| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
rodrigoalcanza
Seeker
Brazil
67 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 19:15:45
|
There is an interesting topic in Forum Wizards over Sorcerers in D&D. It is based on this article: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224 (Legends & Lore: Sorcerers in D&D Next). I would like to bring some ideas for this forum.
I like the sorcerer class, but I think the class disrupts the concept of wizard class. When it says that the sorcerer has innate talent for magic, learning spell in a natural way, and that the wizards need to study, this makes us understand that the wizard is a person who does not have (or need not) natual talent for magic. He has only to study and learn magic ... any person who studies (and has intellect) could be a wizard.
In the tradition of D&D, being a wizard or priest, it was necessary to have innate talent for magic. It was not enough to be smart ( high ability score), but a gift for magic. Of course a wizard also has a talent for magic. The sorcerer would be a different gift. Great wizards are people with great innate talent for magic. Some wizards in childhood showed great grift for magic, cast spells as a child.
Rastlin has no talent for magic? More than most people? Karsus? Elminster and many other nor so famous and powerful. In Forgotten Realms, for example, there Halruaa, which is a land where people have naturally arcanca gift for magic, especially wizard. The elves also has great talent for magic, especially the wizard class. It would not be the case with dwarfs, even with high intelligence, lack , such as race, great talent for arcane magic.
The sorcerer must be well defined to not confuse things about the concept of wizards. With the concept of the sorcerer without good explanations, IMHO, wizards cease to be people born with a gift for magic and become intelligent people who simply studied an academic discipline. Would a scientist who studies quantum physics, for example.
I think both wizards and sorcerers have a gift for magic, but each in his own way. My concern is the official books treat this subject. The concept of the sorcerer class if not well explained, can make the class wizard lose his mystique and grandeur.
In the comments of the original article has a great answer about the difference between natural talent for magic of a wizard and a sorcerer. Posted By: Overpain (06.03.2014 9:48:16), http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224 (Legends & Lore: Sorcerers in D&D Next).
So ... what is your opinion?
Sorry my english.
|
Edited by - rodrigoalcanza on 17 May 2014 02:50:15
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1607 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 19:27:19
|
Hi, Rodrigo.
I've made a compilation of books and sources (from FR to Dragonlance and other 2e and 3.5 books) and prepared a document about magic for my PCs, and from there I have this:
"Not everyone is capable of casting spells, however.
This ability requires a certain amount of aptitude
and/or dedication, depending on the type of spells
cast. Wizard spells are best mastered by those with
keen intelligence and patience for the long years of
study that are required. Priest spells call for inner
peace and faith and an intense devotion to one's
calling. The vast majority of people lacks these traits
or has never had the opportunity to develop them.
The baker may be a bright and clever fellow but,
following in his father's footsteps, he has spent his
life learning the arts of bread making. There has simply
been no time in his life for the study of old books and
crumbling scrolls. The hard-working peasant may be pious
and upright in his faith, but he lacks the time for the
contemplative and scholarly training required of a priest.
So it is only a fortunate few who have the ability and
opportunity to learn the arcane lore of spellcasting."
I just don't remember the exact sources, and which parts were written or edited by me, and which ones were from one of these sources.
EDIT: format |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
Edited by - Barastir on 07 Mar 2014 19:28:07 |
 |
|
|
Kris the Grey
Senior Scribe
USA
422 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 19:48:52
|
| Volo's Guide to All Things Magical (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Volo's_Guide_to_All_Things_Magical) has a good discussion of this issue relative to wizards versus 'wild talents' (of the magical as opposed to psionic sort) that I know has been mentioned before here on the keep. |
Kris the Grey - Member in Good Standing of the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, the Arcane Guild of Silverymoon, and the Connecticut Bar Association |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8066 Posts |
Posted - 07 Mar 2014 : 23:15:27
|
1E Magic-Users and 2E Wizards - along with their clumsy spellbooks, scrolls, and Vancian warts - are, to my mind, what proper (A)D&D is all about.
