I see it the similar way but, the sorc not being a student is the very reson for him being behind. He casts more but he does not really dive into the technical side of magic. He does not study it, does not seek it out to understand it. That is a wizard.
The sorc has it in his blood, he has power humming though him, but he does not really understand the power. It is there when he calls it, and the more he calls it the more power he gains. He has not need to understand how it works, or to hobble himself with study and books and complex formulas to call forth his power.
Let the wiard dive into how it works, spend his mornings tapping into his books and ordering which spells he might need. The sorcerer did not learn the few spells he has, his blood called them he has no need for the cruch of the book and no need to know just how it works or to study to understand greater power. In time it will come to him and unlike the wizard he is made to pick them out in the morning all he knows is his at will!
And his power, the power of his blood will still be hurling spells long after the "master of arcane might" has used the ones he studied that morning
Let them dig for arcane knowledge, let them find the high power sooner. It does not matter for in time , as far as the sorcerer cares his in born power will reach that height, without the limits the unnatural caster has. The sorce pity them and there "understanding" of magic. For they know formula and books but they do not truly "know" magic.
From a fluff perspective? The Wizard class is a sack of abilities that can be used to represent characters. The Sorcerer class is a sack of abilities that can be used to represent characters. They have no inherent fluff differences beyond the distinctions in the characters that they are chosen to represent.
I'm not particularly fond of Pathfinder's mechanically reinforced fluff on the Sorcerer, but there is nothing wrong with a wizard taking the Sorcerer class to represent intensive study on how to harness or create their own inborn abilities (like, say, pumping themselves full of beholder bile to gain aberrant Sorcerer status), nor is there anything wrong with a sorcerer blessed with innate magical knowledge that she uses to maintain a spellbook in a manner that is mechanically represented by the Wizard class.
Ah, but tell me my friend. Which takes longer? The bird to learn to fly, or the human who studies flight to learn to fly an airplane?
That's the difference I see between natural connection and mathematic study. The natural power is a wellspring, it just flows of it's own accord. It's like water going downhill, it doesn't require study. On the contrary, the Wizard requires study just to keep up.
true however, naturally the sorc needs no book and casts more, he is not bound by limits of books, or study he does not try and know how his powers work, they work when he calls, when he digs deep for them.
The wizard on the other hand works at it, he digs inot the how and why, and learns toa cess hower power sooner
but never with the ease of the sorce who just calls it, he does not have to work at it , does not need to study it. The wizard is not bound by nature is not limited by time it takes the power to mature
See flying comes as natural to a bird, but only when it's ready and not before.
From a fluff perspective? The Wizard class is a sack of abilities that can be used to represent characters. The Sorcerer class is a sack of abilities that can be used to represent characters. They have no inherent fluff differences beyond the distinctions in the characters that they are chosen to represent.
Again this is not always true. In a class based game many worlds tie in fluff heavily into the class. In most game worlds that use 3.5 of pathfinder rules a wizard is the wizard class and if a sorc is passing himself off as one , someone who is a wizard will find out in time
|
So, here's how I think about it.
The Sorcerer is a natural wellspring of magic. He hasn't had to learn how to call upon magic he just kind of does it. However, since he doesn't have a clear understanding of how to manipulate that power he has to hunt and peck around for how to do something. He may have access to all that power, but he has to come up with how to manipulate it into doing something useful completely on his own. I don't see any two sorcerers describing how they manipulate/access magic the same way. So, each spell is basically an experiment on how to get magic to do what they want. I imagine it's a lot of trial and error to end up with a spell that does the same thing every time they cast it.
A wizard has to study magic. He is constrained by the amount of energy he has trained his mind to hold at one time. However, there are a lot of wizards in the world and all of them cast Fireball in the same manner. So, while they might not have that inherent conduit to a wellspring of power, they are at an advantage because they can look up exactly how to cast a fireball.
Second, by that logic, there is no Sorcerer or Wizard class at all, just two different piles of abilities (which works to an extent, but new players have a really hard time trying to go through sacks of mechanics to come up with a custom concept)
Oh, there's nothing wrong with using the default, prepackaged concept; no need to reinvent the wheel with every character. Just don't enforce that prepackaged concept with the weight of rule.
true however, naturally the sorc needs no book and casts more, he is not bound by limits of books, or study he does not try and know how his powers work, they work when he calls, when he digs deep for them.
