Tony Vargas
Legend
Trying to think of something this comment wouldn't apply to....The way D&D traditionally handles this is very weird.

Trying to think of something this comment wouldn't apply to....The way D&D traditionally handles this is very weird.
Trying to think of something this comment wouldn't apply to....![]()
But my contention is that it isn't a source of power at all. Knowledge of how to plug a cord into the wall is not a source of electricity. The nuclear reactor down the road that supplies the power to the line that goes to the wall socket IS. Knowing how to tap into it and what to do with it may be vital, but the power still COMES from somewhere.I know that's all explained in the Silmarilion, but in the Hobbit and LotR, he, like, makes fireworks, 'knows hundreds of spells of opening' and provides tons of exposition - he's very knowledge-oriented.
Sure, though who knows what she might retcon in her answer to the Silmarillion.Seriously, though, the idea of innate power (or talent) is not incompatible with the idea of arcane knowledge as a source of power.
I think my comment above still applies, and I think (though I am not a huge expert on Hermetic magic) that it relies on the concept of accessing the power of various angels, devils, etc. Even when creating 'magic items' this seems to be the case. So hermetic spell-casting could be seen as more like Divine or Primal.No, but they draw on the hermetic tradition which dates back at least that far. Crowley revealed secrets of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn which purported to have a lineage of centuries, even though they were just a comparatively recent offshoot of the Rosicrucians. That was more the tail-end of people taking hermeticism seriously, though, it was much bigger in prior centuries - back, for the famous instance, when Newton was into it.
of course, our whole pop-culture perception of magic is infused with 19th & early 20th century weirdness. You don't need to have read Sinnett's 'The Occult World' to have been influenced by Theosophy, you just have to have watched Topper or, more recently, Ghost.![]()
What most wizards did in fiction: either vanish into thin air, or fall back on the one magical trick they had that worked in a fight, or pick up a weapon - and generally only one of those per wizard.
For 5e I've seriously considered slotless casters - at-will 'cantrips' and ritual casting, only. It'd be closer to the depiction in genre and would hardly be underpowered.
The other part of the idea of the knowledge-wizard is that his specific occult knowledge could provide strategies or preparation to deal with specific threats, making it into more of a 'leader' role class...
Magic doesn't have to work that way (though D&D magic certainly does). It can just be. You know a certain sequence of words and gestures conjures light from nothing. You can conjure light. It doesn't need to be for a reason, or because you're special, or from a place or conserve mass or energy or anything, it can just be ex nillo.But my contention is that it isn't a source of power at all. Knowledge of how to plug a cord into the wall is not a source of electricity. The nuclear reactor down the road that supplies the power to the line that goes to the wall socket IS. Knowing how to tap into it and what to do with it may be vital, but the power still COMES from somewhere.
Part of it is the idea of a proto-religion of which all other religions are incomplete realizations, and part of it is theurgy, yes, but it's all a set of secret knowledge, and the perception of hermeticism that informs the image of the wizard, like the word 'wizard,' itself, suggests special knowledge at the heart of it.I think my comment above still applies, and I think (though I am not a huge expert on Hermetic magic) that it relies on the concept of accessing the power of various angels, devils, etc.
I don't see any impediment to a less Vancian knowledge-oriented 'wizard' in AEDU, it's a flexible enough little structure. It'd probably lean heavily (and without controversy, because magic) on the kind of mechanics the Warlord tended to.Well, yes, all of these are possible. They don't all fit well with the 4e paradigm of class orthogonality and equality of roles in combat situations, obviously. HOWEVER, I'm not really opposed to a slightly modified paradigm where some characters 'do stuff' before-hand to get themselves set up, to bolster other PCs, etc. There's a number of ways that could work. It would, to some degree, modify class orthogonality, but if it can still slot into AEDU then I think its cool (well, plus the whole rituals stuff, that's fine too).
In some cases, I rejected them at first, but started to like them after a while.
Sure, but there ARE 'laws of dramatic storytelling' which dictate that things work in ways that are dramatic. 'For no reason at all' doesn't work well in that sort of sense. "I got my power because my family has an ancient hereditary pact with the Animal Lords" works pretty well. Obviously there's a LOT of possibilities and they vary depending on how you tell the story.Magic doesn't have to work that way (though D&D magic certainly does). It can just be. You know a certain sequence of words and gestures conjures light from nothing. You can conjure light. It doesn't need to be for a reason, or because you're special, or from a place or conserve mass or energy or anything, it can just be ex nillo.
It also doesn't have to be knowledge - it could be intent, belief, or some of the things I just got done saying it didn't have to be, like 'because you're special' or 'for a reason.'![]()
I didn't ask for a set of laws of magico-physics. I just pointed out that humans, generally speaking, don't just inherently do magic. There's usually something behind it. Some magical power, some connection with some sort of cosmic force, etc. Again, dramatic needs.But to heck with the laws of thermodynamics, the cubed-squared-law, and other rational, scientific impediments, as far as magic is concerned.![]()
I don't see any impediment to a less Vancian knowledge-oriented 'wizard' in AEDU, it's a flexible enough little structure. It'd probably lean heavily (and without controversy, because magic) on the kind of mechanics the Warlord tended to.![]()
Swordmages could be Martial (in the same way monks could be), and Bards could well be primal or something.
Yeh I have considered the possibility that sword mages might be in that wierd assed end of every skill which bleeds into extremes that outsiders call magic.
I guess it depends on the setting and belief systems. In Xanth humans inherently do magic - other creatures inherently are magic. Most of the 'magic spells' you'll find in classical sources are weird little rituals that today we'd call 'superstition,' but that anyone might do.I just pointed out that humans, generally speaking, don't just inherently do magic.
Sure, but occult knowledge can get you those connections. They aren't incompatible ideas, and the thread of wizards being wise & knowledgeable goes way back and is pretty near the surface, to day (conflated with the wonder/power of science & technology no doubt).There's usually something behind it. Some magical power, some connection with some sort of cosmic force, etc. Again, dramatic needs.
I remember reading the explanation of the Arcane power source in 4e and feeling like it was a tad circular or meaningless. It prettymuch did boil down to arcane powers working because they were arcane - secret, hidden, complicated, etc...Well, we have plenty of 'non-Vancian' arcane classes in 4e, so yes it works. I'd say all, except the wizard and maybe the artificer, perhaps the bard to an extent, tap into some sort of power outside themselves. I always wondered why warlocks and sorcerers are arcane at all....