Desdichado
Hero
Monte's alt.sorceror is available in The Book of Eldritch Might II along with his alt.bard (which is a more drastic change, BTW.) You have to buy it, but the pdf is only $5 or something like that.
Does anyone else think it is ridiculous that Sorcerers use components and such?
- Thread starter rootbeergnome
- Start date
Irda Ranger
First Post
Joshua Dyal said:
Which, BTW, is one of the best $5 I have spent on a D&D product. There's plenty of good stuff in there, in addition to just the alt.sorcerer. I would recommend it to anyone, especially at that price.
I can't remember where I saw it on this board, but someone suggested that in fact Sorcerers did cast their spells differently. If you want to use that rule though you can't use Spellcraft to figure out what they're doing, and its impossibel to counterspell them.
Irda Ranger
Paragon
Wielder of the Power Cosmic
We did away with material comps for sorcerers and several other changes to the class that you would think would make the sorc more powerful than the wizard. But at last count in various groups of ours 6 arcane spell casters and one of them was a sorcerer. I think it is a matter of style choice by the player. Some people like the machine gunning of a sorc. others like the flexability and "knowledge" of a wizard.
Paragon
Paragon
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
My 2 cents...
Here's my two cents...
I think it is perfectly fine that sorcerers use material components, somatic gestures, and verbalization identical to wizards, even for aesthetic reasons. Here's my analogy...
Using magic is like speaking a language. There are two ways to "learn" a language - you can either be a native speaker and just grow up assimilating it or you can be a non-native speaker who studies it and learns it in a rote fashion (at least initially). Both methods can lead to complete fluency in a language, but the approach is vastly different.
I happen to know English as my native language. When I speak, write, or otherwise communicate in English, I never think about conjugating verbs, I don't worry about sentence structure, and so forth... I know what the correct conjugation and word order is "just because it feels right." I would be hard-pressed to explain the rules for why a sentence is conjugated the way it is, I would have to say, "because that's just the way it is."
I happen to know German and Hungarian as second/third languages. When I speak, write, or otherwise communicate in these languages (even though at one point I was so fluent in Hungarian that I have been mistaken by native speakers for a native speaker), in the back of my conscious mind, I am doing conjugations and making things fit together by the rote rules of language that I learned. I could dissect a sentence and tell you exactly what grammar rules lead to each conjugation.
I expect the reverse is true - a native Hungarian speaker fluent in English as a second language would have a tough time explaining all of the conjugation rules in a Hungarian sentence to me but could dissect an English sentence without difficulty.
The point is that the end result - a fully conjugated sentence - looks identical but the mental processes "under the hood" leading to the sentence are quite different.
In my mind, sorcerers represent the "native speaker" of magic. They "speak" the language of magic from childhood. The discovery that "I need a pinch of bat guano and then I contort my hand this way and say 'alakazam'" is as natural to them as discovering that when I pick up a rock and let go, it falls to the ground. It's not "getting lucky" so much as just having a natural feel and inclination that "this is how to do it." They literally never think to question it, they just intuitively know, "this is how it's done." This explains why they have more spells per day than a wizard... magic is more comfortable for them. It also explains their restriction on total spells known - they don't really know the "rules" of magic because they have never had a reason to learn them. Why study what comes naturally?
On the other hand, wizards represent the "non-native" speaker of magic. Through memorization, study, and other methods, they learn the "rules" of magic, then apply that knowledge to allow themselves to cast spells. They learn that bat guano is needed because the magic draws on the combustibles present, you have to contort your hand a certain way in order to focus the magic, and 'alakazam' is the thing that acts as the trigger to release the magic. Since they're not as comfortable with magic as a "native speaker" would be, they get fewer spells per day than a sorcerer. However, since they know all the rules, they have a much easier time putting new combinations together to generate new effects (they can know more spells).
The results end up identical (using V/S/M to generate a spell effect) just as a native and non-native fluent speaker of a language will use the same sentence structure and words to communicate an idea. This is why I don't have a problem with sorcerers and wizards casting spells in the same way. It's "what's going on under the hood" (i.e., mentally, how do they arrive at the decision to use these gestures/words) that makes all the difference between the two.
Obviously, at some point down the road, the native speaker will probably gain a pretty good grasp of the language rules and the non-native speaker will gain such a "feel" for the language that is *almost* intuitive, but hopefully the general example stands.