That may be how your Sorcerer works, but mine's a seasoned and stdied alchemist whose powers are derived from shooting herself up with distilled illithid brain goo and studies her powers quite intently.
The wizard on the other hand works at it, he digs inot the how and why, and learns toa cess hower power sooner
Again, yours might, mine can be a savant who hardly needed to crack open a book to start casting the first time, and who couldn't care less about nailing down details.
Again this is not always true. In a class based game many worlds tie in fluff heavily into the class. In most game worlds that use 3.5 of pathfinder rules a wizard is the wizard class and if a sorc is passing himself off as one , someone who is a wizard will find out in time
Except that's not at all a part of the rules, chief.
See it's all in the world. By default wizards use spellbooks and are learned casters, sorces use the power inborn in them.
Now this can change by worlds or by the GM's game but that is the default. Which is what the OP wanted comments on
Edit: I wanted to say VV, the alchemist sorc is a cool concept.
Knowledge( Arcana ) indeed does just this. It will allow you to understand what kind of caster your facing and know a little bout how the power they use works, if not fine details.
I agree with VV that the sorcerer can be reflavored to the alchemical junkie gaining power via shooting up with beholder essence (or whatever open content is subbing for beholders), and the wizard can be reflavored into the natural mystic who uses a book or other meditation aid to prepare their spells each morning, but honestly, rewriting the flavors to fit different bags of mechanics still makes them read and play differently than the same flavor with different mechanics.
Using a fighter to represent somebody whose learned magic doesn't work because as much as you say it's magic, it looks a lot like a guy swinging a sword.
Personally I like the flavor of the spontaneous mage and the studious mage, and I think the sorcerer and wizard mechanics follow that dichotomy nicely and illustrate it well. This isn't to say that you couldn't come up with other ways to do it, just that I think it works neatly as written, especially as updated by Pathfinder with the various sorcerer bloodlines and the wizard item focus rules.
I think that sorcerers are slackers whereas wizards are geeks, and the subcultures I give for both reflect this. Or to put it another way, Mozart versus Saliere. Sorcerers are prodigies who can do some amazing things with magic, but very much in their own personal style. Wizards? They love magic, and may even be incredibly good at it, but inspiration doesn't come easily to them. But if they have a recipe, they can reproduce anything. Maybe not with the flair and passion of a sorcerer, but well enough for most purposes. And when they do have a breakthrough, it's a dancing naked in the streets "Eureka!" moment, rather than an accepted part of existence as with the sorcerer.
I agree with ryder on them not needing to learn it, but I think the lag is fine as well, its natural. There bodys or minds are just not ready for the next step. When they are it comes like breathing.
To me the bloodlines also build into this, they slowly change the sorcerer making him ready for what comes not, slowly evolving him allowing his body and mind to be ready for whats next.
|
|
Then we do see it differently :) I see sorcerers as having an inborn source of magic, but not necessarily being prodigies of how to use it. Otherwise they would start off being able to cast higher than 1st level spells. I mean, what kid hasn't thought flying would be fun? By your example, every 5 year sorcerer would be flitting about the sky and causing no end of trouble for their mothers. Also, every person with a bloodline would be impressively powerful. The farmer who has never gone adventuring in his life and just plants crops could destroy a goblin army with fireballs and meteor swarms.
For me the bloodline just provides a source for their power and does not explain how good they are with using it. You can have a someone with a bloodline that doesn't do anything with their power because they haven't practiced using it.
Also, you could argue that you have a wizard prodigy that can instantly memorize complex formulas and archaic symbols from the moment he sees them. It seems like an equal scenario to thinking all sorcerers are prodigies capable of having whatever they want happen at will.
Also, you could argue that you have a wizard prodigy that can instantly memorize complex formulas and archaic symbols from the moment he seems them.
{threadjack}
Ya know FR had such a wizard. Karsus, who by the age of 20 was an achmage.( back in his time that ment 41st level of wizard and crafting an artifact that made your city float}Coarse that ended badly as by 25 or 30 he had cast a spell to take the goddess of magic's power...stopping all magic for 2 mins and killing himself, the goddess and pretty much his whole nation
[End threadjack]
This may be a bit of an odd comparison, but it works in my own mind.
