>Wizards forget spells just because they didn't spend all day memorizing how to say ABRAKADABRA a lot
Lol
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>Wizards forget spells just because they didn't spend all day memorizing how to say ABRAKADABRA a lot
I genuinely have never understood how that works. Why can't wizards remember spells yet Sorcerors can know them all instinctually?
effort vs talent
Why do Clerics have spell slots when their powers are given to them via a divine being or entity? Why is worshipping nature different from worshipping a god? Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
D&D internal logic falls apart when you apply any level of thought to it.
>Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
Cleric/Warlock multiclass boom
>Multiclassing
homosexualry, but this is D&D and that's how it do.
You can worship anything as anything.
>Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
You can, its called multiclassing a cleric.
A warlock gets his powers from a one off transaction. You sold a kidney (possibly yours) to the yakuza and got a million dollars for it (levelling up is you mastering the magic originally gifted to you).
A cleric gets his powers from a continual relationship, you use the company credit card (levelling up is your god/patron recognizing your devotion and giving you more power).
>A warlock gets his powers from a one off transaction
false
>Why do Clerics have spell slots when their powers are given to them via a divine being or entity?
The power uses the same system in place for all forms of magic. It doesn't matter how the power comes on for it, it goes into the same format.
>Why is worshipping nature different from worshipping a god?
Druids don't necessarily worship nature, they just have a connection to it similar to a cleric's spark.
>Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
You absolutely can but mechanically you have made a pact with your worshipped god. Depending on the god that pact could be unknown to you, same as a cleric can be unaware of what their clerical god is (esp with trickery domains). But mechanically you're playing a warlock, there's no reason you can't flavor it narratively as reward for worship.
Sorc and Warlock should have had their class chasses swapped. A warlock is one that manipulates magic artificially, so metamagic and slot manipulation should come naturally as part of their pact. A sorcerer should be casting everything as loud as they possibly can, regenerate magic much faster, and have various customizable options that they can specialize into.
The origin of it was a daemonic entity (in the "unseen background actor" sense) occupying your brain-space with the casting of the spell resulting in it leaving. Memorization practice meant more brain-space to occupy, but you'd have to refer back to the writing to get it back in your head.
When this stopped being remotely workable, the explanation shifted to preparation being prepatory rituals creating "astral constructs" (no relation to 3.5 Psionics) that set off the spell with the in-combat action. The "memorize" and "cast" terminology remained LONG after this, creating a very awkward situation.
Because Sorcerers have inherited magical properties from an ancestor, which took a bit to settle into a remotely coherent implementation of crossblood-dependent talent in magic
>Why do Clerics have spell slots when their powers are given to them via a divine being or entity?
Because the powers granted are spells operating on most of the same fundamental principals as Wizards.
>Why is worshipping nature different from worshipping a god?
Because nature itself is on the same Plane as you with the underlying energy tied mostly to the Inner Planes, whereas a god "of nature" resides in and draws energy predominantly from the Outer Planes.
>Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
Those pacts are one-off deals that result in you developing the power yourself whereas Clerics are an ongoing relationship for spell-by-spell transfers.
There IS official lore for most of the setups already, but it's awkward because a lot of the details were backfilled after the mechanics had already been printed.
>There IS official lore for most of the setups already, but it's awkward because a lot of the details were backfilled after the mechanics had already been printed.
Naturally and I accept the fact that is how it be for D&D. It still doesn't make RAGE OF NATURE any less moronic.
>The origin of it was a daemonic entity (in the "unseen background actor" sense) occupying your brain-space with the casting of the spell resulting in it leaving. Memorization practice meant more brain-space to occupy, but you'd have to refer back to the writing to get it back in your head.
>
>When this stopped being remotely workable, the explanation shifted to preparation being prepatory rituals creating "astral constructs" (no relation to 3.5 Psionics) that set off the spell with the in-combat action. The "memorize" and "cast" terminology remained LONG after this, creating a very awkward situation.
Are these processes from either setup explained in any detail anywhere, or is it all vague on purpose? I always have trouble imagining what wizards actually write in spellbooks, and do with that information to prepare the spell, but I don't think anyone designing the games really has anything in mind, either.
In the former case it's like three lines of exposition from third-person omniscient perspective. In the latter case the only sources I recall are tie-in novels that needed to explain why they weren't using "proper" slots-per-day.
The description that clicked for me is the wizard goes through all the effort of spellcasting beforehand, stopping right on the edge of completion. Then what they do when they need the spell is the last 1%. Memorisation is spell fluffing.
