Harry Potter: Sorcerer or Wizard?

[orcmonk220]

Hiya
I was just thinking, would you consider Harry Potter and pals to be more wizards or sorcerers, in DnD game terms? There are arguements for both, but here are the most prevailent for each one:

Sorcerer:
- Doesn't prepare spells, has them memoried.
- Seems to have more 'spell slots' (if you look at it that way)
- Naturally attuned to magic.

Wizard
- Uses spellbooks (the biggy!)
- Uses wands, something wizards tend to do (that I've experienced) more than Sorcerers.
- Attends a wizard's school.

I don't think they're a right or wrong answer, just wanted to hear everyone's view on the matter.
Chris

 

[Darklone]

Neither. They learn spells like wizards but cast a few prepared ones spontaneously... and their wands are not D&D wands.

Montes AU spellcasters hit the definition.

 

[Pbartender]

Neither. They learn spells like wizards but cast a few prepared ones spontaneously... and their wands are not D&D wands.

Montes AU spellcasters hit the definition.

Wizards using the UA Spell Point Variant would probably work as well.

With this variant, spellcasters still prepare spells as normal (assuming they normally prepare spells). In effect, casters who prepare spells are setting their list of “spells known” for the day. They need not prepare multiple copies of the same spell, since they can cast any combination of their prepared spells each day (up to the limit of their spell points).

For example, Boredflak the 4th-level wizard has an Intelligence score of 16. When using the spell point system, he would prepare four 0-level spells, four 1st-level spells (three plus his bonus spell for high Int), and three 2nd-level spells (two plus his bonus spell for high Int). These spells make up his entire list of spells that he can cast during the day, though he can cast any combination of them, as long as he has sufficient spell points.

The wands are simpy a Focus spell component, or a substitute for "Material Component Pouches"...

Oooh... Hey, that's not a half bad idea. I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Neither. They learn spells like wizards but cast a few prepared ones spontaneously... and their wands are not D&D wands.

Montes AU spellcasters hit the definition.

Yep. Magisters definetely fit the role to a 'T'.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hiya
I was just thinking, would you consider Harry Potter and pals to be more wizards or sorcerers, in DnD game terms? There are arguements for both, but here are the most prevailent for each one:

Sorcerer:
- Doesn't prepare spells, has them memoried.
- Seems to have more 'spell slots' (if you look at it that way)
- Naturally attuned to magic.

Wizard
- Uses spellbooks (the biggy!)
- Uses wands, something wizards tend to do (that I've experienced) more than Sorcerers.
- Attends a wizard's school.

I don't think they're a right or wrong answer, just wanted to hear everyone's view on the matter.
Chris

Meh. Neither, IMHO.

It needs to be a class where his wand comes into play, as much as a weapon is to a fighter. Spells Per Day won't work here. Spells Per Encounter might.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Dragonbait...

Oh sorry, wrong forum. I throw my hat in the neither category too; or possibly both (dual classed?)

 

[William drake]

Neither

Since he could be either, he's neither. And, I've never liked how magic is so easy...and almost so mundane considering how everyone has its, and uses it without much effort, problems or serious consiquences. In one of the movie, Hermyne, uses a watch that bends time...hello, superpowerful item, should not be in the hands of a 12yrold. If magic does normal things, then doesn't magic just become tec after a while?

 

[diaglo]

Wandelier.

it isn't the size of the wand that matters, it is the magic in it


IYKWIMAITYD

 

[Ranger REG]

Wandelier.

it isn't the size of the wand that matters, it is the magic in it

Right, as if your "magic" is potent for sowing into one's "cauldron."

 

[megamania]

If magic does normal things, then doesn't magic just become tec after a while?

Eberron