As far as spellcasting demons and other such creatures go, I figure they are even more sorcerous than a sorcerer and because of this attunement to magic, figure out ways to spontaneously apply metamagic feats to their spells without raising the spell level, much as someone who is truly in touch with a language can say the same thing a hundred different ways, each more eloquent than the last. Not a perfect analogy here, but oh well.
--The Sigil
Here's my two cents...
I think it is perfectly fine that sorcerers use material components, somatic gestures, and verbalization identical to wizards, even for aesthetic reasons. Here's my analogy...
Using magic is like speaking a language. There are two ways to "learn" a language - you can either be a native speaker and just grow up assimilating it or you can be a non-native speaker who studies it and learns it in a rote fashion (at least initially). Both methods can lead to complete fluency in a language, but the approach is vastly different.
I happen to know English as my native language. When I speak, write, or otherwise communicate in English, I never think about conjugating verbs, I don't worry about sentence structure, and so forth... I know what the correct conjugation and word order is "just because it feels right." I would be hard-pressed to explain the rules for why a sentence is conjugated the way it is, I would have to say, "because that's just the way it is."
I happen to know German and Hungarian as second/third languages. When I speak, write, or otherwise communicate in these languages (even though at one point I was so fluent in Hungarian that I have been mistaken by native speakers for a native speaker), in the back of my conscious mind, I am doing conjugations and making things fit together by the rote rules of language that I learned. I could dissect a sentence and tell you exactly what grammar rules lead to each conjugation.
I expect the reverse is true - a native Hungarian speaker fluent in English as a second language would have a tough time explaining all of the conjugation rules in a Hungarian sentence to me but could dissect an English sentence without difficulty.
The point is that the end result - a fully conjugated sentence - looks identical but the mental processes "under the hood" leading to the sentence are quite different.
In my mind, sorcerers represent the "native speaker" of magic. They "speak" the language of magic from childhood. The discovery that "I need a pinch of bat guano and then I contort my hand this way and say 'alakazam'" is as natural to them as discovering that when I pick up a rock and let go, it falls to the ground. It's not "getting lucky" so much as just having a natural feel and inclination that "this is how to do it." They literally never think to question it, they just intuitively know, "this is how it's done." This explains why they have more spells per day than a wizard... magic is more comfortable for them. It also explains their restriction on total spells known - they don't really know the "rules" of magic because they have never had a reason to learn them. Why study what comes naturally?
On the other hand, wizards represent the "non-native" speaker of magic. Through memorization, study, and other methods, they learn the "rules" of magic, then apply that knowledge to allow themselves to cast spells. They learn that bat guano is needed because the magic draws on the combustibles present, you have to contort your hand a certain way in order to focus the magic, and 'alakazam' is the thing that acts as the trigger to release the magic. Since they're not as comfortable with magic as a "native speaker" would be, they get fewer spells per day than a sorcerer. However, since they know all the rules, they have a much easier time putting new combinations together to generate new effects (they can know more spells).
The results end up identical (using V/S/M to generate a spell effect) just as a native and non-native fluent speaker of a language will use the same sentence structure and words to communicate an idea. This is why I don't have a problem with sorcerers and wizards casting spells in the same way. It's "what's going on under the hood" (i.e., mentally, how do they arrive at the decision to use these gestures/words) that makes all the difference between the two.
Obviously, at some point down the road, the native speaker will probably gain a pretty good grasp of the language rules and the non-native speaker will gain such a "feel" for the language that is *almost* intuitive, but hopefully the general example stands.
As far as spellcasting demons and other such creatures go, I figure they are even more sorcerous than a sorcerer and because of this attunement to magic, figure out ways to spontaneously apply metamagic feats to their spells without raising the spell level, much as someone who is truly in touch with a language can say the same thing a hundred different ways, each more eloquent than the last. Not a perfect analogy here, but oh well.
--The Sigil
Last edited:
Flying Monkey Style
First Post
Alternate method
Hey Rootbeer,
I don't like components for sorcerers either, but their still has to be that balance. Since sorcerers don't know how they cast magic, have them use a focal object of, say, a personal possesion with strong sentimental attatchments. Say a player is playing a six-year-old girl sorc. Her focal object might be her teddy bear, and though she doesn't realize it, she can only cast magic with it. Hell, she'll eventually outgrow it. Still not balanced? give it a chance for spell failure based on how long she's had it.
