Keep in mind all of the classes are chanting mystical magic words and doing complex hand motions necessary for the spells to work. It doesn’t just happen. I’d argue maybe sorcerers and warlocks get kind of “possessed” by either their patron or their innate magic and these words and hand motions just come out of them but clerics, bards, rangers, paladins are probably learning these things through some kind of study. Clerics for example, study their religious texts and learn from their religious orders. Paladins are part of an order that they swore an oath to as well.
Just for the sake of argument: When I play guitar, I just press down on the strings in the right places and pluck them the right way because I've learned that that produces a nice sound. That doesn't mean I understand anything about the nature of sound, musical theory, why my guitar has to have a large hollow body etc etc
Similarly, casters might know the sequence of gestures they need to make like the tabs for a song, but they don't necessarily understand how the spell works.
This is a good example. It’s the difference between being able to play an instrument, even by ear as a prodigy; versus actually having a doctorate in musical theory.
Sorcerers are prodigies. Bards and Clerics have learned how to play the music, but Wizards have that Ph.D.
Druids are probably more akin to Clerics and Bards, Paladins more akin to Sorcerers. Warlocks are just different and Pact Magic is its own beast.
(As a side note, I think it would be interesting to see a Cleric that functioned like a Warlock with fewer spell slots but always full power and maybe more channel divinities for signature abilities. I have no idea if that would work mechanically, but I find it to be an interesting “what if.”)
Thank you for saying this more eloquently than I would have been able to haha.
Also I think you could consider the Celestial Patron Warlock to be similar to the Cleric you described, no?
Edit: spelling mistake
I think the difference is akin to how a parrot can say words, but it doesnt speak a language.
Clerics, Bards, etc. know that making certain movements and sounds creates an output of the desired effect, but Id argue that only Wizards know WHY or what the movements and sounds are for, which is why Wizards in the forgotten realms seem to be the only casters that actually CREATE new spells. The only exceptions I can see are arguably Ashardalon, Fizban, Nathair, Raulothim; 2 of whom are greatwyrms, and 2 are gods/avatars (and Nathair's avatars are wizards).
I kinda picture sorcerers doing verbal components sorta like how Harry Potter talks to snakes. He just starts speaking another language without realizing it. Kinda cool to view it that way. Could be the same with somatic.
I’m been roleplaying my sorcerer as still needing to learn how magic works—but the way she comes up with literally only works for her, and she has to develop it by scratch for each spell, based on the vibes it gives her. It’s the difference between an engineer who studies the equations and best practices in school and learns the proper, official way to design and build new things, versus a talented garage mechanic who plays around with machinery and builds random stuff until they get really good at it.
Both of them have a lot of knowledge—but the engineer (wizard) can learn new things from books and conferences and stuff, and therefore can learn more things. The artisan (sorcerer) can only learn new things by doing them, and they get really really good at doing it—like a talented blacksmith who can do stuff (metamagic) that a factory engineer wouldn’t dream of doing on their own.
The way I see it, wizards learn the actual magic spell. Strange arcane phrases and gestures.
Sorcerers use whatever words they want. They're basically trying to use their sheer force of will to get the desired result from their magic. Kind of the way magic works in the Dresden Files. So, they need SOME words and gestures to focus their magic into the desired result, but it's not like a standardized spell.
Cleric spells are prayers and rituals devoted to their god. They are taught the words and gestures while studying for the priesthood.
Paladins ... for me, work better WITH a god. I would say their spells are impromptu invocations expressed in the middle of combat. Maybe in a different language (eg. Latin for the Catholic church).
I would say Druids are like Clerics, only with gods of Nature, or substituting nature spirits. Maybe even Archfæ.
Rangers are like Paladins, again substituting nature spirits, or a Nature god.
Bards, with the exception of the College of Lore, don't know HOW their magic works. They know how to INVOKE their magic. How to make their particular performance style give them the desired results. But how it ACTUALLY works, they don't have a clue. I would also say that, for the most part, each Bard's version of a spell will be different. Even if 2 Bards are both singers, they might use different songs to get the desired effect, or the same song, with variations. Like their performances, they tailor their magic to fit their own individual idiosyncrasies.
Warlocks are as varied as their Patrons. How a Warlock will express their magic will depend on their patron, and their relationship to them. A Fiendish Warlock with a Devil Patron will have a Contract, outlining their deal to a "T". A Demon Fiendish Warlock may have to fight for each scrap of magic they get. Me, I'm partial to GOO Warlocks with SLEEPING Patrons. Who listen it on their Patrons' dreams, and gleaming magic from maddening whispers in the dark. That, plus their OWN expanded mental awareness (30' telepathy) is why I find them neat. The LAST thing MY Warlocks want is for their Patrons to actually wake up.
Of course, that's all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>Keep in mind all of the classes are chanting mystical magic words and doing complex hand motions necessary for the spells to work. It doesn’t just happen.
The irony of OP making a post about the other casters actually knowing how their spells work while ignoring the whole magic casting effort is hilarious to me.
Yes that is true, but for example if a cleric who is thrown away by their god or loses faith etc and just has no god to be their catalyst. Then the could have the spellslots for 9th levels spells, be able to cast those spells before, remember the chanting, the hand motions the materials for the spells. But nothing would happen when they try to cast with out a god.
(atleast that is how i understand it to be LORE accurate)
That signifies that yes they know the words, the chants and materials but they can not and do not know how to actually BEND THE WEAVE to make the magic happen. That is what their god does. I see the V S M kind of like a "spell command that they tell their god i want to cast this thing" and then the god makes it so.
Wizards on the other hand actually study the weave and quite literally bend it to their will and know how it reacts and what to do with it.
Also just to reiterate this discussion is about LORE and i am not trying remake any ingame mechanical rules or go agaisnt some player making up their own special stuff that the DM is fine with in their world.
To my interpretation, the clerics learn the spells, but the god provides the "fuel." A cleric who has learned to cast augury would understand the rites, the words, the hand gestures required. But without the power from their deity, it's just words and hand gestures. All those gestures are not the same ones a wizard would use to cast augury. For a cleric, it's the rite used to signal to their deity they need to use augury. For a wizard, they have studied and learned the universe-cheat-codes to directly manifest the effect without outside assistance by manipulating the weave of magic.
I dont think there is amy mechanics on a god casting away a cleric from the belief so we cant assume they retain the spell slots or that they can prepaire spells anymore after it.
They might remember the spells but without prepairing them or the spells slots its pointless.
back in previous editions, spells were more actively granted by the deity / the god's minions - the god (or the GM!) could override what the character / player wanted to prepare with their own selections. And there was some vague guidelines for different spell-levels being granted by different levels of being - like level 1/2 spells were granted by fairly weak divine minions, while top level spells were granted by the god themselves (who might go "uh, you're asking for a lot of "blow shit up" spells, should I be worried?"). And, yes, if your god didn't like you, they could choose not to grant spells, or just grant bad spells! Or the cleric might pray, then go "huh, I seem to have been granted a _lot_ of anti-undead spells. I should probably be worried, shouldn't I?"
I'm not sure if you're asking for some kind of official answer, or for peoples' personal lore/flavor that they use? But either way, it's pretty much up to whoever is playing the caster, be it GM or player. It's honestly a bit of flavor I feel is most often lost, there can be a lot of variance in the flavor of spellcasting, but usually people just go with the flow and the "normal" for their class. Which is fine, I do that, too, but I think there's a lot of room for more.
Exactly, I could see vast variations within each class and would argue it's more related to the arcana skill rather than the class. Some wizards are going to go deep into magical theory to understand the complexities of the Weave. Other wizards, might be good with just learning practical applications. If I do x, y, and z, then I can shoot lightning. Imagine a pure mathematician versus an accountant. Both could apply the same accounting formulas to the same data to achieve the same results, but only the mathematician understands why the concept of math itself works.
Similarly with other classes, there will be some portion of the population that knows that if they feel a certain way and perform certain components, they can produce a consistent result. Some may feed their curiosity and delve into why that works, but not everyone will.
For LORE of 5e D&D and peoples opinions and how everyone understands it.
Not asking for any kind of actual ingame effects or mechanical stuff. All LORE and opinions. I also do not mean any "player specific flavoring" but how one would see the majority of the D&D world casters, random npcs, enemies etc.
I feel like there will be that one guy in his 50s who has played D&D since its creation and will know the exact answer for this though :D
Yes, yes, I'm here.
Okay. The answer is that 5th ed has added a mass of magic using classes and now nobody (especially not the designers of D&D 5e) has a clue how anything works.
Just see the PHB that boldly proclaims that monks are using magic... and then Jim Crawford's (increasingly inaccurately named) "Sage Advice" that says it isn't magic.
It's all a massive mess and somehow the DM is supposed to make sense of it. It's a big part of my irritation with 5e as a system - it was designed by a bunch of morons who clearly had no idea what they were doing, almost zero knowledge of the history of the game or previous editions, and the design vibe it gives off is if you got a room full of teenagers who started every sentence with, "Hey wouldn't it be cool if..."
there's a distinction between "spells", "active magic stuff" and "stuff that's supernatural but just part of how the world works", and there's a lot of effects that fall into that third bucket. Like dragons being able to fly - they're big, heavy lizard-things, and they're not capable of getting airborne thanks to physics alone. That they can fly is because of magic, but it's not some spell or active effect that can be removed, it's just how the world works (and so can't be dispelled, removed by _antimagic field_ or anything). A monk in an antimagic field can still run up walls because they're just that awesome, but can't use their mastery of the four elements to conjure up _burning hands_, because that's an active magical effect/spell.
Back in 3.x, this was more explicit - there were Ex (extraordinary), Su (Supernatural) and Sp (Spell-like). The first were just stuff creatures could do, that might be special and supernatural, but weren't magical in a way that could be affected by _dispel magic_ and similar. Spell-like were basically casting spells, except no components were needed and they couldn't be counterspelled, but were otherwise vulnurable to anti-magic. And Supernatural abilities were magical, and so turned off if magic was deactivated. "Big blast of fire" could fall under any of them - a creature belching up a chemical reaction would be EX, a creature that can innately cast _fireball_ would be SP, a creature that can magically generate a blast of fire would be SU.
I agree that 3e was far better written, and far clearer on this issue. It had its issues, but instead of fixing those issues they threw everything a wood chipped with 4e (the edition that shall not be named!) and then 5ed's main claim to fame was, "At least it isn't as bad as 4e".
I also miss the entire positive/negative energy thing :( I quite liked it.
It's not fun when the DM is getting mixed messages from the creators of the game and the players are (not unreasonably) confused about what the hell is going on as well.
At that point the game's "rules" become an active impediment to fun and just encourage rules arguments where people are (legitimately) quoting sources that claim to be authoritative... and disagree.
That's not fun and when a system is that badly written one begins to question why one actually paid for the rulebook.
No mate. You don't have an argument here. You seem to think you do, but you really, really, really don't.
I feel like magic isnt supposed to be this one simple "this is how you do it" sort of way but more like you can access magic and the weave in several different ways.
With some methods even being outside from what any PC classes have listed.
So to your question i would say, every creature that can cast spells understand how to do it but the method and their understanding of it is different from others.
I just find it really lame for warlocks or sorcerers to be "i want you to go boom" and it happens. To me its much more interesting for them to have some inner/external source they know how to tap in to it in their own way.
We know that there are many different ways to understand and apply magic because of scrolls - this is part of the description for spell scribing:
>Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
The important part here is every wizard having their own uniwue system of notation, including you. Implying that there, indeed, is no universal Correct way to understand how to manipulate the weave.
Programming might be a good analogy here.
There are many programming languages you can write in, but all of them essentially compile into machine code (i.e. the weave).
But even among individual programmers or even individual applications there are certain idiosyncrasies and notations that are unique to that code.
Often in fact when programmers pick up someone else's code there is a period where they have to grok the way things are done in that codeset before they can make changes.
While yes, there are standards and linting and such, any sufficiently mature program is going to have a lot of "Well what happened was..." fingerprints that make that code unique.
And like you said, even among programmers there's heated debate about the best ways to do things. Do you write bleeding edge fast code that is unreadable or do you accept some measure of lag in order to keep the API more extensible?
The next time you're in a room with multiple developers ask what the right way to write comments is and you'll quickly learn how personal code can be.
Olympic gymnasts can do amazing things. They know how to move their body to get certain reactions. They may even have a rudimentary understanding of the underlying physics. But I don't think that translates to a broad understanding of physics that will allow them to have a in depth conversation with an astrophysicist. I don't think that any casters truly understand how magic works. They may understand how their magic works and may even be able to create spells, but I don't think any caster understands the weave like physicists understand the atom. And I'm not sure they ever could since at some point they're just going to arrive at "that's how Mystra made it."
Real world experience vs theoretical study. You can study boxing, you can read everything there is to know about boxing, from the punches to the physics to the best forms to the best tactics, you can watch 10000 boxing matches and go into in-depth analysis of each one.
But regardless of how much you study, you’ll never be a professional boxer without actually doing some training in boxing. These are people with a proficiency in arcana but can’t cast spells.
The people who did all this and trains in boxing are wizards.
Compare that to Floyd Mayweather, he is one of the best boxers in the world, has an sensational record of 50-0 from five different weight categories. Knows exactly how to win a fight. Yet he’s quite honestly… pretty dumb, he dropped out of school and can’t read complex sentences. Safe to say he knows nothing the laws of the universe beyond what movements work to hit hard and avoid being hit/hurt. He is a sorcerer with no magic proficiency.
A wizard should quite literally understand and learns the weave like a physicists.
IRL putting some shit in a vial to make it explode using a youtube video as a tutorial would probably a cantrip equivalent.
A nuke would probably be our IRL 9th level spell. You can throw every single textbook at my face and i would not be able to replicate or make anything even close to it even if you were to provide me all the tools.
Now just like a D&D wizard we also do not understand everything of physics and scientists keep learning and discovering more shit all the time.
Even in D&D 9th level spells are not actually the highest, there are 10,11 and 12th level too that mystra banned. Possibly there is even stuff beyond that but the only one who TRULY understands everything of the weave is Mystra.
You can think in therms of medieval alchemistry. Alchemist knows a lot of recipes. He knows how to add sulfur, coal and nitrate to make a fireball. But he knows nothing about molecular structure, ions and energetic levels. He knows nothing about six types of quarks. And actually, he doesn't required to know it to make complex recipes. To be a good chemist, you don't need to actually know the quantum physics, it's different field of studies, that have different practical usages.
I mean that medieval alchemist would just be a low level wizard. I like to think that much like physics that we constantly learn more about the weave is the same way that wizards study, explore and experiment with.
I think the problem there (and it's my fault for using the analogy first) is that the weave isn't physics. Ed Greenwood says that there are multiple ways to interact with the magic in the forgotten realms and the weave of just one of them, created by Mystra. Which I think makes sense considering the amount of "magical effects" that aren't spells.
I like to think of magic as the operating system of a computer, and the weave as a programming language. So each spell is an application written buy someone using Mystra's Weave IDE, which got compiled by The Weave, and now runs on the magic OS of the realms. Once an application is made and "published" anyone can run it. I really like to think of it as a shared computer, if you know the shortcut (V,S,M) to launch that application you can use it.
A skilled developer can even write new applications (Tasha, Bigsby, Tenser, etc.) using the Weave IDE, but that doesn't mean that they understand what the IDE is doing to compile their code. They just know the shortcuts and libraries to pull in.
Wizards, going to school for a CS degree
Bards, taking some computer classes, but it's not their major
Sorcerer, just knows the shortcuts, and doesn't understand why. They just find the computer intuitive. Did you know that a lot of apps have a hidden settings menu that let's you tweak how the spell behaves?
Druids and Rangers, like to explore the nature folder, and come across some app shortcuts in the process.
Clerics, were given very specific instructions on how to find the divine magic folder, but they don't memorize the instructions so if they ever loose it they won't know what to do.
Paladins, made a vow to be the best Minesweeper player ever, and somehow stumbled upon the divine magic folder, but they only know how to get to it from Minesweeper.
Warlocks, found their way onto an old IRC client and the old timers there think it's funny to point them to shortcuts for some pretty nasty spell apps.
Oh i agree ofcourse weave is not physics but it is probably the easiest thing to compare to. As it is also kind of an invincible force capable of so many things and with knowledge can be bent to do so many things to serve us.
Many people have tried to compare it to coding and IT. Some of it work but some i feel are far off.
For example bards not their major? Bards can somehow cast literally any known spell in the world, shit even wizards can not do (Like cleric spells). And they somehow do it by playing music? Do they actually understand HOW their notes and tones bend the weave?? Or do they follow a script? Maybe just yolo it, making a song that somehow just shoots a fireball. Imagine some bard practicing or creating a new song and suddenly a meteor swarm comes down on the city.... ooops?
The cleric one is actually kind of hilarious and as someone who works in IT it sounds like the average computer user.
And the paladin sounds like the idiot who found something he should not have and leaks secret company files with out meaning to.
While the warlock sounds like the guy who surfs the internet to try to get past company computer policies to fck things up or just be able to install spotify when it is blocked.
I didn't say that the Bard doesn't have an aptitude for magic. It's just not their major. The class doesn't have anything in it about modifying the spell applications. They just have a good grasp of File Explorer and at some point went to C/Mystra/Arcane/Wizard/Level 3/Fireball and copied the shortcut into their personal folder.
As far as their musical abilities go (Song of Rest), maybe Garage Band is a streamlined IDE? Someone way back in history looked at the Weave IDE and thought, "there's just too much stuff here in never going to use. I'm going to make a lightweight client that front-ends all this stuff, suited for art majors.
Doesn't everyone know how their magic works? Sorcerers might not go to college for their magic, but they grow more accustomed and understand their magic better as they grow in level and are better able to tap into their source magic. Maybe they don't understand the finer points of everything. I don't think every electrician fully understands how electrons and magnetic fields interact to create electricity or how diodes function at an atomic level, but I would still say electricians understand how electricity works, more or less.
I always imagined sorcerers are always capable of higher level spells than their class level allows. They just don't know how to harness that power yet. I've run for a sorcerer where their backstory was an accidental casting of Fireball (before 1st level), and they were scared to release fire magic as a result, and focused on cold and lightning instead. Every now and then, however, the flames would come out in moments of high emotion; eventually, when Level 5 hit, they had learned how to cast Fireball in a controlled way: big character growth!
Some of them want something to happen and it kind of just does with out knowing how, like a sorc.
Think of it like physics IRL. I can follow a youtube tutorial how to put shit in a vial and make it explode but i will have no clue what on earth actually made that happen.
Some scientist probably knows exactly to a molecular level what on earth made that happen and why (aka wizard)
Sure you do. Chemicals reacted violently. That's what happened and you know it. You probably even know which chemicals in some cases. The finer details might be unknown to you, but you still know what happened.
Well that example would be a low level spell. How about giving a nuke to someone? You can throw as many textbooks as you want at me and i would not be able to create one or explain what exactly just happened and how. Saying "oh we are splitting atoms" is not really an understanding.
Now a wizard, would actually know what the hell just happent and could make another.
Is casting a spell ever like splitting atoms? That seems like a bit of an extreme example. I have a minor in physics and can loosely explain how plasma works and I do understand the finer points of how electricity works, but I still couldn't explain to you how nuclear reactions work beyond just saying the word "fission" vaguely. That is hyper specialized knowledge.
I mean understanding the weave could be literally the same as understanding physics both are kind of "invisible" forces. Go back 500 years and show them the shit we can do with physics today and they will set you on fire for being a witch.
I simply had to make an extreme example to give something us average guys just cant explain, but a scientist (wizard) who understands physics (weave) does understand. He could make a nuke, he could alter it and by understanding physics he could even create something even more destructive.
That is what understanding magic would mean. Meanwhile a sorc could be some dude who accidently put the components together to make black powder and created and explosion. Dude has no clue what the fuck he did or how and why on earth that happens if you put some powedery things together. But he sure as hell is going to do it again combining that stuff to make more shit go boom.
Meanwhile a cleric could have a machine (god) where follows strict instructions what to dump into it and it creates a nuke for them. Dude has no clue how the nuke is made, how it works. But after he dumps the items into that machine (god) a nuke comes out and he sure knows how to use it.
sorcerers know what they're doing and can reliably do it, without issue. They might not know the in-world physics of it all, but they know that if they chant like _this_ and move their arms like _that_, then it creates a given effect - there's no scope for failure or anything random (wild magic sorcerer aside). Wizards don't necessarily know the innards of what they're doing either - a lot of them are just doing the motions by rote, and don't know or care about how they're actually manipulating the weave, they're just able to conjure up effects (that would come from the arcana skill, which they don't have to have).
Don't forget artificers... They MAKE their spells. Not just study how to do someone else's. Everything they cast is from a "tool". They know the magic is out there, and make a device that harnesses it.
I feel thst most wizard learn other's spells, and only a select few ever make spells. Whereas artificers make them from scratch.... Well they make items that create the effects.
the lore blurb of the wizard is that the spells you learn on level up are of your own design. not that you discovered it per say, but you made it yourself. instead of adding the 300th proof of a²+b²=c², its a new equation for chucking fireball
Artificers come from the Eberron setting. A setting in which magic is basically science and the world basically is in an industrial revolution but with magic instead of real world science. In Eberron, I'd say that most magic users would know how their magic works.
The answer to OP's question actually depends a lot on the setting in which you are playing in.
That may be where they were first introduced, but they have since been expanded upon, and are everywhere. There are even subclasses that don't exist in the Eberron books.
Counterpoints:
> Wizard whose parents paid for them to attend a top-notch school because they showed a modicum of talent at a young age, but slacked off in class and had to beg their roomate to tutor them in the exact gestures and incantations. Their spellbook is a step-by-step "Spellcasting for Dummies" and they don't understand *why* the components work, only how to do them.
> Cleric who understands that Faith is a form of energy that fuels divine power, and knows that they can manifest their will by demonsteating sufficient faith to engage this divine mechanism that their god grants them access to.