Sorcerors were introduced circa-3E, although later 2E (“2.5E“) optional rule systems provided passable ways to simulate Sorceror class abilities. Ed has oft remarked, in retrospect, that Sorcerors are well-suited to his original conception of spellcasters in the Realms. He‘s also stated that Sorcerors have always been present in the Realms, which I accept is the final official word yet which I don‘t readily accept in my own Realms gaming. I also refuse to accept the presence of Sorcerors (by whatever name) in Ancient Netheril - it‘s just an ugly fit which isn‘t consistent with olde Netheril lore, why invent complex sophistications to justify little retcons which aren‘t necessary or naturally workable, eh?
As you can tell, I don‘t really like Sorcerors and I feel they dilute the flavour of Wizards and magic ... not unlike the way Psionics did ... it‘s a slippery slope from Sorcerors to Warlocks to 4E-styled “At-Will“ powers to Jedi Knights and invulnerable mutant superdemihumans from planet Krypton.
To be sure, Sorcerors have their merits. And I‘ve doubtlessly missed out on some excellent Sorceror-based fun over the years. But I just don‘t think they belong in this game and I have plenty of fun with Wizards. Best wishes to those of you who love Sorcerors. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 07 Mar 2014 23:21:23 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4704 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2014 : 00:33:34
|
In many ways innate casters have existed in the Realms and D&D, Sirens, Harpies, Sprites all have magical ability as a matter of race. The list clearly can be much longer of magical creatures or monsters. What has been expanded is number of races that can have innate magical ability.
How the game limits magic clearly can be an issue as well as how it allows access to magic. The RW myths clearly have indicated that users of magic had limits of how much magic they could cast before needed rest or being defeated because magic was not there to save. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2014 : 04:54:42
|
I myself am a huge fan of sorcerers, and I don't see any issues with them existing alongside wizards. I honestly prefer sorcerers, because they don't have to do the wizardly gig of deciding what's going to happen during the day and trying to prepare for it.
A wizard who is properly prepared for a given situation will of course absolutely rock out in that situation... But if he prepares for scenarios A, B, and C, and then find himself in scenario Q, he's screwed. A sorcerer may have few spells, but as long as he's got slots, he's always prepared.
To me, it comes down to this: fewer spells but always ready, or more spells but a serious risk of having the wrong ones. I'll take the former over the latter any day. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2526 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2014 : 06:21:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Sorcerors were introduced circa-3E, although later 2E (“2.5E“) optional rule systems provided passable ways to simulate Sorceror class abilities.
They used a time machine to simulate the next release? 
quote:
Ed has oft remarked, in retrospect, that Sorcerors are well-suited to his original conception of spellcasters in the Realms. He‘s also stated that Sorcerors have always been present in the Realms, which I accept is the final official word
Yes, but did he get into more specifics? Because one thing is pony-magic and "the dragons did everyone, literally"  fan****, and entirely another is Channeler version. Because that one makes sense and also fits with being rare: prime attributes Wis and Con, but if someone wants magic and have Wisdom to train as a channeler, why not just become a Dweomerkeeper and have better contact with the Weave?
quote:
As you can tell, I don‘t really like Sorcerors and I feel they dilute the flavour of Wizards and magic ... not unlike the way Psionics did ...
How so? Unless under "Psionics" you mean 3e weirdness, but that did not as much "dilute the flavour" as "fail to make sense and fit into existing settings or even Planescape cosmology".
Also, the flavour exists only in context of a setting. Which is where 3.x failed: randomly piling everything together didn't enrich the flavour, but created a junkyard that composted everything down to the lowest common denominator. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4495 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2014 : 15:28:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I myself am a huge fan of sorcerers, and I don't see any issues with them existing alongside wizards. I honestly prefer sorcerers, because they don't have to do the wizardly gig of deciding what's going to happen during the day and trying to prepare for it.
Agreed. If I'm going to play any arcane spellcaster in a v3.5 game, I'll probably choose Sorcerer over wizard. However I clearly see that the Sorcerer severely lacks class features the wizards gets, namely 5 additional feats. I often ask if the DM will let me grab Eschew Materials at 1st level as a bonus feat and then either Bloodline feats or meta-magic feats at the same progression as the wizard. Rarely is this request denied.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
A wizard who is properly prepared for a given situation will of course absolutely rock out in that situation... But if he prepares for scenarios A, B, and C, and then find himself in scenario Q, he's screwed. A sorcerer may have few spells, but as long as he's got slots, he's always prepared.