Hey Rootbeer,
I don't like components for sorcerers either, but their still has to be that balance. Since sorcerers don't know how they cast magic, have them use a focal object of, say, a personal possesion with strong sentimental attatchments. Say a player is playing a six-year-old girl sorc. Her focal object might be her teddy bear, and though she doesn't realize it, she can only cast magic with it. Hell, she'll eventually outgrow it. Still not balanced? give it a chance for spell failure based on how long she's had it.
I completely disagree with you there Sigil.
You're still talking about learned behaviour, not something that is instinctual. Language is not instinctual. It is learned behaviour. We are not born knowing how to speak the languuage of our country/parents, we learn it. As a wizard is not born knowing how to cast spells, he learns it. In fact, your analogy works with wizards but not sorcerers.
I see sorcerers as closer to psions than to wizards. Magic is a part of them. They can draw on elemental and supernatural forces via force of will, just as supernatural creatures do. They do not instinctively know that a rabbit turd or lizard tongue will evoke a spell.
You're still talking about learned behaviour, not something that is instinctual. Language is not instinctual. It is learned behaviour. We are not born knowing how to speak the languuage of our country/parents, we learn it. As a wizard is not born knowing how to cast spells, he learns it. In fact, your analogy works with wizards but not sorcerers.
I see sorcerers as closer to psions than to wizards. Magic is a part of them. They can draw on elemental and supernatural forces via force of will, just as supernatural creatures do. They do not instinctively know that a rabbit turd or lizard tongue will evoke a spell.
CaptainCalico
Community Supporter
Good idea
I have been playing with the idea of an "arcane focus as well. I was thinking of having the sorcerer craft a focus for each spell that they learn, with the cost of the focus dependent on the spell's level.
Either way, it makes them distinct from wizards while still giving the DM the chance to "disarm" them.
ConcreteBuddha said:
I have been playing with the idea of an "arcane focus as well. I was thinking of having the sorcerer craft a focus for each spell that they learn, with the cost of the focus dependent on the spell's level.
Either way, it makes them distinct from wizards while still giving the DM the chance to "disarm" them.
Desdichado
Hero
That's one of the main problems with the balance model of 3e: although it works great, after you start thinking about it, things like this pop up that really don't make any sense (now try explaining why the cleric looks the way he does mechanically!)
However, the system can be patched while still retaining balance, for those who wish to use it. I prefer Monte's sorceror, which really is a fairly minor tweak, but with quite a bit of flavor. Monte's bard is even better, because the mechanics work completely differently, but it does a much better job at capturing the concept of the bard instead of mimicking prior versions of the class.
It just takes a little while to get the exact classes you want: balanced, flavorful, attractive (so players will play them occasionally!) and fun. I think the PHB sorceror falls a little short on the flavorful aspect.
However, the system can be patched while still retaining balance, for those who wish to use it. I prefer Monte's sorceror, which really is a fairly minor tweak, but with quite a bit of flavor. Monte's bard is even better, because the mechanics work completely differently, but it does a much better job at capturing the concept of the bard instead of mimicking prior versions of the class.
It just takes a little while to get the exact classes you want: balanced, flavorful, attractive (so players will play them occasionally!) and fun. I think the PHB sorceror falls a little short on the flavorful aspect.
Psion
Adventurer
Bavix said:
That's a specious justification if I ever saw one. Spells are not spell like abilities. Sorcerers cast spells. Sorcerers do not have spell like abilities.
1) Who said it is accessed in the same way?
2) Who are you to say what is "wrong".
IMC, sorcerers are just more reflexive/instictive. Both wizards and sorcerers have to draw magic to them to prepare their spells. Wizards are more formulaic. It takes time for them to apply wizardly rules and axioms that give the spell form, so they must meticulously shape the magical energy they gather to prepare the spells. Sorcerers on the other hand don't operate by formulae and principles. They just do what feels right... and that often involves components. They can store energy raw and shape it at a moment's notice since they aren't doing any calculations.
Is that wrong? Feh.
So, since you in your game use sorcerers to represent shi'ar's, everyone who doesn't make that equivalence is "ridiculous"?
Similar Threads