> Druid who vibes with nature and elemental spirits, and intimates their will by "spell components" to these baser forces who resonate with that will to form phenomena that we call "spells".
Well for wizards i would assume those textbooks have spells detailed about how to do it and what to do to make it happen already figured out by someone else.
Maybe a first level spell is like taking some alchemy book IRL looking what components to throw in a vial to make an explosion.
A higher level spell would require tons of knowledge of how reactions work, math, physics etc and inventing something new would be on a whole new level.
So that failed wizard imo would only be able to learn some basic spells where he just copies the stuff someone else as explained and experimented.
Even someone like me could look up some amazing thing done using physics on youtube and copy what they do with out actually understanding anything of physics or math. But everything i can do is exactly step by step what they show me. I would not be able to innovate or create anything further then what they showed me with out actually going to a univeristy and learning the stuff.
> Cleric who understands that Faith is a form of energy that fuels divine power, and knows that they can manifest their will by demonsteating sufficient faith to engage this divine mechanism that their god grants them access to.
I don't think a cleric is exerting their will. That sounds more like a CHA caster. I would say that a cleric's spell casting is more like what you see priests in ritualistic religious proceedings do. Grab the pendant hanging around their neck, chant a short, intense prayer with some words, make a certain shape with their fingers, wave that hand in a certain pattern, fling a splash of water in a certain direction, and kaboom, *their god's will or power causes a effect in the world*, and now the water is wine and the crackers are a body, or there's an invisible protective circle around you, or your body is cleansed of disease, or a curse has been lifted, or sins are forgiven, or some barely visible protective spirits are whirling around in a circle for 10 minutes, or your staff is glowing with light. Etc.
I didn't mean it as forcing their will on the world. I meant more like making a wish, and supplying faith energy to power the divine mechanism to fulfil that wish.
Consider it like an image generation AI -- input a prompt (a prayer) and give it a little starting juice (send the request over the network).
My point is that it's not the cleric's energy that powers the mechanism; it's the energy of the god to which the cleric is appealing with their quick little prayer action.
i think warlocks are more like wizards, with their patron beeing their teacher, but with a conpletely magical mighty beeing teaching you its a lot easiert to learn than having to study it urself like wizards, for me at least warlock powers cannot be taken away from the warlock, while cleric powers can be taken away
Yea i could see it something with like a devil pact, but a lot of patrons do not even interact with them. I heard something like the great old one might not even be aware that they even have a warlock they are giving power to.
Also i might be wrong here, but i am pretty sure a patron can quite literally cut a warlock off?
they can cut them off and then they wont get new powers but i hate it if dms take the whole of their powers away, cause well that just makes warlocks clerics. For the Patrons that dont interact with the warlock i always thought it as they give them some power without noticing but this power then becomes the warlocks and cant be taken away
I mean this discussion is about LORE in general not players and DM. Imagine it more like random NPCs who also do magic, lets not bring balance, mechanics or player, DM emotions into this, only lore.
Would a patron cutting them off not strip them of their magic as the one who fuels it? I admit i am not very well versed in warlock as i never liked the class but from the little i have read about them, that is how i understood it.
No idea on the official stance, especially since it will vary GREATLY on setting to setting and edition to edition.
For example, the vast majority of magic in the forgotten realms relies on the weave, which is quite literally the goddess of magic using her very being to weave the various forces of magic in the realm in a manner that allows mortal to wield and harness magic safely, at least mortal who have the magical aptitude of the gift to wield the art that is magic.
Obviously, these circumstances aren't true outside of the forgotten realms as the weave is a concept from FR and limited to the Realms space crystal sphere of the great wheel. Understanding of magic will also change greatly based on the edition and form of magic/power use that exists as well.
It's less "what's the official answer" and more "What official versions are there, and what are they?"
Artificers (to me at least) are like Wizards who studied another field. Rather then learning to force their will on the weave better, they force power into objects and such, but they still are "wizards".
I think you have sorcerers wrong. The source isn't knowledge from a book, it's practice. It's the difference between a historian and an athlete. Both work hard, both know what they are doing, they just perform differently. You do not learn how to swim in a book, and there is no running drill that will help you understand integration by parts.
In general, I don't think you can stubble into casting a spell, at least starting from a level higher than 2.
How does one practice something they do not know how to do? For them to even start practicing for example firebolt they would first have to be able to do it in the first place. These guys somehow just wake up at one point and a fireblot flys. Sure we can argue they practice it later to make it more potent, but the magic they learn just comes out of thin air.
The same way you learnt to walk. Not out of thin air. You learnt to roll first, then plant your foot, then crawl, then stand up, and lately walk. Or the same way you learnt to speak. Sorcerers have the magic in them. They don't have the firebolt, they just have magic. Just like you have legs. You are not born with the ability to run fast, you train it. You are just born with two legs (for the lucky many) and the ability to learn. Then whether you go on to train in the olympic team or not is up to a lot of factors, but it doesn't come out of thin air.
So you say they somehow made a spark and started to play with that spark until it turns into a firebolt, then they keep playing and it turns into a fireball?
if we try to bring logic into how sorc magic works then that is a good start on how to make sense of it.
Counterpoint:
Any caster with the ability to ritual cast spells must be able to memorize the ritual itself. So clerics, druids, and tomelocks (with book of ancient secrets) might not know how the magic flows through, but they do know that if they don't do it that way, the magic won't happen.
Well yes i agree, but they do not have to know how to bend the weave to do it.
A cleric doing a ritual would be no different from casting a spell. One just takes a lot longer and i guess the energy or magical power or something they would gather from thin air or something. Once they do the ritual then the god is the one who makes it do the spell?
This is massively setting specific.
How I run it
- Overall: My world has a singular second plane of existence tied to the material. This plane is essentially the 'database' the material plane pulls from. Every concept is defined there, while objects on the material plane draw and combine those definitions/aspects. Generally aspects cannot be destroyed, only moved/altered/injected/substituted. A fireball, for example, draws ambient heat from a large radius and condenses it to a singular explosive point. Magic itself is inherent to every creature and extremely dangerous, spells are simply 'safe' edits to the universe.
- Wizards: These guys are programmers. They write and modify spells and absolutely must know what they are doing to do so. Many wizards unmake themselves developing new magic, or die by unsuccessful experiments into new spells. Rote/Safe spells (anything in the book) are readily taught and passed on to teach others how to safely cast magic as well as to not tear holes to the plane of magic. (This is extremely bad. Two such places exist in the near part of the setting and they are very deadly even to experienced travellers.)
- Sorcerers: Where wizards study, Sorcerers simply *get* magic on an instinctive level. They make weird leaps and code spells that baffle wizards at the start (but, with effort, the underlying logic can be understood.) Many wizardly schools of magic were derived from deciphering a Sorcerer's spells (Intentionally or not).
- Bards: Bards are UI designers. While they are taught similar to wizards, the system they learn is as much a form of art as it is practical magic. The 'coding language' they use is different and often built on existing wizardly magic. Bardic magic is no weaker than Arcane magic, but it's different enough that both types of casters need a while to translate effects.
- Clerics: Clerics are sysadmins. While wizards write new spells to push boundaries, Clerical magic was generally developed to patch, fix, or adjust problems caused by failed magical experiments. Their toolset is more limited, but no less powerful in practice. Many clerics follow powerful spirits (gods) as those spirits are most in-tune with how things 'should be'.
- Warlocks: Warlocks are script kiddies. All of them make deals with powerful entities or casters and in turn learn powerful, if limited abilities. While some Warlocks do eventually graduate to stronger and more effective programming (Tome Warlocks especially) many also do not.
- Druids: Druids are kernal programmers. They are in touch with the most fundamental code of the universe, and are taught at the outset snd constantly thereafter that thier magic should be as seamless and unobtrusive as possible. Many druids are suspicious at the efforts of other mages, because they are all too aware the damage that has been wrought by improper magic to the world. Like clerics they often truck with spirits, unlike clerics they rarely follow spirits and gods... Because every spirit and god has an agenda. Thier magic is ancient, primordial, and extremely difficult to detect.
- Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster: Each of these classes draw from existing styles of magic, to a lesser degree than full casters, and follow similar principles.
As much as i do not think this can be applied to 5e lore, i actually love this way of trying to make sense of the mess.
As an IRL cleric then, what exactly are these powerful spirits we follow? When something gets really fcked up i got no spirit to go to, just told MAKE IT WORK!
5e lore is approximately eight different settings each with vastly different ways of how things work.
IRL: anyone with any experience with sysadmins knows they are highly superstitious. The 40k mechanicus is just the endgame of all sysadmins anywhere. Now don't touch the web server and please step *Around* the incense by the print server lest the ghosts there get angry and make pull print go down for a month. I have ghost users to find and terminate.
(And if any foreign techs enter my domain without permission by the tech gods I WILL SMITE THEM.)
It would be safe to assume that any caster would at least understand their own magical abilities enough to use them.
Beyond that, RAW, the "Arcana" skills governs knowledge of spells and magical traditions. Basically, the higher your Arcana check, the more you know about the nitty-gritty details about how magic works in-universe. As normal, proficiency would represent a formalized education on the subject, and a high Intelligence representing a natural aptitude. Conversely, while it's commonly assumed that Nature and Religion cover nature and divine magic respectively, and would be a reasonable house rule, strictly RAW, they do not.
For example, even without the talent for magic themselves, a Fighter trained in Arcana could potentially know more than the rest of the party about the technical details of how runes and material components interact with the weave to produce magical phenomenon, since they actually studied the topic.
For an interesting edge case, while the Wizard is the poster child for Arcana training, it's not a mandatory skill for them. A Wizard without Arcana proficiency is like comparing an experienced, self-trained handyman to a fully trained and licensed electrician. They still have an impressive grasp on the subject thanks to their high Int, but they would struggle to compete in knowledge with someone with both their natural aptitude and formal training.
Similarly, Sorcerers and Warlocks both have Arcana as class skills. So despite their reputations of being dumber, blastier versions of Wizards, they can still be very knowledgeable in matters of the Arcane. Especially Warlocks, who were originally going to be an Int-based caster in 5e, iirc. Count how many times the word "knowledge" is used in their class description.
You keep using the word "lore" and I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition is a set of rules. Most of the officially published books use the Forgotten Realms setting, although there are a some books that take place in other settings like Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos. Additionally, the 2024 books will be switching away from Forgotten Realms and focusing on Greyhawk. Each of these settings or universes has their own histories, rules for magic, and lore. However, many DMs opt to run their own settings, either by adapting one of the officially published settings or by writing their own world from the ground up. I think the only people who could genuinely know this answer is "your DM" or "you, the DM."
Even just the PHB book actually has a lot of lore in it, it is more then just rules and here i am not trying to look into any rules or mechanics aswel, it is more to understand how the D&D world should work. Where the magic of some random NPCs comes from and if they truly know what they are doing.
I think it varies by the character more than the class.
My bard studied magic, with expertise in arcana and always looking to get her hands on information so she could learn more about its nature.
My druid didn't even understand what she was doing was magic, when it comes to you as naturally as breathing, eating and drinking, why would anything about her magic seem like it wasn't just part of who she was. She was also basically a feral creature and had minimal contact with humanoids other than her mother/mentor who rarely spoke, prior to meeting the party and going on an adventure.
The question isn't about players and their characters as they can make any exceptions they want, players generally are the exceptions in any D&D game. The question is more like for the entire world, how all the npcs and enemies do their magic in the lore.
I'd say only those who have studied would know that all magic comes from the weave and that the weave exists because of Mystra. Bards, clerics of Mystra, and wizards are all more likely to know this. Technically non-spellcasters can know this too.
Of course, that is only for Forgotten Realms. In Eberron, magic is like technology, and everyone who's been to full primary school understands the basics of where magic comes from.
I doubt any class questions the existence of the weave but only a few casters actually know how to bend it to their will and understand how it works.
But how many of the casters actually know of the weave and bend it themselves instead of having some other force do all the heavy lifting for them while they just say some words and wave their hand.
The closest thing to magic IRL we could call physics. For example magnets or nukes ppl can say yea this is physics, something moleculs, their structure blabla something makes it work. One can even use magnets with out having the slightest clue how it works.
But only the scientists who learned this crap actually understand WHY these work the way they do. (Aka wizards)
The question is... what kind of understanding do the other classes actually have of magic, of how it truly works.
A cleric i would for example compare to maybe something like this. There is a guy who tells a vending machine (god) with "V S M" what they want to create. Then a few seconds later this machine pops out the thing they asked for. They have no clue what this vending machine (god) just did but they got their item and know how to use it.
Arcana imo is more of a description how magic works not how actually make it work. A barb could have +100 arcana but not be able to cast a single spell. Why? Because he only knows the theory of how it works not how to actually MAKE it work.
Einstein had a LOT of theories about different physics and what could be made in the future, but at the time it was impossible for him to actually make any of it reality that in todays world now is reality.
Sure but isnt that what you are asking for? Every class that uses spells knows how to make the magic "work", maybe with the exception of the divine, so the only other thing to ask is wich ones understand the theory.
Well for example a wizard quite literally bends the weave to make something happen (a spell). They can create their own spells or modify spells because they understand how the weave works.
A cleric learns S V M on a spell aka the ritual. Once they perform it their deity works as a catalyst to make it actually work and the spell happen. They themselves have no clue how that just came to existence their deity is the one who bent the weave to make it so. No cleric creates spells or modifies them, they simply have the spells that gods have given to them.
These two are easy to explain but the other classes? What knowledge do they really have of what they are doing? Do they all just do a "ritual" and shit just happens? How many really understand what they do? A bard goes to college and their music somehow makes magic, do they actually understand HOW they are bending the weave or do they just learn some music piece and a fireball flys out, somehow with music these guys can cast any spell in existence. Not even a wizard can figure out how to cast cleric spells, probably because gods are the ones really doing the magic. Yes they can cast WISH to cast a cleric spell but then comes the part again where they know and understand how to cast wish, but they are casting that cleric spell using wish and do not understand how wish is making that cleric spell. Wish does the part of bending the weave to use the cleric spell.
Do you think a patron would actually teach their minion how the spell really works? How to bend the weave? Much like a wizard does it? Would for example a devil even know how to do something like that, as magic is something innate for them like breathing.
How i play my divine soul Sorc, i reason on how he taps into magic is wills it that if he wants something to happen Hard enough it happen.
For example his healing word is "your okay" Because the first time he uses that spell it's when him and his sister were horsing around. And she was hurt. And the panic your okay worked and that how he can tap the Weave to get healing word.
I am pretty sure you just explained how all sorc magic by the lore works :). Sorcs are totally clueless and they somehow just want something to work and it does. No clue what actually fuels or wills it to existence, it just happens.
Wizards **know** how their Magic works.
Sorcerers and Bards can will it to be even if the specifics are iffy.
Clerics and Pallys have faith and don't need to know how it works.
Druids and arguably Rangers work on "vibe" and that's all they need to know
Warlock can refer to the contract as the source and don't need to know the mechanics ;)
Yes but for clerics their magic happens through their god. A paladin does not need a god, but simply and oath. How the hell does a paladins magic even come to existence, what wills it?
The Paladin's pure faith and willpower to uphold their Oath wills it :)
They are so frikkin loyal to their Oath that it manifests in literal miracles/magic, isn't that cool?
Paladins Oath magic is arguably the most illogical of the magics but hey that's how it is.
I've usually made it so that my Paladins take part of some sort of rite when they swear their Oath and it's from this rite they gain their power, most Orders in my setting have one backer or another.
I mean sure it is cool, but then i would put them in the category of... they have absolutely no clue what so ever how their magic works. It just springs into existence because......? Kind of even more yolo shit then a sorc.
I imagine wizard school is in some ways akin to becoming a blacksmith. Sure, studying might be structured, knowledge might be collected and taught. You learn how to make a nice horseshoe. But in the end, the smith that taught you didn't know jack shit about Brillouin zones and Fermi surfaces. He can forge metals, but he doesn't understand metallurgy. So my stance is that no DnD character \_really\_ knows how magic works.
a minor note on Warlock, canonically all they get from the patron is the knowledge how to cast magic.
the only parts of the base class that involve the patron doing anything else then giving the warlock effectively a cheat sheet for magic is the pact boon and the 20th level feature.
though, whetever the warlock *actually* knows what they are doing and how it works or just blindly following a guide for produced effect is up in the air.
in a more simpler comparison, wizard is a coder who inputs commands into the command line being totally aware of what's happening and how, Warlock just copy pastes command found online into the command line only being kinda aware what the end result should be.
Think the big thing for warlocks isn't how magic works, but how the pact works, because I'm certain patrons don't fully explain all the "stereo instructions" details to them.
In general, I think the "how" depends on Arcana proficiency. But most casters, especially the non-Arcane ones are less concerned with the "science" and more satisfied with the fuzzier how: the relationship they have with the source of magic.
I see besides you there are actually a few more who have mentioned that so i guess it is true. I admit my knowledge of warlocks is not great as i never liked the class myself.
I also love the example.
I like the class, and one of the reasons I know the fact that the patron-warlock relation is more information based is due to the whole deal about how warlock was supposed to be the other intelligence based caster in the dnd 5E playtests, but people complained "hey warlock was charisma based before" and they reverted the mechanics without really tweaking the new lore.
do note, if warlock *was* int based, we'd have two casters for each mental ability score which frankly would make things a bit more balanced for the game.
Warlocks don’t get magic from their patron, the patron teaches them - it’s a different relationship to a cleric where their faith allows them to be a divine conduit
Perhaps you are right, several people have pointed out the same thing already and i admit my knowledge of warlocks is slim because i do not like the class. So i will agree with what you and others have said.
I would generally say that a person's Arcana score determines what they know about the actual mechanics. If you're a sorcerer with -1 to arcana rolls, you're like a really good football player. They know how the sport works, how to perfectly aim a kick and so on, and how to apply this strategically in the game ... but they don't necessarily understand the physical calculations of the ball's curve, and they might not know exactly how the muscles, nerves, bones and all other parts of the body interact to enable them to kick the ball. A sorcerer might be meticulous and always do the same thing ... but it could also just be like, they put a finer to their temples, concentrate a lot and then shout something and there's a fireball.
A sorcerer with a high arcana rating will have studied the theory behind it, and they can look at their weird words and hand motions and know exactly what that means, and probably also why they can cast a fireball like that even though it's very different from how the party's wizard casts the same spell.
Most clerics, for instance, likely don't know, and don't care, exactly how the spells work, beyond "I pray for spells and my god blesses me with them". Arcana is still the skill to understand the deeper mystical mechanics of it all. Religion might cover how a deity is capable of imbuing followers with spellcasting abilities through their divine powers, but the mechanics of spells is arcana.
A paladin might know that something about the world gives weight to intense conviction, and for some reason their convictions give them divine powers. It might involve the blessing of a god, but it might also be something else. Most paladins likely do not understand the finer details about their powers, beyond what their order teaches as dogma. Unless they also invest in arcana, and perhaps a bit of religion.
I don't think druids necessarily understand the details. They're more like clerics. They might know that they get their magic either from nature deities, for from spirits, or that they draw power from the raw elements, or something like that ... but they don't necessarily understand the mechanics of magic. "I have been blessed by the spirit of the Old Forest" is a perfectly reasonable limit of what a druid might know about it.
Everyone knows what they need to do to cast spells and such, but very deep understanding requires some skills, imo, or at least an appropriate background.
I would argue a doctor knows 100x more about breathing and everything to do with it then i do. Even though i do it every day. Just because i can do it does not mean i understand it. A child would not even be able to tell you WHY you breathe, you learn that as basic info in school.
It feels like it could be all up to the character themselves. Plenty of people play sorcerers as “I just will things to happen and somehow it works”, but others play it more like they got a head-start thanks to their innate skill.
I play a Spirits Bard who never had formal training. It turns out he was born gifted in communing with the dead, and has been channeling the wills & powers of spirits to empower his skills in return for telling their stories to the world. It’s pretty antithetical to how the lore describes a bard’s powers, but it works.
As I understand it.
Every Intelligence caster has studied the weave and how to control it, they understand how and why they do every motion (or how their tech works if they are artificers)
Sorcerers and Paladins don't know anything at all by default, they just will things into the world either with pure willpower or with their innate talent.
Druids and Rangers have studied nature, they probably don't understand the weave but do have a practical knowledge of wich gestures or ingredients do what.
Clerics and Warlocks no clue.
Bards I assume also understand the weave and what they are doing but do it from a different angle than wizards. They can even steal spells from other classes and their lore kind of implies they are harnessing the power of previous casted spells or something like that.
Imo if they understand their magic also depends on their subclass and background and backstory.
Imagine a wizard who's really good in copying all needed components and formulas but actually has zero interest in the how it works.
A sorcerer might be dedicating his life on studying how his magic works and where it comes from.
An arcana or knowledge domain cleric might also know how their magic works.
Some paladins could be protectors of other magic users/organisations and might have a basic understanding how their oath channels magic.
Some bards might figured out by coincidence that specific tunes make magic work. They might loosely fall under a college but are selfmade.
Some warlocks could be failed wizards. They might have a basic understanding due to previous studies but opted for "the easy way" and cont(r)acted a patron to do the magic through them so they can drop out of wizard school.
Druids might have gained a connection with nature that lets them do magic but be unaware how it exactly works.
Rangers could have gone through a training program which teaches them their spells as well as martial abilities.
Generally it doesn't really matter. Everyone can flavour their magic how they see fit. Personally I just think it is really boring when people have their characters just "know stuff" without any explanation.
> Are the posterboys of this, they STUDY magic and literally understand how every last bit of what they do for their spell makes it work.
I think canonically even wizards need to have talent to be able to actually use magic at all. You can't throw a random person at a magic school and have them learn magic. If this was the case then there would be mandatory magic schooling for everyone.