The biggest resource the Wizard has at his direct disposal (in v3.5) is the ability to write scrolls. Scrolls are literally spell-batteries. With enough scrolls a wizard doesn't necessarily need to be uber-prepared. He just needs enough to get by and allow his scrolls to do the versatility for him. Wizards don't prepare Knock, they have a scroll or wand for that (or, if need be, a Rogue present at low levels). Same with Fire Shield or Feather Fall or Unseen Servant. These are extremely useful spells, but ones that are best not prepared.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
To me, it comes down to this: fewer spells but always ready, or more spells but a serious risk of having the wrong ones. I'll take the former over the latter any day.
Yea, if someone is well versed in v3.5 system mastery and the plethora of splat books are allowed, A sorcerer only needs a few specific spells and can get by with the multitude of castings of them over the versatility of a wizard. Plus they can use scrolls and wands just as easily as a Wizard can. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
rodrigoalcanza
Seeker
Brazil
67 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 15:11:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Barastir
Hi, Rodrigo.
I've made a compilation of books and sources (from FR to Dragonlance and other 2e and 3.5 books) and prepared a document about magic for my PCs, and from there I have this:
"Not everyone is capable of casting spells, however.
This ability requires a certain amount of aptitude
and/or dedication, depending on the type of spells
cast. Wizard spells are best mastered by those with
keen intelligence and patience for the long years of
study that are required. Priest spells call for inner
peace and faith and an intense devotion to one's
calling. The vast majority of people lacks these traits
or has never had the opportunity to develop them.
The baker may be a bright and clever fellow but,
following in his father's footsteps, he has spent his
life learning the arts of bread making. There has simply
been no time in his life for the study of old books and
crumbling scrolls. The hard-working peasant may be pious
and upright in his faith, but he lacks the time for the
contemplative and scholarly training required of a priest.
So it is only a fortunate few who have the ability and
opportunity to learn the arcane lore of spellcasting."
I just don't remember the exact sources, and which parts were written or edited by me, and which ones were from one of these sources.
EDIT: format
Perfect ... loved this text! This is how I understand the magic (or spellcaster) in D & D.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
1E Magic-Users and 2E Wizards - along with their clumsy spellbooks, scrolls, and Vancian warts - are, to my mind, what proper (A)D&D is all about.
Sorcerors were introduced circa-3E, although later 2E (“2.5E“) optional rule systems provided passable ways to simulate Sorceror class abilities. Ed has off remarked, in retrospect, that Sorcerors are well-suited to his original conception of spellcasters in the Realms. He's also stated that Sorcerors have always been present in the Realms, which I accept is the final official word yet which I don't readily accept in my own Realms gaming. I also refuse to accept the presence of Sorcerors (by whatever name) in Ancient Netheril - it's just an ugly fit which isn't consistent with olde Netheril lore, why invent complex sophistications to justify little retcons which aren't necessary or naturally workable, eh?
As you can tell, I don't really like Sorcerors and I feel they dilute the flavour of Wizards and magic ... not unlike the way Psionics did ... it's a slippery slope from Sorcerors to Warlocks to 4E-styled "At-Will"powers to Jedi Knights and invulnerable mutant superdemihumans from planet Krypton.
To be sure, Sorcerors have their merits. And I've doubtlessly missed out on some excellent Sorceror-based fun over the years. But I just don't think they belong in this game and I have plenty of fun with Wizards. Best wishes to those of you who love Sorcerors.
I agree with you on several points. I think sorcerers in Netheril is something very strange. It is probable that a future official product, they say that in Netheril was a sorcerer-wizard type class.
I also think sorceres dilute the flavor of wizards and magic. So I believe that designers (Wizards of the Coast) will need to detail this class very well, or misrepresenting the magical tradition of D & D. Maybe they could introduce the class as optional.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4495 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 18:31:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by rodrigoalcanza
I also think sorceres dilute the flavor of wizards and magic. So I believe that designers (Wizards of the Coast) will need to detail this class very well, or misrepresenting the magical tradition of D & D. Maybe they could introduce the class as optional.
One important part in making Sorcerer's unique is to give them a stronger identity than a Wizard. This wasn't really the case with 3E because they both utilized the same spell list. In 4E, they're completely separate concepts in their class design. Further late 3E, 4E and Pathfinder really build up the idea that Sorcerer's innate magical features derive themselves from a specific bloodlines. This is often used in concert with Dragons, creatures from the elemental planes, Djinns, and the like. All of this, to me, signifies that Sorcerers are far different than wizards within the narrative of the game and in settings as well.
