In the D&D world a sorceror is born with the ability to cast, probably due to either demonic or draconic heritage.
A wizard is someone who studies magical books and learns to cast. (In D&D, everyone can do this as long as you are at least of average intelligence).
yeah, in recent history the idea is that sorcerors are more like idiot savants with just natural talent for whatever reason. game mechanics wise, they can usually cast spells more often than wizards, but because it's just raw talent and not study, they have less spells to choose from.
wizards have to have a prepared spell list and can cast those spells less, but can learn any spell ever.
0
Options
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
what is the difference between sorcerers and wizards?
someone in a diablo thread said that blizzard switched the meanings of the terms and just what
I think in the new Diablo game the Wizard used to be a Sorceress (which is a set group, they all study together or something) but she got kicked out for being too awesome, so now she calls herself a Wizard.
Godfather made a fairly rudimentary attempt at explaining the hero's journey from Cambellian monomyth and how he likes his heroes to fit the mould, which is something I'm completely willing to allow. Monomyth is awesome.
I'd also be willing to entertain a discussion about how closely Superman fits into the monomyth trope; whether or not he is a typical or atypical example. Many dismiss him out of hand for having power levels seemingly at the end of the journey; demonstrating an inability to grow, or you could point to his early issues as suggesting it being a situation of in media res. It'd be hard to say that he is without growth, however, and Godfather's argument did seem to smack of prejudiced argument from ignorance, so I'm willing hazard he doesn't know what he's talking about, but there's nothing wrong with identifying other characters as having stronger growth in their arcs than a guy who starts a story being called Superman.
Godfather posts a lot in GD. He just doesn't like the very premise of comics and goes on screeds about how Marvel ruined Comicbooks because of the concept of a tied together universe and having books never end.
To be fair. Serialization of stories does leave to issues of repitition and continuity problems.
only if you insist on taking the entire thing as one discrete block of continuity instead of a more plastic continuum of different arcs and stories existing in relation to each other like a modern-day mythic tradition
This is very true. Comics have a long, proud history of ignoring continuity for the sake of a better story. Now, sometimes very good stories draw heavily on past continuity. And of course many very bad stories ignore it as well. It shouldn't ever be used as a measuring stick to judge a story by.
I like the ones that ignore or make up their own continuity. But those are inevitably considered to be an alternate continuity/universe, so there it goes, I guess.
To be fair. Serialization of stories does leave to issues of repitition and continuity problems.
only if you insist on taking the entire thing as one discrete block of continuity instead of a more plastic continuum of different arcs and stories existing in relation to each other like a modern-day mythic tradition
This is very true. Comics have a long, proud history of ignoring continuity for the sake of a better story. Now, sometimes very good stories draw heavily on past continuity. And of course many very bad stories ignore it as well. It shouldn't ever be used as a measuring stick to judge a story by.
I like the ones that ignore or make up their own continuity. But those are inevitably considered to be an alternate continuity/universe, so there it goes, I guess.
Broadstrokes is best, especially for 'never ending' stories like Marvel and DC. Big/neat events that are cool should be kept around, garbage should be tossed.
To be fair. Serialization of stories does leave to issues of repitition and continuity problems.
only if you insist on taking the entire thing as one discrete block of continuity instead of a more plastic continuum of different arcs and stories existing in relation to each other like a modern-day mythic tradition
This is very true. Comics have a long, proud history of ignoring continuity for the sake of a better story. Now, sometimes very good stories draw heavily on past continuity. And of course many very bad stories ignore it as well. It shouldn't ever be used as a measuring stick to judge a story by.
I like the ones that ignore or make up their own continuity. But those are inevitably considered to be an alternate continuity/universe, so there it goes, I guess.
Broadstrokes is best, especially for 'never ending' stories like Marvel and DC. Big/neat events that are cool should be kept around, garbage should be tossed.
Marvel tends to do this better than DC.
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
To be fair. Serialization of stories does leave to issues of repitition and continuity problems.
only if you insist on taking the entire thing as one discrete block of continuity instead of a more plastic continuum of different arcs and stories existing in relation to each other like a modern-day mythic tradition
To be fair. Serialization of stories does leave to issues of repitition and continuity problems.
only if you insist on taking the entire thing as one discrete block of continuity instead of a more plastic continuum of different arcs and stories existing in relation to each other like a modern-day mythic tradition
This is very true. Comics have a long, proud history of ignoring continuity for the sake of a better story. Now, sometimes very good stories draw heavily on past continuity. And of course many very bad stories ignore it as well. It shouldn't ever be used as a measuring stick to judge a story by.
I like the ones that ignore or make up their own continuity. But those are inevitably considered to be an alternate continuity/universe, so there it goes, I guess.
