greater or lesser extent).

[RatElemental]

This is a fair enough comment technically it is 100gp per page (which could be ink, fancy pens etc), my comment on magic ink was more adhoc then it should have been for the conversation.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOver...intoaSpellbook

The inner quote is what a wizard would charge you for the privilege of learning their spells.


The reason it is 350gp rather the 700gp is because 350gp would be a theoritical crafting price if only the ink accounted for the 700gp.

My point in those posts was that nowhere does anything say the ink inside of a spellbook is magical, and there's plenty to suggest it is not.

So a wizard without access to ink is doomed if they lose a spellbook - where effectively every other caster has an easy enough time continuing without any tool (subject to not being overly reliant on material components).

A figher without a sword can use a rock (so can a rogue) and a sorcerer likely has spells without components (even ignoring the Eschew Materials/Ignore Material Components feats).

The wizard can pick up that rock and probably do about as well with it as the fighter would, unless that fighter had specialized in slings or thrown weapons before. Wizards also have several options to lessen the impact of losing their book. Aside form the ones I already mentioned, there's feats that let them internalize a small number of spells so they can prepare them completely from memory, and of course they can pick up practically any staff or wand and put it to use without even needing to roll UMD.

'Other than wizards' imply that wizards tinker with magic on the level of gods - virtually every other caster can tinker with reality in the same way as wizards do (to a greater or lesser extent).

I said tinkering with magic, not tinkering with reality. All casters warp reality to some extent, but wizards have it as their shtick that they are the ones who discover the rules of magic, and use them to invent new things. There's a reason a bunch of spells have the name of a wizard attached to them: That was the wizard who pioneered that specific spell, and in some cases invented entire lines of spells (see: Bugsby and his hands).

The spell research rules leave it as a possibility for sorcerers to discover new spells, but due to the nature of how their magic works it's nearly impossible for them to share, and they're limited in their arsenal anyway. Same for bards. Clerics are the odd man out here, the spell research rules for them have never made much sense, and how they do it has changed in practically every edition it's been possible for PCs to research spells.