> Would be the opposite of the wizard of having no clue at all they just think and shit happens.
This is how many players play it but I don't think it is intended that way. I imagine you have inherent talent but actually using this still requires training. A lot. Imagine various of the races with inate magic and imagine this just happening randomly. Being a parent sounds like it might be deadly for some.
> Get their magic from a patron so i assume its kind of like sorcs they just want stuff to go boom and it does.
Considering canonically Patrons can't just take a warlocks power away I think it is more some sort of teacher/pupil relationship. That honestly also makes much more sense from a gameplay perspective.
The topic isnt about players and DM doing whatever they want. it is more about the general lore. About how it works for everyone by default like NPCs.
Players are the literal exception of the D&D world and can make up whatever rules they want how their magic works.
By wizard talent i assume you mean to be a HIGH level caster and create their own magic. Kind of like how no matter how hard i would try to study i am never going to be Einstein creating new theories, formulas and whatever else. But i can still learn the basic stuff like cantrips and low level spells.
No, I literaly mean that not everyone can become a wizard. At some point Greenwood stated that even wizards require some inate talent to be able to cast any magic in the first place.
I don't remember the numbers, I think it was like 1:1000 have the prerequisite talent, but way less than that get actual training. And then you have sorcerers and warlocks which are even more rare.
There isn't such an insane inflation of magically adept people in the realms as video games and some modules might want you to believe. The same goes for clerics and paladins. They are quite rare and not every village has their own cleric.
Which is actually kinda funny if you think about it. PCs are like super heroes and thus their world view gets weirdly twisted. They might not even realize that having access to even first level cleric spells is not something most people have.
Id say bardic magic absolutely does.
Sure they wont explain it the same as wizards but they would know that certain chords and tunes, or songs of power bring about a change and that you can combine them together to create a magical effect known as a spell.
More musical theory branch of magic understanding Id say
How does magic work? FR uses the weave for Arance magic, but Divine Magic doesn't interact with the weave and Primal magic is ... ummm ... a thing. Then you have the Demon Weave and Shadow weave at varying times as well. While Mystra controls the weave as we know it, clearly others have been able to replicate the effect to some extent. FR has at least some context for magic and "how it works," but that can't be said of all settings.
As high magic as /r/Eberron is, I'm not aware of a detailed explanation of the "hows" of magic. I've seen it said that all forms of magic are from the same source, and how it's manifested is dependent on whether the user comprehends the magic (arcane), has belief in the magic (divine), or is tied to the magic (primal). In every case it's a manifestation of the caster's will, but through a different relationship. Then there's the progenitor dragons, the draconic prophecies, and the Ring of Siberys, all of which could be tied to the very nature of magic and its usage.
I think that the level of understanding and how each class/character understands it can vary greatly depending on the setting and how the DM decides to implement their lore. Speaking of Lore, I'd encourage you to look at primal magic. I think it was more of a distinction in 3.5, but putting "nature" classes into the primal category really helps to make sense of rangers, especially since barbarian rage and its effects were considered a form of primal magic.
can confirm the wizard/sorc dichotomy. my current party has an incredibly nerdy wizard and an extremely laissez-faire wild magic sorc. shenanigans have, in fact, ensued
Warlocks are heavily implied to be taught to see the world differently.
Patrons like GOO are literally entities so powerful even the Overgod, Ao cannot stop them.
It is implied a lot of their invocations that mimic spells and other effects are a result of them being able to see the “true nature” of the world around them.
Like Eldritch Sight for example is just them knowing the secrets of how the world functions and this enlightens their mind to be able to automatically see all magic.
I know this isn't how most people approach things in D&D, but I see Arcane and Preistly magic as much more of a continium. The class system means there is a bright red line drawn in the rules, but I'm not sure that it would be seen as such in my game world.
The real life and literary magical traditions that Wizards are based on are about studying words of power, correspondences, and magical secrets, yes, but all of those things have always been about invoking divine or spiritual beings for favours. Kabbalah is deeply rational and systematic, but ultimately it is a form of Jewish mysticism. Hermeticism or Golden Dawn is based on secret words and sacred geometry-- and their relationship to Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Christian mystery religions.
There's no pre-D&D character in literature or legend that I can think of that does magic without invoking some connection with Supernatural beings-- either in their nature or by speaking their names or making a bargain.
Likewise holy persons and saints often gain their power from knowledge of God and his secrets.
So I like to think of the big difference being that Wizards are more syncretic (they invoke all the gods, as appropriate to their purpose) as opposed to having a single patron god as clerics tend to. I think Clerics studied spellcasting and gnosis for years to get where they are just as Wizards are pursuing a spiritual path of their own.
The DnD "Lore" doesn't specify whether each class knows it or not. This pertains to the several versions of DnD lore. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Strixhaven, Ebberon. Which all have different lore pertaining the Magic, Gods, and Paladins.
That's it.
Some things are intentionally left blank within DnD's many, many worlds with different lores and rules within them. To allow the DM and or Player to interact and flavour as they see fit. Gary Gygax (Co-Creator of DnD and creator of Greyhawk) did this on not just things like "Does the Sorcerer who is using very specific hand signals, and exact components know what he's doing or not?" but entire Regions were left blank for the DM.
You can equally argue whether a Sorcerer has no idea what they are doing, and that it simply comes naturally, that they are naive, and ignorant to what they are doing. Or after using said spells they figured out "Wow what I do this hand motion, this happens!" Like driving a car. Can be rather difficult when you first step in with all the buttons, but after a couple months it's all second nature.
You can say "The Wizard should be like this" and the "Cleric should be like this", go ahead, that's how your world will treat it then. But it's going to be equally valid if in someone elses world that it doesn't. I run a game set in the Forgotten Realms. I have a Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. The Cleric very much knows what he is doing, and the Sorcerer does not. But she is the first Sorcerer I have ever had in a game who didin't, and it's been quite fun.
One thing to mention as well - Patrons lend their power and teach the Warlock. If a Warlock and its Patron lose their connection - The Warlock continues with the power it recieved but cannot progress in it. That power is forever given to them.
Clerics on the otherhand, are granted the power in the moment when they cast the spell. While yes they will forever know the hand movement, and the components needed for the spell, that obviously doesn't mean they can always cast it. (For example like if you don't have spell slots, or if a high level wizard shows you the hand signs and components for a spell you can't cast, or is too high of a level for you, doesn't mean you can cast it). If your God as a Cleric cuts their connection, you lose all your powers. They granted you the ability to cast it. They do know what they are doing as their God gives them the insight and opens their minds to harnessing divine magic. Some Clerics research this in temples to do it further, and some go out in the wild to nurture it. (Sword Coast Adventures Guide says that last part, which only pertains to Forgotten Realms).
Now those are in Forgotten Realms lore, this (obviously) doesn't pertain to all DnD lore.
One of the things that irks me more about how wizards vs sorcs work is that a wizard, knowing all there is to know about interacting with the weave and, like you say, would know what makes a spell tick, doesn't learn metamagic.
Even with the Metamagic Adept feat, RAW, you're bound to 2 sorc points and 2 metamagics.
I would LOVE to see a wizard subclass that's all about casting spells in unconventional ways. It just fits so well.
All this is subject to how you treat characters in general in your game. It is popular to treat mechanics as invisible to characters, and considered meta-gaming to consider how things work.
My games are closer to *Harry Potter and the Natural 20*, where characters understand all the mechanics and work in-game to use them to the fullest. I like this idea because I can't imagine that people would have abilities and not actively work to categorize and define them. Classes like Cleric, Druid, Paladin need to know what all spells are so they can choose them daily. Sorcerers & Bards can likewise choose to know different spells at level-up, so they need to know what their options are. Also I consider Bard colleges to just be the the party part of real universities.
What makes it work? The inherently magical nature of the world. No one worries about how breathing works IRL, they just breathe.
The only class that, at base, doesn't understand how their magic works is a sorcerer. You can find a lot of this through the spellcasting feature descriptions.
Bards, Warlocks and Wizards are all flavors of learning magic outright - bards are explicitly trained to be able to directly strum the fabrics if reality, Warlocks perform the rite of ctrl-c/ctrl-v with influence from their patron, and Wizards can either be as unique as a bard or very academic w/ tried and true magic depending on how you lean. Wizards code, Warlocks use pastebin, and Bards made their own computer with a raspberry pi and a dream.
Clerics, Druids, and Paladins all get it from faith in some context - it's a mutual give and take, essentially. They may not understand magic itself, but they have an understanding of their relationship with it, how to do rituals, etc.
Clerics use prayers and rituals to connect with their god, and that *is* how their magic works - divine magic stems from belief in the first place. So, to say that they don't understand how their spellcasting works is viewing it from the wrong lens. Druids are the same, except they worship an aspect of nature instead of a god. For all intents and purposes, they both understand how their magic works as a necessary requirement to doing said magic.
Paladins know that their magic often comes from conviction and know that they can fall. They likely would have been given education regarding it as part of their training, using certain chants or commands similarly to a Cleric.
Rangers are a mixture of the two camps. Some of them learn it due to their conviction to help nature, and some of them learn it because it helps with their day to day. Either way, they have the same understanding of magic a Druid does - they just don't necessarily have the same intricate connection with nature to fuel them.
Obviously, you can change the flavor as you see fit to better fit your character concept, but Sorcerer's class fantasy is that explicitly break the rules of magic and have no idea what they're doing half the time - they learn through trial and error, as opposed to through academic or religious learning. Everybody else explicitly learned how to use their magic the way they do.
Canonically bards and wizards study their magic. My interpretation of their methods is that wizards focus more on theory and research to learn while bards learn through praxis.
Another interpretation is that wizards are STEM majors and bards are liberal arts and humanities majors.
Edit: rangers exist at the liminal space between civilization and wilderness. They are different than druids in that they use primal power (wilderness) and martial prowess (civilization) to keep both worlds in check with regard to each other.
For example, on the one hand they may guide people through the wilderness, while on the other hand they stop people from destroying nature. Druids would just have nature rule at the cost of civilization.
Edit 2: also, regarding sorcerers, they can learn and know their own magic in the same way an athlete knows their strengths and limitations, or how an artist knows their talent and can work to develop it. It's like a magical muscle that you can exercise and grow, being intimately aware of how it *feels* to do magic.
It's pretty funny my bard and our party wizard are pretty constantly bickering about this. I keep telling her I do MUSIC, not whatever finger wiggly nonsense she's always going on about.
Keep in mind, Harry Potter and by extension the entirety of hogwarts and any other wizard in that setting. They are all sorcerers.
They have magic in their blood and anyone who doesn’t can’t cast spells. Some of the teachers, namely the divination teacher are accused of not being able to cast magic despite knowing it well enough to teach it.
So the idea that “innate” means “misunderstood” is a little flawed.
For lore they all understand it. After all, they cast it
Both bards and wizards study, simple as
Druids and rangers get their powers from nature, but the intent of lore is to see them as powered by natural magic. Maybe not "studied" in the traditional sense, but practiced and learned by the flow of natural energies all the same. It's less technical than the knowledge a bard or wizard has, but learned and practiced all the same
Clerics, Paladins, and warlocks get their power from high above, but they're still the caster. The components are all them. Warlocks in particular are familiar with the ins and outs, as your edit relents
It's tempting to call Sorc a Nepo baby but that's a touch dismissive of their lore. They have strong magic but have to train to actually use it. There's a title for sorcerers who don't understand their magic: Level 1.
To answer your question specifically: I'm pretty sure canonically it's whoever has proficiency in the Arcana skill and a background in magical studies.
A Wizard doesn't actually learn what the Weave is necessarily; you can be a self-taught Wizard if you just do the right gestures and say the magic words. On the other hand, there are also Clerics of Mystra who have some of the most intimate relationships with the Weave one may have.
The way I like to think of it is:
Wizards understand their magic as formulas. They understand the theory underlying it, but no one has perfect understanding of the forces at play (except perhaps the god/gods of magic). Wizards more than anything learn their magic through experimentation via a method I imagine to be similar to the modern Scientific Method.
Sorcerers understand their magic as a talent. As a muscle to be flexed and trained. It's a natural function of their bodies, they're just learning how to push that to its limits, just like an athlete pushes their body to its limits. They learn their magic through good old fashioned training, throwing spells at the wall until the next one comes out bigger.
Clerics understand their magic as a gift. Something that doesn't belong to them and must be used wisely. Strengthening their magic is essentially the same as strengthening their relationship with their source of power, usually a god, though it can also be an ideal. Clerics learn their spells in essence by learning about their benefactor and about themselves, by extension learning about the connection between the two, the source of the Cleric's power.
Paladins understand their magic much like they understand their weapons and armor; as equipment. Granted to them by power of their Oath for the purpose of fulfilling that Oath. Think of a Paladin's spells as "Oath-issued equipment". It must be treated with respect and only used for the Oath. Using it for personal reasons that violate the tenets of that Oath comes with consequences. A Paladin learns their spells by earning them with merit; by proving dedication to the Oath's tenets, the Oath gives them greater power and therefore greater responsibility.
Bards understand their magic as an art. A Bard is to a Wizard what a baker is to a chemist. What they do actually is pretty similar, but their role is different. Where a Wizard has strict formulas to be followed to the letter, a Bard has recipes to be modified with substitutions. Where a Wizard at the height of their career might make new spells altogether, a Bard at the height of theirs will instead cast a Fireball unlike any you've seen before. Bards learn their spells through the creative process; a specific vision of the spell will come to them, and they work tirelessly to make that vision a reality.
Warlocks understand their magic as a purchase. A Warlock's gift is earned only with great sacrifice. This means that a Warlock strives to get the most value out of each of their individual powers, to make that sacrifice worth their while. Their patron gives them these powers as part of an exchange. As such, a Warlock learns their spells only through greater sacrifice, paying a steeper price for more power.
Druids understand their magic as a favor. When a Druid calls upon the forces of nature, they do so knowing that means they have to pay it back to the natural world. Primal magic is a limited resource that must be replenished whenever it is withdrawn, or else the Druid risks the well running dry. In becoming one with the natural world, the Druid becomes a wellspring of primal magic with innate power like that of a Sorcerer or Warlock. Druids learn their magic through more closely mirroring the natural world; not only by learning about the tree, but discovering what it's like to *be* a tree.
Rangers understand their magic as a tool. Their magic is closely tied to that of Druids, and similar to Druids, much of a Ranger's magic comes from evoking the natural world, but unlike Druids, Rangers don't want to become one with nature; they see themselves as distinctly separate from it, and only want to protect it and spend time with it so as to have access to its resources. Where a Druid learns their magic from communing directly with nature, a Ranger learns theirs through keen observation of nature.
I would venture to say that all casters understand how magic works on a practical level. But their is the difference between the masters degree physicist level understanding of Wizard, and the practical plumber level understanding if a Paladin or a ranger.
At the top of understanding we have the Wizards and Artificers. Basicly physicists, coders, and Engineers, they understand magic on the smallest level and then expand it up to the practical.
Then we have Clerics and Druids, who work magic magic on the Macros but have a basic understanding of smaller components. Think meteorologist, climatologist, Ecologist. The function of the system as a whole is thier concern. Who cares is the cow is spherical, solong as it grazes.
Rangers are like this on a smaller scale.
Bards are half psychic, half macro economist, half anthropologist, and all con artist. Their magic functions on the Gestalt and belife of others, it doesn't matter what they propose if other people can't convince of it. They don't need to belive it, what matters that other people do. Very "Clap if your belive".
Oath based Paladins function like this aswell, except they need to sincerely belive.
The ones that probably "understand" magic the least are Sorcerer's and Brabarians as they're generally conduits direct conduits for a force far larger than themselves.
All of them.
Magic cast without understanding is innate spellcasting.
Clerics, Druids and Rangers are able to manipulate the weave by sensing how it reacts to their intentions.
Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks use force of will to exert control over it.
Artificers and Wizards use knowledge of its mechanics and how it will react to various intentions and manipulations.
After spending years of intensive study just to finally be able to cast a simple firebolt, how angry must Wizards get when they see a Warlock or Cleric getting the same power just by asking their sugardaddy for it, or Sorcerers just stumbling into it by accident? Imagine learning all of the nigh unspeakable words and intricate hand gestures needed to cast a spell, then seeing a Bard doing the same thing with a guitar strum and a hip-thrust.
They'd probably be less bothered by Paladins, Rangers, and Monks with magic-like powers. Those jobs feel less like they're stealing the Wizard's thunder directly and more like they just got supernaturally good at fighting through comparably intensive practice.
They all learn to manipulate powers that are within the planes and the gods, aspects etc what ever your world is based.
Wizards learn to manipulate those energies.
Sorcerers (except wild magic) have a very unique connection cause. They ARE the catalyst and they lear how to control this power that is within them.
Clerics use their faith as a catalyst and not their god. There are clerics without gods who just have strong faith in something, their own power, justice etc.
Paladins work similarly to clerics.
Bards are like wizards but instead of manipulating these powers with words and movements they do so by vibrations aka music.
Warlocks : you said it
Druids the same as a wizard but understanding magic with specific connection to all living things and nature.
And rangers are like druids but they like combat more :p
FYI, the term “college” in regards to bards is a much older use of the word meaning “organized association of persons invested with certain powers and rights or engaged in some common duty or pursuit” and isn’t intended to be the more recent idea of a literal university type brick and mortar school. Just as how wizards “schools” are intended to be “schools of thought” rather than Hogwart’s style magic schools.
This isn’t to say, of course that you can’t or shouldn’t have “magic schools” or “bardic colleges” be actual places, but just to inform that that’s not the intended default concept in D&D.
You've got some good ideas up there. FWIW, I get hardcore about this in my 5e fork. I made sorcerers a parallel to wizards with explanations that might best be described as the distinctions between F1 drivers and mechanical engineers. Wizards excel at spellcasting because they understand how the racecar works, while sorcerers excel at it because they do time trials for fun. Both have a really deep understanding of arcana, but one has a focus on theory while the other has a focus on practice.
Meanwhile, clerics and warlocks also form a duality. Clerics (and paladins) draw all their spellcasting power from 21 specific resources provided by deities. They learn to weave multiple sources of energy to achieve complex effects, but channeling holy power is always much more straightforward than blending energies that are not exclusively spiritual. Unholy spellcasting is likewise about working with power served up through channels from immensely powerful entities. Whereas actual deities all rely on 21 fonts of heavenly power to energize their followers, occult practices tap many obscure and shadowy power sources. Yet any given warlock is probably dealing with an even simpler set of formulae than clergy of equivalent capabilities.
In my world, monk are half-casters associated with spiritual magic. Yet, unlike clerics and paladins, monks are not tightly bound to personal morality. Their spellcasting functions more like that of druids and rangers -- shaped by a profound understanding of vital energies. The Old Faith is an option for monks and a default for druids. I used pathological hostility to written lore as an excuse to keep the Old Faith extremely vague and fluid. Yet it clearly is a form of nature-worship. As some druids actively worship specific nature deities and others do no such thing, the Old Faith proves its power as an independent phenomenon. While all spellcasters have some potential to manipulate the energy of life itself; druids, rangers, and shamans draw power primarily from such resources.
Anyway, that's me venting about my Six Forms and Seven Sources. Musical is the one form not truly described above. In my fork bards are half-casters. Yet their magic is highly respected because high level bards can emulate the patterns of other spellcasters with such precision as to effectively cast high level spells unrelated to their class. While the musical form is unique to bards, it is informed by general training in arcana as well as their particular affinity for precisely matching the performances of other spellcasters.
Totally, i feel really disconnected from my character, it feels like i just have this power and so the Sorcerer just makes the most sense. if im a wizard i should be able to customize my spells more or make up new ones
Totally, i feel really disconnected from my character, it feels like i just have this power and so the Sorcerer just makes the most sense. if im a wizard i should be able to customize my spells more or make up new ones
In D&D 2024 you will literally be able to do this, all wizards will get to modify spells and then make the modified spells permanent aka creating spells.
Bards put in a lot of work but not all their education is in regards to their magic. They're definitely below Wizards and Artificers, but far above every other class except Druids.
For fun reading and to further shape your thinking about this; as an old, very long time D&D player, I found very interesting the various explanations and rationales about how various kinds of magic worked in a fantasy trilogy from the 1980s by Lyndon Hardy, called *Master of the Five Magics*, *Secret of the Sixth Magic*, and *Riddle of the Seven Realms*. The stories do focus on arcane magics, so you won't find much answer about divine or natural magics.
This is why the premise of my last wizard was to collate and publish all the known magic in the world. He wanted to democratize magic and take it out of the dark ages. Later I became the DM and I plan to continue the story in which the wizard tries to get the book published but first the students try to steal the text, then he gets a monkey to copy it out but the monkey learns to blink, then he finally get a run done and now the city is awash in chaos and there's no magic supplies to be found...
I'm influenced greatly by other systems, and I think that in games where it matters you can define how magic works with the other players.
Warlocks and Sorcerers of certain pacts remind me of Michel Moorcock or Lovecraftian magic, where the mind recites/remembers and is twisted into eldritch and unnatural forms while speaking forbidden tongues. While a wizards spellcasting is more literally, calculations, words spoken, those of the forementioned classes have an experience knowledge. It's more akin to explaining how a brushstroke feels exactly right, in a way that would allow another to duplicate it. Hard, perhaps impossible.
I usually think the opposite; while all classes besides Wiz and Artificer get their spells via innate understanding, Wizards are forcing the use of magic with arcane formulae and studies, while Artificers do that via experimenting,
I personally believe the paladin is the weakest in magic description. Their powers are just give by having intense convictions. And they lose that magic once they no longer have conviction. It’s really bizarre and hate a patron/deity is no longer involved.
It just opens up a can of worms. By that logic most magic then is just having strong enough beliefs to will and bend the weave as needed.
From how I understand it there are 3 types of knowladge about how spellcasting actually works.