I've always seen the development of sorcerers as comparable to how muscle grows and increases in strength. The more the muscle is used and pushed to its limits (its a simple analogy, not meant to be over-thought) then given the opportunity to rest and repair damage, the stronger it comes back. The sorcerer pushes the limits of their casting by using both high and low level spells. The active use of their abilites increase the oomph of their innate magic and expand the level of manipulation and endurance that the sorcerer has over their natural well of magical ability.
I don't see sorcerers as savants because as others have said, they'd be like 15 years old and 10th level or above depending on innate power, while providing an interesting background for a PC or NPC, I dont see that as the typical for all persons entering the class.
Wizards on the other hand are more cerebral and mirror how the brain works in their formation and development. Mages form connections, just like the brain, neural pathways that lead to discoveries which lead to more connections which lead to more discoveries. Mages that specialize in a school tend to follow one static pathway memorizing and experimenting with a more refined set of pathways which lead them to certain discoveries in the manipulation of their magic. This repetitive use of these pathways allows for easy memorization and expanded recall allowing them to go further while easily recalling the past items they've learned (larger number of low level spells and School bonus spells). Universalists tend to explore all directions at once and dont have the same access to paths that specialists do, but they also keep certain pathways open that specialists tend to neglect.
I guess that I look at the two as a social experiment.
Both have some spark of magic flowing within them, without it they could not harness magic.
However, high society has accepted those who have choosen to study this spark, to shape it through the guidence of a mentor. I.E. wizard and apprentice or a College of Magic. It is this education that allows them to accelerate faster in their understanding, so they get higher level spells sooner, however it also has built in limits as to how much is acceptable, so they have fewer spells per day.
A sorcerer, while being no different than a wizard to much of society, never had this guidance. Thus it is harder for them to master the art. However, when they do, they are not limited by what they are supposed to know and thus they what they do know is able to be used more often.
Don't know if any of that made sense, but that's how I'm looking at it. A sorcerer with an education is a wizard, and a wizard without an education is a sorcerer.
|
Honestly I think the main reasons Sorcerers was kind of an underpowered class in 3rd edition was simply the fact that the only thing that you got for taking levels of Sorcerer were spells, familiar advancement and simple weapon proficiency.
Wizards got spells, familiar advancement, bonus feats, wizard only spell access, and most of the simple weapons a spell caster would use.
In the long term Sorcerers had a lot more magic on tap at any given time, but a wizard using the proper divination spells and paying attention to the game could potentially be prepared for a lot of the encounters they might face in a given day to make up for not having 20 fireballs every day.
Now in the Pathfinder RPG, Sorcerers get innate bloodline bonuses instead of having to spend some/all of their feats to get a little flavor and some extra Sorcerer goodness. I like that, it makes a big improvement in the class.
|
|
Ah, but tell me my friend. Which takes longer? The bird to learn to fly, or the human who studies flight to learn to fly an airplane?
That's the difference I see between natural connection and mathematic study. The natural power is a wellspring, it just flows of it's own accord. It's like water going downhill, it doesn't require study. On the contrary, the Wizard requires study just to keep up.
When I was at school I played a lot of rugby, I read books about it (comics when I was very young), watched games, was a ballboy at the local club... As I grew I played for club and school, I trained every weekday and had two games a week, one on saturday, one on sunday.
At about 17 I introduced my friend to the game, he was a natural athlete and took to it like a duck to water - he was in our school first-team in weeks.
I was a wizard.
He was a sorcerer.
If you wanted someone to run very fast in a straight line and crash through the line, or tackle a small opponent and make them lose the ball you wanted my friend.
If you wanted a tactical kick, to steal the ball in a ruck, to cheat and get away with it, to deliver the killer pass, to draw an opposition defender and create space for other players... you wanted me.
Water going downhill pools in crevices and soaks into the ground. Get an engineer to put it in a pipe however...
For any Dragonlance game I would run I am going to re-fluff the Sorcerer class as having "Sorcery Paths" instead of Bloodlines. Sorcery in Dragonlance(which was discovered in the Fifth Age, when 3.5 Dragonlance rolled around WoTC said that Margaret Weis Press had to use the 3.5 base Sorcerer to represent DL Sorcerers, not the best fit, but the Pathfinder Sorcerer works better) is more of a learned skill, but it is learned in a different way than High Wizardry. In Dragonlance Wizards are like Scientists and Sorcerers are like Artists.