Broadstrokes is best, especially for 'never ending' stories like Marvel and DC. Big/neat events that are cool should be kept around, garbage should be tossed.
Marvel tends to do this better than DC.
Yeah, so what was the fallout from Civil War again? The pro-registration guys, who were supposed to be the voice of reason, became super facists and Iron Man and Captain America fought and Cap died but then came back and Green Goblin took over SHIELD and oh-god-I've-gone-cross-eyed.
He seemed to like it, but his review is... rather empty. It's like the guy wrote it about the trailers, saw the film in order to determine his star-rating, and then couldn't be bothered to go back and edit some actual specific commentary into the thing. And to boot there's a slightly condescending undertone of vague contempt for comicbook fans and their explosiony movies, which just strikes me as cringingly backward from a learned bespectacled film buff
I was kind of hoping for something more akin to his Iron Man review, but c'est la vie
He almost strikes me as that one lit student who badmouths genre fiction and then reads the fuck out of EU novels and Harry Potter when no one's looking
He can't just like such a film, he has to declare that they're all basically the same movie, maintain a healthy distance so no one thinks he's one of them
Fine, in that singular review that's how he strikes me
Having read his classic SF reviews (Planet of the Apes etc.) I'm fully aware of his tastes but his preferences don't seem to quite apply to team-based superhero films, of which I'm sure he's seen dozens by now
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
"Comic-Con nerds will have multiple orgasms," predicts critic David Edelstein in New York magazine, confirming something I had vaguely suspected about them. If he is correct, it's time for desperately needed movies to re-educate nerds in the joys of sex.
What an incredibly lazy end to that review. Also, I don't want Roger Ebert telling me to watch porn. I want my watching of porn and my thinking of Roger Ebert to stay as far away from each other as humanly possible.
Posts
someone in a diablo thread said that blizzard switched the meanings of the terms and just what
A wizard is someone who studies magical books and learns to cast. (In D&D, everyone can do this as long as you are at least of average intelligence).
wizards have to have a prepared spell list and can cast those spells less, but can learn any spell ever.
It's from one of the Lee/Kirby 60s stories, "This Man, This Monster"
Read it in a Marvel coffee table book I got for a gift years ago
I just want Pym or something dammit.
I think in the new Diablo game the Wizard used to be a Sorceress (which is a set group, they all study together or something) but she got kicked out for being too awesome, so now she calls herself a Wizard.
I got the option of adding one of the following to my team:
She-Hulk
Cyclops
Ms. Marvel
Invisible Woman
Iron Fist
Thoughts?
At least Godfather isn't Ninjai.
Ms. Marvel
I like the ones that ignore or make up their own continuity. But those are inevitably considered to be an alternate continuity/universe, so there it goes, I guess.
always pick she hulk
Broadstrokes is best, especially for 'never ending' stories like Marvel and DC. Big/neat events that are cool should be kept around, garbage should be tossed.
Marvel tends to do this better than DC.
"...while guest-shots and crossovers can be fun, obsessive, cross-series continuity is silly."
They actually like, work for the government and own shops and run banks and work for newspapers and work at hospitals and such as that
God damn.
Yeah, so what was the fallout from Civil War again? The pro-registration guys, who were supposed to be the voice of reason, became super facists and Iron Man and Captain America fought and Cap died but then came back and Green Goblin took over SHIELD and oh-god-I've-gone-cross-eyed.
goblins run the banks and basically all those other jobs are primarily accomplished with magic
articles are written with magic quills
everything in shops is made by magic
That was a really good movie, I think it might be my favorite marvel movie
So friggin pumped for Hulk to steal the show in Avengers!
He seemed to like it, but his review is... rather empty. It's like the guy wrote it about the trailers, saw the film in order to determine his star-rating, and then couldn't be bothered to go back and edit some actual specific commentary into the thing. And to boot there's a slightly condescending undertone of vague contempt for comicbook fans and their explosiony movies, which just strikes me as cringingly backward from a learned bespectacled film buff
I was kind of hoping for something more akin to his Iron Man review, but c'est la vie
He can't just like such a film, he has to declare that they're all basically the same movie, maintain a healthy distance so no one thinks he's one of them
it was ages better then the crapy 2003 one where he had daddy issues and was fighting a poddle-hulk.
Having read his classic SF reviews (Planet of the Apes etc.) I'm fully aware of his tastes but his preferences don't seem to quite apply to team-based superhero films, of which I'm sure he's seen dozens by now
I really like Lobo's theme
Is it new for Young Justice?
What an incredibly lazy end to that review. Also, I don't want Roger Ebert telling me to watch porn. I want my watching of porn and my thinking of Roger Ebert to stay as far away from each other as humanly possible.