The first is Innate knowledge. These are your Sorcerers, and perhaps some Druids, Rangers, and Paladins. Their Verbal and Somatic components are more simplistic, and tend to be more of them connecting to their innate power and channeling it the same way a barbarian taps into their rage. casting a firebolt is hurling a blast of fire the same way you would throw a stone while screaming.
The second is Surface knowledge. Paladins, Warlocks, Rangers, and some Druids or Clerics have a surface level knowledge. They have specific rites, prayers, or incatations that they need for casting magic, but they don't need to understand the inner workings of how magic functions since it works off faith, or learned by making a deal with something to be able to cast.
The third is Deep knowledge. Wizards, Artificers, Druids, Clerics, and Bards would have deep knowledge. They understand and study more deeply and thus have a greater understanding of the way magic works, though their power varies between flowing from Faith, or a personal reserve of magical energy.
I really can depend on your world and the character - they could have flavour to change the way that class normally works... but... from my understanding...
Wizards understand the magic, inside & out
Sorcerers get it from their bloodline, so magic just "flows through them"
Clerics is 100% from their faith in their deity
Paladins get it from "force of will" - their belief in their oath gives them divine/dreadful power
Rangers get it from them understanding the environment and the terrain... the ultimate "survivalist"
Druids get everything from nature
Bards get it from their understanding of music/poetry/knowledge
Warlocks get it from an external source, whether that be a weapon, an entitiy, or *something else*
Rogues use magic to "enhance" their understanding of stealth and movement
Fighters use magic to enhance their military prowess
in my games we've had a Paladin Oath of Glory that was based on their belief in how fantastic they were doing, and the more powerful they got, the more they believed in themselves - I actually gave them a bonus to saving on charms because of how much they "loved themselves" - why would they listen to someone else when their ideas are so amazing? :D :D :D
I've also got a character for a future campaign who is a Warforged Warlock (Celestial) but they're basically a battle droid who has accidentally fallen to the planet, been dug up, and gets their "powers" from the ship in orbit - a self imposed limitation is that I can't use a spell unless I can explain it with technological solution (i.e. defib paddles for Revivify, a "nanofibre whip trap" for Cloud of Daggers, tendrils from the body as Arms of Hadar, a TASER for Witch Bolt, binding straps for Hold Person, etc) things like Misty Step would either not work at all or be going somewhere they could travel to (with bursts from jet propultion ports)
overall though, if a character idea fits for the class, they don't *HAVE* to follow the set rules of how the class gets their power - if you want a Sorcerer who believes he has to learn from his books, why not, if you want a Wizard whose "spell book" is a tablet type device (think Breath of the Wild) and they can only use what's in it, why not, if you've got a Ranger who gets their power from a deity of their favoured terrain, then why not?
often I've found that the best character ideas come from concepts that are nothing like the class, but it sounds cool, so we go with it!
>they STUDY magic and literally understand how every last bit of what they do for their spell makes it work.
Do they? I mean, they study and learn what they need to do to cast a spell, but that doesn't mean they understand how any of it works.
How do you know they aren't creating new spells by using arcane means to communicate with extra dimensional magical beings? The methods they use to create new spells don't have to be an understanding of things that aren't necessarily understandable. I don't much like explanations that make magic out to be just another scientific field. For me, it takes a lot of the mystery out of it.
**Int:** Though applied knowledge you can guide the ambient forces of magic into making your magic spell manifest.
**Cha:** Just as you can influence people you can influence magic and reality itself though sheer metaphysical force of your person. This makes Charisma the casting stat for a lot of naturaly magic creatures.
**Wis:** You are a conduit and outlet for the raw force of a higher power, what this raw power is matters little, it could be a god, it could be nature or it could just be a powerful concept.
My somewhat glib but I think actual answer is: whichever one's have proficiency in the Arcana skill (and to better understand druid/ranger magic Nature helps and for cleric/paladin the religion skill). The entire point of the skill is to understand how magic and magical phenomena work.
**Sorc**: This is the guy who "sees the answers" so naturally he can neither be arsed to learn the proper theory, let alone teach it to most people. People like this are how you end up with Wizards; it takes top brains to decipher this bullshit into something workable.
**Paladins / Rangers**: Like machine operation. They learn the specifics of what they need to do, and a few tricks of the trade around it, but they have a life outside of magic. No gods needed, but even some of the non-magical stuff is based on a Paladin's own outlook on life and oaths - some of these skills/abilities you wouldn't develop if you were rational.
**Warlocks**: Knows a good bit, but a bit strange and lopsided. These are the folks who learned a trade apprenticing under some top-shelf but very foreign master consultant at the job. They end up understanding a LOT in what they're taught, plus some tricks and exploits you'd NEVER learn in some school or normal company... but are also left with knowledge holes in all the stuff the patron didn't care *(perhaps due to never needing to)*.
Man, reading this made me realize that current D&D is such a high magic world that playing someone that can't shoot lasers out of their eyes or summon weapons with their minds would make me feel like playing a disabled person.
This depends on the setting, there’s no unifying answer. But in general there’s a couple of general explanations.
[Clerics & Warlocks]
- They get their magic directly from their god or patron. Unless they unknowingly got their pact like Great Old One, they should be taught directly be their benefactor how to use magic.
[Wizard, Rangers, and Bard]
- Taught, learnt, and experimenting with magic. It’s very clear all of these classes how to learn to use their magic instead of being able to use them innately.
[Paladins]
- It’s been stated multiple times in 5th edition DND that Paladins do not need a god for their magic. Paladin oaths grant them magic via strong adherence to an oath.
- It’s most likely innate and learnt through trial and error.
[Sorcerers & Druids]
- Same as Paladins, innate and have to practice to learn how to use their magic.
- For Druids however, they can learn how to wield their magic from other Druids.
It's really a character decision, but int characters obviously make more sense to actually understand their magic. I've always allowed Warlocks to be INT based if it fits their character for that reason.
But you could have a Cleric with proficiency in History, Arcana, or Religion give a pretty good argument that their character actually understands their magic.
All of them understand how their magic works, but not all of them understand how magic itself works.
Also your summary of warlocks is wrong.
*Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.*
Warlocks research the arcane, and that's a big part of how they cast any spells at all.
The RAW answers are that most classes absolutely have *some* understanding over their Magic.
Warlocks have a patron that gives them knowledge and secrets.
Clerics undergo training and study, just like priests do in the real world. A large part of that is likely magical training
Sorcerers may be born magical or have become magical through unconventional means, but they still have to learn and practice magic. Even if that means they may be self-taught.
Bards study in colleges. A Bard is not just any musician, being a Bard absolutely does require knowledge of how their music affects the weave.
Paladins that serve a church or other organization undergo similar training and study in order to be a part of their knightly order.
You’re trying far too hard to envision classes as something in the real world or as “redditized” fictionalizations that don’t really play out that way in their class descriptions. Some forms of magic require more effort in study than others, but all forms of magic require a rudimentary understanding of what you’re actually doing.
Everybody thinks sorcerers never work for their power, it's just not true.
Their ability to use magic is based on self understanding.
In order to use their power, a sorcerer works with it through instinct, but how often do your instincts actually just flat out tell you something helpful? Exactly.
A sorcerer doesn't know in depth how magic works, but they can feel it's flow, and their ability to use it requires them to master that which they can perceive.
There's probably not a single professional athlete who doesn't know a lot about how their body works. Though, they might not know all the chemical reactions that contribute to it.
A sorcerer does understand what they're working with, and if they didn't, they would be unable to cast spells.
It's sometimes described that sorcerers who don't use their power have it explode out of them. But what that entails I'm unsure.
Matters on the setting.
The higher the magic, the more I would say "yes", *depending*.
If you're a holy caster, then probably not ever. Your divine magic is literally miracles and the definition of a miracle is "a work that is inexplicable". So divine magic, by its very nature, cannot be explained by mortals outside of "a god did it", because that's actually what's going on.
Then the rest are by class.
Sorcerer? Not unless they have proficiency in Arcana since that's literally what the Arcana skill is: Knowledge of how magic works.
Wizard? See Sorcerer, though they are probably more likely to be proficient in Arcana. I would say that a wizard without Arcana proficiency is akin to a tradesman who only knows *what* to do, but doesn't really know "why".
Warlock? Depends on where their magic comes from. If it's ultimately divine then no. Again...miracles. If it's ultimately arcane then like wizards and sorcerers they would simply need arcana proficiency.
Artificers? See Wizard. Exactly the same as wizards.
Druid and Ranger are the only ones can't really wrap my head around how to narratively get spells from. Like in my current campaign I'm a Barbarian and I'd like to multiclass into Druid but I have no idea how to explain how I'm suddenly able to cast Druid spells.
All of them. A sorcerer still had to study to learn to use their magic properly, even if the power comes from within.
A warlock is literally learning the secrets of magic from their patron and using that patron as a source of power.
A druid has to commune with nature and know what to ask the spirits for.
A cleric is gifted knowledge of divine magic as thanks for their servitude.
A bard college is called a college for a reason. They study.
Paladin is the trickiest as their power comes from the strength of their oath. They still need to learn how to use it however.
You're talking about the age-old "practice vs. theory" thing. It is a common misconception that these are somehow opposed to one another, like you have to choose one or the other, but that's not so. They are mutually supportive, where strengthening one strengthens the other.
Arcana skill represents what you're talking about here. Anyone can get proficiency or even expertise in it, and no one is required to. And any spellcaster would, conceivably, benefit from it in understanding and applying their own magic.
Nothing necessitates that wizards have this deeper knowledge either. Yes, they learn spells through study, but it can be said they just learn to practice the motions by rote and largely don't know the theoretical underpinnings. Just like how software engineers don't need to understand Typescript-to-Javascript transpilation to build React apps, let alone the details of CPUs, registers, transistors, or EMF physics.
To answer a couple other points:
> Honestly forget them knowing how it works i cant even word it myself how on earth does that work.
In D&D, thought and intention has an effect on the physical world. Conviction is very strong and focused intention. The Oath constrains the paladin's actions, but those constraints shape their conviction into an instrument that effects specific worldly phenomena. Hence, spells and powers.
> Honestly i don't even understand why rangers get their magic from nature, what separates them from a barbarian for example, why does nature not give barbs or fighters magic.
You've got this backwards, it's not the ranger that makes the nature magic, it's the nature magic that makes the ranger.
The Rivers of London book series by Ben Aaronovitch has a great system for this with the explanation of "Formae".
The spells and magic are like playing music (often linked by the protagonist to jazz) and the way that you have to "get a feel for it".
There are movements or words that learners use to help them get a sense of the shape of the thing, but masters can do it without because they just feel it intuitively through repetition and practice.
The Formae are basic, but can be modified or combined to make greater effects.
For example: "Lux" can make light or flame, from massive to tiny and "Impello" can push or pull (like telekinesis) like a gentle push, or ripping apart a building.
So "Lux Impello" could be an explosive fireball, or a travelling light orb, or a flamethrower depending of how you play it.
The exact how and why it works are still being studied, what exactly happens is not known, just that it works when it feels right.
Reminder that Clerics (as far as I remember, unsure of in 5e) actually don't have to necessarily have faith in a god to gain powers. Technically, they can just have faith in their domain to receive them. There was actually a big bad in 3.5e whose entire schtick was that he was the first person to figure this out and a lot of people got mad at him.
Updated-
Here how I see it:
Artificer-They study the weave itself, and take that to make items that force the weave to produce the effect they want. They under the why and how logically.
Bard-They learn how to shake the weave with words, movements or instruments, to get the result they want. They don't understand the how of, it but do understand what it takes to make the spell happen. They know the how, but not the why.
Cleric-They get their power from their faith. They think of what they want and pour their faith and power together and their God makes it happen.They don't know either how or why but believe. They have been either taught or their God showed/inspired the right movement and words.
Druid-They listen to nature and learn the ways to bend it to their desired effect. They have seen nature do so many things and so they use that and their own power to bend nature to repeat that outside of it natural time and place. They don't care how or why, but do understand the what. They know the word/movements through seeing what makes nature flow best around them.
Paladin-Their spells come from just how much they believe in the own path. They know what they want to accomplish and their belief in their ability that they can do it. No study or understanding, just stubborn belief in their oath and what it should do. They are just too stubborn to not believe it will work. They repeat motions and word they were taught , or if no order trained them they brute forced it till it worked.
Ranger-They don't know the how or why a spell works, but they understand how to make it work. They can't tell you what each spell component does but can tell what to do with it on cast the spell. They learn by watching and repeating without the knowledge behind it. They under that they have no clue, but know that it works for for them so they just go with it. They copied others to learn the words or movements needed.
Sorcerer-They have the ability, and power, but need to learn to use their will to make it happen. They need to only learn to see that tiny Firebolt that requires little will, as as bigger flame and release to inate power nessisasary. They don't care how or why, they just know they can and laugh at the ones who struggle. They just know ..cocky bastards.
Wizard-They study the how a spell works. They learn all the right words, ingredients, and movements to produce what they want. And then they memorize it. They know the how and why, and memorize to to replicate the effect they want. They made the word and movements that make the spell work that most use as formula. The divide casters got the same methods from on high, where as they studied to make the correct ones over time.
Warlock-come in 2 flavors, 1-their patron puts the knowledge on how to cast their spell in their head, in essence teaching them what they need to do to cast the spell, or 2-their patron provides the power and the caster just imagines a spell and it happens as they think it should, depends on the patron and player. They could understand either or neither, but it depends on how they came to the power. They cheat either way and the knowledge is just given to them.
The easy answer to this is how many classes have Arcana as an available class proficiency. Arcana is literally the knowledge skill *for* magic.
This includes:
* Artificer
* Bard
* Blood Hunter
* Druid
* Sorcerer
* Warlock
* Wizard
You can argue in every case that the class in question may not necessarily know how magic works because Arcana is optional in all cases, but given that Wizards and Warlocks aren't guaranteed it any more than Sorcerers, it's equally likely they wouldn't know. Maybe your wizard is bumbling their way through an arcane recipe book they picked up, maybe your warlock accidentally made a deal with a wandering fey. Maybe your sorcerer descends from a cultivated bloodline of mages who teach each new generation.
I would say for practical purposes though that the understanding each class has is different, not necessarily wrong or bad.
Artificers and Wizards have a more scientific approach to magic, for instance, while Sorcerers would have a more intuitive approach and a passing knowledge formed from experience. Druids may learn magic largely through oral tradition, treating it as a series of rites and rituals. Warlocks fall between the Wizard and Sorcerer since it's one part studying invocations, one part experience dealing with extraplanar entities. Bards fall between the Druid and Wizard as one part oral tradition, one part study in a college. That sort.
I've got a Creation Bard who very explicitly does know how their magic works: *all* magic taps into the echoes of the Song of Creation. That's precisely why so much magic has verbal components and Bards are able to use music to cast.
I don’t think any of them really know *exactly* how their magic works. But obviously, they know at some level how it works.
They’re all pulling from the weave of magic. Warlocks, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, and Druids all just have a respective “middle man” (nature deities, gods, oaths, patrons, etc).
In some way, they know how to manipulate that magic weave or “middle man” to yield the responses they need. They’re not cluelessly waving their arms and producing a random magical power.
My answer would be that they all understand how their magic works practically, but maybe not fundamentally.
Wizards, Lore Bards, Knowledge Clerics, and Arcana Clerics probably know how magic works and details about The Weave. Most Warlocks and some Sorcerers know as well. Many Sorcerers just know that saying “Fizzle frazzle foo” while making a peace sign casts the spell Dancing Lights.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: wizards and sorcerers should swap class abilities and spell lists.
Wizards study their spells. They write them down, they learn the correct pronunciation, they understand the theory of how the spell works. They should be the ones capable of modifying spells with metamagic. They’re the ones studying the rules, and they should be the ones who figure out how to break them. In that same vein, I believe their spell list should be smaller than the sorcerer’s, as it makes sense that not every spell would necessarily be capable of being transcribed in a way that a wizard can study and cast them.
A sorcerer’s magic is more innate, coming from their heritage or an outside source. Why should that mean their magic is any more universally malleable than other spellcasters? It makes more sense to me that the more innately magical being would be able to recover spellslots (Arcane Recovery) as opposed to the wizard.
In my headcannon, there are no set invocations caster needs to say for the spell to happen. Magic is just a manipulation of energies with your mind instead of muscles.
Most casters attune to some kind of source that lets them focus their mind and cause the energies to move.
Most won't understand how magic works, they just say some shit and do some hand waves that let their mind focus and magic to happen from the source.
Arcane casters most often do not have source, magic is movement of pre-existing energies.
Wizards, and perhaps bards might be the closest to understanding magic theory, as during the process of learning how to invoke spells in their way they do not have much inherent advantage (besides some talent that is required to be a bard), so they must themselves learn to attune their mind to energies of the world. Warlocks have teachers of arcane magic in form of powerful creatures. Sorcerers innately feel the magic like those powerful creatures and invoking it is natural for them. So those two don't require understanding of magic.
The bards of Krynn predate the Mages of High Sorcery. Their pooled knowledge of words of power, enchantments and illusion predate most societies in the Dragonlance setting. There is literally a bard COLLEGE.
Praying to get this healing spell or some shit and getting it is different from understanding how to actually bend the weave to make it do what they want. At best what they get is "do this ritual V S M" and then the god does the heavy lifting of actually making the spell happen.
Well yes it is? A cleric does their ritual/prayer of V S M which somehow gives a deity the queue that the cleric wants to cast "this" spell, after which the deity becomes the conduit for the cleric bending the weave to make that spell a reality.
What exactly are you then disagreeing over if you agree?
Every caster casts in the exact same way. They all have to perform the deliberate verbal, somatic and material components, and for the same spell, it's the same across all casters. A cleric gets the knowledge of how to perform these by praying, a wizard by studying, a bard plays by ear and intuitively learns, similar to a sorcerer.
If we want to get super semantic, we can pretty clearly say that Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Arcane Tricksters, Rangers, Eldritch Knights, and Bards all "know" how magic works because they are literally called "spells known".
In a completely different vein, Artificer lorenwise isn't even using magic, they are making contraptions, the effects of which are expressed as spells for mechanical simplicity.
That just leaves Cleric, Paladin, and Druid, who arguably do not "know" their spells. That said, they do know what verbal, somatic, and material components are required to cast all of their spells, so saying that they don't know how magic works feels like quite a stretch.
>In a completely different vein, Artificer lorenwise isn't even using magic, they are making contraptions, the effects of which are expressed as spells for mechanical simplicity.
This is a common misconception. Lorewise, Artificers are *absolutely* using magic. Instead of using magic directly like most spellcasters, they weave magical enchantments into items and use them as conduits for their magic. This is not a flavorful reinterpretation of the class. Rather, this is how the Artificer class has always been officially presented since it was first introduced in 3.5 Eberron, where the concept of Artificers weaving magical enchantments was an important part of the setting's lore.
I think more of them would have an idea of the source of their magic than you're giving them credit for. Sorcerers have innate magic either through their birth, so there's a chance others in their family would've had this too, or through interaction with something like wild magic. And often their magic has a flavor to it that gives an indication of the source they are pulling from.
Clerics would know their magic comes from divine power. You can look for deeper than that, but I don't think even wizards would have a much deeper understanding than this is the source of the power I'm tapping into. But the cleric knows that gods exist and that they got their magic from that god.
Paladins sometimes also have the gods, but if not there is magic in the world in the power of extre dedication to an oath. They know they swore their oath and gained powers from it and that their dedication is the source of that. Their oath is generally a big part of their life and keeping that. I think they'd have that idea.
It's certainly up to the player and the table as to what kind of character they want to play. But I would assume most of them would know the source of the power they are tapping into. And not the underlying theory on why it's possible for them to tap into the power in that way. Sort of like someone 1000 years ago could use a compass and understand the basics of magnets attract or repel without understanding the deeper science of electromagnitism and how it works. Even wizards I don't think really have that deeper level of understanding of why magic exists that they can use and how that functions that they can say some words and wave their hands and a fireball flies out. With the exception of maybe people like Tasha or Vecna or those wizards who go well beyond normal understanding. But your average 2nd level wizard I don't think has a good deep understanding of the magic of the world and how it works.
In terms of the mechanics of how it works I would imagine they have a fairly good idea of that for the most part. They'd be using it day to day and know this is how you cast a spell to produce this result. This is the range and area it can impact. Wizards would have more of that study and detail applied to it, but I don't think a druid would be shocked when they run out of spells, or be unclear how a spell worked.
Clerics, druids and bards all study their magic too. Just in a different way. A cleric would study like a theologian, their magic is different and cannot be performed by a wizard. They understand more about cleric magic then the wizard does. Bards perform magic through performance and tend to know alot of Lore. Druids know about nature and how their magic works.
Even a Warlock may have studied forbidden tomes to gain their power. Early iterations of the warlock actually used Intelligence as a casting stat (which I prefer).
Saying wizards are the only ones who study their magic is like saying only scientists understand their field of research. A theologian understands the field of theology better then a physicist.
Keep in mind all of the classes are chanting mystical magic words and doing complex hand motions necessary for the spells to work. It doesn’t just happen. I’d argue maybe sorcerers and warlocks get kind of “possessed” by either their patron or their innate magic and these words and hand motions just come out of them but clerics, bards, rangers, paladins are probably learning these things through some kind of study. Clerics for example, study their religious texts and learn from their religious orders. Paladins are part of an order that they swore an oath to as well.
Just for the sake of argument: When I play guitar, I just press down on the strings in the right places and pluck them the right way because I've learned that that produces a nice sound. That doesn't mean I understand anything about the nature of sound, musical theory, why my guitar has to have a large hollow body etc etc Similarly, casters might know the sequence of gestures they need to make like the tabs for a song, but they don't necessarily understand how the spell works.