In Dragonlance the most appropriate Sorcery Paths would be:
The Elemental Paths
The Arcane Path
The Abberant Path
The Destined Path
See it's all in the world. By default wizards use spellbooks and are learned casters, sorces use the power inborn in them.
Now this can change by worlds or by the GM's game but that is the default.
It is the default fluff, but not the default rule, and a DM enforcing it with the weight of rule is passing a houserule. When one starts thinking of one's houserules as the rules of the game, problems start to arise.
Edit: I wanted to say VV, the alchemist sorc is a cool concept.
I might have to roll it into a villain some time, but it's not really the kind of PC I'd want to play.
Actually, I think it is. A spellcraft or Knowledge( Arcana ) role should be able to determine whether the caster is a sorcerer or a wizard.
You may get some useful tactical data from one or the other, but no skill check will tell you someone's character class.
Using a fighter to represent somebody whose learned magic doesn't work because as much as you say it's magic, it looks a lot like a guy swinging a sword.
Actually, I knew someone who represented Gaara from Naruto with the Fighter class. If you're not familiar, Gaara fights by telekinetically manipulating sand. Basically, he's got this big gourd full of sand on his back and he uses it for everything. This Fighter's 'full plate' was actually the sand being used as armor; he got the mechanical benefits of full plate, but in-game, it was him using the sand as armor. His 'spiked chain' was actually him using the sand to attack and trip people. His 'darts' and 'bolas' were actually him shooting sand at people.
You can take the exact same mechanics and use them to present wildly different visions. And analyzing the myriad ways one set of mechanics can represent one thousand different things is an excellent creative exercise.
It is the default fluff, but not the default rule, and a DM enforcing it with the weight of rule is passing a houserule. When one starts thinking of one's houserules as the rules of the game, problems start to arise.
Gonna have to disagree with that. The default rule is wizards work one way, sorcerers another, the fluff is built into the rules. Sure you can take em out but it's a world/house rule change. Not saying that's wrong or a bad thing but the default fluff/rules are intertwined
Gonna have to disagree with that. The default rule is wizards work one way, sorcerers another, the fluff is built into the rules. Sure you can take em out but it's a world/house rule change. Not saying that's wrong or a bad thing but the default fluff/rules are intertwined
Except, again, there's no rule anywhere saying that the Sorcerer can't be the alchemy junkie, nor that Bards can't be priests. Allowing the flexibility is not a houserule or a removal. It's just opting not to enforce something that isn't a rule in the first place. Until you can give me a page number saying that all Bards must be wandering minstrels, it ain't a part of the rules.
Again I have to disagree, but eh no biggy lets not derail the mans thread over something that is not on topic
Alright guys, so I've been watching some of the debates on the forums, and it seems to me that some of the opposing views concerning these two classes is tied to how people view the classes in the story of the game.
To me personally, the wizard is a student of magic. He studies his musty tomes, commits himself to long hours straining to acquire the mathematical formulae necessary to harness the arcane energies of the universe.
The Sorcerer, on the other hand, IS magic. He's a living, breathing, expression of arcana. The Wizard is more versatile in that every day he can choose to prepare different spells for any situation, and can adapt to any challenge, but the Sorcerer is meant to be more overtly forceful, with more spells per day, and a certain list of powers that are an expression of who they are.
At no point in my analogy is there room for the Sorcerer to develop his spell levels more slowly than the Wizard. Infact, there is some logic to reverse it, but that would only put the Wizard in the poor unfortunate place the Sorcerer was for all of 3.X, and that's not cool.
After reading this thread, I noticed that you have (intentionally?) left out most of the particularities of the spellbook and spell preparation out of the differentiation. The spellbook is more than a tome of lore, its a quasi-magical item in its own. I've learn most of my maths through 'old tomes of lore', yet I don't need my books to solve a problem (although I probably would if I had to do calculus. Then again, I never claimed that Int was my strongest stat...) Anyway, the wizard is bound to his spellbook more intimately than occasionally refreshing his memory on the spells he hasn't use in a while.