For D&D:Next, I believe that the Sorcerer is sharing quite a few spells from the Mage's spell list but they're also gaining a lot of class-specific features and focusing their powers in the form of Meta-magic. They get less spells known, but more castings per day which they can burn with innate power to infuse them with power. For example, a Sorcerer might have the Burning Hands spell known but X/day they can expend a power point to make the 15-ft cone into a 30-ft cone or maximize the damage done from Burning Hands. They will then recover these on a daily basis. They also get a few spells that are unique unto themselves like Dragon-Scales or the ability to gain flight from magical dragon wings.
As for making them optional, all classes are optional. It doesn't matter if it's in the PHB, PHB 2, Elven Handbook, Complete Warrior, Dragon Magic, etc. The DM decides what's allowed and what isn't, regardless of source.
For further info on the Sorcerer's design with the upcoming edition of D&D, check out this article = Sorcerers in D&D:Next |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Kusghuul
Acolyte
Norway
33 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2014 : 19:07:24
|
| I've personally dropped sorcerers from my Realms. I would accept a wild talent, so to speak, but in general, 99.9% of the arcane spellcasters are wizards in my Realms. It seems to mesh better with AD&D. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12229 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2014 : 10:56:46
|
| Personally, wizards have more power in my games. What I've seen of the development of sorcerors has been an improvement (with things like them getting certain powers based upon their heritage, etc...). That being said, the one thing that has always irked me is the "uses the same spell list as wizards". Personally, I think they should get rid of this requirement from 3e and say that the sorcerer can "know" spells from any arcane spell list (bard, wizard, warmage, dread necro, beguiler, assassin, wu jen, etc...). Also, they should steal a mechanic from warlocks, in the form of invocations (not blast shape ones, but rather some common spell-like abilities that they can reuse either several times a day or nearly at will) |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2014 : 14:48:01
|
I would say sorcerers as done in PHB are a bad idea. The PF sorcerers are good, though.
I love the idea behind the sorcerers so much that I've even cooked up a homebrew divine equivalent for them... |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2014 : 16:10:16
|
| I'm playing a gun mage in a campaign on Thursday nights; they are variant sorcerers. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12229 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2014 : 16:21:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Personally, wizards have more power in my games. What I've seen of the development of sorcerors has been an improvement (with things like them getting certain powers based upon their heritage, etc...). That being said, the one thing that has always irked me is the "uses the same spell list as wizards". Personally, I think they should get rid of this requirement from 3e and say that the sorcerer can "know" spells from any arcane spell list (bard, wizard, warmage, dread necro, beguiler, assassin, wu jen, etc...). Also, they should steal a mechanic from warlocks, in the form of invocations (not blast shape ones, but rather some common spell-like abilities that they can reuse either several times a day or nearly at will)
And actually, now that I look at the pathfinder sorcerors that's dead on to what I'm describing. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1632 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 02:08:40
|
In 4e Wizards and Sorcerors had different spells, different class features, really the only thing they had in common was the arcane power source, and a focus on aoe magic. They didn't even share the same role, Wizards were controllers and Sorcerors were strikers.
For 5e there is likely to be some over lap in spells, 4e had a major problem of overlapping spells, which did the same thing, but not always as well as each other in unfair ways, and it was a mess. (Don't get me wrong 4e was a cool edition, and had it been under another name would have been more popular without expectations from previous editions weighing it down).
As for innate talent, yes wizards require some innate talent, but that talent requires formal training and scholarship, but that innate talent is more about a mind that is capable of grasping the magical formulas of wizardary, this requires an intelligent mind, but a particular type of intelligence with an inclination towards wizardary, you could be brilliant, but still unable to grasp the spells.
Were as a sorceror, a mix of pure instinct, and mimicry, an average sorceror tries to grasp spells on a purely intellictual level like a wizard is doomed to failure, they don't have a the type of mind to grasp the meaing, even if they are brilliant.
The sorcerors magic is embedded in thier blood/dna, and that is what they have to access to call upon thier magic, which they do via instinct, like how a baby knows how to swim.