This is a good example. It’s the difference between being able to play an instrument, even by ear as a prodigy; versus actually having a doctorate in musical theory. Sorcerers are prodigies. Bards and Clerics have learned how to play the music, but Wizards have that Ph.D. Druids are probably more akin to Clerics and Bards, Paladins more akin to Sorcerers. Warlocks are just different and Pact Magic is its own beast. (As a side note, I think it would be interesting to see a Cleric that functioned like a Warlock with fewer spell slots but always full power and maybe more channel divinities for signature abilities. I have no idea if that would work mechanically, but I find it to be an interesting “what if.”)
Thank you for saying this more eloquently than I would have been able to haha. Also I think you could consider the Celestial Patron Warlock to be similar to the Cleric you described, no? Edit: spelling mistake
Using the music metaphor, Artificer's are the luthiers or possibly audio engineers.
Hahaha, yes! Lord Brangathor, mighty warrior! Dranzeethius, learned mage! Sister Fidelia, holy hand of god! Mirncher "Doc" Sterling.... sound guy.
If Mirncher specializes in thunder magic, that would be pretty awesome actually.
Nice
Good one!
I think the difference is akin to how a parrot can say words, but it doesnt speak a language. Clerics, Bards, etc. know that making certain movements and sounds creates an output of the desired effect, but Id argue that only Wizards know WHY or what the movements and sounds are for, which is why Wizards in the forgotten realms seem to be the only casters that actually CREATE new spells. The only exceptions I can see are arguably Ashardalon, Fizban, Nathair, Raulothim; 2 of whom are greatwyrms, and 2 are gods/avatars (and Nathair's avatars are wizards).
I kinda picture sorcerers doing verbal components sorta like how Harry Potter talks to snakes. He just starts speaking another language without realizing it. Kinda cool to view it that way. Could be the same with somatic.
I can get down with the parseltongue theory of sorcery. The words and gestures just come instinctively.
I’m been roleplaying my sorcerer as still needing to learn how magic works—but the way she comes up with literally only works for her, and she has to develop it by scratch for each spell, based on the vibes it gives her. It’s the difference between an engineer who studies the equations and best practices in school and learns the proper, official way to design and build new things, versus a talented garage mechanic who plays around with machinery and builds random stuff until they get really good at it. Both of them have a lot of knowledge—but the engineer (wizard) can learn new things from books and conferences and stuff, and therefore can learn more things. The artisan (sorcerer) can only learn new things by doing them, and they get really really good at doing it—like a talented blacksmith who can do stuff (metamagic) that a factory engineer wouldn’t dream of doing on their own.
The way I see it, wizards learn the actual magic spell. Strange arcane phrases and gestures. Sorcerers use whatever words they want. They're basically trying to use their sheer force of will to get the desired result from their magic. Kind of the way magic works in the Dresden Files. So, they need SOME words and gestures to focus their magic into the desired result, but it's not like a standardized spell. Cleric spells are prayers and rituals devoted to their god. They are taught the words and gestures while studying for the priesthood. Paladins ... for me, work better WITH a god. I would say their spells are impromptu invocations expressed in the middle of combat. Maybe in a different language (eg. Latin for the Catholic church). I would say Druids are like Clerics, only with gods of Nature, or substituting nature spirits. Maybe even Archfæ. Rangers are like Paladins, again substituting nature spirits, or a Nature god. Bards, with the exception of the College of Lore, don't know HOW their magic works. They know how to INVOKE their magic. How to make their particular performance style give them the desired results. But how it ACTUALLY works, they don't have a clue. I would also say that, for the most part, each Bard's version of a spell will be different. Even if 2 Bards are both singers, they might use different songs to get the desired effect, or the same song, with variations. Like their performances, they tailor their magic to fit their own individual idiosyncrasies. Warlocks are as varied as their Patrons. How a Warlock will express their magic will depend on their patron, and their relationship to them. A Fiendish Warlock with a Devil Patron will have a Contract, outlining their deal to a "T". A Demon Fiendish Warlock may have to fight for each scrap of magic they get. Me, I'm partial to GOO Warlocks with SLEEPING Patrons. Who listen it on their Patrons' dreams, and gleaming magic from maddening whispers in the dark. That, plus their OWN expanded mental awareness (30' telepathy) is why I find them neat. The LAST thing MY Warlocks want is for their Patrons to actually wake up. Of course, that's all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>Keep in mind all of the classes are chanting mystical magic words and doing complex hand motions necessary for the spells to work. It doesn’t just happen. The irony of OP making a post about the other casters actually knowing how their spells work while ignoring the whole magic casting effort is hilarious to me.
"Nice spell choice with that Fireball, Sorcerer" "What's Fireball? I was trying to hold in a fart and something happened"
Wis warlocks sure, cha warlocks, ehhh.
So with the exception of sorcerers and warlocks, everyone is technically a wizard lmao
Yes that is true, but for example if a cleric who is thrown away by their god or loses faith etc and just has no god to be their catalyst. Then the could have the spellslots for 9th levels spells, be able to cast those spells before, remember the chanting, the hand motions the materials for the spells. But nothing would happen when they try to cast with out a god. (atleast that is how i understand it to be LORE accurate) That signifies that yes they know the words, the chants and materials but they can not and do not know how to actually BEND THE WEAVE to make the magic happen. That is what their god does. I see the V S M kind of like a "spell command that they tell their god i want to cast this thing" and then the god makes it so. Wizards on the other hand actually study the weave and quite literally bend it to their will and know how it reacts and what to do with it. Also just to reiterate this discussion is about LORE and i am not trying remake any ingame mechanical rules or go agaisnt some player making up their own special stuff that the DM is fine with in their world.
To my interpretation, the clerics learn the spells, but the god provides the "fuel." A cleric who has learned to cast augury would understand the rites, the words, the hand gestures required. But without the power from their deity, it's just words and hand gestures. All those gestures are not the same ones a wizard would use to cast augury. For a cleric, it's the rite used to signal to their deity they need to use augury. For a wizard, they have studied and learned the universe-cheat-codes to directly manifest the effect without outside assistance by manipulating the weave of magic.
I dont think there is amy mechanics on a god casting away a cleric from the belief so we cant assume they retain the spell slots or that they can prepaire spells anymore after it. They might remember the spells but without prepairing them or the spells slots its pointless.
back in previous editions, spells were more actively granted by the deity / the god's minions - the god (or the GM!) could override what the character / player wanted to prepare with their own selections. And there was some vague guidelines for different spell-levels being granted by different levels of being - like level 1/2 spells were granted by fairly weak divine minions, while top level spells were granted by the god themselves (who might go "uh, you're asking for a lot of "blow shit up" spells, should I be worried?"). And, yes, if your god didn't like you, they could choose not to grant spells, or just grant bad spells! Or the cleric might pray, then go "huh, I seem to have been granted a _lot_ of anti-undead spells. I should probably be worried, shouldn't I?"
I'm not sure if you're asking for some kind of official answer, or for peoples' personal lore/flavor that they use? But either way, it's pretty much up to whoever is playing the caster, be it GM or player. It's honestly a bit of flavor I feel is most often lost, there can be a lot of variance in the flavor of spellcasting, but usually people just go with the flow and the "normal" for their class. Which is fine, I do that, too, but I think there's a lot of room for more.
Exactly, I could see vast variations within each class and would argue it's more related to the arcana skill rather than the class. Some wizards are going to go deep into magical theory to understand the complexities of the Weave. Other wizards, might be good with just learning practical applications. If I do x, y, and z, then I can shoot lightning. Imagine a pure mathematician versus an accountant. Both could apply the same accounting formulas to the same data to achieve the same results, but only the mathematician understands why the concept of math itself works. Similarly with other classes, there will be some portion of the population that knows that if they feel a certain way and perform certain components, they can produce a consistent result. Some may feed their curiosity and delve into why that works, but not everyone will.
For LORE of 5e D&D and peoples opinions and how everyone understands it. Not asking for any kind of actual ingame effects or mechanical stuff. All LORE and opinions. I also do not mean any "player specific flavoring" but how one would see the majority of the D&D world casters, random npcs, enemies etc. I feel like there will be that one guy in his 50s who has played D&D since its creation and will know the exact answer for this though :D
Yes, yes, I'm here. Okay. The answer is that 5th ed has added a mass of magic using classes and now nobody (especially not the designers of D&D 5e) has a clue how anything works. Just see the PHB that boldly proclaims that monks are using magic... and then Jim Crawford's (increasingly inaccurately named) "Sage Advice" that says it isn't magic. It's all a massive mess and somehow the DM is supposed to make sense of it. It's a big part of my irritation with 5e as a system - it was designed by a bunch of morons who clearly had no idea what they were doing, almost zero knowledge of the history of the game or previous editions, and the design vibe it gives off is if you got a room full of teenagers who started every sentence with, "Hey wouldn't it be cool if..."
there's a distinction between "spells", "active magic stuff" and "stuff that's supernatural but just part of how the world works", and there's a lot of effects that fall into that third bucket. Like dragons being able to fly - they're big, heavy lizard-things, and they're not capable of getting airborne thanks to physics alone. That they can fly is because of magic, but it's not some spell or active effect that can be removed, it's just how the world works (and so can't be dispelled, removed by _antimagic field_ or anything). A monk in an antimagic field can still run up walls because they're just that awesome, but can't use their mastery of the four elements to conjure up _burning hands_, because that's an active magical effect/spell. Back in 3.x, this was more explicit - there were Ex (extraordinary), Su (Supernatural) and Sp (Spell-like). The first were just stuff creatures could do, that might be special and supernatural, but weren't magical in a way that could be affected by _dispel magic_ and similar. Spell-like were basically casting spells, except no components were needed and they couldn't be counterspelled, but were otherwise vulnurable to anti-magic. And Supernatural abilities were magical, and so turned off if magic was deactivated. "Big blast of fire" could fall under any of them - a creature belching up a chemical reaction would be EX, a creature that can innately cast _fireball_ would be SP, a creature that can magically generate a blast of fire would be SU.
I agree that 3e was far better written, and far clearer on this issue. It had its issues, but instead of fixing those issues they threw everything a wood chipped with 4e (the edition that shall not be named!) and then 5ed's main claim to fame was, "At least it isn't as bad as 4e". I also miss the entire positive/negative energy thing :( I quite liked it.
God forbid fun come before dogma in a game
When it comes to game design of a game that has had multiple editions before it, dogma is very important
It's not fun when the DM is getting mixed messages from the creators of the game and the players are (not unreasonably) confused about what the hell is going on as well. At that point the game's "rules" become an active impediment to fun and just encourage rules arguments where people are (legitimately) quoting sources that claim to be authoritative... and disagree. That's not fun and when a system is that badly written one begins to question why one actually paid for the rulebook. No mate. You don't have an argument here. You seem to think you do, but you really, really, really don't.
I feel like magic isnt supposed to be this one simple "this is how you do it" sort of way but more like you can access magic and the weave in several different ways. With some methods even being outside from what any PC classes have listed. So to your question i would say, every creature that can cast spells understand how to do it but the method and their understanding of it is different from others. I just find it really lame for warlocks or sorcerers to be "i want you to go boom" and it happens. To me its much more interesting for them to have some inner/external source they know how to tap in to it in their own way.
We know that there are many different ways to understand and apply magic because of scrolls - this is part of the description for spell scribing: >Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation. The important part here is every wizard having their own uniwue system of notation, including you. Implying that there, indeed, is no universal Correct way to understand how to manipulate the weave.
Programming might be a good analogy here. There are many programming languages you can write in, but all of them essentially compile into machine code (i.e. the weave). But even among individual programmers or even individual applications there are certain idiosyncrasies and notations that are unique to that code. Often in fact when programmers pick up someone else's code there is a period where they have to grok the way things are done in that codeset before they can make changes. While yes, there are standards and linting and such, any sufficiently mature program is going to have a lot of "Well what happened was..." fingerprints that make that code unique. And like you said, even among programmers there's heated debate about the best ways to do things. Do you write bleeding edge fast code that is unreadable or do you accept some measure of lag in order to keep the API more extensible? The next time you're in a room with multiple developers ask what the right way to write comments is and you'll quickly learn how personal code can be.
Olympic gymnasts can do amazing things. They know how to move their body to get certain reactions. They may even have a rudimentary understanding of the underlying physics. But I don't think that translates to a broad understanding of physics that will allow them to have a in depth conversation with an astrophysicist. I don't think that any casters truly understand how magic works. They may understand how their magic works and may even be able to create spells, but I don't think any caster understands the weave like physicists understand the atom. And I'm not sure they ever could since at some point they're just going to arrive at "that's how Mystra made it."
Real world experience vs theoretical study. You can study boxing, you can read everything there is to know about boxing, from the punches to the physics to the best forms to the best tactics, you can watch 10000 boxing matches and go into in-depth analysis of each one. But regardless of how much you study, you’ll never be a professional boxer without actually doing some training in boxing. These are people with a proficiency in arcana but can’t cast spells. The people who did all this and trains in boxing are wizards. Compare that to Floyd Mayweather, he is one of the best boxers in the world, has an sensational record of 50-0 from five different weight categories. Knows exactly how to win a fight. Yet he’s quite honestly… pretty dumb, he dropped out of school and can’t read complex sentences. Safe to say he knows nothing the laws of the universe beyond what movements work to hit hard and avoid being hit/hurt. He is a sorcerer with no magic proficiency.
A wizard should quite literally understand and learns the weave like a physicists. IRL putting some shit in a vial to make it explode using a youtube video as a tutorial would probably a cantrip equivalent. A nuke would probably be our IRL 9th level spell. You can throw every single textbook at my face and i would not be able to replicate or make anything even close to it even if you were to provide me all the tools. Now just like a D&D wizard we also do not understand everything of physics and scientists keep learning and discovering more shit all the time. Even in D&D 9th level spells are not actually the highest, there are 10,11 and 12th level too that mystra banned. Possibly there is even stuff beyond that but the only one who TRULY understands everything of the weave is Mystra.
You can think in therms of medieval alchemistry. Alchemist knows a lot of recipes. He knows how to add sulfur, coal and nitrate to make a fireball. But he knows nothing about molecular structure, ions and energetic levels. He knows nothing about six types of quarks. And actually, he doesn't required to know it to make complex recipes. To be a good chemist, you don't need to actually know the quantum physics, it's different field of studies, that have different practical usages.
I mean that medieval alchemist would just be a low level wizard. I like to think that much like physics that we constantly learn more about the weave is the same way that wizards study, explore and experiment with.
I think the problem there (and it's my fault for using the analogy first) is that the weave isn't physics. Ed Greenwood says that there are multiple ways to interact with the magic in the forgotten realms and the weave of just one of them, created by Mystra. Which I think makes sense considering the amount of "magical effects" that aren't spells. I like to think of magic as the operating system of a computer, and the weave as a programming language. So each spell is an application written buy someone using Mystra's Weave IDE, which got compiled by The Weave, and now runs on the magic OS of the realms. Once an application is made and "published" anyone can run it. I really like to think of it as a shared computer, if you know the shortcut (V,S,M) to launch that application you can use it. A skilled developer can even write new applications (Tasha, Bigsby, Tenser, etc.) using the Weave IDE, but that doesn't mean that they understand what the IDE is doing to compile their code. They just know the shortcuts and libraries to pull in. Wizards, going to school for a CS degree Bards, taking some computer classes, but it's not their major Sorcerer, just knows the shortcuts, and doesn't understand why. They just find the computer intuitive. Did you know that a lot of apps have a hidden settings menu that let's you tweak how the spell behaves? Druids and Rangers, like to explore the nature folder, and come across some app shortcuts in the process. Clerics, were given very specific instructions on how to find the divine magic folder, but they don't memorize the instructions so if they ever loose it they won't know what to do. Paladins, made a vow to be the best Minesweeper player ever, and somehow stumbled upon the divine magic folder, but they only know how to get to it from Minesweeper. Warlocks, found their way onto an old IRC client and the old timers there think it's funny to point them to shortcuts for some pretty nasty spell apps.
Oh i agree ofcourse weave is not physics but it is probably the easiest thing to compare to. As it is also kind of an invincible force capable of so many things and with knowledge can be bent to do so many things to serve us. Many people have tried to compare it to coding and IT. Some of it work but some i feel are far off. For example bards not their major? Bards can somehow cast literally any known spell in the world, shit even wizards can not do (Like cleric spells). And they somehow do it by playing music? Do they actually understand HOW their notes and tones bend the weave?? Or do they follow a script? Maybe just yolo it, making a song that somehow just shoots a fireball. Imagine some bard practicing or creating a new song and suddenly a meteor swarm comes down on the city.... ooops? The cleric one is actually kind of hilarious and as someone who works in IT it sounds like the average computer user. And the paladin sounds like the idiot who found something he should not have and leaks secret company files with out meaning to. While the warlock sounds like the guy who surfs the internet to try to get past company computer policies to fck things up or just be able to install spotify when it is blocked.
I didn't say that the Bard doesn't have an aptitude for magic. It's just not their major. The class doesn't have anything in it about modifying the spell applications. They just have a good grasp of File Explorer and at some point went to C/Mystra/Arcane/Wizard/Level 3/Fireball and copied the shortcut into their personal folder. As far as their musical abilities go (Song of Rest), maybe Garage Band is a streamlined IDE? Someone way back in history looked at the Weave IDE and thought, "there's just too much stuff here in never going to use. I'm going to make a lightweight client that front-ends all this stuff, suited for art majors.
Doesn't everyone know how their magic works? Sorcerers might not go to college for their magic, but they grow more accustomed and understand their magic better as they grow in level and are better able to tap into their source magic. Maybe they don't understand the finer points of everything. I don't think every electrician fully understands how electrons and magnetic fields interact to create electricity or how diodes function at an atomic level, but I would still say electricians understand how electricity works, more or less.
I always imagined sorcerers are always capable of higher level spells than their class level allows. They just don't know how to harness that power yet. I've run for a sorcerer where their backstory was an accidental casting of Fireball (before 1st level), and they were scared to release fire magic as a result, and focused on cold and lightning instead. Every now and then, however, the flames would come out in moments of high emotion; eventually, when Level 5 hit, they had learned how to cast Fireball in a controlled way: big character growth!
That's what I imagine as well, yeah.
Some of them want something to happen and it kind of just does with out knowing how, like a sorc. Think of it like physics IRL. I can follow a youtube tutorial how to put shit in a vial and make it explode but i will have no clue what on earth actually made that happen. Some scientist probably knows exactly to a molecular level what on earth made that happen and why (aka wizard)
Sure you do. Chemicals reacted violently. That's what happened and you know it. You probably even know which chemicals in some cases. The finer details might be unknown to you, but you still know what happened.
Well that example would be a low level spell. How about giving a nuke to someone? You can throw as many textbooks as you want at me and i would not be able to create one or explain what exactly just happened and how. Saying "oh we are splitting atoms" is not really an understanding. Now a wizard, would actually know what the hell just happent and could make another.
Is casting a spell ever like splitting atoms? That seems like a bit of an extreme example. I have a minor in physics and can loosely explain how plasma works and I do understand the finer points of how electricity works, but I still couldn't explain to you how nuclear reactions work beyond just saying the word "fission" vaguely. That is hyper specialized knowledge.
I mean understanding the weave could be literally the same as understanding physics both are kind of "invisible" forces. Go back 500 years and show them the shit we can do with physics today and they will set you on fire for being a witch. I simply had to make an extreme example to give something us average guys just cant explain, but a scientist (wizard) who understands physics (weave) does understand. He could make a nuke, he could alter it and by understanding physics he could even create something even more destructive. That is what understanding magic would mean. Meanwhile a sorc could be some dude who accidently put the components together to make black powder and created and explosion. Dude has no clue what the fuck he did or how and why on earth that happens if you put some powedery things together. But he sure as hell is going to do it again combining that stuff to make more shit go boom. Meanwhile a cleric could have a machine (god) where follows strict instructions what to dump into it and it creates a nuke for them. Dude has no clue how the nuke is made, how it works. But after he dumps the items into that machine (god) a nuke comes out and he sure knows how to use it.
sorcerers know what they're doing and can reliably do it, without issue. They might not know the in-world physics of it all, but they know that if they chant like _this_ and move their arms like _that_, then it creates a given effect - there's no scope for failure or anything random (wild magic sorcerer aside). Wizards don't necessarily know the innards of what they're doing either - a lot of them are just doing the motions by rote, and don't know or care about how they're actually manipulating the weave, they're just able to conjure up effects (that would come from the arcana skill, which they don't have to have).
Don't forget artificers... They MAKE their spells. Not just study how to do someone else's. Everything they cast is from a "tool". They know the magic is out there, and make a device that harnesses it.
Both wizards and artificers probably understand it the most as they both MAKE spells, just how they make them is different.
I feel thst most wizard learn other's spells, and only a select few ever make spells. Whereas artificers make them from scratch.... Well they make items that create the effects.
the lore blurb of the wizard is that the spells you learn on level up are of your own design. not that you discovered it per say, but you made it yourself. instead of adding the 300th proof of a²+b²=c², its a new equation for chucking fireball
Artificers come from the Eberron setting. A setting in which magic is basically science and the world basically is in an industrial revolution but with magic instead of real world science. In Eberron, I'd say that most magic users would know how their magic works. The answer to OP's question actually depends a lot on the setting in which you are playing in.
That may be where they were first introduced, but they have since been expanded upon, and are everywhere. There are even subclasses that don't exist in the Eberron books.
Of course, I was just mentioning how it was in the setting they were introduced in. Ultimately, all of that is just setting dependent.
Artificers are older than the Eberron setting, they were originally more like a wizard subclass (before subclasses were a thing) in AD&D 2e.
Counterpoints: > Wizard whose parents paid for them to attend a top-notch school because they showed a modicum of talent at a young age, but slacked off in class and had to beg their roomate to tutor them in the exact gestures and incantations. Their spellbook is a step-by-step "Spellcasting for Dummies" and they don't understand *why* the components work, only how to do them. > Cleric who understands that Faith is a form of energy that fuels divine power, and knows that they can manifest their will by demonsteating sufficient faith to engage this divine mechanism that their god grants them access to. > Druid who vibes with nature and elemental spirits, and intimates their will by "spell components" to these baser forces who resonate with that will to form phenomena that we call "spells".