All that to say that there is more to the wizard then a 'scholar sorcerer'; wizardry is an established spellcasting tradition with its own intricacies and paradigm, while the default sorcerer has none of that (of course the sorcerer has its sets of rules, but it is more a out-of-game mechanics than a in-character paradigm).
'findel
The Wizard is the Geek. He's all intelligence with a lack of social ability. He's found a subject that interests him and he's dedicated to learn everything about it, and spends hours on it everyday spending time in front of his computer...*cough*...I mean spellbook to learn more about it. His Wizard friends and him get together on Friday nights, where he gets a chance to show his skills at...magic.
The Sorcerer is the politician. He's all personality and big smiles. The women love him, and he's a hit at parties. He has great hair and white teeth, and I hate him.
Therefore Wizards are better.
Again I have to disagree, but eh no biggy lets not derail the mans thread over something that is not on topic
Actually, this is spectacularly relevant to the conversation at hand. Look at all these differing interpretations of the Wizard versus the Sorcerer. And of the lot of them, the only ones that are actually wrong are the ones that call someone else's interpretations wrong.
Again I have to disagree, but eh no biggy lets not derail the mans thread over something that is not on topicActually, this is spectacularly relevant to the conversation at hand. Look at all these differing interpretations of the Wizard versus the Sorcerer. And of the lot of them, the only ones that are actually wrong are the ones that call someone else's interpretations wrong.
Ah but see wrong or right or such depends on the setting. The default which is what the op speaks of and what most settings use id a wizard learns his craft while a sorcerer is born with it in the blood and does not learn so much as controls
Now while this can change by setting or even within the same setting{your use of the class to make an alchemist} that is not the default assumption of the classes . The op was talking about the default fluff written into the classes
On another note threads like this are fun as ya get to see how other folks view something as simple as the default fluff. Just because it's been around for ages does not mean everyone view it the same way
Again I have to disagree, but eh no biggy lets not derail the mans thread over something that is not on topicActually, this is spectacularly relevant to the conversation at hand. Look at all these differing interpretations of the Wizard versus the Sorcerer. And of the lot of them, the only ones that are actually wrong are the ones that call someone else's interpretations wrong.
Except interpretations can be wrong, in that they can be flawed, illogical, contradictory, or otherwise shoddy.
The flavor for the wizard is designed to mesh with the mechanics of the wizard, and with that the literary tropes of Vancian sorcery and folkloric precursors, such as Roger Bacon's enchanted garden spell, Dr. Faustus's flying cloak spell, or the old Persian flying carpet spell I've got around here in one of my occult books, which basically boils down to goetic efreet summoning to have invisible efreeti carrying your carpet around along with everything on it, including you.
Other classes don't model this as well without extensive and basically pointless modification. If a recipe calls for a blender, and you have a blender, why not use a blender? Sticking a swizzle stick into a power drill and playing mad professor science like Alton Brown may be amusing, but even if it works, you've spent a lot of time futzing with drill bits and chuck keys and the guy using the blender is already enjoying margaritas.
Similarly, if I've already got a particular literary or folkloric trope in mind for a character, I'm going to gravitate to the class that was already designed to model that trope and just add a few whistles and bells.
If you sit down and read the Agrippa, or more properly the Three Books of Occult Philosophy by Henry Cornelius Agrippa Von Nettesheim, you will get a pretty good idea of the mindset of your standard pointy hat with moons and stars wizard. Add in On the Vanity of the Arts and Sciences by Albertus Magnus if you're still unsure.
Wizards are occult science geeks. You can have other sort of mage that looks similar, but unless they're that into the geekiness of books and spells, they're not really wizards.
Ah, but tell me my friend. Which takes longer? The bird to learn to fly, or the human who studies flight to learn to fly an airplane?
You have it backwards my friend, the bird actually takes much longer to learn to fly. Pilots are up and airborn in a ridiculously small amount of time, usually less than 20 hours. Young birds have the advantage of tons of time to practice and a low penalty for failure once they get the basics down. Once they are airborne birds practice continuously, a pilot flying 8 hours per day is going to be damned good.
I think you meant to compare perhaps a bird flying to a person learning to BUILD an aircraft... but then you are talking orders of magnitude slower.
