Does anyone else think it is ridiculous that Sorcerers use components and such?

Jack Daniel said:
Well I have to agree that sorcerers should have to cast the same way as wizards. Why? Because they're both (and here's today's vocabulary word, boys and girls) arcane spellcasters. What is an arcane spell?

. . .


Nothing about this answers the question of why sorcerers should cast the same way as wizards. This is inherently a value judgement; you have mistaken the letter of the rules for what is the desired effect in the game. What should be in any particular game is whatever appeals most to the people who are playing that game. In this case, it appears that many people don't find the letter of the rules to their taste, and so they're perfectly justified in chucking out the rules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Here's my opinion:

Whole idea of material components has always felt stupid to me since 1st edition D&D.

And sorcerers don't certainly use material components, unless it is ritual or something. Away that dragon casting of spider climb where I visualize dragon eating a live spider. Yeh, sure, do they have to eat giant spider, then, would make easier catch to something that big at least.

Whole idea for material component is nothing more, than relic of optional rule tradition and forced attempt to of game balace to spell casters.

Also, there are examples where equally powerful spells exist, and another of them wastes valuables and another not. Think temporal statis and imprisoment for example. Sure, you have to know something of person to use imprisoment, but so what, it's better spell anyway, cause it can't be simply dispelled.


I prefer wizards having more variation with 'right' components. Also, I like wizards using foci, like tattoos or rune stones, or such.

Sorcerers don't use components, unless they learned way to control their natural ability from some wizard's book, or had such teacher. Personal foci for sorcerer's are possible, as well as obsessive belief (though not true one), that their power is dependant on certain amulet they carry around or something like that.

Of course, if in your world sorcerers are just 'war wizards', they'd probably work just as wizards, except they had this special version of 'spell mastery' of their few 'known spells'.

Of course, WotC take on sorcerer is, that it's basicly just toned down wizard.

So, to make their existance as separate character class, they need to have some worthwhile different flavor.
 

hong said:


Nothing about this answers the question of why sorcerers should cast the same way as wizards. This is inherently a value judgement; you have mistaken the letter of the rules for what is the desired effect in the game. What should be in any particular game is whatever appeals most to the people who are playing that game. In this case, it appears that many people don't find the letter of the rules to their taste, and so they're perfectly justified in chucking out the rules.

"Should" is too grossly subjective to argue in concrete terms. I like very much that sorcerers are not psions, because it lets me do what I want with them in my campaign, which is to make them more like their fantasy equivalent. Sorcerers in movies and literature never eschew material components (wizards do that a lot more often); but they are almost always summoners and diviners. If I argue that sorcerers should be restricted to those schools, who would agree with my "should"? ... Yeah, thought so.
 
Last edited:

Jack Daniel said:

"Should" is too grossly subjective to argue in concrete terms.

Then you shouldn't have bothered to post to the thread. ;)

I like very much that sorcerers are not psions, because it lets me do what I want with them in my campaign, which is to make them more like their fantasy equivalent. Sorcerers in movies and literature never eschew material components (wizards do that a lot more often); but they are almost always summoners and diviners. If I argue that sorcerers should be restricted to those schools, who would agree with my "should"? Yeah, though so.

There's nothing wrong with doing it that way. Whatever floats your boat, as the saying goes. The point is that justifying what floats your boat by saying that that's the rules is not kosher.
 

hong:
Nothing about this answers the question of why sorcerers should cast the same way as wizards. This is inherently a value judgement; you have mistaken the letter of the rules for what is the desired effect in the game. What should be in any particular game is whatever appeals most to the people who are playing that game. In this case, it appears that many people don't find the letter of the rules to their taste, and so they're perfectly justified in chucking out the rules.

Exactly! Appealing to the rules in a thread that complains that the rules don't match the concept presented in the book hardly makes any sense. The point is, and this is not a vocabulary word, but it is an important concept: the rules of the sorceror class don't match the concept of the sorceror class very well. Therefore, yeah, we're talking homebrews and house rules here, of course. That's the whole point.
Jack Daniels:
"Should" is too grossly subjective to argue in concrete terms. I like very much that sorcerers are not psions, because it lets me do what I want with them in my campaign, which is to make them more like their fantasy equivalent. Sorcerers in movies and literature never eschew material components (wizards do that a lot more often); but they are almost always summoners and diviners. If I argue that sorcerers should be restricted to those schools, who would agree with my "should"? ... Yeah, thought so.

Dude, look at the title of the thread before you march in here and start complaining about whether or not anyone should be saying "the sorceror should be so-an-so." If you disagree with the title of the thread, then obviously you dont' think it should. Then again, what reason would you have for arguing in the thread in the first place?

Oh, and your examples of movies and literature is seriously flawed. In movies and literature there is no distinction whatsoever between wizards and sorcerors (except the Belgariad perhaps) or other types of "magic-users." That's a game construct, not a literary one.
 

Re: Good idea

CaptainCalico 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.


Thank you for your feedback. I thought my post had been ignored. (Not anyone's fault. Obviously, I've already made up my mind that sorcs should not cast spells like wizards. I've also houseruled that bards use perform checks in place of material components and/or use instruments as arcane focuses.)
.
.
.
The reason why we had sorcerers have only one all-encompassing arcane focus instead of one for each spell was because we wanted simplicity and we wanted the feel of a personal totem.

"Simplicity" because carrying around a focus for each spell with a material component would be too time consuming, would be too much of a hassle for the sorc, and wouldn't deviate enough from material components.

"Personal totem" because we liked the idea of a sorcerer channeling through a conduit of the magical energy or becoming one with a physical object in order to transcend reality and grasp magical reality.

Purely magical beings such as dragons and extraplanar beings, on the other hand, do not need a totem. They are already aware of and can interact with the duality of mundane and magical reality. They see mortal sorcerers as "needing a crutch". Hence, "spell-like" abilities...

Mortal sorcerers can discard this limitation the same way that wizards can: ascension to godhood. But obviously, that carries other perks as well...
 

RangerWickett said:
Hey, Sean, or anyone else who was on the original design team or a playtester, do you think there's much of a chance of us ever hearing about what various stages the development of 3e went through? Can we hear what you folks considered putting in but kept out?

Well, people such as myself are still bound by an NDA, so I can't just drop big chunks on info like that (such as the core class that almost made it into the game). As for the people at WotC, who knows, but the people of RPG R&D (particularly after all the layoffs) are so busy working under the cruel whips of the bean counters that they don't have much time to raise their heads to talk about such things, I think.
 


seankreynolds said:

Well, people such as myself are still bound by an NDA, so I can't just drop big chunks on info like that (such as the core class that almost made it into the game).

Now that was just plain mean , Sean. ;)
 

seankreynolds said:
Well, people such as myself are still bound by an NDA, so I can't just drop big chunks on info like that (such as the core class that almost made it into the game). As for the people at WotC, who knows, but the people of RPG R&D (particularly after all the layoffs) are so busy working under the cruel whips of the bean counters that they don't have much time to raise their heads to talk about such things, I think.

seankreynolds said:
Since the people at WotC RPG R&D are very busy (especially after all the layoffs) toiling under the cruel whips of the bean counters, I don't think they'll have much time to answer detailed questions like that.

Double post?
 

Remove ads

Top