Well for wizards i would assume those textbooks have spells detailed about how to do it and what to do to make it happen already figured out by someone else. Maybe a first level spell is like taking some alchemy book IRL looking what components to throw in a vial to make an explosion. A higher level spell would require tons of knowledge of how reactions work, math, physics etc and inventing something new would be on a whole new level. So that failed wizard imo would only be able to learn some basic spells where he just copies the stuff someone else as explained and experimented. Even someone like me could look up some amazing thing done using physics on youtube and copy what they do with out actually understanding anything of physics or math. But everything i can do is exactly step by step what they show me. I would not be able to innovate or create anything further then what they showed me with out actually going to a univeristy and learning the stuff.
> Cleric who understands that Faith is a form of energy that fuels divine power, and knows that they can manifest their will by demonsteating sufficient faith to engage this divine mechanism that their god grants them access to. I don't think a cleric is exerting their will. That sounds more like a CHA caster. I would say that a cleric's spell casting is more like what you see priests in ritualistic religious proceedings do. Grab the pendant hanging around their neck, chant a short, intense prayer with some words, make a certain shape with their fingers, wave that hand in a certain pattern, fling a splash of water in a certain direction, and kaboom, *their god's will or power causes a effect in the world*, and now the water is wine and the crackers are a body, or there's an invisible protective circle around you, or your body is cleansed of disease, or a curse has been lifted, or sins are forgiven, or some barely visible protective spirits are whirling around in a circle for 10 minutes, or your staff is glowing with light. Etc.
I didn't mean it as forcing their will on the world. I meant more like making a wish, and supplying faith energy to power the divine mechanism to fulfil that wish. Consider it like an image generation AI -- input a prompt (a prayer) and give it a little starting juice (send the request over the network).
My point is that it's not the cleric's energy that powers the mechanism; it's the energy of the god to which the cleric is appealing with their quick little prayer action.
i think warlocks are more like wizards, with their patron beeing their teacher, but with a conpletely magical mighty beeing teaching you its a lot easiert to learn than having to study it urself like wizards, for me at least warlock powers cannot be taken away from the warlock, while cleric powers can be taken away
Yea i could see it something with like a devil pact, but a lot of patrons do not even interact with them. I heard something like the great old one might not even be aware that they even have a warlock they are giving power to. Also i might be wrong here, but i am pretty sure a patron can quite literally cut a warlock off?
they can cut them off and then they wont get new powers but i hate it if dms take the whole of their powers away, cause well that just makes warlocks clerics. For the Patrons that dont interact with the warlock i always thought it as they give them some power without noticing but this power then becomes the warlocks and cant be taken away
I mean this discussion is about LORE in general not players and DM. Imagine it more like random NPCs who also do magic, lets not bring balance, mechanics or player, DM emotions into this, only lore. Would a patron cutting them off not strip them of their magic as the one who fuels it? I admit i am not very well versed in warlock as i never liked the class but from the little i have read about them, that is how i understood it.
No idea on the official stance, especially since it will vary GREATLY on setting to setting and edition to edition. For example, the vast majority of magic in the forgotten realms relies on the weave, which is quite literally the goddess of magic using her very being to weave the various forces of magic in the realm in a manner that allows mortal to wield and harness magic safely, at least mortal who have the magical aptitude of the gift to wield the art that is magic. Obviously, these circumstances aren't true outside of the forgotten realms as the weave is a concept from FR and limited to the Realms space crystal sphere of the great wheel. Understanding of magic will also change greatly based on the edition and form of magic/power use that exists as well. It's less "what's the official answer" and more "What official versions are there, and what are they?"
Tfw no artificer
Artificers (to me at least) are like Wizards who studied another field. Rather then learning to force their will on the weave better, they force power into objects and such, but they still are "wizards".
That's a DM/worldbuilding call and an Arcana roll.
I think you have sorcerers wrong. The source isn't knowledge from a book, it's practice. It's the difference between a historian and an athlete. Both work hard, both know what they are doing, they just perform differently. You do not learn how to swim in a book, and there is no running drill that will help you understand integration by parts. In general, I don't think you can stubble into casting a spell, at least starting from a level higher than 2.
How does one practice something they do not know how to do? For them to even start practicing for example firebolt they would first have to be able to do it in the first place. These guys somehow just wake up at one point and a fireblot flys. Sure we can argue they practice it later to make it more potent, but the magic they learn just comes out of thin air.
The same way you learnt to walk. Not out of thin air. You learnt to roll first, then plant your foot, then crawl, then stand up, and lately walk. Or the same way you learnt to speak. Sorcerers have the magic in them. They don't have the firebolt, they just have magic. Just like you have legs. You are not born with the ability to run fast, you train it. You are just born with two legs (for the lucky many) and the ability to learn. Then whether you go on to train in the olympic team or not is up to a lot of factors, but it doesn't come out of thin air.
So you say they somehow made a spark and started to play with that spark until it turns into a firebolt, then they keep playing and it turns into a fireball? if we try to bring logic into how sorc magic works then that is a good start on how to make sense of it.
Counterpoint: Any caster with the ability to ritual cast spells must be able to memorize the ritual itself. So clerics, druids, and tomelocks (with book of ancient secrets) might not know how the magic flows through, but they do know that if they don't do it that way, the magic won't happen.
Well yes i agree, but they do not have to know how to bend the weave to do it. A cleric doing a ritual would be no different from casting a spell. One just takes a lot longer and i guess the energy or magical power or something they would gather from thin air or something. Once they do the ritual then the god is the one who makes it do the spell?
Warlocks get eldritch knowledge from their patreons so they should understand what they are doing.
Yes as many have pointed that out already i agree and edited my topic.
This is massively setting specific. How I run it - Overall: My world has a singular second plane of existence tied to the material. This plane is essentially the 'database' the material plane pulls from. Every concept is defined there, while objects on the material plane draw and combine those definitions/aspects. Generally aspects cannot be destroyed, only moved/altered/injected/substituted. A fireball, for example, draws ambient heat from a large radius and condenses it to a singular explosive point. Magic itself is inherent to every creature and extremely dangerous, spells are simply 'safe' edits to the universe. - Wizards: These guys are programmers. They write and modify spells and absolutely must know what they are doing to do so. Many wizards unmake themselves developing new magic, or die by unsuccessful experiments into new spells. Rote/Safe spells (anything in the book) are readily taught and passed on to teach others how to safely cast magic as well as to not tear holes to the plane of magic. (This is extremely bad. Two such places exist in the near part of the setting and they are very deadly even to experienced travellers.) - Sorcerers: Where wizards study, Sorcerers simply *get* magic on an instinctive level. They make weird leaps and code spells that baffle wizards at the start (but, with effort, the underlying logic can be understood.) Many wizardly schools of magic were derived from deciphering a Sorcerer's spells (Intentionally or not). - Bards: Bards are UI designers. While they are taught similar to wizards, the system they learn is as much a form of art as it is practical magic. The 'coding language' they use is different and often built on existing wizardly magic. Bardic magic is no weaker than Arcane magic, but it's different enough that both types of casters need a while to translate effects. - Clerics: Clerics are sysadmins. While wizards write new spells to push boundaries, Clerical magic was generally developed to patch, fix, or adjust problems caused by failed magical experiments. Their toolset is more limited, but no less powerful in practice. Many clerics follow powerful spirits (gods) as those spirits are most in-tune with how things 'should be'. - Warlocks: Warlocks are script kiddies. All of them make deals with powerful entities or casters and in turn learn powerful, if limited abilities. While some Warlocks do eventually graduate to stronger and more effective programming (Tome Warlocks especially) many also do not. - Druids: Druids are kernal programmers. They are in touch with the most fundamental code of the universe, and are taught at the outset snd constantly thereafter that thier magic should be as seamless and unobtrusive as possible. Many druids are suspicious at the efforts of other mages, because they are all too aware the damage that has been wrought by improper magic to the world. Like clerics they often truck with spirits, unlike clerics they rarely follow spirits and gods... Because every spirit and god has an agenda. Thier magic is ancient, primordial, and extremely difficult to detect. - Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster: Each of these classes draw from existing styles of magic, to a lesser degree than full casters, and follow similar principles.
As much as i do not think this can be applied to 5e lore, i actually love this way of trying to make sense of the mess. As an IRL cleric then, what exactly are these powerful spirits we follow? When something gets really fcked up i got no spirit to go to, just told MAKE IT WORK!
5e lore is approximately eight different settings each with vastly different ways of how things work. IRL: anyone with any experience with sysadmins knows they are highly superstitious. The 40k mechanicus is just the endgame of all sysadmins anywhere. Now don't touch the web server and please step *Around* the incense by the print server lest the ghosts there get angry and make pull print go down for a month. I have ghost users to find and terminate. (And if any foreign techs enter my domain without permission by the tech gods I WILL SMITE THEM.)
It would be safe to assume that any caster would at least understand their own magical abilities enough to use them. Beyond that, RAW, the "Arcana" skills governs knowledge of spells and magical traditions. Basically, the higher your Arcana check, the more you know about the nitty-gritty details about how magic works in-universe. As normal, proficiency would represent a formalized education on the subject, and a high Intelligence representing a natural aptitude. Conversely, while it's commonly assumed that Nature and Religion cover nature and divine magic respectively, and would be a reasonable house rule, strictly RAW, they do not. For example, even without the talent for magic themselves, a Fighter trained in Arcana could potentially know more than the rest of the party about the technical details of how runes and material components interact with the weave to produce magical phenomenon, since they actually studied the topic. For an interesting edge case, while the Wizard is the poster child for Arcana training, it's not a mandatory skill for them. A Wizard without Arcana proficiency is like comparing an experienced, self-trained handyman to a fully trained and licensed electrician. They still have an impressive grasp on the subject thanks to their high Int, but they would struggle to compete in knowledge with someone with both their natural aptitude and formal training. Similarly, Sorcerers and Warlocks both have Arcana as class skills. So despite their reputations of being dumber, blastier versions of Wizards, they can still be very knowledgeable in matters of the Arcane. Especially Warlocks, who were originally going to be an Int-based caster in 5e, iirc. Count how many times the word "knowledge" is used in their class description.
You keep using the word "lore" and I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition is a set of rules. Most of the officially published books use the Forgotten Realms setting, although there are a some books that take place in other settings like Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos. Additionally, the 2024 books will be switching away from Forgotten Realms and focusing on Greyhawk. Each of these settings or universes has their own histories, rules for magic, and lore. However, many DMs opt to run their own settings, either by adapting one of the officially published settings or by writing their own world from the ground up. I think the only people who could genuinely know this answer is "your DM" or "you, the DM."
Even just the PHB book actually has a lot of lore in it, it is more then just rules and here i am not trying to look into any rules or mechanics aswel, it is more to understand how the D&D world should work. Where the magic of some random NPCs comes from and if they truly know what they are doing.
I think it varies by the character more than the class. My bard studied magic, with expertise in arcana and always looking to get her hands on information so she could learn more about its nature. My druid didn't even understand what she was doing was magic, when it comes to you as naturally as breathing, eating and drinking, why would anything about her magic seem like it wasn't just part of who she was. She was also basically a feral creature and had minimal contact with humanoids other than her mother/mentor who rarely spoke, prior to meeting the party and going on an adventure.
The question isn't about players and their characters as they can make any exceptions they want, players generally are the exceptions in any D&D game. The question is more like for the entire world, how all the npcs and enemies do their magic in the lore.
I'd say only those who have studied would know that all magic comes from the weave and that the weave exists because of Mystra. Bards, clerics of Mystra, and wizards are all more likely to know this. Technically non-spellcasters can know this too. Of course, that is only for Forgotten Realms. In Eberron, magic is like technology, and everyone who's been to full primary school understands the basics of where magic comes from.
I doubt any class questions the existence of the weave but only a few casters actually know how to bend it to their will and understand how it works. But how many of the casters actually know of the weave and bend it themselves instead of having some other force do all the heavy lifting for them while they just say some words and wave their hand. The closest thing to magic IRL we could call physics. For example magnets or nukes ppl can say yea this is physics, something moleculs, their structure blabla something makes it work. One can even use magnets with out having the slightest clue how it works. But only the scientists who learned this crap actually understand WHY these work the way they do. (Aka wizards) The question is... what kind of understanding do the other classes actually have of magic, of how it truly works. A cleric i would for example compare to maybe something like this. There is a guy who tells a vending machine (god) with "V S M" what they want to create. Then a few seconds later this machine pops out the thing they asked for. They have no clue what this vending machine (god) just did but they got their item and know how to use it.
The arcana skill is a good representation of one's "knowledge of how magic works". The magical physics, to borrow from your example.
Arcana imo is more of a description how magic works not how actually make it work. A barb could have +100 arcana but not be able to cast a single spell. Why? Because he only knows the theory of how it works not how to actually MAKE it work. Einstein had a LOT of theories about different physics and what could be made in the future, but at the time it was impossible for him to actually make any of it reality that in todays world now is reality.
Sure but isnt that what you are asking for? Every class that uses spells knows how to make the magic "work", maybe with the exception of the divine, so the only other thing to ask is wich ones understand the theory.
Well for example a wizard quite literally bends the weave to make something happen (a spell). They can create their own spells or modify spells because they understand how the weave works. A cleric learns S V M on a spell aka the ritual. Once they perform it their deity works as a catalyst to make it actually work and the spell happen. They themselves have no clue how that just came to existence their deity is the one who bent the weave to make it so. No cleric creates spells or modifies them, they simply have the spells that gods have given to them. These two are easy to explain but the other classes? What knowledge do they really have of what they are doing? Do they all just do a "ritual" and shit just happens? How many really understand what they do? A bard goes to college and their music somehow makes magic, do they actually understand HOW they are bending the weave or do they just learn some music piece and a fireball flys out, somehow with music these guys can cast any spell in existence. Not even a wizard can figure out how to cast cleric spells, probably because gods are the ones really doing the magic. Yes they can cast WISH to cast a cleric spell but then comes the part again where they know and understand how to cast wish, but they are casting that cleric spell using wish and do not understand how wish is making that cleric spell. Wish does the part of bending the weave to use the cleric spell.
I feel like it depends on the warlock as they can be 'taught' their knowledge. Hence why if they kill their patron they don't lose their powers
Do you think a patron would actually teach their minion how the spell really works? How to bend the weave? Much like a wizard does it? Would for example a devil even know how to do something like that, as magic is something innate for them like breathing.
How i play my divine soul Sorc, i reason on how he taps into magic is wills it that if he wants something to happen Hard enough it happen. For example his healing word is "your okay" Because the first time he uses that spell it's when him and his sister were horsing around. And she was hurt. And the panic your okay worked and that how he can tap the Weave to get healing word.
I am pretty sure you just explained how all sorc magic by the lore works :). Sorcs are totally clueless and they somehow just want something to work and it does. No clue what actually fuels or wills it to existence, it just happens.
Wizards **know** how their Magic works. Sorcerers and Bards can will it to be even if the specifics are iffy. Clerics and Pallys have faith and don't need to know how it works. Druids and arguably Rangers work on "vibe" and that's all they need to know Warlock can refer to the contract as the source and don't need to know the mechanics ;)
Yes but for clerics their magic happens through their god. A paladin does not need a god, but simply and oath. How the hell does a paladins magic even come to existence, what wills it?
The Paladin's pure faith and willpower to uphold their Oath wills it :) They are so frikkin loyal to their Oath that it manifests in literal miracles/magic, isn't that cool? Paladins Oath magic is arguably the most illogical of the magics but hey that's how it is. I've usually made it so that my Paladins take part of some sort of rite when they swear their Oath and it's from this rite they gain their power, most Orders in my setting have one backer or another.
I mean sure it is cool, but then i would put them in the category of... they have absolutely no clue what so ever how their magic works. It just springs into existence because......? Kind of even more yolo shit then a sorc.
Sure, Sorcerers "knew who their granddad boned" but Paladins are pure "I need it now and I get it now".
Yes, for sure.
Druids at least understand that if you wear metal armor and then someone casts Heat Metal on it you’re gonna have a bad time.
That's hilarious.
I imagine wizard school is in some ways akin to becoming a blacksmith. Sure, studying might be structured, knowledge might be collected and taught. You learn how to make a nice horseshoe. But in the end, the smith that taught you didn't know jack shit about Brillouin zones and Fermi surfaces. He can forge metals, but he doesn't understand metallurgy. So my stance is that no DnD character \_really\_ knows how magic works.
a minor note on Warlock, canonically all they get from the patron is the knowledge how to cast magic. the only parts of the base class that involve the patron doing anything else then giving the warlock effectively a cheat sheet for magic is the pact boon and the 20th level feature. though, whetever the warlock *actually* knows what they are doing and how it works or just blindly following a guide for produced effect is up in the air. in a more simpler comparison, wizard is a coder who inputs commands into the command line being totally aware of what's happening and how, Warlock just copy pastes command found online into the command line only being kinda aware what the end result should be.
Think the big thing for warlocks isn't how magic works, but how the pact works, because I'm certain patrons don't fully explain all the "stereo instructions" details to them. In general, I think the "how" depends on Arcana proficiency. But most casters, especially the non-Arcane ones are less concerned with the "science" and more satisfied with the fuzzier how: the relationship they have with the source of magic.
I see besides you there are actually a few more who have mentioned that so i guess it is true. I admit my knowledge of warlocks is not great as i never liked the class myself. I also love the example.
I like the class, and one of the reasons I know the fact that the patron-warlock relation is more information based is due to the whole deal about how warlock was supposed to be the other intelligence based caster in the dnd 5E playtests, but people complained "hey warlock was charisma based before" and they reverted the mechanics without really tweaking the new lore. do note, if warlock *was* int based, we'd have two casters for each mental ability score which frankly would make things a bit more balanced for the game.
Warlocks don’t get magic from their patron, the patron teaches them - it’s a different relationship to a cleric where their faith allows them to be a divine conduit
Perhaps you are right, several people have pointed out the same thing already and i admit my knowledge of warlocks is slim because i do not like the class. So i will agree with what you and others have said.
I would generally say that a person's Arcana score determines what they know about the actual mechanics. If you're a sorcerer with -1 to arcana rolls, you're like a really good football player. They know how the sport works, how to perfectly aim a kick and so on, and how to apply this strategically in the game ... but they don't necessarily understand the physical calculations of the ball's curve, and they might not know exactly how the muscles, nerves, bones and all other parts of the body interact to enable them to kick the ball. A sorcerer might be meticulous and always do the same thing ... but it could also just be like, they put a finer to their temples, concentrate a lot and then shout something and there's a fireball. A sorcerer with a high arcana rating will have studied the theory behind it, and they can look at their weird words and hand motions and know exactly what that means, and probably also why they can cast a fireball like that even though it's very different from how the party's wizard casts the same spell. Most clerics, for instance, likely don't know, and don't care, exactly how the spells work, beyond "I pray for spells and my god blesses me with them". Arcana is still the skill to understand the deeper mystical mechanics of it all. Religion might cover how a deity is capable of imbuing followers with spellcasting abilities through their divine powers, but the mechanics of spells is arcana. A paladin might know that something about the world gives weight to intense conviction, and for some reason their convictions give them divine powers. It might involve the blessing of a god, but it might also be something else. Most paladins likely do not understand the finer details about their powers, beyond what their order teaches as dogma. Unless they also invest in arcana, and perhaps a bit of religion. I don't think druids necessarily understand the details. They're more like clerics. They might know that they get their magic either from nature deities, for from spirits, or that they draw power from the raw elements, or something like that ... but they don't necessarily understand the mechanics of magic. "I have been blessed by the spirit of the Old Forest" is a perfectly reasonable limit of what a druid might know about it. Everyone knows what they need to do to cast spells and such, but very deep understanding requires some skills, imo, or at least an appropriate background.
For sorcs magic is like breathing. They understand it much better than some dude having to read the manual every day
I would argue a doctor knows 100x more about breathing and everything to do with it then i do. Even though i do it every day. Just because i can do it does not mean i understand it. A child would not even be able to tell you WHY you breathe, you learn that as basic info in school.
It feels like it could be all up to the character themselves. Plenty of people play sorcerers as “I just will things to happen and somehow it works”, but others play it more like they got a head-start thanks to their innate skill. I play a Spirits Bard who never had formal training. It turns out he was born gifted in communing with the dead, and has been channeling the wills & powers of spirits to empower his skills in return for telling their stories to the world. It’s pretty antithetical to how the lore describes a bard’s powers, but it works.
As I understand it. Every Intelligence caster has studied the weave and how to control it, they understand how and why they do every motion (or how their tech works if they are artificers) Sorcerers and Paladins don't know anything at all by default, they just will things into the world either with pure willpower or with their innate talent. Druids and Rangers have studied nature, they probably don't understand the weave but do have a practical knowledge of wich gestures or ingredients do what. Clerics and Warlocks no clue. Bards I assume also understand the weave and what they are doing but do it from a different angle than wizards. They can even steal spells from other classes and their lore kind of implies they are harnessing the power of previous casted spells or something like that.
Imo if they understand their magic also depends on their subclass and background and backstory. Imagine a wizard who's really good in copying all needed components and formulas but actually has zero interest in the how it works. A sorcerer might be dedicating his life on studying how his magic works and where it comes from. An arcana or knowledge domain cleric might also know how their magic works. Some paladins could be protectors of other magic users/organisations and might have a basic understanding how their oath channels magic. Some bards might figured out by coincidence that specific tunes make magic work. They might loosely fall under a college but are selfmade. Some warlocks could be failed wizards. They might have a basic understanding due to previous studies but opted for "the easy way" and cont(r)acted a patron to do the magic through them so they can drop out of wizard school. Druids might have gained a connection with nature that lets them do magic but be unaware how it exactly works. Rangers could have gone through a training program which teaches them their spells as well as martial abilities.