Does anyone understand what I mean? |
|
|
|
Entromancer
Senior Scribe
USA
388 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 15:51:59
|
| I see sorcerers as people who're borrowing some other entity's power for their spells. Perhaps having studied the being, learned the being's weakness, and using that weakness to extort a bit of magic. They're not going around proselytizing for the entity or anything like that, nor are they relying on book learning. So they're distinct from clerics and wizards in that respect. |
"...the will is everything. The will to act."--Ra's Al Ghul
"Suffering builds character."--Talia Al Ghul |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2526 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 17:26:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by rodrigoalcanza
There is an interesting topic in Forum Wizards over Sorcerers in D&D. It is based on this article: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224 (Legends & Lore: Sorcerers in D&D Next). I would like to bring some ideas for this forum.
I like the sorcerer class, but I think the class disrupts the concept of wizard class. When it says that the sorcerer has innate talent for magic, learning spell in a natural way, and that the wizards need to study,
I don't see why, given e.g. the existence of bards. What draws my derison is the whole "cuteness is magic!" part. 
quote:
this makes us understand that the wizard is a person who does not have (or need not) natual talent for magic.
That's a classical "converse error", actually.
But yes, it arises because it's all just a kitchen sink of stuff randomly thrown in, there's no system to this madness.
Just like with cosmology, when Grubbiverse was gradually (q.v. Far Realm) overridden with a pile of random fanfic derp not connected in any meaningful way.
quote:
He has only to study and learn magic ... any person who studies (and has intellect) could be a wizard.
In the tradition of D&D, being a wizard or priest, it was necessary to have innate talent for magic. [...]
The elves also has great talent for magic, especially the wizard class. It would not be the case with dwarfs, even with high intelligence, lack , such as race, great talent for arcane magic.
Traditionally, dwarves were slightly antimagical, which blocked arcane classes completely, but wasn't a problem for divine classes,
The question is, how would we decide to quantify "talent for magic"? Just an adjustment (like in one of Net Wizard Handbook models)? An extra score with adjustment per race? In the latter case, it's very easy to set up.
Racial Background of Caster
Highly magically deficient (githzerai): -2
Magically inept (dwarf, gnome): -1
Average (human, halfling): 0
Magically apt (elf, svirfneblin): +1
Very magically apt (faerie, drow, dragon): +2
[other creatures may exist that range from -5 to +5] I'd exchange gnome and halfling, but it shows the general idea.
quote:
I think both wizards and sorcerers have a gift for magic, but each in his own way. My concern is the official books treat this subject. The concept of the sorcerer class if not well explained, can make the class wizard lose his mystique and grandeur.
Replace one undefined concept with two. It will greatly improve things in no time.
quote:
In the comments of the original article has a great answer about the difference between natural talent for magic of a wizard and a sorcerer. Posted By: Overpain (06.03.2014 9:48:16), http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224 (Legends & Lore: Sorcerers in D&D Next).
So ... what is your opinion?
The article shows an intent to "balance" things with a rather vague idea of the result (which is still better than none, of course). Then it dissolves into copypasta from 3e "clarifications" mixed with meaningless derp-fluff about nothing. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4495 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 21:51:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
In 4e Wizards and Sorcerors had different spells, different class features, really the only thing they had in common was the arcane power source, and a focus on aoe magic. They didn't even share the same role, Wizards were controllers and Sorcerers were strikers.
Which, in all honestly, I thought was a good thing. It made playing either one distinct from the other. Of course you could make a Wizard who focused more on blaster-style magic rather than control and it was even supported quite a bit through spells, features, feats, and even races (like Genasi and Tiefling). All in all, the differences between the two was a much appreciated attempt to distinguish not only the sorts of magical powers they controlled but also threw in a lot of different flavor into the Mix. A sorcerer who's innate power derived from Cosmic forces or from the blood of ancient dragons actually manifested itself in the spells you chose and the effects they had. Same thing with wizards who focused on an area of study (schools of magic) or with a particular implement (Arcanist).
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
For 5e there is likely to be some over lap in spells, 4e had a major problem of overlapping spells, which did the same thing, but not always as well as each other in unfair ways, and it was a mess. (Don't get me wrong 4e was a cool edition, and had it been under another name would have been more popular without expectations from previous editions weighing it down).
I don't see it. Why is overlap bad? I mean, sure there are some instances that would've made sense to have a single power across multiple classes that did the same thing (like Twin Strike) but I feel that most of these were far and few between.