(as an aside)
Incidentally as a pilot, taking off and flying is EASY, navigating can be tough, and landing is quite a bit ch allenging. If a bird has a rough landing it weighs about 4 ounces and is going 5mph, not a big deal. If a pilot has a rough landing he is traveling 60-90MPH in a 1500lbs+ aircraft... much uglier.
Except interpretations can be wrong, in that they can be flawed, illogical, contradictory, or otherwise shoddy.
Which none of the interpretations presented here have really been yet.
The flavor for the wizard is designed to mesh with the mechanics of the wizard, and with that the literary tropes of Vancian sorcery and folkloric precursors, such as Roger Bacon's enchanted garden spell, Dr. Faustus's flying cloak spell, or the old Persian flying carpet spell I've got around here in one of my occult books, which basically boils down to goetic efreet summoning to have invisible efreeti carrying your carpet around along with everything on it, including you.
But again, "Designed to do X," is vastly different from, "Can only do X," or, "Only capable of representing X." The Barbarian class is designed to represent Conan, but it can represent some undisciplined soldier just as well. You can have a class that is suitable for purposes completely distinct from what they were designed for.
Other classes don't model this as well without extensive and basically pointless modification.
Perhaps for your characters, but not for mine.
If a recipe calls for a blender, and you have a blender, why not use a blender? Sticking a swizzle stick into a power drill and playing mad professor science like Alton Brown may be amusing, but even if it works, you've spent a lot of time futzing with drill bits and chuck keys and the guy using the blender is already enjoying margaritas.
Precisely. And if the recipe calls for a singing, dancing learned, charismatic priest with support and duplicitous abilities, why not use the singing, dancing, learned, charismatic class with support and duplicitous abilities (Bard) rather than the mystic warrior (Cleric)?
Just because a class is called Barbarian doesn't mean it's the blender when you want to make a barbarian. If your barbarian is the tribal shaman, odds are Druid is the much better fit.
To me "priest" is an occupation not a class. same with "soldier" or "noble". And the bulk of their ranks are filled with NPC Classes.-Weylin
This is true, but a wizard is a wizard. Unless you change them or change the setting to they do not use books, it's kinda hard for a non wizard to pass themselves off as a wizard. A sorc is normally inborn but bloodline could be gained in other ways. But a wizard has his set up fluff hard wired in. Ya can change it with work but it is hard wired
|
This may be a bit of an odd comparison, but it works in my own mind.
I've always seen the development of sorcerers as comparable to how muscle grows and increases in strength. The more the muscle is used and pushed to its limits (its a simple analogy, not meant to be over-thought) then given the opportunity to rest and repair damage, the stronger it comes back. The sorcerer pushes the limits of their casting by using both high and low level spells. The active use of their abilites increase the oomph of their innate magic and expand the level of manipulation and endurance that the sorcerer has over their natural well of magical ability.
For this analogy, you could consider metamagic feats as 'extra weight', tough you could consider the Quicken Spell feat magical 'steroids.'
To me "priest" is an occupation not a class. same with "soldier" or "noble". And the bulk of their ranks are filled with NPC Classes.
You'd be amazed how controversial that policy can become.
This is true, but a wizard is a wizard. Unless you change them or change the setting to they do not use books, it's kinda hard for a non wizard to pass themselves off as a wizard. A sorc is normally inborn but bloodline could be gained in other ways. But a wizard has his set up fluff hard wired in. Ya can change it with work but it is hard wired
Yes, a wizard is a wizard, that's a tautology, but that doesn't necessarily mean a Wizard is a wizard or a wizard is a Wizard. You're getting bogged down with petty details, chief. And just because you can't think of a way doesn't mean there isn't a way. And just because some other class doesn't have that "hardwired fluff" in there doesn't make it at all unsuitable for representing a wizard so long as the character is a wizard.
And just because some other class doesn't have that "hardwired fluff" in there doesn't make it at all unsuitable for representing a wizard so long as the character is a wizard.
Long as other wizards know he is not a wizard it just does not work. You could refluff the wizard into something else with work but fluffing something else into a wizard just does not work unless you are willing to rework the class
The class has limitations and it's own stuff, if you do not have them ablitys or limitations then simply you are not a wizard and they will know. Unless your houseruling stuff anyhow. That is just the nature of a class based system, sometime you will hit them walls, wizard is probably the one case that wall is about imposable to get around without houserules