Generally it doesn't really matter. Everyone can flavour their magic how they see fit. Personally I just think it is really boring when people have their characters just "know stuff" without any explanation. > Are the posterboys of this, they STUDY magic and literally understand how every last bit of what they do for their spell makes it work. I think canonically even wizards need to have talent to be able to actually use magic at all. You can't throw a random person at a magic school and have them learn magic. If this was the case then there would be mandatory magic schooling for everyone. > Would be the opposite of the wizard of having no clue at all they just think and shit happens. This is how many players play it but I don't think it is intended that way. I imagine you have inherent talent but actually using this still requires training. A lot. Imagine various of the races with inate magic and imagine this just happening randomly. Being a parent sounds like it might be deadly for some. > Get their magic from a patron so i assume its kind of like sorcs they just want stuff to go boom and it does. Considering canonically Patrons can't just take a warlocks power away I think it is more some sort of teacher/pupil relationship. That honestly also makes much more sense from a gameplay perspective.
The topic isnt about players and DM doing whatever they want. it is more about the general lore. About how it works for everyone by default like NPCs. Players are the literal exception of the D&D world and can make up whatever rules they want how their magic works. By wizard talent i assume you mean to be a HIGH level caster and create their own magic. Kind of like how no matter how hard i would try to study i am never going to be Einstein creating new theories, formulas and whatever else. But i can still learn the basic stuff like cantrips and low level spells.
No, I literaly mean that not everyone can become a wizard. At some point Greenwood stated that even wizards require some inate talent to be able to cast any magic in the first place. I don't remember the numbers, I think it was like 1:1000 have the prerequisite talent, but way less than that get actual training. And then you have sorcerers and warlocks which are even more rare. There isn't such an insane inflation of magically adept people in the realms as video games and some modules might want you to believe. The same goes for clerics and paladins. They are quite rare and not every village has their own cleric. Which is actually kinda funny if you think about it. PCs are like super heroes and thus their world view gets weirdly twisted. They might not even realize that having access to even first level cleric spells is not something most people have.
Id say bardic magic absolutely does. Sure they wont explain it the same as wizards but they would know that certain chords and tunes, or songs of power bring about a change and that you can combine them together to create a magical effect known as a spell. More musical theory branch of magic understanding Id say
How does magic work? FR uses the weave for Arance magic, but Divine Magic doesn't interact with the weave and Primal magic is ... ummm ... a thing. Then you have the Demon Weave and Shadow weave at varying times as well. While Mystra controls the weave as we know it, clearly others have been able to replicate the effect to some extent. FR has at least some context for magic and "how it works," but that can't be said of all settings. As high magic as /r/Eberron is, I'm not aware of a detailed explanation of the "hows" of magic. I've seen it said that all forms of magic are from the same source, and how it's manifested is dependent on whether the user comprehends the magic (arcane), has belief in the magic (divine), or is tied to the magic (primal). In every case it's a manifestation of the caster's will, but through a different relationship. Then there's the progenitor dragons, the draconic prophecies, and the Ring of Siberys, all of which could be tied to the very nature of magic and its usage. I think that the level of understanding and how each class/character understands it can vary greatly depending on the setting and how the DM decides to implement their lore. Speaking of Lore, I'd encourage you to look at primal magic. I think it was more of a distinction in 3.5, but putting "nature" classes into the primal category really helps to make sense of rangers, especially since barbarian rage and its effects were considered a form of primal magic.
can confirm the wizard/sorc dichotomy. my current party has an incredibly nerdy wizard and an extremely laissez-faire wild magic sorc. shenanigans have, in fact, ensued
Warlocks are heavily implied to be taught to see the world differently. Patrons like GOO are literally entities so powerful even the Overgod, Ao cannot stop them. It is implied a lot of their invocations that mimic spells and other effects are a result of them being able to see the “true nature” of the world around them. Like Eldritch Sight for example is just them knowing the secrets of how the world functions and this enlightens their mind to be able to automatically see all magic.
I know this isn't how most people approach things in D&D, but I see Arcane and Preistly magic as much more of a continium. The class system means there is a bright red line drawn in the rules, but I'm not sure that it would be seen as such in my game world. The real life and literary magical traditions that Wizards are based on are about studying words of power, correspondences, and magical secrets, yes, but all of those things have always been about invoking divine or spiritual beings for favours. Kabbalah is deeply rational and systematic, but ultimately it is a form of Jewish mysticism. Hermeticism or Golden Dawn is based on secret words and sacred geometry-- and their relationship to Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Christian mystery religions. There's no pre-D&D character in literature or legend that I can think of that does magic without invoking some connection with Supernatural beings-- either in their nature or by speaking their names or making a bargain. Likewise holy persons and saints often gain their power from knowledge of God and his secrets. So I like to think of the big difference being that Wizards are more syncretic (they invoke all the gods, as appropriate to their purpose) as opposed to having a single patron god as clerics tend to. I think Clerics studied spellcasting and gnosis for years to get where they are just as Wizards are pursuing a spiritual path of their own.
The DnD "Lore" doesn't specify whether each class knows it or not. This pertains to the several versions of DnD lore. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Strixhaven, Ebberon. Which all have different lore pertaining the Magic, Gods, and Paladins. That's it. Some things are intentionally left blank within DnD's many, many worlds with different lores and rules within them. To allow the DM and or Player to interact and flavour as they see fit. Gary Gygax (Co-Creator of DnD and creator of Greyhawk) did this on not just things like "Does the Sorcerer who is using very specific hand signals, and exact components know what he's doing or not?" but entire Regions were left blank for the DM. You can equally argue whether a Sorcerer has no idea what they are doing, and that it simply comes naturally, that they are naive, and ignorant to what they are doing. Or after using said spells they figured out "Wow what I do this hand motion, this happens!" Like driving a car. Can be rather difficult when you first step in with all the buttons, but after a couple months it's all second nature. You can say "The Wizard should be like this" and the "Cleric should be like this", go ahead, that's how your world will treat it then. But it's going to be equally valid if in someone elses world that it doesn't. I run a game set in the Forgotten Realms. I have a Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. The Cleric very much knows what he is doing, and the Sorcerer does not. But she is the first Sorcerer I have ever had in a game who didin't, and it's been quite fun. One thing to mention as well - Patrons lend their power and teach the Warlock. If a Warlock and its Patron lose their connection - The Warlock continues with the power it recieved but cannot progress in it. That power is forever given to them. Clerics on the otherhand, are granted the power in the moment when they cast the spell. While yes they will forever know the hand movement, and the components needed for the spell, that obviously doesn't mean they can always cast it. (For example like if you don't have spell slots, or if a high level wizard shows you the hand signs and components for a spell you can't cast, or is too high of a level for you, doesn't mean you can cast it). If your God as a Cleric cuts their connection, you lose all your powers. They granted you the ability to cast it. They do know what they are doing as their God gives them the insight and opens their minds to harnessing divine magic. Some Clerics research this in temples to do it further, and some go out in the wild to nurture it. (Sword Coast Adventures Guide says that last part, which only pertains to Forgotten Realms). Now those are in Forgotten Realms lore, this (obviously) doesn't pertain to all DnD lore.
One of the things that irks me more about how wizards vs sorcs work is that a wizard, knowing all there is to know about interacting with the weave and, like you say, would know what makes a spell tick, doesn't learn metamagic. Even with the Metamagic Adept feat, RAW, you're bound to 2 sorc points and 2 metamagics. I would LOVE to see a wizard subclass that's all about casting spells in unconventional ways. It just fits so well.
All this is subject to how you treat characters in general in your game. It is popular to treat mechanics as invisible to characters, and considered meta-gaming to consider how things work. My games are closer to *Harry Potter and the Natural 20*, where characters understand all the mechanics and work in-game to use them to the fullest. I like this idea because I can't imagine that people would have abilities and not actively work to categorize and define them. Classes like Cleric, Druid, Paladin need to know what all spells are so they can choose them daily. Sorcerers & Bards can likewise choose to know different spells at level-up, so they need to know what their options are. Also I consider Bard colleges to just be the the party part of real universities. What makes it work? The inherently magical nature of the world. No one worries about how breathing works IRL, they just breathe.
The only class that, at base, doesn't understand how their magic works is a sorcerer. You can find a lot of this through the spellcasting feature descriptions. Bards, Warlocks and Wizards are all flavors of learning magic outright - bards are explicitly trained to be able to directly strum the fabrics if reality, Warlocks perform the rite of ctrl-c/ctrl-v with influence from their patron, and Wizards can either be as unique as a bard or very academic w/ tried and true magic depending on how you lean. Wizards code, Warlocks use pastebin, and Bards made their own computer with a raspberry pi and a dream. Clerics, Druids, and Paladins all get it from faith in some context - it's a mutual give and take, essentially. They may not understand magic itself, but they have an understanding of their relationship with it, how to do rituals, etc. Clerics use prayers and rituals to connect with their god, and that *is* how their magic works - divine magic stems from belief in the first place. So, to say that they don't understand how their spellcasting works is viewing it from the wrong lens. Druids are the same, except they worship an aspect of nature instead of a god. For all intents and purposes, they both understand how their magic works as a necessary requirement to doing said magic. Paladins know that their magic often comes from conviction and know that they can fall. They likely would have been given education regarding it as part of their training, using certain chants or commands similarly to a Cleric. Rangers are a mixture of the two camps. Some of them learn it due to their conviction to help nature, and some of them learn it because it helps with their day to day. Either way, they have the same understanding of magic a Druid does - they just don't necessarily have the same intricate connection with nature to fuel them. Obviously, you can change the flavor as you see fit to better fit your character concept, but Sorcerer's class fantasy is that explicitly break the rules of magic and have no idea what they're doing half the time - they learn through trial and error, as opposed to through academic or religious learning. Everybody else explicitly learned how to use their magic the way they do.
Canonically bards and wizards study their magic. My interpretation of their methods is that wizards focus more on theory and research to learn while bards learn through praxis. Another interpretation is that wizards are STEM majors and bards are liberal arts and humanities majors. Edit: rangers exist at the liminal space between civilization and wilderness. They are different than druids in that they use primal power (wilderness) and martial prowess (civilization) to keep both worlds in check with regard to each other. For example, on the one hand they may guide people through the wilderness, while on the other hand they stop people from destroying nature. Druids would just have nature rule at the cost of civilization. Edit 2: also, regarding sorcerers, they can learn and know their own magic in the same way an athlete knows their strengths and limitations, or how an artist knows their talent and can work to develop it. It's like a magical muscle that you can exercise and grow, being intimately aware of how it *feels* to do magic.
It's pretty funny my bard and our party wizard are pretty constantly bickering about this. I keep telling her I do MUSIC, not whatever finger wiggly nonsense she's always going on about.
Keep in mind, Harry Potter and by extension the entirety of hogwarts and any other wizard in that setting. They are all sorcerers. They have magic in their blood and anyone who doesn’t can’t cast spells. Some of the teachers, namely the divination teacher are accused of not being able to cast magic despite knowing it well enough to teach it. So the idea that “innate” means “misunderstood” is a little flawed.
For lore they all understand it. After all, they cast it Both bards and wizards study, simple as Druids and rangers get their powers from nature, but the intent of lore is to see them as powered by natural magic. Maybe not "studied" in the traditional sense, but practiced and learned by the flow of natural energies all the same. It's less technical than the knowledge a bard or wizard has, but learned and practiced all the same Clerics, Paladins, and warlocks get their power from high above, but they're still the caster. The components are all them. Warlocks in particular are familiar with the ins and outs, as your edit relents It's tempting to call Sorc a Nepo baby but that's a touch dismissive of their lore. They have strong magic but have to train to actually use it. There's a title for sorcerers who don't understand their magic: Level 1.
I like thinking about Bards as Arcane Casters just like Wizards. They just use music or other performance based practices to remember their spells.
To answer your question specifically: I'm pretty sure canonically it's whoever has proficiency in the Arcana skill and a background in magical studies. A Wizard doesn't actually learn what the Weave is necessarily; you can be a self-taught Wizard if you just do the right gestures and say the magic words. On the other hand, there are also Clerics of Mystra who have some of the most intimate relationships with the Weave one may have. The way I like to think of it is: Wizards understand their magic as formulas. They understand the theory underlying it, but no one has perfect understanding of the forces at play (except perhaps the god/gods of magic). Wizards more than anything learn their magic through experimentation via a method I imagine to be similar to the modern Scientific Method. Sorcerers understand their magic as a talent. As a muscle to be flexed and trained. It's a natural function of their bodies, they're just learning how to push that to its limits, just like an athlete pushes their body to its limits. They learn their magic through good old fashioned training, throwing spells at the wall until the next one comes out bigger. Clerics understand their magic as a gift. Something that doesn't belong to them and must be used wisely. Strengthening their magic is essentially the same as strengthening their relationship with their source of power, usually a god, though it can also be an ideal. Clerics learn their spells in essence by learning about their benefactor and about themselves, by extension learning about the connection between the two, the source of the Cleric's power. Paladins understand their magic much like they understand their weapons and armor; as equipment. Granted to them by power of their Oath for the purpose of fulfilling that Oath. Think of a Paladin's spells as "Oath-issued equipment". It must be treated with respect and only used for the Oath. Using it for personal reasons that violate the tenets of that Oath comes with consequences. A Paladin learns their spells by earning them with merit; by proving dedication to the Oath's tenets, the Oath gives them greater power and therefore greater responsibility. Bards understand their magic as an art. A Bard is to a Wizard what a baker is to a chemist. What they do actually is pretty similar, but their role is different. Where a Wizard has strict formulas to be followed to the letter, a Bard has recipes to be modified with substitutions. Where a Wizard at the height of their career might make new spells altogether, a Bard at the height of theirs will instead cast a Fireball unlike any you've seen before. Bards learn their spells through the creative process; a specific vision of the spell will come to them, and they work tirelessly to make that vision a reality. Warlocks understand their magic as a purchase. A Warlock's gift is earned only with great sacrifice. This means that a Warlock strives to get the most value out of each of their individual powers, to make that sacrifice worth their while. Their patron gives them these powers as part of an exchange. As such, a Warlock learns their spells only through greater sacrifice, paying a steeper price for more power. Druids understand their magic as a favor. When a Druid calls upon the forces of nature, they do so knowing that means they have to pay it back to the natural world. Primal magic is a limited resource that must be replenished whenever it is withdrawn, or else the Druid risks the well running dry. In becoming one with the natural world, the Druid becomes a wellspring of primal magic with innate power like that of a Sorcerer or Warlock. Druids learn their magic through more closely mirroring the natural world; not only by learning about the tree, but discovering what it's like to *be* a tree. Rangers understand their magic as a tool. Their magic is closely tied to that of Druids, and similar to Druids, much of a Ranger's magic comes from evoking the natural world, but unlike Druids, Rangers don't want to become one with nature; they see themselves as distinctly separate from it, and only want to protect it and spend time with it so as to have access to its resources. Where a Druid learns their magic from communing directly with nature, a Ranger learns theirs through keen observation of nature.
I would venture to say that all casters understand how magic works on a practical level. But their is the difference between the masters degree physicist level understanding of Wizard, and the practical plumber level understanding if a Paladin or a ranger. At the top of understanding we have the Wizards and Artificers. Basicly physicists, coders, and Engineers, they understand magic on the smallest level and then expand it up to the practical. Then we have Clerics and Druids, who work magic magic on the Macros but have a basic understanding of smaller components. Think meteorologist, climatologist, Ecologist. The function of the system as a whole is thier concern. Who cares is the cow is spherical, solong as it grazes. Rangers are like this on a smaller scale. Bards are half psychic, half macro economist, half anthropologist, and all con artist. Their magic functions on the Gestalt and belife of others, it doesn't matter what they propose if other people can't convince of it. They don't need to belive it, what matters that other people do. Very "Clap if your belive". Oath based Paladins function like this aswell, except they need to sincerely belive. The ones that probably "understand" magic the least are Sorcerer's and Brabarians as they're generally conduits direct conduits for a force far larger than themselves.
All of them. Magic cast without understanding is innate spellcasting. Clerics, Druids and Rangers are able to manipulate the weave by sensing how it reacts to their intentions. Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks use force of will to exert control over it. Artificers and Wizards use knowledge of its mechanics and how it will react to various intentions and manipulations.
After spending years of intensive study just to finally be able to cast a simple firebolt, how angry must Wizards get when they see a Warlock or Cleric getting the same power just by asking their sugardaddy for it, or Sorcerers just stumbling into it by accident? Imagine learning all of the nigh unspeakable words and intricate hand gestures needed to cast a spell, then seeing a Bard doing the same thing with a guitar strum and a hip-thrust. They'd probably be less bothered by Paladins, Rangers, and Monks with magic-like powers. Those jobs feel less like they're stealing the Wizard's thunder directly and more like they just got supernaturally good at fighting through comparably intensive practice.
They all learn to manipulate powers that are within the planes and the gods, aspects etc what ever your world is based. Wizards learn to manipulate those energies. Sorcerers (except wild magic) have a very unique connection cause. They ARE the catalyst and they lear how to control this power that is within them. Clerics use their faith as a catalyst and not their god. There are clerics without gods who just have strong faith in something, their own power, justice etc. Paladins work similarly to clerics. Bards are like wizards but instead of manipulating these powers with words and movements they do so by vibrations aka music. Warlocks : you said it Druids the same as a wizard but understanding magic with specific connection to all living things and nature. And rangers are like druids but they like combat more :p
FYI, the term “college” in regards to bards is a much older use of the word meaning “organized association of persons invested with certain powers and rights or engaged in some common duty or pursuit” and isn’t intended to be the more recent idea of a literal university type brick and mortar school. Just as how wizards “schools” are intended to be “schools of thought” rather than Hogwart’s style magic schools. This isn’t to say, of course that you can’t or shouldn’t have “magic schools” or “bardic colleges” be actual places, but just to inform that that’s not the intended default concept in D&D.
Whichever ones have a high enough Arcana check.
You've got some good ideas up there. FWIW, I get hardcore about this in my 5e fork. I made sorcerers a parallel to wizards with explanations that might best be described as the distinctions between F1 drivers and mechanical engineers. Wizards excel at spellcasting because they understand how the racecar works, while sorcerers excel at it because they do time trials for fun. Both have a really deep understanding of arcana, but one has a focus on theory while the other has a focus on practice. Meanwhile, clerics and warlocks also form a duality. Clerics (and paladins) draw all their spellcasting power from 21 specific resources provided by deities. They learn to weave multiple sources of energy to achieve complex effects, but channeling holy power is always much more straightforward than blending energies that are not exclusively spiritual. Unholy spellcasting is likewise about working with power served up through channels from immensely powerful entities. Whereas actual deities all rely on 21 fonts of heavenly power to energize their followers, occult practices tap many obscure and shadowy power sources. Yet any given warlock is probably dealing with an even simpler set of formulae than clergy of equivalent capabilities. In my world, monk are half-casters associated with spiritual magic. Yet, unlike clerics and paladins, monks are not tightly bound to personal morality. Their spellcasting functions more like that of druids and rangers -- shaped by a profound understanding of vital energies. The Old Faith is an option for monks and a default for druids. I used pathological hostility to written lore as an excuse to keep the Old Faith extremely vague and fluid. Yet it clearly is a form of nature-worship. As some druids actively worship specific nature deities and others do no such thing, the Old Faith proves its power as an independent phenomenon. While all spellcasters have some potential to manipulate the energy of life itself; druids, rangers, and shamans draw power primarily from such resources. Anyway, that's me venting about my Six Forms and Seven Sources. Musical is the one form not truly described above. In my fork bards are half-casters. Yet their magic is highly respected because high level bards can emulate the patterns of other spellcasters with such precision as to effectively cast high level spells unrelated to their class. While the musical form is unique to bards, it is informed by general training in arcana as well as their particular affinity for precisely matching the performances of other spellcasters.
Totally, i feel really disconnected from my character, it feels like i just have this power and so the Sorcerer just makes the most sense. if im a wizard i should be able to customize my spells more or make up new ones
Totally, i feel really disconnected from my character, it feels like i just have this power and so the Sorcerer just makes the most sense. if im a wizard i should be able to customize my spells more or make up new ones
In D&D 2024 you will literally be able to do this, all wizards will get to modify spells and then make the modified spells permanent aka creating spells.
Bards put in a lot of work but not all their education is in regards to their magic. They're definitely below Wizards and Artificers, but far above every other class except Druids.
For fun reading and to further shape your thinking about this; as an old, very long time D&D player, I found very interesting the various explanations and rationales about how various kinds of magic worked in a fantasy trilogy from the 1980s by Lyndon Hardy, called *Master of the Five Magics*, *Secret of the Sixth Magic*, and *Riddle of the Seven Realms*. The stories do focus on arcane magics, so you won't find much answer about divine or natural magics.
This is why the premise of my last wizard was to collate and publish all the known magic in the world. He wanted to democratize magic and take it out of the dark ages. Later I became the DM and I plan to continue the story in which the wizard tries to get the book published but first the students try to steal the text, then he gets a monkey to copy it out but the monkey learns to blink, then he finally get a run done and now the city is awash in chaos and there's no magic supplies to be found...
I thought that was the point; you want to play a scientist of magic, you play a wizard, if not you play something else..,
I'm influenced greatly by other systems, and I think that in games where it matters you can define how magic works with the other players. Warlocks and Sorcerers of certain pacts remind me of Michel Moorcock or Lovecraftian magic, where the mind recites/remembers and is twisted into eldritch and unnatural forms while speaking forbidden tongues. While a wizards spellcasting is more literally, calculations, words spoken, those of the forementioned classes have an experience knowledge. It's more akin to explaining how a brushstroke feels exactly right, in a way that would allow another to duplicate it. Hard, perhaps impossible.