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
As for innate talent, yes wizards require some innate talent, but that talent requires formal training and scholarship, but that innate talent is more about a mind that is capable of grasping the magical formulas of wizardary, this requires an intelligent mind, but a particular type of intelligence with an inclination towards wizardary, you could be brilliant, but still unable to grasp the spells.
Were as a sorceror, a mix of pure instinct, and mimicry, an average sorceror tries to grasp spells on a purely intellictual level like a wizard is doomed to failure, they don't have a the type of mind to grasp the meaing, even if they are brilliant.
The sorcerors magic is embedded in thier blood/dna, and that is what they have to access to call upon thier magic, which they do via instinct, like how a baby knows how to swim.
Does anyone understand what I mean?
I hear ya and hopefully this distinction will show up with D&D:Next. With both classes pretty much getting the same spell-list again I think the differences are going to have to be striking in their features and play very differently or suffer the "sameness" we saw in 3e. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1632 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 22:18:22
|
| Charisma is more then cuteness, its force of personality, and self confediance as well. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36998 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2014 : 23:21:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Charisma is more then cuteness, its force of personality, and self confediance as well.
Does that mean that my gun mage, with his 17 Charisma, doesn't actually have a +5 smile, as I've described him? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1632 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2014 : 00:42:34
|
| He could, that depends on your personal interptations. ;p |
|
|
|
MrHedgehog
Senior Scribe
688 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2014 : 03:26:47
|
| Zirael - you should post your homebrew information on the divine equivalent of a sorcerer |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2526 Posts |
Posted - 22 May 2014 : 06:17:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Charisma is more then cuteness, its force of personality, and self confediance as well.
Does that mean that my gun mage, with his 17 Charisma, doesn't actually have a +5 smile, as I've described him?
Heh, yeah, those wandering definitions are a charming part of it, too. "Force of personality" is already as meaningless as it can get, but the spotlight will wander on from that, too, when around the next bend there will be derp about Cha damage. It always does.
Still, we don't move anywhere on his subject and the "official" takes on it are as slimy as media panic topics. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 16:59:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
Zirael - you should post your homebrew information on the divine equivalent of a sorcerer
It isn't well detailed, just a PHB sorcerer (so same BAB, saves) who casts divine spells instead of arcane. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8066 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 22:46:27
|
Githzerai are described as Highly Magically Deficient, a category even worse than Magically Inept dwarves? The same people who brought to us the archetype of Gish fighter/mage, forge silver swords, and magically plane shift at will? Dwarven resistance to magic and racial (in)ability to operate magical spells and items is legendary. The author of that particular netbook really needs to consider his facts (and their implications) more thoroughly before making such decisive and sweeping changes, lol.
Aside from such - easily changed - particulars, the race modifier on sorceress class seems like a fine idea. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2526 Posts |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 23:48:38
|
Don't ask me. Fanon is a weird thing.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12229 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 00:27:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Githzerai are described as Highly Magically Deficient, a category even worse than Magically Inept dwarves? The same people who brought to us the archetype of Gish fighter/mage, forge silver swords, and magically plane shift at will? Dwarven resistance to magic and racial (in)ability to operate magical spells and items is legendary. The author of that particular netbook really needs to consider his facts (and their implications) more thoroughly before making such decisive and sweeping changes, lol.
Aside from such - easily changed - particulars, the race modifier on sorceress class seems like a fine idea.
Just a note, Githyanki are the ones with the fighter/mages and the forged silver swords. Githzerai are the ones who live in limbo and are more focused on keeping stablility around them through the power of the mind. Githzerai are also typically portrayed as more monkish and more lawful tendency (which is odd because they live in limbo). They strongly believe in freedom for individuals.
Now, whether they should be highly magically deficient.... dunno. I would definitely say they have more of a tendency towards psionics. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Delandil Aenar
Acolyte
6 Posts |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 10:22:46
|
| I love the Pathfinder sorcerer, since the bloodline can give some interesting hooks to remark the differences between innate power and wizards. However I don't think that anyone can be a wizard, in my campaigns i stress the fact that just people with a lot of will can be great masters of magic. |
Neither a warrior nor a cleric could heal the wounds made by love |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Sorcerers in D&D