That's what my canon too. But it also implies that wizards get "infinite" casts a day by casting as a long ritual and/or they should be able to re-fill their slots whenever they have enough free time.
5e ritual casting is a gigantic “plot hole” that’s completely fricks up everything but is just swept under the rug because of lazy developers and an unthinking target audience
>But it also implies
It implies a refractory period and a load limit, not simply edging in another spell slot (and another, and another) when there's free time.
Sorcerers were never a thing in older editions of D&D, so the discrepancy is literally not my problem.
It's like professional musicians memorising/refreshing a set of music pieces. They can have a certain set to instantly perform in the day, but a greater range to pull from than other classes
Sorcerers are like self practised street musicians who have a supernatural "ear" for this and can even improvise/adapt. But they can't pick up almost everything through study like wizards
Other classes are like the sorcerer with the supernatural part gifted by a power, or by the literal musical hack of bards
It's funny how everyone likens wizards to STEM but this metaphor, as well as comparing it to stage acting with lines and choreography to memorize, are actually much more appropriate.
>as well as comparing it to stage acting with lines and choreography to memorize
So to extend the metaphor
>Welcome to Whose Sorc is it Anyway, where everything is made up and the XP doesn't matter. Now it's time for Spells From a Hat. "How to get rid of an orc."
Read Jack Vance, tourists. It's not that fricking hard to grasp.
It's still the best justification for the concept of a spellbook that I've seen. I think the games should go back to copying the novels wholesale for the magic system. The newer takes on it make a lot less sense because they're missing context.
Spellbooks are just cookbooks.
Wizards actually know how to cook, sorcerors just kind of mix stuff.
>Read Vance
I've been trying to order them into my Library. Til then I'm reading Pratchet because i heard it was similar on the Disc. All I've learned is Wizards just piss and moan and b***h at each other, no one actually cast anything, and DEATH is kinda funny. Can you sum it up for us, like what are Wizards supposed to be like when their brains are a little eaten up by magic?
>Why can't wizards remember spells yet Sorcerors can know them all instinctually?
Because sorcerers are accessing magic that is intrinsically infused into their blood or their soul, similar to the way a dragon casts spells without needing to study or know the principles of magic.
Meanwhile, a wizard has to consult elaborate formulae that change based on time and circumstance to prepare their spells.
I also like to think of it as being related to ritual casting; the wizard partially ritual-casts the spells as they consult their book (which also serves as an arcane focus for the purpose), and releases the spells when they cast them.
>Why do Clerics have spell slots when their powers are given to them via a divine being or entity?
Your deity does magic for you and gives you access to it.
>Why is worshipping nature different from worshipping a god?
Because you're worshipping primal forces directly without interfacing through a divine being, so the method of accessing the magic is different.
>Why, as a Warlock, can't I worship my Patron as a god?
I suppose you could, but again, the method by which you access your magic is different than other spellcasters (though similar in some respects to a cleric).
Maybe you should all just go read Jack Vance's The Dying Earth since it's the inspiration for "Vancian Casting"?
I'm not going to waste my time reading fantasy slop lmao. Explain reasoning or frick off
If you don't give a shit, why?
I do, that's why I ask
I simply have innate disdain to fantasy books and won't read those turds. What a fricking waste of time
>What a fricking waste of time
Explaining it or typing up relevant excerpts for you would be a waste of time so I won't do it. Go read Turjan of Miir.
Good observation, Anon. Great post
Have you slopped not slopping a sloppy shop?
>well I don't remember every single tiny syllable but basically I memorized the spell
Literally everyone I've spoken to about D&D 5e treats warlock effectively as a cleric of a deity with bad PR (even if they don't admit it). I generally care more about the mechanics suiting the character than the mechanic's flimsily held-up fluff suiting the character, anyway.
Spell slots are, in general, a colossal waste of time and mental effort to justfy. You've got two options: spell points, or 4e-style powers. Take your pick; it really doesn't matter otherwise.
>Everything that's original and weird confuses stupid zoomer used to vidya
That's to be expected rly
>original
It’s nice to know at least I’m not as stupid as you are.
Truly a dog shit thread that has no reason to not be a post on 5e general.
It applies to more than DnD 5e. Cope.
Dindy sux, news at 11
No, it makes sense. It's like knowing classical Greek and Latin from being classically educated but being dogshit rusty at it because you haven't studied since high school. Your wizard's like, "Abracadabrous? Abracadabrus? Man, what was that declension again? Abra... Abracadabro? Man, I know the root word. Abracadabra?"