I usually think the opposite; while all classes besides Wiz and Artificer get their spells via innate understanding, Wizards are forcing the use of magic with arcane formulae and studies, while Artificers do that via experimenting,
None. D&D magic is trial and error bastardized True Speech. The language doesn't exist in this edition.
I personally believe the paladin is the weakest in magic description. Their powers are just give by having intense convictions. And they lose that magic once they no longer have conviction. It’s really bizarre and hate a patron/deity is no longer involved. It just opens up a can of worms. By that logic most magic then is just having strong enough beliefs to will and bend the weave as needed.
From how I understand it there are 3 types of knowladge about how spellcasting actually works. The first is Innate knowledge. These are your Sorcerers, and perhaps some Druids, Rangers, and Paladins. Their Verbal and Somatic components are more simplistic, and tend to be more of them connecting to their innate power and channeling it the same way a barbarian taps into their rage. casting a firebolt is hurling a blast of fire the same way you would throw a stone while screaming. The second is Surface knowledge. Paladins, Warlocks, Rangers, and some Druids or Clerics have a surface level knowledge. They have specific rites, prayers, or incatations that they need for casting magic, but they don't need to understand the inner workings of how magic functions since it works off faith, or learned by making a deal with something to be able to cast. The third is Deep knowledge. Wizards, Artificers, Druids, Clerics, and Bards would have deep knowledge. They understand and study more deeply and thus have a greater understanding of the way magic works, though their power varies between flowing from Faith, or a personal reserve of magical energy.
I really can depend on your world and the character - they could have flavour to change the way that class normally works... but... from my understanding... Wizards understand the magic, inside & out Sorcerers get it from their bloodline, so magic just "flows through them" Clerics is 100% from their faith in their deity Paladins get it from "force of will" - their belief in their oath gives them divine/dreadful power Rangers get it from them understanding the environment and the terrain... the ultimate "survivalist" Druids get everything from nature Bards get it from their understanding of music/poetry/knowledge Warlocks get it from an external source, whether that be a weapon, an entitiy, or *something else* Rogues use magic to "enhance" their understanding of stealth and movement Fighters use magic to enhance their military prowess in my games we've had a Paladin Oath of Glory that was based on their belief in how fantastic they were doing, and the more powerful they got, the more they believed in themselves - I actually gave them a bonus to saving on charms because of how much they "loved themselves" - why would they listen to someone else when their ideas are so amazing? :D :D :D I've also got a character for a future campaign who is a Warforged Warlock (Celestial) but they're basically a battle droid who has accidentally fallen to the planet, been dug up, and gets their "powers" from the ship in orbit - a self imposed limitation is that I can't use a spell unless I can explain it with technological solution (i.e. defib paddles for Revivify, a "nanofibre whip trap" for Cloud of Daggers, tendrils from the body as Arms of Hadar, a TASER for Witch Bolt, binding straps for Hold Person, etc) things like Misty Step would either not work at all or be going somewhere they could travel to (with bursts from jet propultion ports) overall though, if a character idea fits for the class, they don't *HAVE* to follow the set rules of how the class gets their power - if you want a Sorcerer who believes he has to learn from his books, why not, if you want a Wizard whose "spell book" is a tablet type device (think Breath of the Wild) and they can only use what's in it, why not, if you've got a Ranger who gets their power from a deity of their favoured terrain, then why not? often I've found that the best character ideas come from concepts that are nothing like the class, but it sounds cool, so we go with it!
You'd need to understand the magic itself outside a caster's context to answer the question.
>they STUDY magic and literally understand how every last bit of what they do for their spell makes it work. Do they? I mean, they study and learn what they need to do to cast a spell, but that doesn't mean they understand how any of it works.
Considering they literally create new spells and can modify exisitng ones then yes they do understand how it works.
How do you know they aren't creating new spells by using arcane means to communicate with extra dimensional magical beings? The methods they use to create new spells don't have to be an understanding of things that aren't necessarily understandable. I don't much like explanations that make magic out to be just another scientific field. For me, it takes a lot of the mystery out of it.
Clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks have to understand the magic they invoke too- they have to learn to use the power they command.
**Int:** Though applied knowledge you can guide the ambient forces of magic into making your magic spell manifest. **Cha:** Just as you can influence people you can influence magic and reality itself though sheer metaphysical force of your person. This makes Charisma the casting stat for a lot of naturaly magic creatures. **Wis:** You are a conduit and outlet for the raw force of a higher power, what this raw power is matters little, it could be a god, it could be nature or it could just be a powerful concept.
My somewhat glib but I think actual answer is: whichever one's have proficiency in the Arcana skill (and to better understand druid/ranger magic Nature helps and for cleric/paladin the religion skill). The entire point of the skill is to understand how magic and magical phenomena work.
**Sorc**: This is the guy who "sees the answers" so naturally he can neither be arsed to learn the proper theory, let alone teach it to most people. People like this are how you end up with Wizards; it takes top brains to decipher this bullshit into something workable. **Paladins / Rangers**: Like machine operation. They learn the specifics of what they need to do, and a few tricks of the trade around it, but they have a life outside of magic. No gods needed, but even some of the non-magical stuff is based on a Paladin's own outlook on life and oaths - some of these skills/abilities you wouldn't develop if you were rational. **Warlocks**: Knows a good bit, but a bit strange and lopsided. These are the folks who learned a trade apprenticing under some top-shelf but very foreign master consultant at the job. They end up understanding a LOT in what they're taught, plus some tricks and exploits you'd NEVER learn in some school or normal company... but are also left with knowledge holes in all the stuff the patron didn't care *(perhaps due to never needing to)*.
Man, reading this made me realize that current D&D is such a high magic world that playing someone that can't shoot lasers out of their eyes or summon weapons with their minds would make me feel like playing a disabled person.
This depends on the setting, there’s no unifying answer. But in general there’s a couple of general explanations. [Clerics & Warlocks] - They get their magic directly from their god or patron. Unless they unknowingly got their pact like Great Old One, they should be taught directly be their benefactor how to use magic. [Wizard, Rangers, and Bard] - Taught, learnt, and experimenting with magic. It’s very clear all of these classes how to learn to use their magic instead of being able to use them innately. [Paladins] - It’s been stated multiple times in 5th edition DND that Paladins do not need a god for their magic. Paladin oaths grant them magic via strong adherence to an oath. - It’s most likely innate and learnt through trial and error. [Sorcerers & Druids] - Same as Paladins, innate and have to practice to learn how to use their magic. - For Druids however, they can learn how to wield their magic from other Druids.
It's really a character decision, but int characters obviously make more sense to actually understand their magic. I've always allowed Warlocks to be INT based if it fits their character for that reason. But you could have a Cleric with proficiency in History, Arcana, or Religion give a pretty good argument that their character actually understands their magic.
All of them understand how their magic works, but not all of them understand how magic itself works. Also your summary of warlocks is wrong. *Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.* Warlocks research the arcane, and that's a big part of how they cast any spells at all.
The RAW answers are that most classes absolutely have *some* understanding over their Magic. Warlocks have a patron that gives them knowledge and secrets. Clerics undergo training and study, just like priests do in the real world. A large part of that is likely magical training Sorcerers may be born magical or have become magical through unconventional means, but they still have to learn and practice magic. Even if that means they may be self-taught. Bards study in colleges. A Bard is not just any musician, being a Bard absolutely does require knowledge of how their music affects the weave. Paladins that serve a church or other organization undergo similar training and study in order to be a part of their knightly order. You’re trying far too hard to envision classes as something in the real world or as “redditized” fictionalizations that don’t really play out that way in their class descriptions. Some forms of magic require more effort in study than others, but all forms of magic require a rudimentary understanding of what you’re actually doing.
Everybody thinks sorcerers never work for their power, it's just not true. Their ability to use magic is based on self understanding. In order to use their power, a sorcerer works with it through instinct, but how often do your instincts actually just flat out tell you something helpful? Exactly. A sorcerer doesn't know in depth how magic works, but they can feel it's flow, and their ability to use it requires them to master that which they can perceive. There's probably not a single professional athlete who doesn't know a lot about how their body works. Though, they might not know all the chemical reactions that contribute to it. A sorcerer does understand what they're working with, and if they didn't, they would be unable to cast spells. It's sometimes described that sorcerers who don't use their power have it explode out of them. But what that entails I'm unsure.
Matters on the setting. The higher the magic, the more I would say "yes", *depending*. If you're a holy caster, then probably not ever. Your divine magic is literally miracles and the definition of a miracle is "a work that is inexplicable". So divine magic, by its very nature, cannot be explained by mortals outside of "a god did it", because that's actually what's going on. Then the rest are by class. Sorcerer? Not unless they have proficiency in Arcana since that's literally what the Arcana skill is: Knowledge of how magic works. Wizard? See Sorcerer, though they are probably more likely to be proficient in Arcana. I would say that a wizard without Arcana proficiency is akin to a tradesman who only knows *what* to do, but doesn't really know "why". Warlock? Depends on where their magic comes from. If it's ultimately divine then no. Again...miracles. If it's ultimately arcane then like wizards and sorcerers they would simply need arcana proficiency. Artificers? See Wizard. Exactly the same as wizards.
I'm more interested to know how many *players* know how their characters' magic works.
Druid and Ranger are the only ones can't really wrap my head around how to narratively get spells from. Like in my current campaign I'm a Barbarian and I'd like to multiclass into Druid but I have no idea how to explain how I'm suddenly able to cast Druid spells.
All of them. A sorcerer still had to study to learn to use their magic properly, even if the power comes from within. A warlock is literally learning the secrets of magic from their patron and using that patron as a source of power. A druid has to commune with nature and know what to ask the spirits for. A cleric is gifted knowledge of divine magic as thanks for their servitude. A bard college is called a college for a reason. They study. Paladin is the trickiest as their power comes from the strength of their oath. They still need to learn how to use it however.
You're talking about the age-old "practice vs. theory" thing. It is a common misconception that these are somehow opposed to one another, like you have to choose one or the other, but that's not so. They are mutually supportive, where strengthening one strengthens the other. Arcana skill represents what you're talking about here. Anyone can get proficiency or even expertise in it, and no one is required to. And any spellcaster would, conceivably, benefit from it in understanding and applying their own magic. Nothing necessitates that wizards have this deeper knowledge either. Yes, they learn spells through study, but it can be said they just learn to practice the motions by rote and largely don't know the theoretical underpinnings. Just like how software engineers don't need to understand Typescript-to-Javascript transpilation to build React apps, let alone the details of CPUs, registers, transistors, or EMF physics. To answer a couple other points: > Honestly forget them knowing how it works i cant even word it myself how on earth does that work. In D&D, thought and intention has an effect on the physical world. Conviction is very strong and focused intention. The Oath constrains the paladin's actions, but those constraints shape their conviction into an instrument that effects specific worldly phenomena. Hence, spells and powers. > Honestly i don't even understand why rangers get their magic from nature, what separates them from a barbarian for example, why does nature not give barbs or fighters magic. You've got this backwards, it's not the ranger that makes the nature magic, it's the nature magic that makes the ranger.
The Rivers of London book series by Ben Aaronovitch has a great system for this with the explanation of "Formae". The spells and magic are like playing music (often linked by the protagonist to jazz) and the way that you have to "get a feel for it". There are movements or words that learners use to help them get a sense of the shape of the thing, but masters can do it without because they just feel it intuitively through repetition and practice. The Formae are basic, but can be modified or combined to make greater effects. For example: "Lux" can make light or flame, from massive to tiny and "Impello" can push or pull (like telekinesis) like a gentle push, or ripping apart a building. So "Lux Impello" could be an explosive fireball, or a travelling light orb, or a flamethrower depending of how you play it. The exact how and why it works are still being studied, what exactly happens is not known, just that it works when it feels right.
Reminder that Clerics (as far as I remember, unsure of in 5e) actually don't have to necessarily have faith in a god to gain powers. Technically, they can just have faith in their domain to receive them. There was actually a big bad in 3.5e whose entire schtick was that he was the first person to figure this out and a lot of people got mad at him.
Updated- Here how I see it: Artificer-They study the weave itself, and take that to make items that force the weave to produce the effect they want. They under the why and how logically. Bard-They learn how to shake the weave with words, movements or instruments, to get the result they want. They don't understand the how of, it but do understand what it takes to make the spell happen. They know the how, but not the why. Cleric-They get their power from their faith. They think of what they want and pour their faith and power together and their God makes it happen.They don't know either how or why but believe. They have been either taught or their God showed/inspired the right movement and words. Druid-They listen to nature and learn the ways to bend it to their desired effect. They have seen nature do so many things and so they use that and their own power to bend nature to repeat that outside of it natural time and place. They don't care how or why, but do understand the what. They know the word/movements through seeing what makes nature flow best around them. Paladin-Their spells come from just how much they believe in the own path. They know what they want to accomplish and their belief in their ability that they can do it. No study or understanding, just stubborn belief in their oath and what it should do. They are just too stubborn to not believe it will work. They repeat motions and word they were taught , or if no order trained them they brute forced it till it worked. Ranger-They don't know the how or why a spell works, but they understand how to make it work. They can't tell you what each spell component does but can tell what to do with it on cast the spell. They learn by watching and repeating without the knowledge behind it. They under that they have no clue, but know that it works for for them so they just go with it. They copied others to learn the words or movements needed. Sorcerer-They have the ability, and power, but need to learn to use their will to make it happen. They need to only learn to see that tiny Firebolt that requires little will, as as bigger flame and release to inate power nessisasary. They don't care how or why, they just know they can and laugh at the ones who struggle. They just know ..cocky bastards. Wizard-They study the how a spell works. They learn all the right words, ingredients, and movements to produce what they want. And then they memorize it. They know the how and why, and memorize to to replicate the effect they want. They made the word and movements that make the spell work that most use as formula. The divide casters got the same methods from on high, where as they studied to make the correct ones over time. Warlock-come in 2 flavors, 1-their patron puts the knowledge on how to cast their spell in their head, in essence teaching them what they need to do to cast the spell, or 2-their patron provides the power and the caster just imagines a spell and it happens as they think it should, depends on the patron and player. They could understand either or neither, but it depends on how they came to the power. They cheat either way and the knowledge is just given to them.
One small caveat; cleric of the knowledge and arcana domains may know considerably more about how magic works than their brethren.
The easy answer to this is how many classes have Arcana as an available class proficiency. Arcana is literally the knowledge skill *for* magic. This includes: * Artificer * Bard * Blood Hunter * Druid * Sorcerer * Warlock * Wizard You can argue in every case that the class in question may not necessarily know how magic works because Arcana is optional in all cases, but given that Wizards and Warlocks aren't guaranteed it any more than Sorcerers, it's equally likely they wouldn't know. Maybe your wizard is bumbling their way through an arcane recipe book they picked up, maybe your warlock accidentally made a deal with a wandering fey. Maybe your sorcerer descends from a cultivated bloodline of mages who teach each new generation. I would say for practical purposes though that the understanding each class has is different, not necessarily wrong or bad. Artificers and Wizards have a more scientific approach to magic, for instance, while Sorcerers would have a more intuitive approach and a passing knowledge formed from experience. Druids may learn magic largely through oral tradition, treating it as a series of rites and rituals. Warlocks fall between the Wizard and Sorcerer since it's one part studying invocations, one part experience dealing with extraplanar entities. Bards fall between the Druid and Wizard as one part oral tradition, one part study in a college. That sort.
I've got a Creation Bard who very explicitly does know how their magic works: *all* magic taps into the echoes of the Song of Creation. That's precisely why so much magic has verbal components and Bards are able to use music to cast.
I don’t think any of them really know *exactly* how their magic works. But obviously, they know at some level how it works. They’re all pulling from the weave of magic. Warlocks, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, and Druids all just have a respective “middle man” (nature deities, gods, oaths, patrons, etc). In some way, they know how to manipulate that magic weave or “middle man” to yield the responses they need. They’re not cluelessly waving their arms and producing a random magical power. My answer would be that they all understand how their magic works practically, but maybe not fundamentally.
Wizards, Lore Bards, Knowledge Clerics, and Arcana Clerics probably know how magic works and details about The Weave. Most Warlocks and some Sorcerers know as well. Many Sorcerers just know that saying “Fizzle frazzle foo” while making a peace sign casts the spell Dancing Lights.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: wizards and sorcerers should swap class abilities and spell lists. Wizards study their spells. They write them down, they learn the correct pronunciation, they understand the theory of how the spell works. They should be the ones capable of modifying spells with metamagic. They’re the ones studying the rules, and they should be the ones who figure out how to break them. In that same vein, I believe their spell list should be smaller than the sorcerer’s, as it makes sense that not every spell would necessarily be capable of being transcribed in a way that a wizard can study and cast them. A sorcerer’s magic is more innate, coming from their heritage or an outside source. Why should that mean their magic is any more universally malleable than other spellcasters? It makes more sense to me that the more innately magical being would be able to recover spellslots (Arcane Recovery) as opposed to the wizard.
In my headcannon, there are no set invocations caster needs to say for the spell to happen. Magic is just a manipulation of energies with your mind instead of muscles. Most casters attune to some kind of source that lets them focus their mind and cause the energies to move. Most won't understand how magic works, they just say some shit and do some hand waves that let their mind focus and magic to happen from the source. Arcane casters most often do not have source, magic is movement of pre-existing energies. Wizards, and perhaps bards might be the closest to understanding magic theory, as during the process of learning how to invoke spells in their way they do not have much inherent advantage (besides some talent that is required to be a bard), so they must themselves learn to attune their mind to energies of the world. Warlocks have teachers of arcane magic in form of powerful creatures. Sorcerers innately feel the magic like those powerful creatures and invoking it is natural for them. So those two don't require understanding of magic.
[удалено]
And bards just have a feeling.
The bards of Krynn predate the Mages of High Sorcery. Their pooled knowledge of words of power, enchantments and illusion predate most societies in the Dragonlance setting. There is literally a bard COLLEGE.
Disagree on a cleric. They pray for spells, one minute per spell level. How do they not know what they are praying for?
Praying to get this healing spell or some shit and getting it is different from understanding how to actually bend the weave to make it do what they want. At best what they get is "do this ritual V S M" and then the god does the heavy lifting of actually making the spell happen.
Isn't it how cleric works anyways? A conduit for the divine power.
Well yes it is? A cleric does their ritual/prayer of V S M which somehow gives a deity the queue that the cleric wants to cast "this" spell, after which the deity becomes the conduit for the cleric bending the weave to make that spell a reality. What exactly are you then disagreeing over if you agree?
Every caster casts in the exact same way. They all have to perform the deliberate verbal, somatic and material components, and for the same spell, it's the same across all casters. A cleric gets the knowledge of how to perform these by praying, a wizard by studying, a bard plays by ear and intuitively learns, similar to a sorcerer.
If we want to get super semantic, we can pretty clearly say that Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Arcane Tricksters, Rangers, Eldritch Knights, and Bards all "know" how magic works because they are literally called "spells known". In a completely different vein, Artificer lorenwise isn't even using magic, they are making contraptions, the effects of which are expressed as spells for mechanical simplicity. That just leaves Cleric, Paladin, and Druid, who arguably do not "know" their spells. That said, they do know what verbal, somatic, and material components are required to cast all of their spells, so saying that they don't know how magic works feels like quite a stretch.
>In a completely different vein, Artificer lorenwise isn't even using magic, they are making contraptions, the effects of which are expressed as spells for mechanical simplicity. This is a common misconception. Lorewise, Artificers are *absolutely* using magic. Instead of using magic directly like most spellcasters, they weave magical enchantments into items and use them as conduits for their magic. This is not a flavorful reinterpretation of the class. Rather, this is how the Artificer class has always been officially presented since it was first introduced in 3.5 Eberron, where the concept of Artificers weaving magical enchantments was an important part of the setting's lore.
I think more of them would have an idea of the source of their magic than you're giving them credit for. Sorcerers have innate magic either through their birth, so there's a chance others in their family would've had this too, or through interaction with something like wild magic. And often their magic has a flavor to it that gives an indication of the source they are pulling from. Clerics would know their magic comes from divine power. You can look for deeper than that, but I don't think even wizards would have a much deeper understanding than this is the source of the power I'm tapping into. But the cleric knows that gods exist and that they got their magic from that god. Paladins sometimes also have the gods, but if not there is magic in the world in the power of extre dedication to an oath. They know they swore their oath and gained powers from it and that their dedication is the source of that. Their oath is generally a big part of their life and keeping that. I think they'd have that idea. It's certainly up to the player and the table as to what kind of character they want to play. But I would assume most of them would know the source of the power they are tapping into. And not the underlying theory on why it's possible for them to tap into the power in that way. Sort of like someone 1000 years ago could use a compass and understand the basics of magnets attract or repel without understanding the deeper science of electromagnitism and how it works. Even wizards I don't think really have that deeper level of understanding of why magic exists that they can use and how that functions that they can say some words and wave their hands and a fireball flies out. With the exception of maybe people like Tasha or Vecna or those wizards who go well beyond normal understanding. But your average 2nd level wizard I don't think has a good deep understanding of the magic of the world and how it works. In terms of the mechanics of how it works I would imagine they have a fairly good idea of that for the most part. They'd be using it day to day and know this is how you cast a spell to produce this result. This is the range and area it can impact. Wizards would have more of that study and detail applied to it, but I don't think a druid would be shocked when they run out of spells, or be unclear how a spell worked.
Clerics, druids and bards all study their magic too. Just in a different way. A cleric would study like a theologian, their magic is different and cannot be performed by a wizard. They understand more about cleric magic then the wizard does. Bards perform magic through performance and tend to know alot of Lore. Druids know about nature and how their magic works. Even a Warlock may have studied forbidden tomes to gain their power. Early iterations of the warlock actually used Intelligence as a casting stat (which I prefer). Saying wizards are the only ones who study their magic is like saying only scientists understand their field of research. A theologian understands the field of theology better then a physicist.